Apie įvairuojančius, naujus lietuvių kalbos reiškinius ir ne tik

joLanta vaskeLienė. 217 vilniaus universitetas šiaulių akademija oRciD id: orcid.org./0000-0002-8516-8608 Research fields: word formation, morphology, text linguistics, stylistics, variation. JOLANTA VASKELIENĖ Doi: doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2023.96.11 Lithuanian language phenomena and not only Review: Rita Miliūnaitė. Variating and new phenomena of Lithuanian language at the beginning of the 21st century: systematics and directions of change: monograph, vilnius: Lithuanian Language Institute, 2022, 720 p. isbn 978-609-411-322-2. Prieiga internete: https://doi. org/10.35321/e-pub.42.lietuviu-kalbos-pokyciai In 2022, Rita Miliūnaitė’s monograph Variating and new phenomena of the Lithuanian language at the beginning of the 21st century: systematics and directions of change (vilnius: Lithuanian Language Institute) will be published in electronic form. The review is dedicated to presenting and discussing this monograph1. To see how language changes, how it varies, long-term observations and empirical material from different periods are needed. The author of the monograph has been interested in variantity, Lithuanian language variants for many years, so this monograph is a continuation of consistent research. R. miliūnaitė’s presentation aimed to answer two main questions: “1) how to systematize what varies and renews? 2) what and how did the Lithuanian language change most noticeably at the beginning of the 20th century?” (p. 21). immediately it can be said that the author basically succeeded in answering the questions. this large volume (720 p.) book meets the requirements for monographs in all parameters. The structure of the monograph is well thought-out, logical – it consists of an Introduction, which in four chapters presents in detail the aim of the research, the tasks, the relevance and novelty of the research, the theoretical and methodological approaches, defines the main mo1 Although Erika Rimkutė’s review of this monograph was published in 2023, I could not resist the desire to express one more of my thoughts. 218 general language | 96 terms used in the graphic, and three parts divided into smaller sections, subsections and chapters. The first part of the monograph (Creating a systematic of new and changing language phenomena) presents in detail the data sources, discusses the classifiable data, their classification characteristics, difficulties, principles and criteria, discusses the structure, value and application possibilities of the Compendium of new and changing language phenomena (hereinafter – the Compendium). the second part (Compendium of new and changing language phenomena and its description) is dedicated to the compendium itself. This part consists of four chapters (2.1. Lexicon; 2.2. Word structure; 2.3. Morphology; 2.4. Syntax) which present variations of the respective genus and discuss some specific variations of language phenomena. The third part (Dynamics of the Common Language and its phenomena) is devoted to the variantity of the language, the directions of changes in the structure of the Lithuanian common language. The monograph ends with detailed conclusions correlating with the research, a closing word, lists of sources and literature. informative, illustrative pictures and tables presented in the book are extremely useful – the monograph contains a total of 56 pictures and 36 summary tables. (true, somewhere the idea arose that the classified empirical material could be presented at the end of the book (in appendices), so that the reader (undisturbed by long tables) could delve deeper into the text, into the interpretation.) classification and analysis of accumulated empirical material to support theoretical considerations, based on literature published in various languages – its list will be useful to readers interested in analogous studies. R. Miliūnaitė has undoubtedly studied the phenomenon in question, has familiarized herself with similar studies and in general with the development of common languages in various countries, what situations exist, what is the specificity of the development of the Lithuanian common language, etc. The author’s sharp insights, versatility, ability to investigate language phenomena in various fields in different sections and from different angles are fascinating. It is valuable that the monograph can be read not only as a whole, but also in parts (depending on what is interested, what is sought), because its individual parts are both related and conditionally independent. This is particularly true of Part 3 (The Dynamics of Common Language and Its Phenomenons) – the insights it provides can be useful to a wide range of readers. the monograph is written in a scientific style, neat, properly edited. A comprehensive abstract in English (translated by vaida kavaliauskaitė-ožalinskienė) provides an opportunity to present the main results and insights of the research to the international community. valuable is the fact that the monograph encourages to think, analyze, and sometimes even discuss. one other thought (or doubt) and will be shared. joLanta vaskeLienė. 219 On the titles and the basis for the division of the chapters of the monograph (2.2. Word structure and 2.3. Morphology). Both word formation and morphology are related to word structure, but morphology is concerned with the morphemic composition of words (isolation of all word morphemes), and word formation is concerned only with the affix of construction, that is, the means with which a new word is made (about the object of morphology, the differences between morphemic and constructive analysis, see Paulauskienė 1994: 10; Lke 2008: 359). therefore, traditionally, in order not to confuse the objects of study of different branches of linguistics, the departments of word formation and morphology would be separated. why this monograph Chapter 2.2 is not titled Word formation, but Word structure, explained on p. 213: this monograph looks at the word formation process and word structure from the perspective of variantity and changes, with the general aim of systematizing the most common and new ĮnkR [variating and new linguistic phenomena], especially related to the change of the general Lithuanian language norms. Thus, the object of the study is much broader than just the formation of new words, because the systematics of the ĮnkR also includes traditional variations (longer or shorter word formation variants competing in usage). Furthermore, in terms of variantity (the formation of variant relations), the word with constructional morphemes can be viewed not only from the theoretical perspective of word construction: morphemically fragmented words can be treated not only as the result of word construction, but also as variants with different constructional morphemes, but linked by the same lexical meaning. all these phenomena are referred to in the monograph as word structure phenomena. For example, according to the formal criteria for determining variations, some mixed-word words in the compendium fall into the group of words with variable prepositions (prieškarinis, -ė: ikikarinis, -ė [Žs prieš1]) or words with variable endings (beprocentinis, -ė: beprocentis, -ė [Žs -inis 1]). Therefore, in similar cases, it is chosen not to talk about derivatives or mixed derivatives of prepositions or suffixes, but about words with varying affixes. Such a choice disturbs a word formation specialist a bit (but here, apparently, it is the reviewer’s problem) – the words under discussion are clear derivatives, so it is not just about the competition or variation of morphemically decomposable words, but about the competition of derivatives (forms of construction, types of construction), and for the author of the review – also about constructive synonyms and constructive variants2. The members of the following pairs are typical verb synonyms: synonyms pair 2 Verb synonyms are conjugations of different verb types with similar lexical meaning, and verb variants are conjugations of the same verb type with the same (very similar) lexical meaning and some secondary verb differences, for example, derivatives of the same prefix differ in the ending, conjugations made from the same base words differ in the connecting vowel, etc. (more vaskelienė 2013). 220 benDRinė kaLba | 96 prieškarinis, -ė: prieškarinis, -ė forms two derivatives of the mixed form, and the pair of synonyms beprocentinis, -ė and beprocentis, -ė forms a derivative and a derivative of the mixed form. why can't In chapter 2.2, which is called Word formation, why the difference between verb synonyms and verb variants is not important for the study is explained in detail on p. 214: however, in the monograph the difference between verb variants and verb synonyms is not important: both of them can enter into the general variation and are called phenomena of varying morphological word formation or simply – varying word formation phenomena. therefore, such variations as curling iron also belong to them: curbanoklis (nD, accessed 2021-12-15) – in this case, the word structure variants realize the same lexical meaning of „tool for curling hair”. and indeed, the most widely understood variants include both constructive synonyms and constructive variants (R. miliūnaitė has already written about the concepts of variants in her 2009 monograph3). The reviewed monograph is based on a broad concept, which is explained in subsection 0.3.6 and is also evident in the specific sections on word structure and syntax4. Very clearly, the choice to call (and classify) variant words according to the peculiarities of the structure is explained (and highlighted) further on the same page: “when identifying the word structure IWK, the practical question is not raised of what and how the word is made (which base word it is based on)?, but how the word is composed and with what it competes in usage?, what differences in construction (not necessarily of the last degree) morphemes have the competing variants?” See also p. 214: “so part of the word structure of the IWK compendium is made up of word structures differing in construction morphemes, but not necessarily in the direct word formation process.” by the way, in the opinion of the reviewer, the narrowest concept fits into the prevailing one – after all, the word is also a unit of language. 4 P. 392: “variant expression of syntactic combinations, constructions, sentence formation is understood broadly in the compendium, thus not only the so-called syntactic variants are presented – ‘syntactic constructions of exactly the same meaning’ (Župerka 1983: 28). The nests of variants are also made up of syntactic synonyms (see valiulytė 1998: 9–12), and other syntactic units that differ in various shades of meaning and do not always have the same lexical composition.” se atsiradę žodžių variantai, taip pat variantai, iš kurių atliepiamasis (žymėjoLanta vaskeLienė. about the varied, new phenomena of Lithuanian language and not only in 221 selected aspects. the author of the monograph has the right to choose how to classify the derivatives. The most important thing is that R. Miliūnaitė explains her choice in detail, adheres to it, and the reader has to accept the proposed game rules5. nevertheless, and reading about some specific variants differing in structure, the distinction of some words remained unclear. In table 26, the footnote 183 written next to the word deburokratizuoti („this and some other new words entered in the column of new derivatives (except primarily those that have a Lithuanian root) may also be borrowed, but the context of their use (see nD) indicates that there is a greater probability of new creation or value“) does not add much clarity – one simply has to believe the author’s opinion that, for example, hiperintensyvus, -i is the new loan, and hyperjautrus, -i – the new derivative or value (in the book it is written derivative / value), that antiinflacinis is a loan, and antipabėgėliškas, -a, antirūšinis, -ė – derivatives or values, that koaferistas, -ė is a loan, and kokūryba, kopriklausomas, -a – derivatives or values, and so on. but whether a word is borrowed with affixes, or already made in our language, is often difficult to determine. After all, one cannot rule out the possibility that, for example, antiinflacinis, -ė is a product of mixed work (from inflacija made with antiir -inis, -ė)6. Furthermore, the idea arose – if the most important thing is the word structure, certain word morpheme, whether it was necessary to try to distinguish the new borrowers from derivatives and valuables (already in the latter case, as it seems, there is insurance, because in many cases the difference between derivative and valuable is subjective). Table 26 in the monograph is titled Inventory of International Prefixes <...>, its first column is International Prefixes, although footnote 181 explains that both prefixes and first punctuation marks are placed here. some foreign elements are treated differently (sometimes as prefixes, sometimes as punctuation elements), for example, ex-, hyper-, infra-, intra-, mega and others written in table 26 are referred to as punctuation elements in the International Dictionary of Words (tŽZ) (tŽZ 2013: 207, 330, 353, 362, 518). The author of the monograph explains what she considers to be prepositions: “the monograph follows the concept that international prepositions are those that do not rely on a word used separately in the language (not associated with any root), but only indicate a certain modification of the meaning of the base word increase-decrease, 5 perhaps only after choosing the name of the word structure it was necessary to explain the relationship with morphology – what is left for the morphology part, and what and why is discussed in the word structure part. 6 Similar questions arose from some of the examples in Tables 29 and 30. 222 common language | 96 (p. 233). nevertheless it would be more common and accurate to call all the morphemes listed in the table prefixes and first šalinimo–pridėjimo, statuso aukštinimo–žeminimo ir pan. kryptimis“ elements of punctuation (i.e. to write the Inventory of International Prefixes and First Elements of Punctuation <...>), all the more so since in the same place of the monograph (p. 233) it is written about the fact that some of the words considered by the author as prefixes are also used as separate words: „it is true, there are also exceptions: for example, both the mentioned viceand the elements ex-, super-, ultralexicalize and are sometimes used as independent words in free styles.“ It is another matter whether the purpose is to put together real prefixes and first elements of punctuation, but this is the author’s choice. For example, in subsection 2.2.2 the broader term ending is used (Words with varying endings), so perhaps subsection 2.2.1 should have been named not Words with varying prefixes, but Words with varying prepositions, and both prefixes and punctuation marks should have been placed there? Furthermore, it is difficult to understand how some of the elements listed in Table 26 differ from the cryptof the punch mark in Table 28 (‘the first part of the word indicating the secrecy of the concept represented by the second part of the word, e.g. cryptography’ tŽZJ 2013: 455). Table 26 does not include all variants of prefixes. For example, tŽŽ (2013: 61, 64) indicates as variants archi and arki- (in the table archi is not written) – apparently, words with these variants simply did not exist in the sources studied. In footnote 181 it is written that some of the morphemes presented in the table (cis-, supra-, mal-, mis-) are not present in the tŽŽ nor in the Modern Lithuanian Grammar (DLkg 2005). apparently, they are considered prefixes precisely because of the aforementioned peculiar concept of prefixes. somewhere there were doubts when reading about the ratio of varying members. For example, table 13 („unmistakable normative phenomena with shades of meaning or function“) gives the example kupiškietis ↔ kupiškėnas. However, in the Dictionary of Modern Lithuanian DLkŽ8e kupiškietis, -ė and kupiškėnas, -ė have the same meaning – “inhabitant of the town or district of Kupiškis” (so they are constructive synonyms). In the General Dictionary of Lithuanian Language (bLkŽ) the word kupiškietis, -ė is explained as "a person living in or originating from Kupiškis or its surroundings", and kupiškėnas, -ė - as "1. a person living in or originating from kupiškio apylinkės“ and as „2. "East Highlands". so both according to DLkŽ and bLkŽ kupiškietis, -ė and kupiškėnas, -ė used in the first meaning have no semantic differences7, their change in this meaning 7 unless the author saw any functional differences. joLanta vaskeLienė. about the varied, new Lithuanian language phenomena and not only 223 possible. Thus, the co-rooted Vedic kupiškietis, -ė and kupiškėnas, -ė are only suitable to illustrate the statement written in table 13 by taking the word with all its meanings (as, apparently, was done). The following statement made me think: “so the refined definition of lexical variants could be as follows: they are words of different roots having the same lexical meaning” (p. 133). without questioning the statement about the root in footnote 100 of the Kalbotyros terminų žodynas (gaivenis, keinys 1990), agreeing that the root is undoubtedly important, it must be said that perhaps the most important thing is not just the root, but the final product. Acknowledging that derivatives are separate lexical units, their distinction from the lexicon seems artificial (so co-root derivatives of the same meaning are also lexical variants (in the broad sense), for example, the mentioned kupiškėnas, -ė and kupiškietis, -ė). no doubt, the origin of the lexical units is different, this is also mentioned on p. 134: „The nature of the lexical units that make up the variations is different.“ nevertheless, the choice to consider as lexical variants only words of different roots should have been written in more detail (with a reference to where it will be written about competing co-rooted words). On the category of work. On p. 269 it is written: „the ending -akas (-iakas) [ZS -akas/skol., žarg., ŽS -iakas/skol., žarg.] is quite common in Lithuanian vedas – in the names of the owners of noun or verb properties <...>.“ The only one of the examples presented here ližiakas („laižymasis“ (passionate kissing)) is made from a verb. but it is not the name of the possessor of the verb property, but the abstract of the verb (the verb name), even if concreted. sometimes it is difficult to understand what is being written about – about borrowing or about acting, about acting preposition or about ending. For example, p. 264 talks about the endings -abilus, -i, but also writes about the preposition: „the general meaning of the action of this preposition is ‘capable of doing (or being able to have) that which is said in the base word’. adaptation of such borrowed words in Lithuanian language and competition with alternative means of expression is not uniform.“ By the way, it is usually spoken about the meaning of derivative (not borrowed) forms. On p. 376 it is written: „variants of grammatical word formation are tried to be classified apart from constructive variants of words, which appear in the usage by making words of the same meaning with different means of construction, e.g.: pakampis: pakampė, potemė: potemis, aiškiaregis: aiškiaregys.“ yes, all the examples written here are constructive variants, but since in the works of linguistics they are often confused with constructive synonyms, it would have been useful to write that the co-roots of all pairs belong to that 224 common verbs | 96 for the same type of action (prepositions pa-, poir and punches from adjective and verb), but differ in secondary means of action – endings. A few more little things. The most commonly used term is prefix, but sometimes a prefix, for example, p. 321: "Plg. adapted borrowings: 1) with an international prefix: egocentrisks, -a ← ego- + -centrisks, -a (in English egocentric <...>)“ – it is not clear whether they differ in something or are used synonymously. Note 183 refers to derivatives, and the table uses the broader term derivative. There is a lot of literature, but in some places, for example, when speaking about phraseologisms, it was possible to refer to the publication of Rūta Marcinkevičienė (2001), which writes about traditional phraseology and consolidated word combinations. Thoughts and comments expressed in the review do not in any way diminish the great work done by the author. R. Miliūnaitė’s monograph Variety and new phenomena of the Lithuanian language at the beginning of the 21st century: systematics and directions of change will be one of the cornerstones of the contemporary Lithuanian language. There is no doubt that the theoretical insights presented in the monograph, the abundant empirical material, the compendium will be used by scholars studying various language variants, variantity, norms, language varieties and other subjects, as well as practitioners who are interested in specific variants of the Lithuanian language, their causes of emergence, competition, evaluation. This book is therefore useful for lexicologists and morphologists, word formation and syntax specialists, standardisers, editors, translators and other readers, it can also be used creatively as a study book. The monograph may be more difficult to understand for non-linguistic specialists, but it is to be hoped that the insights presented in it will reach the general public, since its representatives are the creators of variants. It remains to agree with the author’s statement that this work (especially the summary) is “a necessary condition and starting point for further research on the variantity of common language. in other words, the compendium is necessary to investigate changes and tendencies in usage” (p. 11). at the end of the book (Final word) are also provided guidelines for further research. The conclusion of the review is that this monograph by R. Miliūnaitė undoubtedly provides opportunities for further research. LiteRatūRa iR šaLtiniai bLkŽ – General Lithuanian Language Dictionary (in preparation), chief editor D. Liutkevičienė, Vilnius: Lithuanian Language Institute. Online access: https://ekalba. lki.lt/gendrines-lietuviu-kalbos-zodynas. DLkg 2005: Modern Lithuanian Grammar, red. v. ambrazas. 4-steps. edition, vilnius: institute of science and encyclopedia publishing. joLanta vaskeLienė. 225 DLkŽ8e 2021: Contemporary Lithuanian Language Dictionary, ed. s. keinys, 8-as patais. 225 DLkŽ8e 2021: Contemporary Lithuanian Language Dictionary, ed. s. keinys, 8-as patais. and supplement. edition (electronic version), vilnius: Lietuvos kalbos institutas. Online access: https://ekalba.lt/dabartines-lietuviu-kalboszodynas. Lke 2008: Encyclopedia of Lithuanian Language, Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopedia Publishing. gaivenis kasimieras, keinys stasys 1990: The Dictionary of Language Terms, Kaunas: šviesa. marcinkevičienė Rūta 2001: traditional phraseology and other stable word combinations. – Lituanistica 4(48), 81–98. miliūnaitė Rita 2009: Variants of the current Lithuanian language usage, vilnius: Lithuanian Language Institute. 1994: Morphology of the Lithuanian language. Vilnius: Vilnius University of Science and Technology, 2001. 2023: Rita Miliūnaitė. Varied and new phenomena of the Lithuanian language at the beginning of the 21st century: systematics and directions of change. vilnius: Lietuvos kalbos institutas, 2022. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 88, 309–325. tŽŽ 2013: Dictionary of International Words, vilnius: alma littera. vaskelienė jolanta 2013: Similarities and differences of verb synonyms, verb variants and paronyms. – Man and Word: Didactic Linguistics received 2023 08 10 Vilnius 15(1), 206–214. University Šiauliai Academy vytauto g. 84, Lt-76352 Šiauliai joLanta vaskeLienė [email protected]