Manifestation of Physis in Vilnius County Drymonymy

Straipsniai / Articles 155 ALISA STUNŽAITĖ Institute of the Lithuanian Language ORCID id: orcid.org/0000-0002-4816-2629 Fields of research: Toponymy, Cognitive Onomastics, Cognitive Semantics. DOI: doi.org/10.35321/all87-08 MANIFESTATION OF PHYSIS IN VILNIUS COUNTY DRYMONYMY Gamtos apraiškos Vilniaus apskrities drimonimijoje ANNOTATION The current research aims to shed some light on the conceptualization of physis1 in the drymonyms from present-day Vilnius County. The research is limited to the analysis of 65 names selected from the corpus of 787 drymonyms currently officially functioning in the territory of Vilnius County. Data were collected from printed (Onomasticon of Lithuania’s Forests (Part I, 1994)), electronic (Electronic Nature Catalogue (www.ezerai21.lt)) sources, and interactive maps (Portal of Spacial Information of Lithuania (www.geoporta.lt)). The study reveals that the domain of physis, in a broad sense, is an abundant motivation source. The drymonyms were divided into two groups, those of clear semantics and motivation and those of obscure semantics and motivation. The drymonyms of clear semantics and motivation conceptualize dominant vegetation species (21), fauna (9), forest type (15), and the peculiarities of the landscape (17). The group of obscure semantics and motivation presents an overview of names, the conceptualization of which is ambiguous due to 1 The term physis is associated with Greek φύσις – plants, animals, and other features of the world that pass through a process of birth and death coming to be or passing away (Guthrie 1965; Kratochvíl 2016: 20). The current research employs the term physis in its broadest sense, signifying both the elements of living nature and features of topographic relief that come to existence (are being born/formed) by natural causes or human intervention, develop and change, and eventually die (disappear). ALISA STUNŽAITĖ 156 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVII the polysemy of the motivating appellative (1), the appellative or nominal nature of the motivating concept (5), or even both (3). KEYWORDS: Vilnius County, drymonyms, conceptualization of toponyms, physis, cognitive onomastics. ANOTACIJA Šiuo tyrimu siekiama nustatyti, kokiomis gamtos sąvokomis yra konceptualizuojami drimonimai, funkcionuojantys šių dienų Vilniaus apskrityje. Tyrimui buvo surinkti 787 dabartiniai drimonimai. Duomenys buvo renkami iš rašytinių (Lietuvos miškų vardynas (I dalis, 1994)) ir elektroninių (Elektroninis gamtos katalogas (www.ezerai21.lt)) šaltinių bei iš interaktyvių žemėlapių (Lietuvos erdvinės informacijos portalas (www. geoportal.lt)). Analizės rezultatai parodė, kad gamtos konceptas yra įprasmintas 65 varduose. Tiriamieji drimonimai buvo suskirstyti į dvi dideles grupes: aiškios semantikos ir motyvacijos bei ne visai aiškios semantikos ir motyvacijos. Aiškios semantikos ir motyvacijos drimonimai yra konceptualizuojami per dominuojančios augmenijos rūšių (21), gyvūnijos (9), miško tipo (15) ir kraštovaizdžio ypatumų (17) sąvokas. Ne visai aiškios semantikos ir motyvacijos drimonimų grupė pateikia vardų, kurių konceptualizavimas yra dviprasmiškas dėl motyvuojančių apeliatyvų polisemijos (1), motyvuojančios sąvokos apeliatyvinės ar tikrinės prigimties (5) arba dėl abiejų (3). ESMINIAI ŽODŽIAI: Vilniaus apskritis, drimonimai, toponimų konceptualizavimas, gamta, kognityvinė onomastika. INTRODUCTION The debate on the meaning of proper nouns is exceedingly old. While there are schools that support the idea that names are meaningless, i.e., they only have a reference (Kripke 1972; Ullmann 1969: 33), the Cognitive Approach to the onym analysis provides evidence in favour of the fact that names carry not only lexical features but are also semantically charged, and associated with the conceptual content (Berezovič 1991: 75; Rut 2001: 59; Leino 2011: 215). The cognitive view of a name suggests that it has much more to tell. It consists of multiple layers reflecting traditional, kinship, possessive, and many other bonds with the surrounding world (Langendonck 2013; Ainiala et al. 2016). As soon as an interaction between a human being and the environment begins, every undiscovered land, living nature body, or phenomenon gains a name. Therefore, the meanings of names become encrypted with the individual’s understanding of the world. In other words, the names start to reflect the worldview, which may be understood as the foundational perspective of the person based on which Straipsniai / Articles 157 Manifestation of Physis in Vilnius County Drymonymy every question of existence is addressed; it is a coherent image of what is being recognized by both individuals and communities (Sire 2015: 24; Głaz 2017: 35). If the perception of the world shapes the worldview, it is a cognitive process, and it depends on subjective judgments which were imposed on a person by the community. This leads to the idea that toponyms, as Ilona Mickienė and Rita Baranauskienė (2019: 60) describe, are a message from the past which reflects the history of the Lithuanian nation, their spiritual and material life, household, and the relationship with the surrounding environment. Language is a significant element of the worldview, it transmits cultural reality, and thus community members with the same linguistic background feel historical continuity (Fong, Chuang 2004: 8; Kramsch 1998). The linguistic nature of place names makes it easier to address the real world (Vasil’eva 2007). Moreover, names exist in every society. Therefore, they could be perceived as cultural universals (Alford 1988). However, the lexical form of onyms should not be separated from the semantic form, as only through semantics is it possible to take a path from the linguistic world to the real one (TerMinasova 2000: 46–47). As toponyms are a part of the linguistic system and are found in all languages around the world, their existence leads to the idea that they preserve the evidence of human-nature interactions. After all, they were based on impressions of the residents about the objects of reality. Long-term contacts between people and living nature form a specific image of the area (Vasil’eva 2007: 96). Scholars have observed the correlation between physis and toponymy. For instance, Sousa and Garcia-Murrilo (2001: 391) question whether landscape changes are reflected in place names. Their research concludes that such change prevails and discusses how such a shift is perceived. Fagúndez and Izco (2016) claim that the species found in a particular place may be encoded in toponyms, signifying the location’s biological diversity. Giedrė Beconytė et al. (2019) took a closer look at the correlation between the phytolexemes and zoolexemes with oikonyms in Lithuania. Pavel Skorupa (2021) analysed toponyms containing the concepts of flora and fauna as signs of national and cultural identity. Generally, toponyms containing the concept of flora and fauna signify locations inhabited by certain species or densely distributed plants; such names do not necessarily reveal all living nature entities typical for the region. Instead, they disclose the specific elements which turn into a place’s distinguishing markers (Skorupa 2021: 37; Saparov et al. 2021: 96; Vasil’eva 2007). The research mentioned above gives a fair ground for further investigation of toponyms motivated by the concept of nature. The embodiment of physis in Vilnius County drymonyms has not been approached by scholars yet. Therefore, the current research should ALISA STUNŽAITĖ 158 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVII shed some light on the landscape peculiarities and region-specific biological diversity, underscoring the dominant species of a place. This article is based on the analysis of the conceptualisation of physis in the drymonyms from present-day Vilnius County. Mickienė and Bieliauskaitė (2018) note that forests are part of a constantly changing landscape, and it is valuable to investigate their names once in a while. Present-day Vilnius County is a wooded land. Here, forests make up 43.9% of the territory (VLEe). Undoubtedly, their names carry valuable knowledge about the surroundings and are ready to reveal the peculiarities of the region’s landscape, flora, and fauna. The aim of the current research is to identify the concepts of physis encrypted in the drymonyms of present-day Vilnius County. Research material and sources. The scope of the current research comprises 65 drymonyms that reflect the concepts of physis. These names were selected from the corpus of 787 drymonyms that are currently officially functioning within the present-day Vilnius County boundaries. The names were collected from both electronic and printed sources.2 Drymonyms motivated by the surrounding settlements or bodies of water were abandoned in the investigation. These forest names follow the metonymic naming pattern and denote the connection between the settlement/water body name and the drymonym. They do not carry any significant semantic charge (Reszegi 2012: 5). However, they make up the most significant part of all drymonyms of the corpus, i.e., 577 forest names are associated with other toponyms and/or hydronyms. Therefore, 65 drymonyms out of 210 are linked to the concept of physis, thus making it a relatively abundant source of motivation. Research methodology. The framework for the drymonym analysis is adopted from the research models proposed by Aleksandras Vanagas (1981), Dalia Sviderskienė (2016; 2017; 2019; 2022), Ilona Mickienė, Rita Baranauskienė (2019), Pavel Skorupa (2019; 2021; 2021a), and others. Location, origin, and possible etymons and their meanings are provided for every drymonym under investigation. The motivating appellatives are retrieved from e-dictionaries of Lithuanian, Russian, Polish, and Belarusian languages. The research follows the tradition of cognitive onomastics analysis; therefore, it claims that all names have meaning. The model of conceptual content realization through language is adopted referring to Nicola Dobrič (2010). The conceptualization of the drymonyms is illustrated through the source and target domains, where the source is an appellative, and the target is a drymonym, i.e., appellative → conceptual structure → drymonym. The adopted theory of name conceptualization deals with identifying the conceptual structure motivating the coining of a name. 2 See Drymonym Sources & References. Straipsniai / Articles 159 Manifestation of Physis in Vilnius County Drymonymy The current research divides the analyzed drymonyms into two groups: those of clear semantics and motivation and those of obscure semantics and motivation. 1. DRYMONYMS OF CLEAR SEMANTICS AND MOTIVATION The current group of drymonyms is formed by names that do not pose any ambiguity in the identification of their motivation. These drymonyms are motivated by the domain of physis and involve the concepts of vegetation species, animals, forest types, and peculiarities of the forest landscape. It is noteworthy that most of the names are Lith. Suf -ynas, -ynė, in rear cases, -ytė derivates. These suffix-derivatives follow a long-time name-giving tradition in the Lithuanian language. Usually, they denote the accumulation of plants or other objects of the living nature, less often living creatures in one place. Therefore, they are usually found in toponyms (Ambrazas 1995: 184–185). 1.1. Drymonyms Reflecting the Vegetation Species Avietỹnė (V D) reflects the conceptualization of the dominant berries in the territory. It is derived from Lith. avietỹnė, avietýnas ‘raspberry bushes, a place where raspberries grow’ (LVŽ I: 243) and follows the pattern of conceptualization: Lith. avietỹnė, avietýnas → a forest where raspberries grow → Avietỹnė. Ąžuolýnas (V D, Ukm D) could be related to Lith. ąžuolýnas ‘oak forest’ (LVŽ I: 271), which is formed from Lith. žuolas ‘oak tree’ + Lith. Suf -ynas. Transparent naming signifies that oaks cover the territory of the forest and is conceptualized through the following model: Lith. ąžuolýnas → a forest of oak trees → Ąžuolýnas. The following drymonyms could be presented in the group as all of these are formed with the base lexeme berž-: Beržýnas (Šlčn D, Ukm D), Beržynlis (Šr D), Beržýtė (Ukm D), and Beržẽliai (Ukm D). All these drymonyms embed the concept of Lith. béržas ‘leafy tree with white bark, a birch’ (LKŽe). However, the conceptualisation of each slightly differs. For instance, Beržýnas employs the idea of the location covered with birches: Lith. beržýnas → a birch forest → Beržýnas. So does Beržýtė, Lith. berž- + Lith. Suf -ytė → a birch forest → Beržýtė. Beržynlis is probably associated with the size of trees, or forest as such, as Suf -ėlis in most cases signifies either the smaller size of an entity or pleasure. (cf. Urbutis 2009: 330): Lith. berž- + Lith. -yn + Lith. Suf -ėlis → a small forest ALISA STUNŽAITĖ 160 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVII of (low) birches → Beržynlis or Lith. berž- + Lith. Suf -yn + Lith. Suf -ėlis → a pleasant forest of birches → Beržynlis. Beržẽliai was motivated by the same concept, Lith. Suf -elis, which in this case is probably associated with smallness (Urbutis ibid.). It should also be noted that the name is a plural form. Therefore, considering all the evidence, the conceptualisation model could be: Lith. berž- + Lith. Suf -eliai → a forest of low/newly planted birches → Beržẽliai. The manifestation of the Slavonic languages is encrypted in Boras (Šlčn D). The name is derived from Rus. бор ‘conifer forest, pine forest’, or Bel. бор ‘clean, old, pine forest’, or Pol. bor ‘pine forest, forest’ (LVŽ III: 538). In all cases, the name bears the concept of the pine tree. Therefore, it could be conceptualized as: Rus. Бор / Bel. Бор / Pol. bor → a pine forest → Boras. Bruknỹnė (Šlčn D) is another example of berries spread in the territory and is related to Lith. bruknỹnė, bruknýnas ‘a place where lingonberries grow, where there are many lingonberries’ (LVŽ I: 574). Therefore, the name is just a transfer of the dominating berry species in the forest: Lith. bruknỹnė, bruknýnas → a forest where lingonberries grow → Bruknỹnė.3 Drebulỹnė (V D) is associated with Lith. drebulýnas, drebulỹnė ‘a forest full of trees with trembling leaves, (Populus tremula), an aspen’ (LVŽ II: 324). The name directly transmits which tree species are spread in the area, and, therefore, the conceptualisation model is: drebulỹnė → an aspen forest → Drebulỹnė. Eglýnas (V D, Šlčn D) and Eglynlis (Švnč D) may be analysed in a group too. Both are associated with Lith. eglýnas, eglỹnė ‘a fir forest’ (LVŽ II :464). Even though the drymonyms share the same base lexeme, they may slightly differ in meaning. The motivation of Eglýnas is rather transparent: Lith. eglýnas → a fir forest → Eglýnas. However, there is more to discuss in terms of Eglynlis, as its diminutive formed with Lith. Suf -ėlis4 should be related to the concept of smallness. The small size of the forest could have served as a marker for this name. Also, it may be plausible that the name was coined with reference to the size of fir trees at that time, i.e., firs might have been rather low, newly planted. Consequently, the following conceptual model could have been employed to 3 It should be noted that both Avietỹnė and Bruknỹnė are forests in the vicinity of which there are villages of the same names, cf. Avietỹnė x Avietỹnė and Bruknỹnė x Bruknỹnė; however, these names were not omitted from the list of the onyms under investigation as we firmly believe that drymonyms were the sources of oikonym motivation. The berries are spread in the wooded areas. Therefore, the villages were unlikely to be built in the territories where these berries grow. A more convincing theory is that these berries grow in the forests, and only later did the villages established here gain their names. 4 Cf. Urbutis 2009: 330. Straipsniai / Articles 161 Manifestation of Physis in Vilnius County Drymonymy motivate a drymonym: Lith. eglyn- + Lith. Suf -ėlis → a small forest of (low/ newly planted) firs → Eglynlis. Júodgiris (Ukm D) is probably from Lith. júodgiris, júodgirė ‘coniferous (spruce, pine), forest’ (LVŽ IV: 212). The name transfers the concept of the area’s most dominant species of trees – conifers: Lith. júodgiris, júodgirė → a coniferous forest → Júodgiris. An interesting case is Liepãberžis (Šlčn D), which is a composite onym that comprises two lexemes. The first is associated with Lith. lepa ‘a linden’ and the second – with Lith. béržas ‘a birch’. The name clearly states that the dominant species in the forest are both lindens and birches. The conceptualisation could be illustrated as: lepa + béržas → a forest of lindens and birches → Liepãberžis. Liepýnas (El D) is from Lith. liepýnas ‘a place covered with lindens, a linden forest’ (LKŽe). The name directly describes the location covered with lindens; therefore, it is conceptualised as: Lith. liepýnas → a forest of lindens → Liepýnas. Names as Pušýnas (Šr D), Pušynlis (Ukm D), and Didžióji Pušs (Švnč D) are linked by the same base lexeme Lith. puš-, but just as the examples analyzed above, they slightly differ in meaning. For instance, Pušýnas is from Lith. pušýnas ‘pine forest’ (LKŽe), where the root of the name is conceptualized as: Lith. pušýnas → a pine forest → Pušýnas. Pušynlis, similarly to the already presented drymonyms, is most probably associated with the concept of smallness due to Lith. Suf -ėlis5, and it may follow this model of conceptualization: Lith. puš- + Lith. Suf -yn- + Lith. Suf -ėlis → a small/pleasant pine forest → Pušynlis. Lastly, attention should be drawn to a compound name Didžióji Pušs, where Lith. didỹsis, cf. ddis, -, -ė, -ė, didžià stand for ‘notable for its volume, large’ (LKŽe). This drymonym signifies a large pine in the forest which served as a marker for the location. Therefore, the exceptional size of a pine tree should have been encrypted in the name. Consider the conceptualization model: Lith. didžióji + Lith. pušs → a forest with a huge pine tree → Didžióji Pušs. The last in this category is Šermukšnỹnė (Ukm D). It is another example of the conceptualization of the dominant tree species and is derived from Lith. šermukšnỹnė ‘a place where many rowan trees grow’ (LKŽe). Its conceptualization model is: šermukšnỹnė → a forest of rowans → Šermukšnỹnė. At first sight, the meanings of these drymonyms seem to be transparent. It isclear which concepts motivated the process of nomination. The concept of vegetation reveals the most common tree or other plant species in a particular forest. They shed some light on such details as the size or possible age of the forest at the time it was named. Finally, these drymonyms expose the emotional 5 Cf. Urbutis 2009: 330. ALISA STUNŽAITĖ 162 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVII value of trees to the national worldview. It is believed that every tree in the ancient Lithuanian culture was related to the manifestation of different deities, the most common types were oaks, lindens, birches, and pines (Klimka 2011; Vaitkevičius 2013). The concept of vegetation species served as the motivating factor for 21 drymonyms now functioning in Vilnius County. 1.2. Drymonyms Reflecting the Forest Type The concept of the forest type seems to be the second most productive source for the conceptualization of drymonyms in the physis domain. Even though some meanings seem rather obvious, they reveal certain peculiarities of the woody locations they name. Atžalýnas (Ukm D) is derived from Lith. appellative atžalýnas ‘a place where many offspring grow; young forest’ (LVŽ I: 213). The concept of newly-planted trees is employed: Lith. atžalýnas → a young forest → Atžalýnas. Girià (V D, Ukm D), Girẽlė (V D, V D, El D, Švčn D), and Girelka (Šr D) are derived from the same base lexeme Lith. gir-. Girià was motivated by Lith. girià ‘big forest’ (LVŽ III: 198), its conceptualization is presented as follows: Lith. girià → big forest → Girià. The drymonym Girẽlė in all cases should have been influenced by the appellative Lith. girià, which is a big forest, but Lith. Suf -elė signifies the concept of smallness. However, the forest could not be big and small simultaneously. Thereby, it should be more logical to associate the Suf -elė with the meaning of pleasure (Ubrutis 2009: 310). Thus, the name should have been conceptualized as: Lith. gir- + Lith. Suf -elė → a plesant forest → Girẽlė. The conceptualization model of Girelka is influenced by the Slavonic Suf -ka/-ка, which is usually used in the diminutive forms expressing the concept of smallness or pleasure (cf. Voronina 2012: 15). As in Girẽlė, the semantic charge of the small size seems illogical, it is probable that the Suf expresses the concept of pleasure: Lith. gir- + Lith. Suf -el + Slav. Suf -ka/-ка → a pleasant forest → Girelka. The last name in this group also serves as a toponymic monument transmitting the influence of the Slavonic languages on the national worldview. Gõjus (El D, Šr D) is formed with the help of the Slavonic root гaй, Lith. gõjus ‘a small, beautiful forest, grove’ (LKŽe; LVŽ III: 237). The concepts of smallness and pleasure are employed in the name. The following conceptualization is revealed: Slav. гaй → a small, beautiful forest → Gõjus. The Slavonic origin of the onym should not be left unnoticed, as it provides valuable information on the influence of the Slavonic languages on the Lithuanian lands. Straipsniai / Articles 163 Manifestation of Physis in Vilnius County Drymonymy Krmai (Šr D) could have originated from Lith. krmai ‘a young forest of small trees’ (LKŽe). The drymonym’s conceptualization could be: Lith. krmai → a forest of young and small trees → Krmai. The influence of the Slavonic languages is observed in Maladakas (Šlčn D), which could be associated with Slav. lexemes, i.e., Rus. Молод, -а (BTSe); Bel. молада (Skarnik.by); in both cases, the concept of youth is observed. However, Rus. Молод, -а also stresses the meaning of ‘something that has recently appeared, began to exist or grow’ (BTSe). At this point, the transfer of the young forest could be observed. Therefore, it may have the following conceptualization model: Rus. Молод, -а; Bel. молада → a forest of recently planted trees → Maladakas. Medelýnas (Ukm D) is related to Lith. medelýnas ‘a place for growing trees and fruit trees, arboretum’ (LKŽe). This naming signifies that fruit trees possibly cover the territory and are grown there. The concept is transferred as: Lith. medelýnas → a forest of trees/fruit trees → Medelýnas. Samãnis (El D) could be associated with Lith. samãnis ‘living in moss, made of moss’ (LKŽe). The drymonym conceptualizes the vegetation which probably covers the land and trees in the forest: Lith. samãnis → a forest covered with moss → Samãnis. Tañkmiškis (Trak D) is a compound name formed from two Lith. lexemes tánkus ‘consisting of closely spaced equal parts, dense’ and Lith. mškas ‘a place covered with trees, a forest’ (LKŽe). The semantic load the name carries signifies that the forest could be characterized by its luxuriant vegetation. Therefore, the name is conceptualized as: Lith. tánkus + Lith. mškas → a forest with dense vegetation → Tañkmiškis. There is no doubt that these onyms were semantically motivated. They reveal the concepts of size, vegetation density, beauty, and age of the forest. In total, this passage contains 15 drymonyms, the majority of which are of Lithuanian origin (12), two are influenced by the Slavonic languages, and one is a contaminated drymonym which contains a Slavonic inflexion. The influence of the languages spoken in the neighbouring countries is inevitable, as Lithuania has a shared history with Slavonic cultures. 1.3. Drymonyms Reflecting Landscape Names which reflect the landscape character of a particular territory are presented in this chapter. It would be worthwhile to refer to Aleksandras Vanagas (1981: 20), who stated that all landscape peculiarities have specific names. Therefore, hydronyms which acquired their names from those peculiarities are ALISA STUNŽAITĖ 170 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVII models, it should have reflected the species in the forest or surroundings. However, if there were any reasons to transfer the concept of a fish into the forest, the conceptualization model would be: Lith. kárpis → a forest where carps live in the ponds, rivers → Kárpių mškas. It is also possible to take a look at the drymonym Lapẽli mškas (Šr D), which could have been motivated by Lith. PN Lapẽlis, which was not found in the district under investigation,15 yet it does exist in the territory of Lithuania. Therefore, the possessive bonds may be revealed: Lith. PN Lapẽlis → a forest owned by Lapẽlis → Lapẽlių mškas. The appellative nature of the onym should not be overruled, as it may have been associated with Lith. lapẽlis, which is diminutive for Lith. lãpas ‘a leaf’ (LKŽe), the ground for such a motivation may have been the type of trees in the forest: Lith. lapẽlis → a deciduous forest → Lapẽlių mškas. However, the drymonym could also be related to Lith. lãpė ‘a fox’, and if this version is presented, the name of the forest should reflect the fact that there are foxes in the forest: Lith. lãpė + Lith. Suf -elis → a forest where foxes live → Lapẽlių mškas. CONCLUSIONS To sum up the analysis of the drymonyms of present-day Vilnius County, several conclusions could be drawn: 1. The domain of physis is a relatively productive motivation source; 65 out of 787 drymonyms were conceptualized through the imagery of physis. 2. Drymonyms under investigation fall into two groups, those of clear semantics and motivation and those of obscure semantics and motivation. A. The manifestation of physis in the group of clear semantics and motivation is perceived through such concepts as a) dominating vegetation (21), b) the forest type (15), c) the peculiarities of the landscape (17), and e) fauna (9). B. The group of drymonyms of obscure semantics and motivation contains onyms which a) are ambiguous due to the polysemy of the motivating concept (1), b) are either of the appellative and/or proper name nature (5), and c) are motivated either by a polysemous appellative or by proper nouns (3). 3. The analysis of the drymonyms presented above demonstrates the significance of the physis on the national worldview. Drymonyms, which at 15 Cf. PDBe. Straipsniai / Articles 171 Manifestation of Physis in Vilnius County Drymonymy first sight do not carry any semantic charge, reveal what biological diversity and topographic relief are common to the region and transmit what was truly important for the population of that time. ABBREVIATIONS Bel. – Belarusian; cf. – compare; D – district; El– Elektrnai; et al. – and others; Lith. – Lithuanian; PN – personal name; Pol. – Polish; Pref – prefix; Rus. – Russian; Slav. – Slavonic; Suf – suffix; Šlčn – Šačininkai; Šr – Šrvintos; Švčn – Švenčiónys; tn – town; Trak – Trãkai; Ukm – Ukmerg; V – Vlnius. DRYMONYM SOURCES GP – Lietuvos erdvinės informacijos portalas [Portal of Spacial Information of Lithuania]. Available at: https://www. geoportal.lt/geoportal/. LMV – Lietuvos miškų vardynas, d. 1, Kaunas: Lietuvos miškininkų sąjunga, 1994. LVŽ I – Lietuvos vietovardžių žodynas 1 (A–B), red. kolegija L. Balode, V. Blažek, G. Blažienė, V. Kardelis, A. Ragauskaitė, S. Temčinas, J. Udolph, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla, 2008. LVŽ II – Lietuvos vietovardžių žodynas 2 (C–F), aut. L. Bilkis, G. Blažienė, M. Norkaitienė, M. Razmukaitė, A. Ragauskaitė, D. Sviderskienė, atsak. red. L. Bilkis, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2014. LVŽ III – Lietuvos vietovardžių žodynas 3 (G–H), aut. V. Adamonytė, L. Bilkis, G. Blažienė, D. Kačinaitė-Vrubliauskienė, M. Norkaitienė, M. Razmukaitė, A. Ragauskaitė, D. Sviderskienė, atsak. red. L. Bilkis, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2018. LVŽ IV – Lietuvos vietovardžių žodynas 4 (I–J), aut. L. Bilkis, G. Blažienė, A. Ragauskaitė, D. Sviderskienė, atsak. red. L. Bilkis, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2021. LEXICOGRAPHIC SOURCES BTSe – Kuznecov Sergej A., ed., 2000: Кузнецов, Сергей А., peд. Большой толковый словарь русского языка [Bol’šoj tolkovyj slovar’ russkogo jazyka], СанктПетербург: Норинт [Sankt-Peterburg: Norint]. Available at: https://archive.org/ details/Bolshoy-tolkov-slovar-russkogo-yazyka-2000. LKŽe – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 1–20 (1941–2002), red. kolegija G. Naktinienė, J. Paulauskas, R. Petrokienė, V. Vitkauskas, J. Zabarskaitė, vyr. red. G. Naktinienė, e. variantas, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2005 (updated version, 2008 & 2018). Available at: https://ekalba.lt/lietuviu-kalbos-zodynas. ALISA STUNŽAITĖ 172 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVII PWN – Słownik języka polskiego, on-line version, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, 1997–2021. Available at: https://sjp.pwn.pl/. Skarnik.by – Mazok Aleg, Lit Serž, comp., 2015: Мазок Алег, Літ Серж, камп. Белорусско-русский словарь [Belorussko-russkij slovar’], e-version. Available at: https://www.skarnik.by/. REFERENCES Ainiala Terhi, Saarelma Minna, Sjöblom Paula 2016: Names in Focus. An Introduction to Finnish Onomastics Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society. Alford Richard 1988: Naming and Identity. a Cross-Cultural Study of Personal Naming Practices, New Haven: HRAF Press. Ambrazas Saulius 1995: Lietuvių kalbos kuopinių ir vardažodinių vietų pavadinimų darybos raida. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai. Gramatika ir leksikografija 33, 180–200. Beconytė Giedrė, Budrevičius Julius Donatas, Ciparytė Irena, Balčiūnas Andrius 2019: Plants and Animals in the Oikonyms of Lithuania. – Journal of Maps 15(2), 726–732. Berezovič Elena L. 1991: Березович, Елена Л. 1991: Сeмантические микросистемы топонимов как факт номинации [Semantičeskie mikrosistemy toponimov kak fakt nominacii]. – Вопросы ономастики [Voprosy onomastiki] 19, 75–90. Biryla Nikolaj V. 1969: Бiрыла, Николай В. Беларуская антрапанімія. Уласныя імёны, імёны-мянушкі, імёны па бацьку, прозвішчы [Belaruskaja antrapanimija. Ulasnyja imёny, imёny-mjanuški, imёny pa bac’ku, prozviščy], Мiнск: Навука тэхника [Minsk: Navuka tèxnika]. Dobrić Nicola 2010: Theory of Names and Cognitive Linguistics – the Case of the Metaphor. – Filozofia i društvo 21, 135–147. Fagúndez Jaime, Izco Jesús 2016: Diversity patterns of plant place names reveal connections with environmental and social factors. – Applied Geography 74, 23–29. Fong Mary, Rueyling Chuang 2004: Communicating Ethnic and Cultural Identity, United States of America: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc. Głaz Adam 2017: Worldview as Cultural Cognition. – LaMiCus 1(1), 34–53. Gun’ko Ol’ga G. 2015: Гунько, Ольга Г. Конфиксальные способы выражения топонимических значений [Konfiksal’nye sposoby vyraženija toponimičeskix značenij]. – Казанская наука [Kazanskaja nauka] 10, 175–177. Straipsniai / Articles 173 Manifestation of Physis in Vilnius County Drymonymy Guseva Ljudmila G. 1971: Гусева, Людмила Г. Географическая терминология Каргопольского края и её отражение в топонимике. [Geografičeskaja terminologija Kargopol’skogo kraja i eё otraženie v toponimike]. – Ученые записки УРГУ [Učenye zapiski URGU] 114(18), 86–98. Klimka Libertas 2011: Medžių mitologizavimas tradicinėje lietuvių kultūroje. – Acta humanitarica universitatis Saulensis 13, 18–39. Kniūkšta Petras 2004: Kompiuterinis lietuvių kalbos žinynas. Nuo morfologijos iki reikalų raštų, Vilnius: Šviesa. Kramsch Claire 1998: Language and Culture, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kratochvíl Zdeněk 2016: The Philosophy of Living Nature, transl. V. Paris, Prague: Charles University in Prague, Karolinum Press. Kripe Soul 1972: Naming and Necessity, Cambridge: MA Harvard University Press. Langendonck van Willy 2013: a Semantic-Pragmatic Theory of Proper Names. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 69, 99–130. Leino Antii 2011: Place-Names as Constructions. – Onoma: Journal of the International Council of Onomastic Sciences 41, 215–235. Mickienė Ilona, Bieliauskaitė Rimantė 2018: Radviliškio rajono drimonimų darybos aspektai. – Respectus Philologicus 33(38), 83–92. Mickienė Ilona, Rita Baranauskienė 2019: Pietų Aukštaitijos regiono toponimai, kilę iš asmenų pavadinimų. – Respectus Philologicus 36(41), 60–72. PDBe – Lietuvių kalbos instituto lietuvių kalbos išteklių informacinė sistema „E. kalba“: Pavardžių duomenų bazė [The Institute of the Lithuanian Language Informational System of the Lithuanian Language Resources: Surname database]. Available at: https://ekalba. lt/pavardziu-duomenu-baze/. Razmukaitė Marija 1998: Lietuvos priesaginiai oikonimai: daktaro disertacija, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas. Reszegi Katalina 2012: Cognitive approaches to Hungarian toponymy. – Onoma 47, 367–379. Rut Marija È. 2001: Рут, Мария Э. Антропонимы: размышления о семантике [Antroponimy: razmyšlenija o semantike]. – Известия Уральского государственного университета [Izvestija Ural’skogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta] 20, 59–64. Saparov Kalandar, Rasulov Anvar, Nizamov Asror 2021: Making Geographical Names Conditions and Reasons. – World Bulletin of Social Sciences 4, 95–99. ALISA STUNŽAITĖ 174 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVII Sire James 2015 : Naming the Elephant – Worldview as a Concept, 2nd Edition, Illinois: An imprint of InterVarsity Press. Skorupa Pavel 2019: Semantic Oppositions in Vilnius County Toponyms. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 81, 139–159. Skorupa Pavel 2021: Footprints of Language Contacts in the Present-day Vilnius County Hydronyms and Oikonyms: the Impact of Slavic Languages on Lithuanian Toponymy. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 85, 219–243. Skorupa Pavel 2021a: Vilnius County Toponyms as Signs of National and Cultural Identity, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Sousa Arturo Martin, Garcia-Murillo Pablo 2001: Can place names be used as indicators of landscape changes? Application to the Donana Natural Park (Spain). – Landscape Ecology 16(5), 391–406. Sviderskienė Dalia 2016: Sudurtinių Marijampolės apskrities helonimų motyvacija. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 75, 243–273. Sviderskienė Dalia 2017: Sudėtinių Marijampolės apskrities helonimų motyvacija. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 77, 78–102. Sviderskienė Dalia 2019: Priesaginių Marijampolės apskrities helonimų motyvacija. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 81, 110–140. Sviderskienė Dalia 2022: Utenos apskrities Anykščių valsčiaus (1935–1937) helonimų motyvacija. – Lituanistica 68, 1(127), 43–65. Ter-Minasova Svetlana G. 2000: Тер-Минасова, Светлана Г. Язык и межкультурная коммуникация [Jazyk i mežkul’turnaja komunikacija], Москва: Слово [Moskva: Slovo]. Ullmann Stephen 1969: Words and Their Use, London: F Muller. Urbutis Vincas 2009: Žodžių darybos teorija, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Vaitkevičius Vykintas 2013: Gamta ir Kultūra: šventos Viekšnių pušys. – Viekšniai. Istorija ir Kultūra, 69–101. Vanagas Aleksandras 1981: Lietuvių hidronimų semantika. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 21, 4–153. Vasil’eva Svetlana P. 2007: Васильева, Светлана П. Ментальный образ природы в топонимии Приангарья [Mental’nyj obraz prirody v toponimii Priangar’ja]. – Вестник КГПУ им. В. П. Астафьева [Vestnik KGPU im. V. P. Astaf’eva] 3, 96–104. Straipsniai / Articles 175 Manifestation of Physis in Vilnius County Drymonymy Vitkūnas Mantvydas 2009: Medžioklė XIII–XIV a. (tyrinėjimų Pietryčių Lietuvoje duomenimis). – Istorija 76, 3–17. VLEe – Visuotinė lietuvių enciklopedija [Universal Lithuanian Encyclopedia]. Available at: https://www.vle.lt. Voronina Ljudmila P. 2012: Воронина, Людмила П. Семантика и прагматика деминутивных суффиксов в русском языке [Semantika i pragmatika deminutivnyx suffiksov v russkom jazyke]. – Вестник Томского государственного университета [Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta] 359, 15–17. William Keith, Chambers Guthrie 1965: a History of Greek philosophy – The Presocratic Tradition from Permenides to Democritus 2, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gamtos apraiškos Vilniaus apskrities drimonimijoje SANTRAUKA Šio tyrimo objektas yra gamtos sąvokomis motyvuoti Vilniaus apskrities drimonimai. Iš 787 atrinktų vardų, funkcionuojančių šių dienų Vilniaus apskrityje, 65-iuose yra įprasminti gamtos konceptai. Į tyrimo lauką nepateko drimonimai, kurių motyvacija siejama su apylinkėse esančiomis gyvenvietėmis ar hidronimais. Iš viso tokių vardų yra 577. Taigi galima teigti, kad gamtos konceptas yra gana turtingas drimonimų motyvacijos šaltinis. Aiškios semantikos ir motyvacijos drimonimai sudaro beveik 88 proc. nagrinėtų vardų, t. y. 57 vardai. Juose yra įprasminti dominuojančios augmenijos (21), paplitusios gyvūnijos (4), miško tipo (15) ir miško kraštovaizdžio (17) konceptai. Ne visai aiškios semantikos ir motyvacijos drimonimai yra nulemti motyvuojančių apeliatyvų polisemijos (1), motyvuojančios sąvokos apeliatyvinės arba tikrinės prigimties (4), o kai kuriais atvejais – abiejų (3). Tyrimas priklauso kognityvinės onomastikos paradigmai, todėl teigiama, kad visiems vardams yra būdinga semantinė įkrova. Vardų konceptualizavimas pateikiamas per šaltinio ir tikslo sritis, iš kurių šaltinis yra apeliatyvas, o tikslas – drimonimas, t. y. apeliatyvas → konceptualioji struktūra → drimonimas. Šis modelis – tai Nicolo Dobričiaus (2010) pasiūlyto modelio adaptacija, realizuota autoriaus moksliniuose darbuose apie kognityvinį vardų aspeką ir vėliau taikyta Lietuvos mokslininkų darbuose (žr. Skorupa 2021; 2021a). Neabejojama, kad toponimai atspindi žmonių pasaulėvaizdį, juose išlieka įprasminta tautos istorija, dvasinis ir materialus gyvenimas, buitis ir santykis su supančia aplinka ALISA STUNŽAITĖ 176 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVII (Mickienė, Baranauskienė 2019). Gamta yra vienas iš žmoniją supančių elementų, taigi toponimai, iš kurių ir drimonimai, ne tik gali atskleisti, bet ir atskleidžia žmogaus bei gamtos sąveikos duomenis. Gamtos tematika toponimijoje yra gana dažna: aptariami kraštovaizdžio pokyčių atspindžiai (Garcia-Murrilo 2001), toponimuose įprasminta vietovės biologinė įvairovė (Fagundez, Izco 2016), oikonimuose išlikę gyvosios gamtos objektai (Beconytė et al. 2019), į floros ir faunos elementą saugančius toponimus žvelgiama kaip į etninio ir kultūrinio tapatumo ženklus (Skorupa 2021). Vilniaus apskrities drimonimai iki šiol nebuvo tiriami gamtos konceptualizavimo aspektu, todėl šio tyrimo duomenys atskleis teritorinę biologinę įvairovę, kraštovaizdžio ypatumus bei dominuojančias augmenijos ir gyvūnijos rūšis, taip išryškindami šio regiono gamtinį pasaulėvaizdį. Įteikta 2022 m. rugpjūčio 23 d. ALISA STUNŽAITĖ Lietuvių kalbos institutas Petro Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius, Lietuva [email protected]