JOLANTA VASKELIENĖ

Vilnius University, Šiauliai Academy

ORCID ID: orcid.org./0000-0002-8516-8608

RESEARCH AREAS: word formation, morphology, text linguistics, stylistics, variation.

DOI: doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2023.96.11

ON VARIATION AND NEW PHENOMENA IN THE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE AND BEYOND

Recenzija: Rita Miliūnaitė. Įvairuojantys ir nauji lietuvių kalbos reiškiniai XXI a. pradžioje: sistematika ir pokyčių kryptys, monografija, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2022, 720 p. ISBN 978-609-411-322-2. Prieiga internete: https://doi.org/10.35321/e-pub.42.lietuviu-kalbos-pokyciai

Published electronically in 2022, Rita Miliūnaitė’s monograph Variation and New Phenomena in the Lithuanian Language at the Beginning of the 21st Century: Systematics and Directions of Change (Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language). This review is devoted to presenting and discussing this monograph¹.

To see how language changes and varies requires long-term observations and empirical material from different periods. The author of the monograph has been studying variation and variants of the Lithuanian language for many years, so this monograph is a continuation of a sustained research effort. In this work, R. Miliūnaitė sought to answer two key questions: “1) how can what varies and is renewed be systematized? 2) what changes most noticeably in the Lithuanian language, and how, at the beginning of the 21st century?” (p. 21). It can be said straight away that the author has essentially succeeded in answering these questions.

This substantial book (720 pp.) meets the requirements for monographs in every respect. Its structure is carefully considered and logical—it comprises an Introduction, whose four chapters present in detail the aim and objectives of the research, indicate its relevance and novelty, outline the theoretical and methodological approaches, and define the main mo-

¹ Although Erika Rimkutė’s review of this monograph was published in 2023, I could not resist sharing a thought or two of my own.

JOLANTA VASKELIENĖ. Apie įvairuojančius, naujus lietuvių kalbos reiškinius ir ne tik

217

the concepts used in the monograph, and three parts subdivided into smaller chapters, sections, and subsections. The first part of the monograph (Systematizing varying and new language phenomena) presents the data sources in detail, discusses the data being classified, the specific features, difficulties, principles, and criteria of their classification, and considers the structure, value, and potential applications of the Compendium of Varying and New Language Phenomena (hereafter, the Compendium). The second part (Compendium of Varying and New Language Phenomena and Its Description) is devoted to the Compendium itself. It consists of four chapters (2.1. Lexicon; 2.2. Word Structure; 2.3. Morphology; 2.4. Syntax), which present variants at the corresponding levels and discuss some specific instances of language variation. The third part (Dynamics of the Standard Language and Its Phenomena) focuses on linguistic variation and directions of change in the structure of standard Lithuanian, and also provides a broad context of European standard languages. The monograph concludes with detailed conclusions that correlate with the research, an Afterword, and lists of sources and references. The informative, illustrative figures and tables included in the book are especially useful—the monograph contains 56 figures and 36 tables from the Compendium. (Indeed, at times one gets the impression that the classified empirical material could have been placed at the end of the book, in appendices, so that readers could focus more closely on the text and its explanations without being interrupted by lengthy tables.) The classification and analysis of the accumulated empirical material are grounded in theoretical discussion and draw on literature published in various languages; the bibliography will be useful to readers interested in similar studies.

R. Miliūnaitė has undoubtedly gained an in-depth understanding of the phenomenon under study and is familiar with comparable research, as well as with how standard languages develop in different countries, the range of situations that arise, the specific features of the development of standard Lithuanian, and so on. The author’s perceptive insights, breadth of approach, and ability to investigate linguistic phenomena at different levels from a variety of perspectives are impressive. It is valuable that the monograph can be read either in its entirety or in sections (depending on one’s interests and what one is looking for), since its parts are both interconnected and relatively self-contained. This is especially true of Part 3 (Dynamics of the Standard Language and Its Phenomena), whose insights may be useful to a very wide readership. The monograph is written in a scholarly style and is orderly and properly edited. The extensive English-language summary (translated by Vaida Kavaliauskaitė-Ožalinskienė) makes it possible to introduce the international community to the main findings and insights of the study.

The monograph is also valuable because it encourages reflection, analysis, and, at times, discussion. I will share one or two thoughts (or reservations) that have arisen.

218

BENDRINĖ KALBA | 96

On the titles and organizing principle of the monograph’s chapters (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 (identifying all the morphemes in a word), whereas word formation is concerned only with the derivational affix, that is, the means by which a new word is formed (for the object of morphology and the differences between morphemic and derivational analyses, see Paulauskienė 1994: 10; LKE 2008: 359). Thus, traditionally, in order not to conflate the objects of study of distinct branches of linguistics, separate chapters would be devoted to word formation and morphology. Why Chapter 2.2 of this monograph is entitled Word Structure rather than Word Formation is explained on p. 213:

In this monograph, the process of word formation and the derivational structure of words are viewed from the perspective of variation and change, with the overall goal of systematizing the most frequent and new ĮNKR [varying and new language phenomena], particularly those related to changes in the norms of standard Lithuanian. The object of study is therefore much broader than the formation of new words alone, since the systematization of ĮNKR also includes traditional variation (word-formation variants that compete in usage for longer or shorter periods). Moreover, from the perspective of variation (the establishment of relations between variants), a word containing derivational morphemes can be viewed through more than just theoretical approaches to word formation: words that can be divided into morphemes can be treated not only as the results of word formation, but also as variants containing different derivational morphemes yet linked by the same lexical meaning. All these phenomena are collectively called word-structure phenomena in the monograph. For example, according to the formal criterion used to identify variation, some words formed by mixed derivation are included in the Compendium among words with varying prefixes (prieškarinis, -ė: ikikarinis, -ė [ŽS prieš- 1]) or words with varying endings (beprocentinis, -ė: beprocentis, -ė [ŽS –inis 1]). For this reason, in such cases the discussion focuses not on prefixed or suffixed derivatives or mixed formations, but on words with varying affixes.

This choice is somewhat unsettling to a word-formation specialist (though perhaps that is the reviewer’s problem): the words under discussion are clearly derivatives, so one would like to speak not simply of competition or variation among morphologically segmentable words, but of competition between derivatives (word-formation processes and types); the reviewer would also speak of derivational synonyms and derivational variants². The members of the pairs cited are typical derivational synonyms: a pair of synonyms

² Derivational synonyms are same-root derivatives of different word-formation types that have similar (or identical) lexical meanings, whereas derivational variants are same-root derivatives belonging to the same word-formation type that have the same (or very similar) lexical meaning and some secondary differences in word formation—for example, derivatives with the same prefix may differ in their ending, compounds formed from the same base words may differ in their linking vowel, and so on (for more detail, see Vaskelienė 2013).

JOLANTA VASKELIENĖ. Apie įvairuojančius, naujus lietuvių kalbos reiškinius ir ne tik

219

prieškarinis, –ė: ikikarinis, –ė consists of two derivatives formed by mixed word formation, whereas the synonymous pair beprocentinis, –ė and beprocentis, –ė consists of a mixed formation and a derivative. Why Chapter 2.2 cannot be called Word Formation, and why the distinction between derivational synonyms and derivational variants is not important to the study, is explained in detail on p. 214:

However, in the monograph the distinction between derivational variants and derivational synonyms is not important: both may be included within the broader category of variation and are called phenomena of varying morphemic word structure, or simply varying word-structure phenomena. Thus, forms such as garbanotuvas: garbanoklis (ND, accessed 2021-12-15) also fall within this category of variation; in this case, the same lexical meaning, “a tool for curling hair,” is realized by word-structure variants.

Indeed, variants understood in the broadest sense include both derivational synonyms and derivational variants (R. Miliūnaitė had already written about conceptions of variants in her 2009 monograph³). The monograph under review adopts the broad conception—this is explained in subsection 0.3.6 and is also evident in the specific chapters on word structure and syntax⁴. The choice to name (and classify) variant words according to their structural features is explained very clearly (and emphasized) later on the same page: “When identifying word-structure ĮNKR, the practical question is not what a word is derived from and how it is formed (what its base word is)?, but how the word is structured and what it competes with in usage?, and what differences in derivational morphemes (not necessarily those of the final derivational step) the competing variants have?” See also p. 214: “Thus, the word-structure section of the ĮNKR Compendium comprises word variants that differ in derivational morphemes but did not necessarily arise through a direct word-formation process, as well as variants whose responsive (marked) member has a derivational morpheme and is therefore most often negatively codified, while the principal member of the variation may be expressed by a different type of means (a phrase, for example).” Of course, the same empirical material may be (and is) classified and analyzed by researchers according to a particular approach—

³ Her monograph presents three conceptions of variants: the narrowest (identity of word + identity of meaning), the predominant one (identity of linguistic unit + identity of meaning), and the broadest (identity of the meaning [function] of linguistic phenomena) (Miliūnaitė 2009: 140–147). By the way, in the reviewer’s opinion, the narrowest conception is encompassed by the predominant one—after all, a word is also a linguistic unit.

⁴ P. 392: “The Compendium understands variation in the expression of syntactic phrases, constructions, and sentences broadly, and thus includes not only so-called syntactic variants—‘syntactic constructions with exactly the same meaning’ (Župerka 1983: 28). Variant clusters also comprise syntactic synonyms (cf. Valiulytė 1998: 9–12), as well as syntactic units that differ in other shades of meaning and do not always have the same lexical composition.”

220

BENDRINĖ KALBA | 96

in the selected aspect. The author of the monograph is entitled to choose how to classify formations. What matters is that R. Miliūnaitė explains her choice in detail and adheres to it, while readers need only accept the proposed rules of the game⁵.

Nevertheless, even when reading about some specific variants that differ in structural features, the distinction between certain words remained unclear. In Table 26, footnote 183 is attached to the word debiurokratizuoti (“This and some other neologisms entered in the section on new derivatives (except primarily those with a Lithuanian root) may also be borrowings, but the context in which they are used (see ND) suggests a greater likelihood that they are new formations or translations”). This does little to clarify matters—we simply have to trust the author’s opinion that, for example, hiperintensyvus, -i is a new borrowing, whereas hiperjautrus, -i is a new formation or calque (the book uses the term darinys / vertinys); that antiinfl iacinis is a borrowing, whereas antipabėgėliškas, -a, antiria ušinis, -ė are formations or calques; that koaferistas, -ė is a borrowing, whereas kokūryba, kopriklausomas, -a are formations or calques, and so on. In the monograph, formations apparently include only words based on Lithuanian base words. But it is often difficult to determine whether a word was borrowed with affixes or formed in our language. After all, one cannot rule out the possibility that, for example, antiinfl iacinis, -ė is a product of mixed formation (formed from infliacija using anti- and -inis, -ė)⁶. Moreover, this raises the question: if the main concern is word structure and particular word morphemes, was there any need to try to distinguish new borrowings from formations and calques at all (and even in the latter case, as we see, the author hedges, since the distinction between a formation and a calque is often subjective).

Table 26 in the monograph is entitled Inventory of International Prefixes <...>, and its first column is headed International Prefixes, although footnote 181 explains that both prefixes and the first elements of compounds are included here. Some elements of foreign origin are treated inconsistently (sometimes as prefixes, sometimes as compound elements); for example, eks-, hiper-, infra-, intra-, mega- and others are listed as compound elements in the Dictionary of International Words (TŽŽ) (TŽŽ 2013: 207, 330, 353, 362, 518). The author of the monograph explains what she considers prefixes: “The monograph adopts the view that the category of international prefixes includes those that are not based on a word used independently in the language (that is, they are not associated with any root), but merely indicate a certain modification of the meaning of the base word along the dimensions of increase–decrease,

⁵ Perhaps, having chosen the term word structure, it would have been worth explaining its relationship to morphology as well—what is left to morphology and what is separated out into the section on word structure, and why.

⁶ Similar questions arose when examining some of the examples presented in Tables 29 and 30.

JOLANTA VASKELIENĖ. Apie įvairuojančius, naujus lietuvių kalbos reiškinius ir ne tik

221

in the directions of removal–addition, raising–lowering status, and so on” (p. 233). Nevertheless, it would be more conventional and precise to call all the morphemes listed in the table prefixes and first elements of compounds (i.e., to write Inventory of International Prefixes and First Elements of Compounds <...>), especially since the same passage of the monograph (p. 233) notes that some words the author considers prefixes are also used as independent words: “Indeed, there are exceptions: for example, both the aforementioned vice- and the elements eks-, super-, ultra- become lexicalized and are sometimes used as independent words in informal styles.” Another question is whether it is appropriate to group true prefixes together with the first elements of compounds, but that is the author’s choice. Cf. the broader term ending element used in subsection 2.2.2 (Words with Varying Ending Elements); perhaps, then, subsection 2.2.1 should have been entitled not Words with Varying Prefixes but Words with Varying Initial Elements, and include both prefixes and compound elements? Moreover, it is difficult to understand how some of the elements listed in Table 26 differ from the compound element kripto- given in Table 28 (“the first part of compound words, indicating that the concept expressed by the second part of the word is secret, e.g., kriptografija” TŽŽ 2013: 455). Table 26 does not list variants of all the prefixes. For example, TŽŽ (2013: 61, 64) lists archi- and arki- as variants (archi- is not listed in the table)—apparently, words containing these variants simply did not occur in the sources examined. Footnote 181 notes that some morphemes listed in the table (cis-, supra-, mal-, mis-) are found neither in TŽŽ nor in the Grammar of Contemporary Lithuanian (DLKG 2005). Apparently, they are considered prefixes precisely because of the distinctive conception of prefixes mentioned above.

Some doubts arose when reading about the relationship between varying members. For example, Table 13 (“non-confusable normative phenomena with shades of meaning or function”) gives the example kupiškietis ↔ kupiškėnas. However, in the Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian DLKŽ₈, kupiškietis, -ė and kupiškėnas, -ė have the same meaning—“a resident of the city or district of Kupiškis” (and are therefore derivational synonyms). In the Dictionary of Standard Lithuanian (BLKŽ), the word kupiškietis, -ė is defined as “a person living in Kupiškis or its environs, or originating from there,” while kupiškėnas, -ė is defined as “1. a person living in the environs of Kupiškis or originating from there” and “2. a speaker of the Kupiškėnai subdialect of Eastern Aukštaitian.” Thus, according to both DLKŽ and BLKŽ, kupiškietis, -ė and kupiškėnas, -ė when used in the first sense have no semantic differences⁷; their alternation in this sense

⁷ Unless the author discerned some functional distinctions.

222

BENDRINĖ KALBA | 96

possible. Thus, the cognate derivatives kupiškietis, -ė and kupiškenas, -ė are suitable for illustrating the statement in Table 13 only if the word is taken in all its meanings (as was apparently done).

This statement gave me pause: “The refined definition of lexical variants could therefore be as follows: words with different roots that have the same lexical meaning” (p. 133). Without questioning the statement about the root in footnote 100 of the Dictionary of Linguistic Terms (Gaivenis, Keinys 1990), and agreeing that the root is undoubtedly important, it must be said that what matters perhaps most is not simply the root but the final product. If derivatives are recognized as separate lexical units, their distinction from lexical items seems artificial (thus, cognate derivatives with the same meaning are also lexical variants, in the broad sense—for example, the aforementioned kupiškenas, -ė and kupiškietis, -ė). Of course, lexical units have different origins, as is also noted on p. 134: “The very nature of the lexical units that constitute variation is different.” Nevertheless, the decision to regard as lexical variants only words with different roots should have been explained in greater detail (with a reference to where cognate competing words would be discussed).

Regarding the category of the work. On p. 269 we read: “The ending -akas (-iakas) [ŽS -akas/borrowed, slang, ŽS -iakas/borrowed, slang] is fairly common in Lithuanian derivatives—in nouns denoting bearers of nominal or verbal characteristics <...>.” The only example given here that is derived from a verb is laižiakas (“making out” [passionate kissing]). But it does not denote a bearer of a verbal characteristic; rather, it is a deverbal abstract noun (an action noun), albeit one that has become more concrete.

At times it is difficult to understand what is being discussed—borrowing or derivation, a derivational suffix or an ending. For example, p. 264 discusses the ending -abilus, -i, but immediately goes on to discuss a suffix: “The general derivational meaning of this suffix is ‘capable of doing (or able to have) what is expressed by the base word.’ The adaptation of such borrowings in Lithuanian and their competition with alternative means of expression vary.” Incidentally, derivational meaning is generally discussed in connection with derivatives (not borrowings).

On p. 376 we read: “In classification, efforts are made to distinguish variants of grammatical word forms from derivational variants of words, which arise in usage when words of the same meaning are formed using various derivational means; cf.: pakampis: pakampė, potemė: potemės, aiškiaregis: aiškiaregys.” Indeed, all the examples given here are derivational variants, but since they are often confused with derivational synonyms in works on linguistics, it would have been useful to note that the cognate derivatives in all the pairs belong to the same derivational type

JOLANTA VASKELIENĖ. Apie įvairuojančius, naujus lietuvių kalbos reiškinius ir ne tik

223

(prefixes pa-, po- and compounds formed from an adjective and a verb), but differ in secondary derivational means—their endings.

A few more minor points. The term prefix is used most often, but sometimes so is prefiksas, for example, on p. 321: “Cf. adapted borrowings: 1) with an international prefix: egocentriškas, -a ← ego- + -centriškas, -a (English egocentric <...>)”—it is unclear whether they differ in any way or are used synonymously. Footnote 183 discusses derivatives, whereas the table uses the broader term derivative. There is an extensive bibliography, but in some cases—for instance, when discussing phraseologisms—it would also have been possible to draw on Rūta Marcinkevičienė’s (2001) publication, which discusses traditional phraseology and fixed expressions.

The ideas and comments expressed in this review in no way diminish the author’s enormous contribution. R. Miliūnaitė’s monograph Įvairuojantys ir nauji lietuvių kalbos reiškiniai XXI a. pradžioje: sistematika ir pokyčių kryptys will be one of the key works on contemporary Lithuanian. There is no doubt that scholars researching different levels of language, variation, norms, language varieties, and other topics, as well as practitioners interested in specific Lithuanian variants, their origins, competition, and evaluation, will make use of the theoretical insights, rich empirical material, and Compendium presented in the monograph. Thus, this book is useful to lexicologists and morphologists, specialists in word formation and syntax, language planners, editors, translators, and other readers; it can also be resourcefully used as a textbook. The monograph may be harder for non-linguists to understand, but one hopes that its insights will reach the wider public, since members of that public are the creators of variants. We can only agree with the author’s statement that this work (especially the Compendium) is “a necessary condition and a point of departure for further research into variation in the standard language. In other words, the Compendium is needed to study changes and tendencies in usage” (p. 11). The book’s concluding section (the Afterword) also sets out directions for further research. To conclude this review, it may be said that R. Miliūnaitė’s monograph undoubtedly secures opportunities for further research.

LITERATURE AND SOURCES

BLKŽ – Dictionary of Standard Lithuanian (in preparation), editor-in-chief D. Liutkevičienė, Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language. Available online: https://ekalba.lt/bendrinės-lietuvių-kalbos-žodynas.

DLKG 2005: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika, red. V. Ambrazas. 4-as patais. leidimas, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

224

BENDRINĖ KALBA | 96

DLKŽ_8e 2021: Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian, editor-in-chief S. Keinys, 8th revised and expanded edition (electronic version), Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language. Available online: https://ekalba.lt/dabartines-lietuviu-kalbos-zodynas.

LKE 2008: Lietuvių kalbos enciklopedija, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

G a i v e n i s K a z i m i e r a s, K e i n y s S t a s y s 1990: Dictionary of Linguistic Terms, Kaunas: Šviesa.

M a r c i n k e v i č i e n ė R ū t a 2001: Traditional phraseology and other stable word combinations. – Lituanistica 4(48), 81–98.

M i l i ū n a i t ė R i t a 2009: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos vartosenos variantai, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

P a u l a u s k i e n ė A l d o n a 1994: Lietuvių kalbos morfologija. Paskaitos lituanistams, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla.

R i m k u t ė E r i k a 2023: Rita Miliūnaitė. Įvairuojantys ir nauji lietuvių kalbos reiškiniai XXI a. pradžioje: sistematika ir pokyčių kryptys. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2022. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 88, 309–325.

TŽŽ 2013: Tarptautinių žodžių žodynas, Vilnius: Alma littera.

V a s k e l i e n ė J o l a n t a 2013: Darybinių sinonimų, darybinių variantų ir paronimų panašumai bei skirtumai. – Žmogus ir žodis: Didaktinė lingvistika 15(1), 206–214.

Received 2023 08 10

J O L A N T A V A S K E L I E N Ė

Šiauliai Academy of Vilnius University

Vytauto g. 84, LT-76352 Šiauliai

[email protected]

JOLANTA VASKELIENĖ. Apie įvairuojančius, naujus lietuvių kalbos reiškinius ir ne tik

225