Motivation and semantics of the present-day Vilnius county toponym oppositions: the concept of the object’s position in space

254 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIV PAVEL SKORUPA Lietuvių kalbos institutas ORCID id: orcid.org/0000-0003-3903-7006 Fields of research: Toponymy, Cognitive Onomastics, Cognitive Semantics. DOI: doi.org/10.35321/all84-12 MOTIVATION AND SEMANTICS OF THE PRESENT-DAY VILNIUS COUNTY TOPONYM OPPOSITIONS: THE CONCEPT OF THE OBJECT’S POSITION IN SPACE Dabartinės Vilniaus apskrities toponimų opozicijų motyvacija ir semantika: objekto padėties erdvėje samprata ANNOTATION The article presents both synchronic and diachronic analysis of the motivation and semantics of the present-day Vilnius County lexical toponym oppositions based on the concept of position in space, esp. their relationship with other objects. The relative position of objects in space is characteristic of merely any class of toponyms: oikonyms, potamonyms, limnonyms, etc. At the lexical level, in both complete and incomplete lexical toponym oppositions, the ‘upper’ or ‘lower’ position of the objects is expressed by the antonymic correlation of pronominal adjectives Lith. aukštàsis ‘the high; higher’ – žemàsis ‘the low; lower’, simple adjectives Lith. áukštas ‘high’ – žẽmas ‘low’, and Lith. kalnnis ‘of the mountain/hill’ – klõninis ‘of the valley’. KEYWORDS: toponyms, synchronic and diachronic analysis, etymology, semantics, motivation, toponym lexical oppositions. Straipsniai / Articles 255 Motivation and semantics of the present-day Vilnius county toponym oppositions: the concept of the object’s position in space ANOTACIJA Straipsnyje pateikiama dabartinės Vilniaus apskrities toponimų, sudarančių leksines antonimines opozicijas, motyvacijos ir semantikos analizė tiek sinchroniškai, tiek diachroniškai, remiantis įvardijamų objektų padėties erdvėje požiūriu, t. y. jų santykiu su kitais objektais. Santykinė objektų padėtis erdvėje būdinga bet kuriai vietovardžių klasei: oikonimams, potamonimams, limnonimams ir kt. Leksiniame lygmenyje tiek pilnose, tiek nepilnose toponimų opozicijose objektų santykinė padėtis išreiškiama įvardžiuotinių būdvardžių formų aukštàsis – žemàsis ir paprastųjų būdvardžių formų áukštas – žẽmas bei kalnnis – klõninis antonimine koreliacija. ESMINIAI ŽODŽIAI: toponimai, sinchroninė ir diachroninė analizė, etimologija, semantika, motyvacija, toponimų leksinės opozicijos. 0. INTRODUCTION Since the emergence of toponyms, their main natural function has been the indication of a place (address), i.e., they were meant to provide information about the object itself and its relationship with other objects. Therefore, the representatives of many onomastic schools have been paying attention to the plethora of toponyms based on correlations, such as upper – lower, closer – further (near – far), old – new, big – small, wet – dry, etc., as well as a multitude of ‘coloured’ or ‘black-and-white’ place names in various toponymic classes. The problem of antonymy and opposition in toponymy has been dealt with by many onomasticians (cf. Superanskaja 1970; Korepanova 1973; Kondrashina 1980; Štěpán 2009; Ahundova 2011; Tkachenko 2003, 2013, 2014; Hontsa 2014; Bukharova et al. 2016; Ilchenko, Isachuk 2016; Gataullin, Fatykhova 2018; Stachowski 2018), who claim that the antonymic relationships between place names of different classes are typical to most territories. In Lithuania, however, toponym oppositions still do not receive due attention. The first attempts to look into the problem of opposition and antonymy in regional toponymy were made by Pavel Skorupa (2019). This adds to the relevance of the current research, as the motivation and semantic studies of Lithuanian regional toponymy, esp. toponymy of the present-day Vilnius County, are still incomplete. The above-mentioned scholars believe that such nomination patterns are not only of a great importance in the designation of geographical objects, but also play a key role in the formation of the national onomasticon, as such formal and semantic sequences of toponyms are formed taking into consideration both linguistic and extralinguistic conditions in the area under investigation. Thus, PAVEL SKORUPA 256 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIV the analysis of structural-semantic oppositions in toponymy may at least to a certain extent help identify and explain many motivating factors that had led to the origins of toponyms and may help to establish the principles of nomination of toponymic units in Lithuanian lands. However, plenty of logical questions arise before plunging into the tremendous variety of simple, derived, compound, and composite place names of Vilnius County, e.g., Can toponyms express the antonymic relations in general? What elements in the names of geographic objects create the opposite semantic meaning? What categories do such toponyms create? What linguistic or extralinguistic factors determined the origins of such names? etc. The object of the current research is present-day Vilnius County toponym oppositions (both settlement and non-settlement names) based on the concept of the named object’s relative position in space. The aim of the present paper is to examine motivation and semantics of constituent parts of toponyms with the homogeneous name lexemes and antonymic differentiating markers. Research Material and Sources. The main body of the research comprises toponym oppositions based on the concept of the named object’s relative position in space selected from the corpus of 5126 present-day Vilnius County toponyms1 collected by the author in the period from 2018 to 2020. The investigation is based on toponyms and the actual data collected from various modern electronic, printed and manuscript (archival) sources (see Toponym Sources and References). These materials complement each other, help to derive and substantiate sound etymological (including toponym motivation) versions, and form the basis of the research. Toponyms are investigated both synchronically and diachronically. 1. THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK 1.1. Concept of Opposition in Toponymy Antonymic relationships exist in merely every class of toponyms – oikonyms, hydronyms, microtoponyms (names of ravines, floodplains, ridges, tracts, capes, 1 3900 settlement (city, town, village, railway stations with a settlement) names, 718 lake names, 362 river and stream names, and 146 pond names. Straipsniai / Articles 257 Motivation and semantics of the present-day Vilnius county toponym oppositions: the concept of the object’s position in space islands, etc.) – and is expressed by means of binary oppositions2, i.e., pairs of related place names that are opposite in meaning. According to Nataliya Podolskaja (1978: 40), a binary opposition in toponymy is the opposition or contrast of two related objects to distinguish them by means of names with the same base lexemes and antonymic differentiating markers (elements). As observed by Vera Kondrashina (1980: 29), sometimes the opposition may be formed by more than two members, one or several of which may have no differentiating marker, i.e., may have a clear base. The identification of antonyms or (binary) oppositions in toponymy, therefore, is the identification of the dependent uses of toponyms that make up the simplest microsystem (Tkachenko 2014: 68). This means that antonymic toponyms (toponymic antonyms) are typically examined in a toponymic context and explained by the correlation of objects that are limited both linguistically and geographically, i.e., spatialy. Most often toponyms that form the oppositional (antonymic) relationship are within the boundaries of a certain territory, i.e., in close proximity to each another, reflecting the relativity of the location of the objects they designate and, thus, create a certain (micro)system (cf. Štěpán 2009; Tkachenko 2003, 2013, 2014; Ilchenko, Isachuk 2016). Therefore, antonymic pairs in regional toponymy (hydronymy, oikonymy, etc.) are purely contextual and are limited by the hydronymic, oikonymic, or any other (micro)system they create within their own class3: limnonym × lymnonym, potamonym × potamonym, oikonym × oikonym, oronym × oronym, drimonym × drimonym, etc. As maintained in the onomastic literature (Kondrashina 1980: 29–35; Štěpán 2009: 915–919; Tkachenko 2003: 58–60; 2013: 399–404; 2014: 67– 69; Ilchenko, Isachuk 2016: 100–101 and others), antonymic relationships in toponymy are created by both composite (complex) and compound names4, 2 The concept of binary oppositions in language was first proposed in Ferdinand de Saussure’s structuralism theory, under the framework of which the binary opposition is a pair of related terms or concepts that are opposite in their meaning. According to de Saussure (1959: 53ff.), (binary) opposition is a means by which language units have value or meaning, i.e., each language unit is defined in relation to another unit. This is not by any means a contradictory (i.e., relationship of negations) but rather a structural, complementary relationship. Therefore, the meaning of the linguistic unit is not absolute, but rather relative (contextual) and may be derived from both syntagmatic (contextual) and paradigmatic (group) relationships of the unit. 3 Hereinafter, the correlation of onyms forming the opposition will be marked with “×”. 4 In Lithuanian toponomastics, the studies of both composite and compound toponyms were carried out in works by Renata Endzelytė (2005), Nerija Bartkutė (2008), Dalia Kačinaitė (2008), Marija Razmukaitė (1998, 2002, 2003, 2009), Dalia Sviderskienė (2006, 2006a, 2007), Aleksandras Vanagas (1970) and others. The key focus of these studies is on the toponyms of various classes derivation models, from the perspective of toponym-formation and origin. Certain PAVEL SKORUPA 258 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIV based on the correlation of lexical and/or grammatical differentiating attributes or differentiating markers5, which are used as preor post-modifiers to distinguish between two identical name lexemes. In composite toponyms, the opposite relationship is formed when the common component of opposition members (the identical part of names) is modified with an autonomous DM, usually the qualifying adjectives of size, age, horizontal or vertical position in space, colour, etc. with antonymic relationships, such as big – small (also, great – small), old – new, upper – lower (sometimes – middle), further – closer, black – white, etc. In compound toponyms, the opposite relationship is created by names that share a common lexeme and a lexeme (usually the first element of a compound name), whose role is similar to a DM that creates an opposite (antonymic) relation between the opposition members. DMs in both composite and compound toponyms, according to Pavel Štěpán (2009: 915–917), create antonymic semantic relationships that fall into categories, based on the concepts of extent, position, age, owner, colour, etc. of the designated object. In the majority of cases, oppositions in toponymy are motivated by a variety of extralinguistic factors, determined by the needs of the society at a certain stage of its development, namely to express the relationship of new names to existing ones with the help of linguistic means (Ilchenko, Isachuk 2016: 101). In addition, they reflect various spheres of human activities, including, but not limited to, territorial and natural-geographic features of human life, as well as cognition (Ilchenko, Isachuk 2016; Gataullin, Fatykhova 2018). Therefore, it may be claimed that such constructions in the broadest sense are the product of both historical and cultural development of a nation. Yevgeniy Tkachenko (2014: 68) maintains that not all onomasticians acknowledge the existence of antonyms at the level of proper names due to the fact that names with etymologically antonymic lexemes form a single onomastic sequence and the objective correlation of names is more important than their conceptual aspect, whereas in appellatival antonyms this phenomenon is strictly conceptual, as the correlation of apellatives is restored only through the correlation of concepts. Nevertheless, two distinct categories of toponymic antonyms resp. oppositions, which are structurally similar to appellatival antonyms, can be aspects of antonymy in the class of hydronyms were observed in Vanagas (1981a). The diversity of Lithuanian place names with the pronominal forms of adjectives Lith. áukštas, aukštà ‘high’ was discussed in Razmukaitė (2003a). 5 The terms “differentiating attribute” and “differentiating marker” are used synonymously by the mentioned researchers of oppositions in toponymy. Therefore, for the sake of language economy and in order to avoid the use of multiple synonymous terms, hereinafter, we will use the term “differentiating marker” (hereinafter, DM). Straipsniai / Articles 259 Motivation and semantics of the present-day Vilnius county toponym oppositions: the concept of the object’s position in space pointed out, i.e., lexical and grammatical toponymic antonyms. Lexical toponymic antonyms are formed by homogeneous name lexemes (roots; hereinafter, HNL) in both compound and composite names6. Grammatical toponymic antonyms are formed by HNLs marked with different affixes that are opposite in meaning. Both lexical and grammatical toponymic oppositions, according to their types, can be either complete or incomplete, as pointed out in the onomastic literature (cf. Korepanova 1973: 31; Kondrashina 1980: 30–32; Tkachenko 2013: 400– 404; 2014: 68–69; Ilchenko, Isachuk 2016: 100–102 and others). The complete opposition presents the complete antonymic expression of the constituent parts in all names forming the opposition, i.e., identical name lexemes are marked with a certain DM (a suffix, prefix, or any other composite element). The incomplete opposition presents an incomplete antonymic expression of the constituent parts in one of the names in opposition, i.e., one of the names is clear/unmarked with a DM (a suffix, prefix, autonomous word, etc.). 1.2. Research Methods and Limitations Research methods. With reference to the theories of Cognitive Linguistics and Cognitive Onomastics as well as the traditional onomastic research models, the linguistic research and the semantic classification of motivating concepts of Vilnius County toponym oppositions is based on the etymological, derivational, and semantic analyses of both the DMs and HNLs of toponyms. The etymological analysis is based on works of Kazimieras Būga (1958, 1959, 1961), Jonas Jurkštas (1985), Marija Razmukaitė (1998, 2002, 2003, 2009, etc.), Aleksandras Vanagas (1970, 1981, 1981a, 1996), and others, as well as various lexicographic sources (Lithuanian, Russian, Polish, etc. dictionaries). The composition analysis of toponym oppositions is based on the structuralgrammatical classification of water names proposed by Vanagas (1970: 21– 27). In order to determine the motivation of selected toponyms, the semantic classification of hydronyms proposed by Vanagas (1981b: 19–120) is applied. Both Vanagas’ classifications are believed to be easily adapted to the study of various classes of toponyms (not just hydronyms). 6 This also can be observed in Lithuanian toponymy among both compound names, cf.: oikonyms Senãdvaris × Naujãdvaris, and composite names, cf.: limnonyms Ìlma Didžióji × Ìlma Mažóji or oikonyms Seneji Miežiόnys × Naujeji Miežiόnys, etc. In the compound oikonyms the antonymic relationship is formed by the semantics of the lexemes (name roots) in pre-position Lith. sẽnas ‘old’ and naũjas ‘new’, whereas in the case of composite names the antonymy is expressed by the DM (autonomous words) in preor post-position to the homogeneous name lexemes. PAVEL SKORUPA 260 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIV According to the known theories of Cognitive Onomastics (Coates 2006, 2012, 2015, 2016; Van Langendonck 2007, 2013, 2016, 2017; Brendler 2016; Slíz 2017; Sjöblom 2011 and others), all onyms have meaning. Therefore, toponym (sub)classes are analyzed according to the concepts that motivated their origin, based on the conceptual metaphor model, i.e., transfer of cognitive traits (concepts) from one domain to another (from appellatives/proper names to onyms): source domain (appellative) → conceptual structure (cognitive trait) → target domain (onym) (cf. Kövecses 2002; Lakoff, Johnson 2003; Dobrić 2010). The transfer of semantic and conceptual structures from one conceptual domain to another is of great importance for the creation of onymic prototypes: transferring the meaning of an appellative to an onym, or using a place name to designate a person, thereby indicating the place where the person was born (Dobrić 2010: 139–141), or transfering the personal name to the oikonym, thus, expressing the concept of possessivity (i.e., indicating the relationship of belonging), etc. It is noteworthy that the analysis of onyms under the framework of conceptual metaphor is not etymological analysis but rather an attempt to determine how the conceptual structure of words has motivated and still motivates their creation. In addition to the linguistic analysis, to understand the semantics and motivation of the DMs in lexical toponym oppositions, the extralinguistic (geographical, historical, socio-cultural) data, esp. the named object’s relation to the neighbouring object (hills, valleys, rivers, settlements, etc.) and its position in the terrain (including the position above the sea level – MSL7) was considered. Research Limitations. The current research is limited to the analysis of 21 toponyms forming 10 toponym oppositions (see Appendix) based on the correlation of autonomous words as DMs of toponyms with HNL, taking into consideration motivation and semantics of toponyms’ constituent parts, focusing on the named object’s relative ‘upper’ – ‘lower’ position in space. The selection of such toponym oppositions was limited by the factor of distance. Researchers of oppositions in regional toponymy (cf. Korepanova, 1973; Štěpán, 2009; Ahundova, 2011; Tkachenko, 2003, 2013, 2014; Stachowski, 2018 and others) observe that the toponym oppositions, the correlation of the additional features of which is either semantically antonymic or not, are only possible in 7 MSL – meters above sea level. In the current research, this information was obtained using object elevation measurement tools on GP and UETK websites. Of course, it is unlikely that at the time of nomination the information about the position of the object above the sea level was known. People most probably simply considered the position of the object in relation to other neighbouring objects in the specific location, regarding the relief of the given area. Straipsniai / Articles 261 Motivation and semantics of the present-day Vilnius county toponym oppositions: the concept of the object’s position in space a certain (micro)system, i.e., in a certain territory, since such names actually correlate with each other. Hence, we believe the distance of up to 20 ± 5 km is the maximum distance to consider two or more correlating toponyms an opposition8. In this research, the distance between the objects (oikonym, potamonym, limnonym, etc.) was measured using the distance measuring tools (a straight line) on GP and UETK web sites (see Toponym Sources). All the toponyms that form oppositions are within the borders of Vilnius County. 2. MOTIVATION AND SEMANTICS OF LEXICAL TOPONYM OPPOSITIONS It is observed in toponymy studies that the differentiating adjectives indicating the ‘upper’ – ‘lower’ toponym’s position in space, esp. in oikonymy, usually indicate either 1) the position of the named object in relation to the river flow with the meaning either ‘located in the lower part of the river’, i.e., downstream – close to the mouth of the river, or ‘located in the upper part of the river’, i.e., upstream – close to the source of the river, or 2) the location of the object on the hill/mountain, or at the foot of the hill/mountain (cf. Kondrashina 1980, Tkachenko 2013, Ilchenko, Isachuk 2016). In Lithuanian toponymy the position of the objects in space is most often expressed by: 1) the correlation of simple adjectives Lith. m s áukštas, f s aukštà ‘high’ – m s žẽmas, f s žemà ‘low’; Lith. m pl kalnniai ‘of the mountains/hills’ – klóniniai ‘of the valleys’9; 2) the correlation of pronominal adjectives10 Lith. m s aukštàsis, f s aukštóji ‘the high; higher’ – žemàsis, žemóji ‘the low; lower’; Lith. m 8 This is in line with Kamil Stachowski’s (2018: 201) observation about the distance one can regularly travel, esp. on foot, from one location to another and back within one day. 9 The simple adjectives Lith. klõninis and kalnnis are respectively derived from the nomenclature terms Lith. klónis / klõnis ‘valley, dip, lowland, ravine’ and kálnas ‘high natural ground elevation; hill, mountain’ (LKŽe). 10 In the modern Lithuanian language, pronominal forms of adjectives express the category of definiteness, and, therefore, sometimes, may be considered an equivalent to the English definite article. These adjectives have a variety of purposes, one of which is the distinguishing of known objects in terms of the spatial, temporal, physical, and other qualities by: a) the comparison of the higher degree of the known quality, b) any property of one object opposite to another (typically, albeit not always, when no more than two objects are opposed), and c) some peculiar, individual feature not inherent in other objects of that kind. The same purposes of the pronominal adjectives are used to distinguish objects within the class of proper names (DLKG 174–177). It has to be noted that in almost all cases, there is a possibility to use a simple adjective to modify the object, however, the meaning will be completely different. PAVEL SKORUPA 262 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIV pl aukšteji – žemeji, f pl áukštosios - žẽmosios. Such oppositions are typical to the mountainous areas neighbouring with lowlands and convey certain information about the relief of a given area. In the sections below, toponyms are presented in the alphabetical order, listing both linguistic and extralinguistic data (toponym class, localization, historical forms of the name), available at the time of writing, followed by the analysis (etymology and motivation) and discussion of the opposition. The current forms of analyzed toponyms are italicized and, where possible, stressed. 2.1. Bezdónystn × Bezdónysv × Aukšteji Bezdónysv Bezdónys – Bezdónys eld, V D; located 138 MSL, at the hillfoot on the right bank valley of the Bezdonė (the Ners trib.), 6 km southeast of Nemenčnė; GSD1974 728 Bezdonystn, GI1905 58 Rus. ст.[анция] Безданы, д.[еревня] Безданы, REM1872 Rus. Безданы. Bezdónys – Bezdónys eld, V D; 137 MSL, at the hillfoot on the left bank valley of the Bezdonė, 1 km from the town; GSD1974 728 Bezdonysv, GI1905 58 Rus. с.[еление] Безданы, им.[ение] Безданы, REM1872 Rus. Госп. [одский] д.[вор] Безданы. Aukšteji Bezdónys – Bezdónys eld, V D; 143 MSL, in the hills in Rõkantiškės forest, 6 km east of Bezdónys; GSD1974 728 Aukštieji Bezdonysv, GI1905 58 Rus. з.[астенок] Безданолѣсье, Безданолѣсъ, REM1872 Rus. з.[астенок] Безданайцы. The oikonym Bezdónys is Lith. suff. -onys derivative from the Bezdonė11 stream. This derivation model of the above oikonyms from the hydronym 11 The potamonym Bezdonė (LKIVK Bezdonė, Bezdanka; the Vlnia trib.) is most probably of Slav. origin and may be related to Rus. бездонный, - ая ‘bottomless; (figurative) extremely deep (← Rus. бездна)’ (Slovar.cc, SRYAe), or Pol. bezdenny ‘deep, bottomless’, bezdeń ‘whirlpool: a rapidly rotating mass of water in a river into which objects may be drawn’ (PSPR 34), Bel. бездань, бяздонне ‘abyss, deep place’ (Skarnik.by). According to Jurkštas (1985: 19), the rivername Bezdonė is not authentic. The scholar believes that the authentic form of Bezdónys might have been *Bedugniai, derived from the similar hydronym: in the source of 1516 the potamonym is written as Besdenayta, Besdanayta, Besdonayta, the suff. of which corresponds to Lith. -ait(ė), thus, the name might have been *Bedugnaitė, derived from hydronym (either lake, or swamp) *Bedugnis, -ė and related to Lith. bedùgnė ‘great depth’ (LKŽe) (also, cf. LVŽ I 466). According to Vykintas Vaitkevičius, the stream was earlier called the Juodupis: “z Bezdan – Jodupis, 1784 m., TVD 382” (Vaitkevičius 2012: 111). Taking its beginning in the wet lawns between Paskyna and Rõkantiškės forests, the stream flows into the swampy Bezdónys fishing pond and through Bezdónys forests, retaining the primeval valley, which full of sloughs, ditches, debris,fallen trees, natural dams. Whether authentic Straipsniai / Articles 269 Motivation and semantics of the present-day Vilnius county toponym oppositions: the concept of the object’s position in space near the barn(s) into the oikonym: svinas, -ai → the place near the barn(s) or where the barn(s) are/were located → (Aukšteji / Žemeji) Svirna. The DMs of both oikonyms are motivated not only by the settlements’ vertical position in space, but also by their position in relation to the river flow16. 2.10. Áukštosios Viẽsosv × Žẽmosios Viẽsosv Áukštosios Viẽsos – Šrvintos eld, Šr D; 111 MSL, on the left bank upstream the Širvintà (the Šventóji trib.) at its confluence with the Viesà, 6,5 km from Širvintos; GSD1974 587 Aukštosios Viesosv, GI1905 78 Rus. д.[еревня] ВѣсыГорные, REM1872 Rus. з.[астенок] Весы. Žẽmosios Viẽsos – Šrvintos eld, Šr D; 108 MSL, downstream the Širvintà, in the right bank valley 0,8 km away from Áukštosios Viẽsos; GSD1974 589 Žemosios Viesosv, GI1905 78 Rus. з.[астенок] Вѣсы-Дольные, REM1872 Rus. з.[астенок] Новые Весы. The homogeneous names Viẽsos of the two villages owe their names to the Viesà – the stream, on the banks of which both settlements are located, and are the pl inflexion Lith. -os derivative from the potamonym17. Therefore, the oikonym may be considered a metonymic transposition of the potamonym (transonymization) (the concept of place): Viẽsos ← Vies- + -os ← the settlement on/upon the Viesà. The DMs Áukštosios and Žẽmosios of both oikonyms are motivated not only by the settlements’ vertical position in space, but also by their position in relation to the river flow. 16 Quite interesting is the change of the DMs from post-position to HNLs (REM1872 Rus. Свирны Верх.[ние], Свирны Нижнiе: Верхние and Нижнiе ← Rus. верхний ‘upper’, нижний ‘lower’) to pre-position in both oikonyms (Aukšteji Svirna, Žemeji Svirna). However, the reasons for such change are not clear. 17 The potamonym Viesà is of an obscure origin. Its source lies in the vicinity of the swampy shores of lake Viess. However, it is not clear now whether it is the lake or the motivated each other’s names. Vanagas (1981: 378) relates these two hydronyms to Lith. vesulas ‘strong whirlwind’ (LKŽe), which allegedly is derived from InE. *eḭ- ‘to bend, twist’ and attributes it to the hydronyms of physiographic meaning (Vanagas 1981a: 63). This could be partly true, taking into consideration the winding rivercourse, esp. from the midway and to the point it drains its waters into Širvintà; or considering the winding shoreline of the swamps around lake Viess. Hence, both hydronyms may be metaphoric in nature and are the transpositions of the concept of whirls, bends and twists winding riverbed and winding shoreline, respectively: 1) vesulas → a winding riverbed → the Viesà, 2) vesulas → a winding shoreline → Viess. PAVEL SKORUPA 270 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIV *** The complete antonymic correlation of the DMs either in preor postposition to the HNLs are observed in 7 cases (1 limnonym and 6 oikonym oppositions). The incomplete correlation of DMs in pre-position to the modified HNLs is observed in 3 oppositions from the class of oikonyms. The analyzed oppositions based on the correlation of simple and pronominal adjectives and their forms Lith. áukštas, -à (aukštàsis, aukšteji, áukštosios) ‘high’ (‘upper’) – žẽmas, -à (žemàsis, žemeji, žẽmosios) ‘low’ (‘lower’) and Lith. kalnnis (kalnniai) ‘of the hills’ – Lith. klóninis (klõniniai) ‘of the valley’ make only a small part – 10 cases (formed by 21 toponyms), i.e., 0,251% of the 251 oppositions currently functioning within the borders of Vilnius County. Both the linguistic and extralinguistic analysis of the DMs has shown that the choice of both pronominal and simple qualifying adjectives in the process of nomination was based on the named object’s relative position (either horizontal, or vertical) in space (the terrain): 1) The correlation of Lith. áukštas ‘high’ – žẽmas ‘low’ is based on the object’s horizontal position in space (in relation to the neighbouring river): Aukšteji Karklnaiv × Žemeji Karklnaiv, Pamerksv × Aukštàsis Pamerksv, Aukšteji Rusõkaistead × Žemeji Rusõkaistead, Áukštosios Viẽsosv × Žẽmosios Viẽsosv, Aukšteji Svirnastead × Žemeji Svirnastead; 2) The correlation of Lith. áukštas ‘high’ – žẽmas ‘low’ is based on the object’s vertical position in space (on the hill/mountain as opposed to the other object’s position at the foot of the hill/mountain): Aukšteji Bezdónysv × Bezdónysv × Bezdónystn, Nẽvardas ÁukštasL × Nẽvardas ŽẽmasL, Aukšteji Semeniùkaiv × Žemeji Semeniùkaiv; 3) The correlation of Lith. kalnnis ‘of the mountain/hill’ – klóninis ‘of the valley’ is based on the object’s vertical position in space (on the hills as opposed to the other object’s position in the valley of the neighbouring river): Jagėlónysv × Klõniniai Jagėlónysv, Kalnniai Mijáugonysv × Klõniniai Mijáugonysv. Considering the above, it may be concluded that the correlation of simple and pronominal adjectives in Vilnius County toponymy is rather clear, as these DMs carry the following semantic load: 1) Lith. áukštas, -à (aukštàsis, aukšteji, áukštosios) – ‘located on the hill/mountain’ (vertical upper position), Lith. žẽmas, -à (žemàsis, žemeji, žẽmosios) – ‘located at the foot of the hill/mountain’ (vertical lower position); 2) Lith. áukštas, -à (aukštàsis, aukšteji, áukštosios) – ‘located in the upper part of the river (upstream)’ (horizontal position up/back), Lith. žẽmas, -à (žemàsis, žemeji, žẽmosios) – ‘located in the lower part of the river (downstream)’ (horizontal position down); 3) Lith. kalnnis (kalnniai) – ‘located Straipsniai / Articles 271 Motivation and semantics of the present-day Vilnius county toponym oppositions: the concept of the object’s position in space on the hill/mountain’ (vertical upper position), Lith. klóninis (klõniniai) – ‘located in the valley’ (vertical lower position). The analysis of the HNLs has shown that these may fall into two categories, based on the variety of motivating concepts: 1) name lexemes of clear motivation and semantics: a) motivated by the toponym (the concept of place/location) – Bezdónystn, Bezdónysv, Aukšteji Bezdónysv, Pamerksv, Aukštàsis Pamerksv, Áukštosios Viẽsosv, Žẽmosios Viẽsosv; b) motivated by anthroponym (the concept of possessivity, belonging) – Jagėlónysv, Klõniniai Jagėlónysv, Kalnniai Mijáugonysv, Klõniniai Mijáugonysv, Aukšteji Semeniùkaiv, Žemeji Semeniùkaiv; c) motivated by appellative – (the concept of source/spring) Nẽvardas ÁukštasL, Nẽvardas ŽẽmasL, (concept of place) Aukšteji Svirnastead, Žemeji Svirnastead; 2) name lexemes of obscure motivation and semantics: a) motivated by appellative or nickname (the concept of place or people) – Aukšteji Karklnaiv, Žemeji Karklnaiv; b) motivated by the anthroponym (the concept of possessivity or people) – Aukšteji Rusõkaistead, Žemeji Rusõkaistead. 3. CONCLUSIONS 1. Oppositions based on the correlation of simple and pronominal adjectives and their forms Lith. áukštas, -à (aukštàsis, aukšteji, áukštosios) ‘high’ (‘upper’) – žẽmas, -à (žemàsis, žemeji, žẽmosios) ‘low’ (‘lower’) and Lith. kalnnis (kalnniai) ‘of the hills’ – Lith. klõninis (klõniniai) ‘of the valley’ make only a small part – 10 cases (formed by 21 toponyms), i.e., 0,251% of the 251 oppositions currently functioning within the borders of Vilnius County. All the selected toponym oppositions exist in oppositions are within 0,08 to 6 km from each other. 2. The complete antonymic correlation of the DMs either in preor postposition to the HNLs are observed in 7 cases (1 limnonym and 6 oikonym oppositions, formed by 2 and 12 names respectively). The incomplete correlation of DMs in pre-position to the modified HNLs is observed in 3 oppositions from the class of oikonyms, formed by 7 names. 3. To understand the semantics of the DMs, both the linguistic and extralinguistic data was analyzed. The analysis of the DMs (simple and pronominal adjectives and their forms) has shown that the choice of DMs in the process of nomination was determined by the named object’s relative position (either horizontal, or vertical) in space (the terrain). The motivation of the DMs is rather clear and they carry the following semantic load: 1) Lith. áukštas, -à (aukštàsis, aukšteji, áukštosios) – ‘located on the hill/mountain’ (vertical PAVEL SKORUPA 272 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIV upper position), Lith. žẽmas, -à (žemàsis, žemeji, žẽmosios) – ‘located at the foot of the hill/mountain’ (vertical lower position); 2) Lith. áukštas, -à (aukštàsis, aukšteji, áukštosios) – ‘located in the upper part of the river (upstream)’ (horizontal position up/back), Lith. žẽmas, -à (žemàsis, žemeji, žẽmosios) – ‘located in the lower part of the river (downstream)’ (horizontal position down); 3) Lith. kalnnis (kalnniai) – ‘located on the hill/mountain’ (vertical upper position), Lith. klóninis (klõniniai) – ‘located in the valley’ (vertical lower position). 4. The analysis of the HNLs has shown that these may fall into two categories, based on the variety of motivating concepts: 1) name lexemes of clear motivation and semantics: a) motivated by the toponym (the concept of place/location) – 7 homogeneous oikonym lexemes; b) motivated by anthroponym (the concept of possessivity, belonging) – 6 homogeneous oikonym lexemes; c) motivated by appellative – (the concept of source/ spring) 2 homogeneous limnonym lexemes, (concept of place) 2 oikonym lexemes; 2) name lexemes of obscure motivation and semantics: a) motivated by appellative or nickname (the concept of place or people) – 2 homogeneous oikonym lexemes; b) motivated by the anthroponym (the concept of possessivity or people) – 2 homogeneous oikonym lexemes. ABBREVIATIONS Bel. – Belarussian; cf. – compare; coll. – colloquial; D – district; DM – differentiating marker; dial. – dialectal; El – Elektrėnai; eld – eldership; et al. – and others; f – feminine; Heb. – Hebrew; HNL – homogeneous name lexeme; InE. – Indo-European; km – kilometer; L – lake; Lith. – Lithuanian; m – masculine; MSL – meters above sea level; Pol. – Polish; pl – plural; Rus. – Russian; s – singular; stead – steading/homestead; Šlčn – Šalčininkai; Šr – Širvintos; tn – town; Trak – Trakai; trib. – tributary; Ukm – Ukmergė; V – Vilnius; v – village. TOPONYM SOURCES GI1905 – Goshkevich Iosif I. 1905: Гошкевич Iосиф I. Виленская губернiя. Полный списокъ населенныхъ мѣстъ со статистическими данными о каждомъ поселенiи, Вильна: Губернская Типографiя. Available at: https://rusneb.ru/ catalog/000199_000009_003727513/. GK – Gamtos katalogas. Lietuvos vandens telkiniai. Available at: http://ezerai.vilnius21. lt/. Straipsniai / Articles 273 Motivation and semantics of the present-day Vilnius county toponym oppositions: the concept of the object’s position in space GP – Geoportal.lt – Lietuvos erdvinės informacijos portalas. Available at: https://www. geoportal.lt/geoportal/. GSD1974 – Centrinė statistikos valdyba prie Lietuvos TSR ministrų tarybos 1974: Lietuvos TSR kaimo gyvenamosios vietovės 1959 ir 1970 metais (Visasąjunginių gyventojų surašymo duomenys), Vilnius. Available at: https://knyga.lietuvai.lt/w/images/7/79/ Lietuvos_gyventojų_surašymas_1959_ir_1970.pdf. IVDB – Lietuvių kalbos instituto lietuvių kalbos išteklių informacinė sistema: Istorinių vietovardžių duomenų bazė (The Institute of the Lithuanian Language Informational System of the Lithuanian Language Resources: The Historical Place Names Database). Available at: https://ekalba.lt/istoriniu-vietovardziu-duomenu-baze. KA1861 – Korevo Anton K. 1861: Корево Антон К. Матерiалы для географiи и статистики Россiи, собранные офицерами генералного штаба. Виленская губернiя, Санктпетербургъ: типографiя Iосафата Оргизко. Available at: https://www.prlib.ru/ item/426806. KGS1903 – Ковенский Губернский Статистический комитет 1903: Алфавитный списокъ населённыхъ мѣстъ Ковенской губернiи на 1902 год, Ковна: Типографiя Губернского Правленiя. Available at: http://book-olds.ru/BookLibrary/17000Kovenskaya-gub/1902.-Spisok-naselennyih-mest-Kovenskoy-gubernii-na-1902-god. html. LKIVA – Lietuvių kalbos instituto Vardyno skyriaus prieškarinės Vilniaus krašto žemės vardyno anketų archyvas (The Archive of Vilnius Region Land Names Forms of the Research Center of Baltic Languages and Onomastics at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language). LKIVK – Lietuvių kalbos instituto Vardyno skyriaus vietovardžių, surinktų iš gyvosios kalbos, kartoteka (The Catalogue of Lithuanian Place Names Written from the Living Language of the Research Center of Baltic Languages and Onomastics at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language). REM1872 – Russian Empire 1872 Map. MAPIRE – Historical Maps Online. Available at: https://mapire.eu/en/map/russia-1872/. UETK – Lietuvos upių, ežerų ir tvenkinių kadastras (The Rivers, Lakes and Ponds Cadaster of the Republic of Lithuania). Available at: https://uetk.am.lt. Vilnius County Maps – Map of the Republic of Lithuania. Available at: https://www. geoportal.lt. Vilnius County Municipalities’ web sites: Elektrėnai Municipality web site at: https://www.elektrenai.lt/ PAVEL SKORUPA 274 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIV Šalčininkai District Municipality web site at: http://www.salcininkai.lt/ Širvintos District Municipality web site at: https://www.sirvintos.lt/lt Švenčionys District Municipality web site at: http://www.svencionys.lt/lit/I_pradzia Trakai District Municipality web site at: https://www.trakai.lt/; http://old.trakai.lt/ Ukmergė District Municipality web site at: https://www.ukmerge.lt/ Vilnius City Municipality web site at: https://vilnius.lt/lt/ Vilnius District Municipality web site at: https://www.vrsa.lt/ REFERENCES Ahundova Gjulshen 2011: Ахундова Гюльшен. Психолингвистические основы функционирования тюркской топонимии (на материале географических названий Азербайджана, Дагестана и других cопредельных регионов). – Türkologiya 3, 45–51. Bartkutė Nerija 2008: Joniškio rajono teritorijos toponimija: daryba ir raidos polinkiai: daktaro disertacija, Šiauliai: Vutauto Didžiojo universitetas, Šiaulių universitetas. Brendler Silvio (ed.) 2016: Cognitive Onomastics. A Reader, Hamburg: Baar. Bukharova Gulnur Kh., Samitova Luiza Kh., Tagirova Salima A., Davletkulova Akhmet Kh., Davletbajeva Raisa G., Usmanova Minsilu G. 2016: Color Symbolism in the Bashkir Toponymy. – International Journal of Environmental and Science Education 11(18), 12281–12288. Būga Kazimieras 1958: Rinktiniai raštai 1, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla. Būga Kazimieras 1959: Rinktiniai raštai 2, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla. Būga Kazimieras 1961: Rinktiniai raštai 3, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla. Coates Richard 2006: Properhood. – Language 82(2), 356–382. Available at: http:// sro.sussex.ac.uk/196/. Coates Richard 2012: Eight Issues in the Pragmatic Theory of Properhood. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 66, 119–140. Coates Richard 2015: A concise theory of meaningfulness in literary naming within the framework of The Pragmatic Theory of Properhood. – Journal of Literary Onomastics 4(1), 31–34. Available at: http://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/jlo/vol4/iss1/3. Straipsniai / Articles 275 Motivation and semantics of the present-day Vilnius county toponym oppositions: the concept of the object’s position in space Coates Richard 2016: On the theoretical possibility of proper verbs. – Linguistics 54(2), 411–431. Available at: http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/27187. DLKG – Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika, red. V. Ambrazas, Vilnius: Mintis, 1994. Dobrić Nikola 2010: Theory of Names and Cognitive Linguistics – the Case of the Metaphor. – Filozofia i društvo 21, 135–147. Endzelytė Renata 2005: Šiaurės vidurio Lietuvos vietovardžiai: daktaro disertacija, Kaunas: Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas. Gataullin Ravil G., Fatykhova Lija A. 2018: Гатауллин Равиль Г., Фатыхова Лия А. „Цветные“ топонимы и их особенности. – Вестник Башкирского университета 23(1), 211–219. Hontsa Irina S. 2014: Гонца Ірина С. Структурно-граматичні особливості двочленних ойконімів Черкащини. – Вісник Черкаського університету: Філологічні науки 7, 86–90. Available at: https://dspace.udpu.edu.ua/xmlui/ handle/6789/3361?show=full. Ilchenko Irina I., Isachuk Nastasiya V. 2016: Ільченко Ірина І., Ісачук Настасія В. Бiнарнi опозицiï в топонiмiï Надвеликолужжя. – Перспективи розвитку філологічних наук (м. Київ, 13–14 травня 2016 р.), Херсон: Видавничий дім „Гельветика“, 99–102. Available at: http://visnyk-filologia.mdu.in.ua/publ/2019/ ilchenko_irina_ivanivna_isachuk_nastasija_viktorivna/1-1-0-23. Jurkštas Jonas 1985: Vilniaus vietovardžiai, Vilnius: Mokslas. Kačinaitė Dalia 2008: Lietuvių sudurtinių oronimų darybos bruožai. – Baltistica 2, 275–288. Kondrashina Vera V. 1980: Кондрашина Вера В. Соотносительный ряд «верхний» – «нижний» в русской топонимии. – Вопросы ономастики 14, 29–35. Korepanova Anna P. 1973: Корепанова Анна П. Протиставлення як засіб утворення слов’янських ойконімів. – Мовознавство 4, 30–33. Kövecses Zoltan 2002: Metaphor: a practical introduction, New York: Oxford University Press. Lakoff George, Johnson Mark 2003: Metaphors we live by, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. LKŽe – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas I–XX (1941–2002), e. variantas, red. kolegija G. Naktinienė, J. Paulauskas, R. Petrokienė, V. Vitkauskas, J. Zabarskaitė, vyr. red. G. Naktinienė, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2005 (atnaujinta versija, 2008 ir 2018). Available at: http://www.lkz.lt/. PAVEL SKORUPA 276 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIV LVŽ I – Lietuvos vietovardžių žodynas I (A–B), red. kolegija L. Balode, V. Blažek, G. Blažienė, V. Kardelis, A. Ragauskaitė, S. Temčinas, J. Udolph, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2008. PDB – Lietuvių kalbos instituto lietuvių kalbos išteklių informacinė sistema: Pavardžių duomenų bazė (The Institute of the Lithuanian Language Informational System of the Lithuanian Language Resources: The Surnames Database). Available at: https://ekalba. lt/pavardziu-duomenu-baze. Podolskaja Nataliya V. 1978: Подольская Наталия В. Словарь русской ономастической терминологии, Москва: Наука. PSPR – Rozwadowska Maryja F. 1974: Podręczny słownik polsko-rosyjski, Warszawa: Wiedza powszechna. Razmukaitė Marija 1998: Lietuvos priesaginiai oikonimai: daktaro disertacija, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas. Razmukaitė Marija 2002: Lietuvos sudėtinių oikonimų darybos bruožai. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 46, 123–130. Razmukaitė Marija 2003: Sudėtiniai Lietuvos oikonimai. – Baltu Filoloģija XII (2), 63–80. Razmukaitė Marija 2003a: Būdvardžio áukštas, aukštà įvardžiuotinės formos vietovardžiuose. – Kalbos kultūra 76, 63–66. Razmukaitė Marija 2009: Apie kai kuriuos Vakarų Lietuvos priesaginius oikonimus. – Kalbos kultūra 82, 34–40. Saussure Ferdinand de 1959: Course in General Linguistics, Ch. Bally, A. Sechehaye (eds.), W. Baskin (trans.), New York: The Philosophical Society. Sjöblom Paula 2011: A Cognitive Approach to the Semantics of Proper Names. – Onoma: Journal of the International Council of Onomastic Sciences 41, 63–82. Skarnik.by – Мазок Алег, Літ Серж (comp.) 2015: Белорусско-русский словарь (на основе академического словаря под редакцией Я. Коласа, К. Крапивы и П. Глебки 1953: Руска-беларускі Слоўник, I–III, Мiнск: Інстытут Мовазнаўства АН БССР), e-version. Available at: https://www.skarnik.by/. Skorupa Pavel 2019: Semantic oppositions in Vilnius county toponyms. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 81, 139–159. Slíz Mariann 2017: Personal Names in Medieval Hungary, Hamburg: Baar. Slovar.cc – Большой современный толковый словарь русского языка, e-version, 2010– 2020. Available at: https://slovar.cc/rus/tolk.html. Straipsniai / Articles 277 Motivation and semantics of the present-day Vilnius county toponym oppositions: the concept of the object’s position in space SSP2 – Krasiński Adam S. 1885: Słownik synonimów polskich 2, Kraków: Wyd. Akademii Umiejętności; w druk. “Czasu” F. Kluczyckiego. SRY – Ožegov Sergej I. 1984: Ожегов Сергей И. Словарь русского языка, Москва: „Русский Язык“. SRYAe – Yevgenyeva Anastasiya (ed.) 1999: Евгеньева Анастасия П. Cловарь русского языка: В 4-х т., Москва: Полиграфресурсы. Available at: http://feb-web.ru/feb/mas/ mas-abc/default.asp. Stachowski Kamil 2018: O opozycjach kolorystycznych w ojkonimii Polski. – Acta onomastica LIX, 197–214. Superanskaja Aleksandra V. 1970: Суперанская Александра В. Терминологичны ли цветовые названия рек? – Местные географические термины, 120—127, Москва: Мысль. Sviderskienė Dalia 2006: Marijampolės apskrities sudurtiniai oronimai. – Lituanistica 4(68), 47–59. Sviderskienė Dalia 2006a: Marijampolės apskrities drimonimų darybos ir kilmės polinkiai. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica / Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 54, 49–62. Sviderskienė Dalia 2007: Marijampolės apskrities gyvenamųjų vietų vardai. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica / Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 57, 99–122. Tkachenko Yevgeniy N. 2003: Ткаченко, Евгений Н. Взаимодействие гидронимов и ойконимов (в бассейне реки Казенный Торец). – Філологічні студії, 58–62. Tkachenko Yevgeniy N. 2013: Ткаченко, Євген M. Бурлук – Бурлучок: формально незмінні та граматично переоформлені імена (у басейні річки Великий Бурлук). – Філологічні студії. Науковий вісник Криворізького державного педагогічного університету 9, 399–406. Available at: http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/ PhSt_2013_9_59. Tkachenko Yevgeniy N. 2014: Ткаченко, Евгений Н. Явление бинарной оппозиции в региональной топонимии (на примере географических названий Слобожанщины). – Вестник Воронежского государственного университета 3, 67–70. Štěpán Pavel 2009: Oppositions in Toponymy. – Names in Multi-Lingual, MultiCultural and Multi-Ethnic Contact, Proceedings of the 23rd International Congress of Onomastic Sciences. August 17–22, 2008, York University, Toronto, Canada, 915–920. Available at: https://yorkspace.library.yorku.ca/xmlui/handle/10315/4034. Vaitkevičius Vykintas 2012: Neris. 2007 metų ekspedicija, antra knyga, Vilnius: Mintis. PAVEL SKORUPA 278 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIV Vanagas Aleksandras 1970: Lietuvos TSR hidronimų daryba, Vilnius: Mintis. Vanagas Aleksandras 1981: Lietuvių hidronimų etimologinis žodynas, Vilnius: Mintis. Vanagas Aleksandras 1981a: Lietuvių hidronimų semantika. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 21, 4–153. Vanagas Aleksandras 1996: Lietuvos miestų vardai, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Van Langendonck Willy 2007: Theory and Typology of Proper Names, Berlin: de Gruyter. Van Langendonck Willy 2013: A Semantic-Pragmatic Theory of Proper Names. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 69, 99–129. Van Langendonck Willy, Van de Velde Mark 2016: Names and grammar. – The Oxford Handbook of Names and Naming, C. Hough (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199656431.013.21. Van Langendonck Willy 2017: A Dichotomy in the Diachronic Structure of Family Names. – Proceedings of iconn 4, O. Felecan (ed.), Cluj-Napoca: Editura Mega, Editura Argonaut, 45–50. DOI 10.30816/ICONN4/2017. Zinkevičius Zigmas 2008: Lietuvių asmenvardžiai, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Zinkevičius Zigmas 2012: Vilnijos lenkakalbių pavardės, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos centras.