Dėl leksinės sinonimijos santykio su žodžio geografija

LIETUVIŲ AREALINĖS LINGVISTIKOS KLAUSIMAI LIETUVOS TSR MOKSLŲ AKADEMIJA A. VIDUGIRIS ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEXICAL SYNONYMY AND WORD GEOGRAPHY Lexical, or word, synonymy and word geography are closely interrelated subjects of lexical research. Lexical synonymy is a purely linguistic phenomenon and belongs to the field of lexicology, whereas word geography, understood not only as the distribution of a word, its use in a particular territory, or the area it occupies, but also as the territorial, or areal, geographical treatment of lexical units, belongs to the field of methodology. A good deal has been written separately about lexical synonymy and word geography—to be more precise, areal linguistics, or linguistic geography1—yet their relationship is either left unmentioned or touched on only in passing2. The reason is probably the apparent incompatibility of these two objects: the systematic nature of the lexicon requires that all its components, including synonymy, be studied on the basis of internal systemic relations, whereas the areal-geographical method for studying these phenomena is applied as if from outside, extralinguistically. On the other hand, linguistic atlases are very few, and the lexical maps they contain cover only a tiny portion of the lexicon; for this reason, they cannot yet satisfy the needs of lexical researchers either. The author was prompted to take up this challenging topic above all by the exceptionally varied and abundant material in the volume devoted to the lexicon of the Atlas of the Lithuanian Language3, and by many years of work collecting, mapping, and preparing it for publication. Accordingly, the atlas material is used to illustrate most of the article’s principal arguments. Lexical units (words or phraseological expressions), as linguistic signs with two sides—a formal and a semantic level—are interconnected in various ways both in terms of external form, or expression, and internal content, or meaning and semantics. In general, priority is given to the criterion of internal content—that is, the semantic criterion. In both synonymy and areal linguistics, lexical units are generally identified, equated, or compared on the same basis of meaning and content. Words can also be equated on the basis of their expression—their external acoustic or visual form— 1 Areal linguistics, or linguistic geography, is a broad concept. Its principal object of study is the territorial variation of different levels of the language system (phonetic, morphological, lexical, and syntactic phenomena), and, in part, their functional, stylistic, and chronological aspects; cf. Вопросы теории лингвистической географии, Москва, 1962, p. 9–11. 2 Plg. A. Lyberis, Lietuvių kalbos sinonimų žodynas, Kaunas, 1961, p. 4–5; J. Pikčilingis, Leksinė ir gramatinė sinonimika, Kaunas, 1969, p. 9, 24 ir kt. 3 Atlas of the Lithuanian Language, I, Lexicon, Vilnius, 1977. 109 from this perspective. However, in that case one would have to speak of the phenomena of word homonymy and polysemy, or multiple meaning, which no longer directly fall within the subject of this article. The term identification is to be interpreted lexicologically as establishing identity between at least two lexical units at one level, while maximally differentiating them in the background. In other words, according to one of the levels (in this case, meaning), one word is equated with another. This essentially corresponds to the description of synonyms: “Lexical synonyms are words belonging to the same part of speech but sounding different, denoting the same object (ola — urvas), the same property (uolus — stropus), or the same action (bėgioti — lakstyti”⁴. In areal linguistics (or linguistic geography), the distribution of differently sounding words across particular areas of use—areals—is similarly established on the basis of sameness of meaning (content). Often, such differently sounding words, distributed across different areas of use within the territory of the Lithuanian language, are considered synonyms, e.g.: arklas⁵ “an old implement for ploughing the soil,” žãgrė, žãmbis (and žãmbris), žuobris, stagutė⁶; sklastis “a device for fastening a door,” sklendė, velkė (and velkė), stūmà, šovynė (and šovà), kištùvas; vaivorykštė, orãvyrkštė, dangõrykštė, laimės juosta, der̃mjuostė, straublỹs, drignė, linksmynė, etc.⁷ The areals of most such words, which have a limited area of use, are different. In other words, almost every one has a distinct distributional areal. Consequently, words with more or less coinciding areals are relatively rare. However, the same criterion of sameness of meaning plays different roles in synonymy and areal linguistics. In synonymy, shared meaning is the most important, essential link joining words of different forms. In areal linguistics, by contrast, shared meaning is merely a means or condition for identifying the areals or isoglosses of differently sounding words. On the basis of this meaning, the linguist identifies different words in order to find their equivalents throughout the territory of a given language. Thus, shared meaning only appears to be a connecting factor. In reality, here it plays a differentiating role. The most important feature of synonymy is its systematic character, since only words used within a single linguistic system can be synonyms. By contrast, words with a limited area of use belong to different dialectal systems. Essentially, these are heterosystemic lexical units, peculiar lexical correspondences, or equivalents, which are distinguished rather than joined by sameness of meaning. Some propose calling such heterosystemic words, because of their identical meaning, tautonyms⁸. In our view, the term tautonym is better reserved for identities of meaning within a single linguistic system, for example, to designate complete, or absolute, synonyms, and the like. Since lexical units whose meanings coincide within one system, or ‘homosemants’⁹, by tradition ⁴ J. Pikčilingis, min. veik., p. 4. ⁵ These and other examples are drawn mainly from the above-mentioned synonym dictionary by A. Lyberis; their areals can be seen on the maps in the “Atlas of the Lithuanian Language.” Most of these words also appear in the “Dictionary of the Modern Lithuanian Language,” Vilnius, 1972 (hereafter—DLKŽ). ⁶ A. Lyberis gives the form stagùtas in his synonym dictionary. In the material of the Atlas of the Lithuanian Language, only feminine forms are recorded: stagùtė, stùgė. ⁷ Further, cf. B. Rokaitė, Names for the Rainbow in Lithuanian Dialects, “Proceedings of the Lithuanian SSR Academy of Sciences. Series A,” 2(15), 1963, pp. 275—279. ⁸ Plg. J. Filipec, Česká synonyma a hlediska stylistiky a lexikologie, Praha, 1961, p. 93; C. Г. Бережан, Семантическая эквивалентность лексических единиц, Кишинев, 1973, p. 303. ⁹ Because the terms synonymy and synonym are imprecise, it is sometimes proposed that they be replaced by the terms homosemy and homosemant, C. Г. Бережан, min. veik., pp. 99—102. 110 are called synonyms; therefore, meaning equivalents from different systems, with their heterosystemic character emphasized, would be better called heteronyms10. Thus, heteronyms are characterized by belonging to different dialectal systems and, at the same time, by territorial restriction. However, not only heteronyms may have restricted usage; various ethnographic terms or names of rarer plants, etc., may also be restricted. Rare ethnographic terms or botanical terms used within a certain limited area are generally unknown elsewhere, because the referents themselves are absent there as well; cf. the names of parts of a cart, lušņies, lušnapancio and šlaunų, or of sledges, užkalų. Heteronyms, however, which are widespread in one or several parts of a language’s territory, generally have equivalents with the same meaning elsewhere; these could provisionally be called territorial correlates. Thus, all Lithuanian words characterized not only by a restricted area of use but also by having territorial correlates throughout the area where the corresponding referent occurs should be called heteronyms. Moreover, heteronyms themselves are not all equivalent. Some have entered the literary language system and become part of it. Such heteronyms form synonymous pairs, series, or blocks on an equal footing11. Therefore, bearing in mind that not all words of the literary language have long been used throughout the Lithuanian-speaking area, and that a considerable number of them are found only in a larger or smaller part of that area (that is, emphasizing that they entered the literary language from various dialectal systems), one can speak of the heteronymic character of a certain part of the literary language’s lexicon and, consequently, of some synonyms as well. Other, more narrowly used heteronyms, which generally no longer belong to the lexical composition of the literary language, are called dialect words, or dialectisms. For this reason, they (the DLKŽ usually gives the abbreviations dz, ryt., žem. for them), as heterosystemic lexical units, should not be included in the synonym inventory of the literary language either. Since both the identification of synonyms and the distinction of heteronyms are based on identity of meaning, it is important to establish a uniform unit of comparison, especially since various words often differ in meaning, particularly in its scope. Usually, the unambiguous word with the narrowest scope of meaning among all the items being compared is taken as this unit and called a semantic variant12. The extent of a semantic variant is most clearly seen in absolute synonyms, or homosemants, which consist of heteronyms, e.g., ántinas, gaigalas; kankorėžis, burkūtis, gurgutis, kirkūžė, žehelýs; karvelis, balandis, or a Lithuanian word and its non-Lithuanian (international or borrowed) equivalent, e.g.: kalbotyra, lingvistika; mėšimtis, procentas; pirkia, gryčia, stuba; tvartas, kūtė, etc. Their semantic scope is completely identical, with no differences between them. Each item in the comparison has one semantic variant and fully exhausts the content of the others. The content of polysemous words consists not of a single semantic variant but of a set of them. With other words, they can enter into synonymous relations according to one or se- 10 The term heteronymy is also used by other linguists; cf. J. Gossens, Strukturelle Sprachgeographie, Heidelberg, 1967, p. 86. 11 Words of similar meaning but different sound are usually joined to synonymous series through one another, whereas synonymous blocks are connected by branches, i.e., separately; for example, the word pilkas enters into synonymous relations separately with the words palvas, širvas or širmas, žilas; cf. C. Г. Бережан, min. veik., p. 54—77. 12 The term semantic variant is more convenient in this case than sememe and has long been used in linguistics; cf. Вопросы лингвистической географии, Москва, 1962, p. 149; C. Г. Бережан, min. veik., p. 46. It has also been used before in Lithuanian linguistics; cf. the author’s article “On the Selection and Grouping of Semantic Dialectisms,” — Lietuvių kalbos istorijos ir dialektologijos tyrinėjimai (tezės), Vilnius, 1971, p. 22. 111 its semantic variants. For example, the monosemous word tvartas, which has only one semantic variant in all, relates to the polysemous word dagtis through just one of its semantic variants, whereas through its other semantic variants dagtis may enter into synonymic relations with the words stogas, dugnas, etc. Words kankorėžis: skuja, tvartas, grūbas, namas, etc., relate similarly. Words expressing broader concepts, dagtis, grūbas, namas, skuja, incorporate the content of narrower-meaning words kankorėžis, tvartas into their semantic scope (cases of inclusion). The contents of two or more polysemous words that enter into synonymic relations through one of their semantic variants (e.g., klūonas: klojimas, rātai: vežimas) intersect. In both cases we have what is called partial synonymy, or parasemy13. Thus, when examining homosemous lexical relations of synonymy, one should operate not with whole words but only with individual constituent elements of meaning structure—semantic variants. Explanatory dictionaries usually suffice to identify equivalent semantic variants, since they provide an adequate representation of a polysemous word’s semantic structure, that is, they reflect the sum total of its semantic variants14. The correspondence of word meanings, i.e. semantic variants, is the essential identifying or relevant feature of synonymy. A further relevant feature is considered to be the correspondence of their categorical grammatical meaning, that is, their belonging to the same morphological class—a part of speech15, e.g.: klėtis, svīrnas; sunkūs, svārūs, svambūs, smagūs; dirbti, triūšti, plūšti, krutėti, veikti; palengva, pamažu, etc. Heteronyms are likewise classified according to a semantic unit of the same scope. Here, the matching semantic variant as a criterion for classification is determined not only by heteronyms belonging to the literary language, but by words used throughout the Lithuanian language area. Even polysemous words recorded according to the unified “Program” are presented already differentiated by the desired equivalent meaning and separated from their other meanings. With all the material before us, the semantic-equivalence relations among the compared (classified) words are usually quite evident. In synonymy, by contrast, these relations are less clear. The basis of comparison—the semantic variant—must be refined and distinguished from other meanings by dividing the scope of meaning through analysis. Thus, the application of areal-linguistics methods to synonymy can be of considerable help. Moreover, Lithuanian heteronyms are characterized by the fact that many of them, in all the meanings listed in DLKŽ in which they may be used in the literary language, are generally unknown in the dialects. In the dialects they are mostly used only with particular meanings—one meaning in one dialect, another in a different dialect. For example, where the building used to store unthreshed grain is called klojimu (there the word usually also means grain spread out on the threshing floor for a single threshing), klūonas means the threshing-yard, the meadow by the threshing barn; whereas where that building is called kluonu, the threshing-yard is mostly called kluoniena, or in Žemaitija, where the aforementioned building is called jauja, jāujė, jāujas, jāujis, rejā, daržinė, the words klojimas or kluonas refer to the threshing floor. However, except where the areas of these words meet, they are rarely used synonymously. Thus, in the dialects these words are most often not synonyms, just as one 13 C. Г. Бережан, мин. веик., р. 97. 14 A. P. Evgenyeva, Main Issues of Lexical Synonymy, – Essays on the Synonymy of the Modern Russian Literary Language, Moscow–Leningrad, 1966, p. 26; V. G. Gak, An Attempt to Apply Contrastive Analysis to the Study of the Structure of the Meaning of the “Word,” Questions of Linguistics, 1966, No. 2, p. 97; S. G. Berezhan, op. cit., p. 50. 15 C. Г. Бережан, min. veik., p. 49–50. 112 from the perspective of a particular dialect system, they are not suitable to be called heteronyms either. They are ordinary heterolexical and heterosemantic (differing in form and content) lexical units which, only outside the dialects—that is, in the literary language—can, thanks to their polysemy, enter into homosemous synonymic relations. In the dialects, they can become homosemes only occasionally, that is, when a speaker of a given dialect uses those words with a meaning they have in the literary language or a neighboring dialect, and so on. The development and refinement of the lexicon are driven by the contradiction between its potential (resources or inventory of words) at a given time and people’s growing desire to express their thoughts more intelligibly, diversely, and precisely16. “A word is a search,” the psycholinguists assert17. Synonyms, or homosemes, are also a result of this contradiction. Relations between lexical units are best expressed by their complete dissimilarity, both in form, expression (heterolexy), and in content, meaning (heterosemy). Thus synonyms, as communicative units that coincide in meaning, are redundant, supplementary elements of language. Yet language tolerates them and even multiplies them through borrowing, word formation, semantic expansion, and the transfer of meanings by metaphor and metonymy18. The very use of a synonym in language requires that, while replacing an existing word and expressing the same concept, it express it somewhat differently or express a slightly different concept. Synonyms arise according to the binary principle (two-part structure), by way of opposition: an effort is made to set another word against the one in use—one that is “more effective, more striking,” e.g.: arklys, žirgas, ašvienis, kūinas; gyvatė, angis, kirmìnas (ir kirmėlė), šnibždė, šnypštėlė, piktoji, ilgoji; miškas, giria, medė ir medžias. Synonyms that differ in such “more striking” shades of meaning (cf. ašvienis, kūinas, žirgas, kirmìnas ir kirmėlė, ilgoji, pilkoji, šnypštėlė, giria, medė ir medžias) are generally called by linguists the marked, or “marked,” members of an opposition, in relation to the former, usually neutral, unmarked, or “unmarked,” members of that opposition (cf. arklys, gyvatė, miškas). Neutral, unmarked members of an opposition, having the most general meaning in synonymic series and sets, perform the role of the dominant19. They are like supporting pillars against which other marked synonyms (with various shades of meaning) are compared and identified. Marked members of an opposition, or synonyms, generally differ from neutral ones in the varying degree to which an object's properties and the intensity of an action are expressed, in the varying scope of concepts, in differing subjective evaluations of an object or phenomenon—that is, the speaker’s attitude toward the object expressed—and in their differing lexical environments and syntactic relations (distribution), and so on.20 Alongside their primary information, that is, their lexical meaning, such synonyms also serve expressive and aesthetic functions. Thus, a synonym is a kind of transformation of an existing word in the language21. 16 P. A. Будагов, Проблемы развития языка, Москва—Ленинград, 1965, p. 33—36. 17 A. A. Леонтьев, Психологическая структура значения, — Семантическая структура слова, Москва, 1971, p. 18. 18 C. Г. Бережан, min. veik., p. 133. 19 J. Pikčilingis, min. veik., p. 24. 20 J. Pikčilingis, min. veik., p. 22—24; Словарь синонимов русского языка, I. Ленинград, 1970, p. 11. 21 C. Г. Бережан, min. veik., p. 150. A transformation is also called renaming or semantic transformation; cf. B. Г. Гак, Семантическая структура слова, как компонент семантической структуры высказывания, — Семантическая структура слова, Москва, 1971, p. 81—82. §. Užs, Nr. 1026 113 Coincidence in lexical meaning according to the semantic variant (or quantitative parameter) is the most important indication of the equivalence of these words. Only their stylistic and functional nuances (according to the qualitative parameter) do not coincide. They usually provide the basis for the emergence of inter-synonymic oppositions and may hinder the substitution of one member of the opposition for another. However, these nuances are inessential or irrelevant differential features of synonymy and do not negate the semantic equivalence of these words, since emotional and expressive nuances do not affect the logical core of meaning22. These stylistic and functional (qualitative) differences are essential for synonyms. They usually not only condition the existence of synonyms but also determine their vitality and proliferation. “Language ‘does not tolerate’ meaningless identities, and an absolute, or complete, synonym that arises eventually ousts its ‘partner’ or compels it to change its meaning and become incomplete”23. For heteronyms, such qualitative nuances in the meanings of compared words are not only uncharacteristic but also undesirable, since they undermine their semantic equivalence. In areal linguistics, the compared or mapped items must be completely semantically equivalent both with respect to the semantic variant (quantitative parameter) and with respect to the expressive and emotional nuance of meaning (qualitative parameter). However, the terms “expressive, emotional, stylistic, and functional nuances of meaning” are appropriate only when speaking of words within a single linguistic system—synonyms. Therefore, when discussing heteronyms, one should deal only with qualitative differences or nuances in lexical meanings, which constitute the most important distinction between synonyms and heteronyms. Thus, in areal linguistics one cannot compare, for example, the words arklys, báimė, kūpeta with words of corresponding meaning žirgas, kūnas; išgąstis, siaubas; kūgis, stirta, because the features of the concepts expressed by these words do not coincide. They could be compared only if one of these words, in some part of a given territory, had a meaning equivalent in both parameters to those of the other words in the corresponding group. For example, in the main part of the Lithuanian-speaking area, miškas and giria denote forests of different sizes (and are therefore synonyms here and in the dialects), but at the edges of the area the word giria, meaning a forest of any size and having no other synonyms, may be treated as a heteronym and compared—that is, contrasted—with the words miškas, medė, medžias. Thus, in terms of the qualitative parameter of meaning, synonyms and heteronyms exclude one another. If the condition for identifying synonyms is coincidence of meaning according to the semantic variant, while the basis of their opposition consists of qualitative differences in meaning or the expressive and emotional nuances manifested by them, then the condition for comparing, that is, distinguishing, heteronyms is their complete coincidence in both parameters of meaning, while the basis of the opposition between heteronyms is their contrast in terms of location (territory, area, geography), or diatopy, and expression, or form. Thus, heteronyms form oppositions not of meaning (content), but of diatopic expression (form), and sameness of meaning is the most important condition, or guarantee, of these oppositions. Synonyms occur both in dialects and in the literary language. Some are common to dialects and the literary language. Others are known only in dialects. The latter, in particular, are characterized by great variation. According to the “Program for Collecting Materials for the Atlas of the Lithuanian Language,” mainly the principal dialect names, the so-called heteronyms, were recorded, and only occasionally 22 C. Г. Бережан, мин. veik., p. 68. 23 J. Pikčilingis, min. veik., p. 8. 114 at the junction of their isoglosses, two or more names were recorded, some of which have also entered the literary language and in turn form synonymic series. Many such principal names in dialects may also often have synonyms used alongside them; however, with the exception of an occasional case (cf. arklys ir kuinas), the “Program” did not require these to be recorded. Consequently, many such dialectal synonyms were not recorded either. Yet even the alternative names and heteronyms for kuinas alone make it possible to judge the variety, expressiveness, and emotional force of dialectal synonyms; cf.: dvėsena, dvasna, dienagalys, gausėna, galadienis, kėvė, sprõgena, stipena. Other principal names recorded according to the “Program” are sometimes characterized by alternative names, e.g.: vaivorykštė, peteliškė, laumžirgis, kraujažolė, etc. Some may be used quite widely, forming certain continuous areas; others are scattered sparsely across larger areas; still others occur in just one or another locality. This is characteristic both of principal names, or heteronyms, and of their dialectal—and often also literary—synonyms. Such variation in names and their uneven distribution across areas stem from the dual nature of language itself, its dichotomy—that is, the distinction between systematic facts at the level (or plane) of language and accidental, individual facts at the level of speech (as a process of language or speaking, its realization). Lexical units at the level of language have certain stable, systematic, invariant features. Through systematic use, a word that has entered the domain of language retains its meaning even in a “non-use situation”; the network of intraverbal relations seems to outline the possible limits of a word’s use—its semantic potential.” This is the so-called systemic meaning or semantics of a word24. Systemic meaning, as a fact of language at a higher level, is realized in usage, which sustains its stability. In other words, usage establishes a stable connection, or relation, between a word (as a set of phonemes and graphemes) and the concept (signifié) expressed by that word25. In speech, or realization, by contrast, the so-called relations of signification come to the fore; these are unstable, since one and the same object or phenomenon (its content) may be expressed by various concepts and thus may receive different linguistic signs—words26. Word meanings may be conveyed through various associations, or the words themselves may be imbued with meaning in other ways. A speaker (and writer) has a comparatively wide range of possibilities for linking objects of objective reality through all kinds of semantic relations and naming them at their own discretion, of course, insofar as a listener or reader can understand them. Speakers are also assisted by extralinguistic conditions27. Thus, a new meaning of a word depends on the context of the conditions and, manifesting itself only in the speech of individual speakers, does not become a permanent component of the word’s semantic structure28. This is the so-called situational meaning or semantics of a word29. 24 А. А. Брудный, Значение слова и психология противопоставлений, — Семантическая структура слова, Москва, 1971, р. 20. 25 В. Г. Гак, Семантическая структура слова как компонент семантической структуры высказывания, — Семантическая структура слова, Москва, 1971, р. 78—79. 26 Ten pat, р. 79. 27 С. Г. Бережан, min. veik., р. 110. 28 Н. Н. Амосова, К вопросу о лексическом значении слова, „Вестник ленинградского университета. Серия истории, языка и литературы“, № 2, вып. I, Ленинград, 1957, р. 159. 29 А. А. Брудный, min. veik., р. 20. 8* 115 Just as unstable, contextual or situational meanings are distinguished from stable systematic meanings, so situational or contextual synonyms must be distinguished from systematic synonyms, both in literary language and in dialects. More stringent requirements for such a distinction are generally imposed on the compilers of synonym dictionaries for contemporary literary languages. Analyses of the language of a particular writer’s literary work are based on different requirements. Here, the transfer and extension of word meanings, as well as the felicitous use of various heteronyms or their working variants, are regarded as merits of the work and achievements of the writer. Finally, not only precision of language but also expressiveness, imagery, and flexibility are required everywhere, both in journalistic and popular-scientific literature and in spoken language. Thus, the distinction or selection of systematic and contextual synonyms depends on the purpose and function of their use. On the other hand, over a longer period, shifts in the meanings of certain words become stable and come to be used by all members of a particular speech community. Thus, unstable facts of spoken language, the so-called occasionalisms, can become normative linguistic facts and, as stylistic variants, can enter into stable synonymic relations with words of the same or similar meaning already present in the language. The snake names mentioned above, which are considered synonyms, may serve for comparison; among them kirmėnas, kirmėlė, šnižbždė, šnypštelė, ilgoji, piktoji are clearly colloquial words. In dialects, many of them have become systematic facts, peculiar heteronyms. Their “colloquial” character becomes clear only when they are compared with the literary-language term gyvatė, which is generally known in all dialects as well, but is often avoided as a kind of taboo. Consequently, other names are used in its place, most often of euphemistic origin and associated with taboo (when, owing to superstition and fear of misfortune, people avoid calling a dangerous creature by its real name). These secondary names, although they do not always form continuous areas, are sometimes used more frequently than the word gyvatė, e.g., kirmėnas in some Samogitian dialects, and so on. The use of two or three names in a particular place indicates that they may be synonyms in dialects as well. Synonym pairs most often consist of the “pan-national” term gyvatė together with one or two of the aforementioned euphemisms. Only the synonym angis stands apart; by origin it is an old heteronym and forms a diatopic opposition with the word gyvatė. However, this name, which occupies only a small area in southwestern Lithuania (formerly it was also used in the Lithuanian dialects of the former East Prussia), is now gradually being displaced by gyvatė, the more widely established name that has become the literary-language term. Although angis is disappearing as a heteronym, it is gaining ground as a synonym in literary language, often used figuratively with certain overtones of grandeur and solemnity, and so on. The older writings, predominantly religious in character, are probably responsible for this change in the meaning of the word angis. The way heteronyms become synonyms after entering literary language is convincingly demonstrated not only by the latter case of angies, but also by most of the examples given above. However, literary language, as a newly forming linguistic system, because of its normative character, strongly constrains the relations among the heteronyms that enter it, sometimes compelling them in its own way to change their meanings, and so forth. It is therefore best to observe how synonyms of heteronymic origin form naturally in dialects; cf. klėtis and svirnas. Where only one or the other of these words is used, both mean the same thing—they have exactly the same semantic range in both respects. But at the boundary between their areas, their meanings begin to differentiate: klėtimi is generally called a peasant’s 116 building for storing grain, while a svirnas is a larger or more attractive granary, often belonging to an estate or a wealthier peasant. In the area of klėtis, the word svirnas may sometimes also have come from another social milieu (the Polonized landed gentry) as a loanword that made its way back, since the same object is quite widely called by names derived from the Baltic root svir-n- in neighboring Belarusian, and these names are also known in Russian and Polish dialects30. The tendency to call a larger granary svirnas (usually in the area where klėtis is used) intensified for a time during the years of the collective-farm system, when the construction of large svirnas (grain warehouses) began. Indeed, in recent times modernized grain storage facilities called sandėliais have become increasingly established, while the words klėtis, svirnas continue to designate the same ethnographic objects. Yet the rapid spread of the word svirnas with its altered meaning alone clearly shows the importance of semantic differentiation for the existence and abundance of synonyms of heteronymic origin. Quite a number of opposite cases—that is, phenomena of semantic abstraction—can also be observed in dialects. In some dialects, a pair or more of words may be used with differentiated meanings as synonyms, whereas in others—most often in peripheral dialects—one or another of these words is used with generalized meanings. For example, the aforementioned synonym of miško, giria, or mėgti (änas mėgsta išgért; bernai sa mergomi mėgstasi31 Zietela) and mylėti (aš myliu lietuviškai dudėnc; änas mėlyi vaikus Šalčininkai). Thus, the process in which a single word begins to be used in place of several synonymous words is generally accompanied by generalization of meaning or semantic abstraction. Indeed, it is harder to trace how synonyms become heteronyms, that is, non-synonyms. Desynonymization (when words cease to be synonyms) is relatively rare and less evident, since it is not subject to an organizing and standardizing system such as literary language. It is somewhat more characteristic of peripheral dialects, which are mostly disappearing and leveling out; because of former historical, administrative, social, and cultural fragmentation and isolation, they developed over a long period and gradually became isolated from the main area of Lithuanian dialects. Cases of desynonymization also occur in central dialects, but they generally belong to an earlier period in the development of the language. For example, the surviving heteronyms—dialect words mėdė in the northwestern part of the Samogitian dialect, medžias in southeastern Aukštaitian dialects, and the relatively numerous place names and other words with the root med- in various dialects, as well as Latvian mežs ‘forest’ and Prussian median ‘ditto’—would indicate that the ancient name for ‘forest’ had the root med-. It was later replaced by the neologism miškas, because derivatives of the root med- came to denote a particular tree. Many etymological studies of vocabulary, which generally also indicate the usage areas of the words under examination, indirectly illustrate this phenomenon. Thus, heteronyms and synonyms are closely related lexical units. In dialects, the same words may be either synonyms or heteronyms. Their mutual dependence is manifested in their ability to shift from one category to the other: heteronyms can become synonyms, and synonyms can become heteronyms. Some obsolete words that have fallen out of active use or are in the process of doing so—archaisms—should probably also be regarded as remnants of certain heteronymic dialect words, occupying- 30 Plg. Дыялекталагічны атлас беларускай мовы, Мінск, 1963, 239 žemėlapi; В. Даль, Толковый словарь, IV, Москва, 1955, p. 150; Słownik języka polskiego, VI, Warszawa, 1915, p. 791. 31 Examples were recorded by the author during dialectological field expeditions. 117 preserved in old writings or dialects, such as ažvenis, pėkus, etc. Thus, over time, both synonyms and heteronyms change. Some disappear, others emerge. These phenomena are generally conditioned by processes of semantic differentiation and abstraction. Accordingly, the relations between synonyms and heteronyms differ across periods. In other words, both are historically conditioned elements of language. Therefore, phenomena that are diachronically distinct cannot be compared within a single time frame. The interrelations of synonyms and heteronyms—both between the literary language and dialects and within dialects alone—are most accurately reflected only within a single period, a particular stage in the development of language; that is, provided these phenomena are treated synchronically (as contemporaneous). In spoken language, lexical units belonging to different social systems may also enter into synonymic relations or become heteronyms, for example, social slang terms and various professionalisms. These are mostly individual words used by members of narrow social groups: the aristocracy or urban lower classes, artisans, sailors, thieves, beggars, students, etc. These are words from socially, or diastratically, distinct systems, to be treated as incidental facts of speech, or occasionalisms. Synonyms and heteronyms also share certain features not only in meaning and content but in expression and form. Just as with independent synonyms, heteronyms are words with different roots, for example: gyvatė, angis, kirminas; miškas, giria, medė; sutemà, sámbreškis, sámblysis, etc. Words that retain the same root but differ in derivational affixes, inflection, or stress paradigms, or in irregular phonetic elements, are to be treated as variants of the former32, for example: kírminas and kirmėlė; medė and medžias; sutemà and sántemis, sámbreškis and brėkšmà, vieversys and voveršys or cyrulys and čyrulys, etc. Of course, there are also less clear and considerably more problematic differences in word form, which are examined not only by specialists in word formation but also by phonologists and lexicologists. These external differences between words could be the subject of a separate study. All that has been set out above shows that synonyms and heteronyms are closely related elements of language. Both are differently sounding words whose most important unifying, identifying feature is equivalent meaning. However, the equivalence in meaning of words that sound different says nothing, in itself, about whether they are synonymous or heteronymous. Synonymic relations arise only when two or more words are consistently used within one language system. Only words that form a necessary part of the lexicon, and a part of the contemporary literary language and living nationwide spoken language, are considered synonyms33. The most important feature of synonymy is its systematic nature, based on intersynonymic oppositions of meaning. For this reason, synonymy is one of the most important means of linguistic expressiveness. Heteronymy, meanwhile, consists of differently sounding words that happen to coincide in meaning—heterosystemic lexical units. They are not connected to one another by any systematic relations and do not form oppositions of meaning. Their absolute identity even prevents them from becoming synonyms in the literary language. This shortcoming, however, is offset by the extraordinary sonority and simplicity of heteronyms. For this reason, many heteronyms are used as synonyms in the literary language. Heteronyms are only possible, or potential, synonyms. However, not all of them are destined to become synonyms. Sometimes even 32 In the maps of the Atlas of the Lithuanian Language, such variants are generally mapped using a similar line, symbol, or comparable isogloss to those used to mark the principal names. 33 Dictionary of Synonyms of the Russian Language, I, p. 7. 118 a narrow heteronym used by a distinguished writer cannot yet be considered a synonym of the literary language. Therefore, the inclusion of many of them in A. Lyberis’s “Dictionary of Lithuanian Synonyms” should be viewed more as a set of recommended lists of heteronymic synonyms. Even more are included in the DLKŽ, but there the purpose is explanation rather than recommendation. Synonyms of heteronymic origin are characterized by being used interchangeably in the literary language: one or another, or a third. It may therefore be said that they have not yet become established. First and foremost, the synonym series of this kind are not established, since they are generally made up of identities of meaning that do not constitute oppositions. For many such heteronymic synonyms, their functional inequality is the sole basis of opposition. The dominant is considered to be one of the heteronymic synonyms most frequently used in the literary language, generally perceived as the neutral member of the opposition, while the others are functionally restricted members or particular dialectal forms. This is often perceived subjectively, according to the writer’s own dialect; the writer may not know less common names for objects in the literary language, since sometimes such names do not yet exist. They are still taking shape. The volume of the Atlas of the Lithuanian Language devoted to lexicon will, of course, practically revise a considerable number of such heteronymic standard names and their synonyms. As the linguistic means of expression expand over time, one may expect many such identities to become differentiated in meaning. Moreover, one may predict that even the dominants will change, as words from the West Aukštaitian dialects—the dialects underlying the literary language—and, in part, words from other neighbouring and sometimes more distant dialects typically vie for their place. The areas in which many of these words are used will be brought into focus by the aforementioned atlas volume. For example, the pairs karvėlis: balañdis, klėtis: svìrnas, rãtai: vežimas, etc., given in A. Lyberis’s dictionary, show that the first words in these pairs are considered the dominants. Usage, however, indicates that the second members are sometimes more widespread and have every chance of taking the place of the first. The number of synonyms in a language is not a fixed quantity. In speakers’ minds, they have neither a fixed number nor a fixed order, but depend on people’s level of education, professional skills, psychological makeup, etc.34 The same can be said, more generally, about the lexicon of a language or the lexical richness of any individual’s speech. This is related to the fact that the lexicon, as a system, has no fixed inventory of lexical items and is open to external influences. As a result of this openness, words from various other systems, including other languages, can readily enter the lexical system of a language. If the lexical composition of the literary language is generally a receiving system, the systems that contribute to it most are dialect systems, which are essentially constituent parts of the so-called nationwide language. Thus, the words of dialect systems—heteronyms—are also words of that same nationwide language. Their territorial and, consequently, functional-stylistic restriction is sometimes the only thing preventing them from becoming full-fledged words of the literary language. If synonymy is one of the principal means of linguistic expressiveness, heteronymy should be regarded as one of the most important sources of synonymy. In other words, heteronyms are auxiliary elements of synonymy, related to synonyms only through what are known as supplementary relations. Since both synonyms and heteronyms can be identified using the methods of areal linguistics, an areal, or geographic, treatment of their interrelations is also possible— 34 С. Г. Бережан, cited work, p. 135. 119 …viment. Although this article is only a modest attempt at such an approach, it nevertheless shows that the areal research method can greatly facilitate not only the resolution of practical questions in linguistics, but also significantly broaden the possibilities of theoretical linguistics. А. ВИДУГИРИС ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEXICAL SYNONYMY AND THE GEOGRAPHY OF THE WORD Abstract The article examines the relationship between lexical synonymy and the geography of the word (this term is understood to mean not only the use of a word in the territorial sense, i.e. the area it occupies, but also the areal, geographical interpretation of lexical units). The article is based on lexical material from the Atlas of the Lithuanian Language and extensive material gathered by the author during numerous dialectological expeditions. The Lithuanian standard language is characterized by synonymic series whose constituent components are words used in restricted territories in various dialects, e.g.: árklas, žãgrė, žañbis, žiobris “ard”; sklãstis, sklendė, stūmã, šõvynė, kištùvas “door latch, bolt.” Unlike synonyms as units of a single language system, these words, which are heterosystemic in origin, are provisionally called heteronyms. Synonyms and heteronyms coincide only in the quantitative parameter of meaning—the semantic variant—but in the qualitative parameter they exclude one another. For synonyms, these qualitative differences are the basis of their existence, since they constitute intersynonymic oppositions, e.g.: arklỹs, žìrgas, kùinas. Heteronyms are usually identical and do not form such oppositions. This negatively affects the stability of heteronymic synonymic series, and sometimes of their dominants as well. In other respects, however, synonyms and heteronyms are closely related lexical units. A direct and indirect dependence and transition between them can be observed. When heteronyms naturally enter into synonymic relations, they are usually accompanied by a differentiation of meaning, e.g.: klė̃tis “ordinary barn”: svìrnas “more beautiful barn” (usually in the transitional area of these words). Conversely, generalization of meaning is characteristic of desynonymization, e.g.: girià “any forest” in some peripheral dialects (in central dialects and in the standard language mìškas “any forest”: girià “large forest”). But this phenomenon is observed only from a diachronic perspective. Consequently, when analyzing both synonyms and heteronyms, synchrony must be strictly observed, and systemic facts of language must also be distinguished from nonsystemic, accidental facts of speech. If synonymy is the principal means of expressiveness in language, heteronymy is one of the main sources of synonymy. Consequently, an additional relationship exists between heteronyms and synonyms. The article draws attention to the importance of areal research not only for the formation and standardization of the Lithuanian standard language, but also for the development of linguistic theory.