Naujųjų dūrinių analizės ir klasifikacijos galvosūkiai

DAIVA MURMULAITYTĖ Institute of the Lithuanian Language Research areas: word formation, morphemics, lexicography, lexicology. DOI: https://doi.org/10.35321/all82-02 PUZZLES OF THE ANALYSIS AND CLASSIFICATION OF NEW COMPOUNDS The Puzzles of New Compounds’ Analysis and Classification ANNOTATION The article¹ reviews atypical cases of the formation of Lithuanian neologisms made from two or more words. The nouns—compounds and blends—accumulated in The Database of Lithuanian Neologisms until the beginning of 2019 are examined. The types of indigenous compound nouns not described in Lithuanian grammars, as well as mixed formations (e.g., saulėdengtės), are discussed. The derivational motivation of several occasional formations (kūnovara, megztipaltis) and the place of analogical formations in the system of Lithuanian derivatives are considered. Special attention is paid to neologisms displaying features of compounds and blends (e.g., dvirtakis), and to the relationship between blending and disintegrative word formation. KEYWORDS: word formation, neologisms, compound nouns, analogy, blending. ANNOTATION The paper aims to review the atypical cases of Lithuanian neologisms that are coined from two or more words. The nouns, i.e. compounds and blends, collected in “The Database of Lithuanian Neologisms” until the beginning of 2019 are under investigation. The types of indigenous compound nouns that are not described in the grammar of the Lithuanian language are presented. Also, the results of composition–suffixation (e.g. saulėdengtės ¹ The article is based on a presentation delivered at the Fifth Congress of Lithuanists (Wrocław, 16–17 May 2019). 34 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXII Naujųjų dūrinių analizės ir klasifikacijos galvosūkiai ‘sunblind’) are discussed. The derivational motivation of some occasionalisms (kūnovara ‘health promotion system that corresponds to the old Lithuanian worldview’, megztpaltis ‘cardigow’) is considered. The place of analogical formations in the system of Lithuanian derivations is under consideration too. Special attention is paid to the new coinages with the features of compounds and blends (such as dvirtakis ‘cycling trail’) as well as to the correlation of blending and morphemic disintegration. KEYWORDS: word formation, coinages, compound nouns, analogy, blending. INTRODUCTION In 2019, in order to determine whether compound Lithuanian neologisms conform to the Lithuanian word-formation rules described in grammars, to investigate what innovations exist in the formation of Lithuanian compound nouns, and whether they are systematic or characteristic only of occasional usage, indigenous compound nouns recorded in The Database of Lithuanian Neologisms (hereafter ND, the Database) up to March 2019 were analyzed (approximately 500). The main focus was on questions concerning the structure of neologisms. The Database contained neologisms representing all the main types of Lithuanian compounding except compounds of a numeral and a verb. They account for more than 99 percent of the compounds examined. No formations of marginal types (whose second constituent would not be nominal or verbal) or reduplicative compounds were recorded during the period under investigation. A few neologisms appeared that may not belong to the types of compounding described in Lithuanian grammars. For example, karkadienis ‘the day on which the “Kar kar” ice cream appeared (a symbolic birthday)’ may be considered a compound of an interjection and a noun (: kar kar + diena), whereas sėdnesė ‘a saddle-like carrier for carrying children aged two to five while seated on the shoulders’ is a compound of two verbs. Cf. dance walking, probably English, after which šokvaikštis ‘a new street fashion—walking while dancing’ was created. In terms of both meaning (‘walking while dancing’ or ‘dancing while walking’) and form, it may be based on either the verb šokti or its abstract noun, the name of the action, šokis; therefore, in classifying compound nouns in the ND, it was assigned to the typical type of noun-and-verb compounds. The first constituent of the neologism sėdnesė is not associated with any deverbal noun; it is based directly on the verb sėdėti. When the typicality of compounds was investigated in terms of the morphemic complexity of their base stems, it was found that pre-derived, prefixed, or compound base words are often used; a modified derivational base is likewise not exceptional. In one way or another, between 21 and 41 percent do not conform to the rule of base-stem simplicity. Straipsniai / Articles 35 DAIVA MURMULAITYTĖ of compounds (depending on the type of compounding). For more details on the study and its results, see Murmulaitytė 2019. Continuing the research, attention was next turned to the atypical formation of Lithuanian neologisms made from two or more words. The object of the study is indigenous compound nouns and blends made from two or more Lithuanian words, as recorded in the ND. At the beginning of 2019, there were approximately 560 of them in this source. The aim of the study is to review these formations and introduce problematic cases in their derivational analysis and classification, when it is difficult to determine the base words, sometimes even their parts of speech, when derivational motivation is unclear, and so forth. The methods of the study are analytical, quantitative, comparative, descriptive, and synchronic derivational and morphemic word analysis. OCCASIONAL COMPOUNDS Occasional formations, i.e. formations that are unusual, not characteristic of general usage, occur only in a particular context, and are deliberately created for that specific occasion (KTŽ 1990: 136; Urbutis 2009: 322), are by nature disinclined to obey general regularities. They are often atypical, so various interpretations of their formation are frequently possible, and the assignment of a formation to one or another classification group depends on these interpretations. This may affect the identification of tendencies and innovations in Lithuanian neologism formation. The base words of two of the compounds examined—the authorial kūnovara ‘a health-promotion system corresponding to the old Lithuanian worldview’ and the isolated megztipaltis ‘a cardigan that looks like a coat’—are not entirely clear in formal and/or semantic terms. The forms of the second base word (see below) show that kūnovara is a compound of two nouns. The example of this neologism’s usage provided in the ND shows that the term “L. Balsys created by compounding two words—‘kūnas’ and ‘vara’. ‘Vara is a multilayered concept encompassing both the physical body and inner energy.’ It is more difficult to provide a semantic motivation for this compound. The noun vara as given in LKŽe and DŽ₂ or DŽ₇ (‘coercion, force’: It may be justified solely by legally grounded procedure. (DŽ₂); archaic ‘coercion, force’ (DŽ₇); (neologism) ‘power, coercion, violence’ (LKŽe)) contains the semantic features of coercion and violence, which evidently do not correlate with the semantics of the compound in question. Nor is it very likely that, in creating this neologism, the old borrowing from A. Juška’s “Polish–Lithuanian Dictionary”—the homonym vara ‘order’—was used. Most likely, the second constituent of kūnovara is related to the verb varyti, and may perhaps be its abstract noun; cf. the neologism’s author himself: “In the morning consciousness awakens, switches on the drive itself, and we begin to move. We can also switch on the drive consciously by exercising. I drive the body—I exercise it—and this opens my senses 36 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXII Naujųjų dūrinių analizės ir klasifikacijos galvosūkiai and feelings. [...] The second part of kūnovara consists of dynamic exercises. It begins rhythmically, to a certain sound, with heels tapping on the floor—this stimulates cardiac activity. The body has already been warmed up, so the drives are activated. In the third part, when the body’s drives have already reached a sufficient level, feelings are opened by means of a game: throwing and catching special exercise tools while trying not to let them fall to the ground, feelings are opened (emphasis in the quotation—author’s note).² This motivation is supported by the psychoanalytic term vara (English equivalent drive ‘energy; (driving) force’ or ‘stimulus, incentive, inner impulse’), as well as by several compound terms containing this head word: aggression drive, partial drive, ego drive, destructive drive, life drive, death drive, self-preservation drive, sexual drive, domination drive (LAALPTŽ).³ Attention should also be drawn to the association with (at)verti. Moreover, given the author’s Baltic worldview and activities, the influence of Latvian vara ‘power, will, might’ (LLV) cannot be excluded. For possible Latvian influence, cf. also “L. Balsys himself leads the group of kūnovara students—varonis (an energy-management coach)” (same source) and Latvian varonis ‘hero’ (LLV). The definition of the emigrant-created megztpaltis, ‘a cardigan that looks like a coat,’ is taken from the sole example of usage, which shows that it is the Lithuanian equivalent of English cardigown. From the definition of the latter (cardigown ‘a long cardigan, belted like a dressing gown’⁵), it is clear that in English this is a blend—the names of two garments fused together: cardigan (a short cardigan of a particular style) and dressing-gown or gown, denoting long garments (a dress, a robe). It is unclear what the creators of the Lithuanian equivalent had in mind, since there are two possible derivational motivations for this neologism: 1) megztinis + p altas or 2) megzti (megztas) + p altas. In the first case, one should speak of compounding two nouns and the truncation of the first suffix, -in-; in the second, of a compound of a verb form (participle) and a noun, with the unusual linking vowel -i- for such compounds. Information for the Database is collected manually; its “representativeness and reliability increase together with the growing volume and diversity of the data, while the subjective aspect decreases together with expanding data sources and the number of data providers” (Miliūnaitė 2018: 6). However, the public sending neologisms to the Database naturally notices unusual, strange, i.e. ² http://www.baltai.lt/?p=23425 [accessed 2019-03-11 and 2020-03-07]. ³ http://terminai.vlkk.lt/paieska?search=vara&zodzio_dalis=6&kaip2=on&srit ys=&statusas=0&rykiavimas=0 [accessed 2020-04-17]. The author of the article is grateful to the anonymous reviewer for encouraging her to examine these terms, as well as for other valuable comments. ⁴ The word did not become widespread after 2010; on 10 March 2019, the Google search engine found neither usage of the nominative singular nor forms of other cases. ⁵ https://www.dnaindia.com/lifestyle/report-soon-dictionary-to-describe-clothes-like-whorts-cardigowns-treggings-1441592 [accessed 2019-03-10 and 2020-03-04]. Straipsniai / Articles 37 DAIVA MURMULAITYTĖ occasional, atypically formed, or otherwise distinctive neologisms. Potential formations that have been realized but not previously recorded may be more difficult to notice and may go unnoticed because they are provided for by the system and can be realized whenever needed. It may therefore be assumed that occasional vocabulary, and thus cases of atypical formation, accounts for a proportionally larger share in the Database than in actual usage. NEOLOGISMS OF MIXED FORMATION Formation is considered mixed when two different derivational methods operate simultaneously, that is, when a word is formed by adding a prefix and a suffix at once (prefixation–suffixation, e.g.: povestuvinis, paeiliui) or when a suffix is added to a compound of two words (composition–suffixation, e.g.: pelėkautai) (Urbutis 2009: 340–341). The ND records several formations that may have mixed formation (composition–suffixation). Of the eight cases, only sauledengtės ‘an external curtain for windows or balconies; a shelter protecting from the sun’ (: saulė + dengti + -tė) is beyond doubt. Most likely, the authorial formation trešnėdra ‘a cherry eater’ was coined by analogy with žmogėdros (: trešnės + ėsti + –ra); contamination (trešnės + žmogėdra⁶) is perhaps less likely in this case. The possibility of noun–adjective composition (: trešnės + ėdrus, –i) has been rejected because this type of junction is rare; moreover, according to grammarians, all its formations are based on the adjective palaikis, -ė: vaikpalaikis, knygpalaikė (DLKG 2006: 166; LKG 1965: 472). Incidentally, in studies of Lithuanian word formation, no old formation žmogėdra treated in this way has been found; rather, the latter is primarily used as an example of mixed formation (Urbutis 2009: 253; Keinys 1999: 107). It is obvious that the examples ateivio and išėvičio served as models in creating the new formations svetim­eivis, -ė ‘an extraterrestrial’ and sugrįžeivis, -ė ‘one who returns from emigration, a re-emigrant⁷. The former, too, should more likely be regarded as a mixed formation (: svetimas + eiti + –vis)⁸. ⁶ For more on blending, see the section of the article devoted to it. Here and below, in illustrative examples of blending, the parts of the source words carried over into the blend are given in boldface, while overlaps are underlined (for the term, see Miliūnaitė 2014: 252; elsewhere the same phenomenon is called overlap, sankloda (Kabašinskaitė 1998: 67)). ⁷ When asked how this word was formed, the neologism’s author replied: “In my head, ‘sugrįžęs išėvis’ came together.” ⁸ The old formations keleivis, kareivis, jūreivis, moksleivis, upeivis, žvegeivis, vandeneivis (S. Daukantas’s neologism), as well as pirmeivis and others, should probably also be considered mixed formations; they can be associated with the verb eiti, although descriptions of word formation do not appear to mention these words in connection with composition–suffixation (cf. P. Skardžius considers the word keleivis (-ys) a substantivized compound (“composite”) adjective (Skardžius 1943: 436)). It should be noted that the suffix -eivis, -ė is not included among the noun 38 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXII Naujųjų dūrinių analizės ir klasifikacijos galvosūkiai The formation of 3 analogical formations (galvapūtė, kainapūtė, valdžiapūtė; cf. rugiapiūtė) can be interpreted in two ways, depending on what is regarded as the second constituent—the verb pjauti or the noun pjūtis (Urbutis 2009: 111). In the first case, they would be assigned to mixed formations. ANALOGICAL FORMATIONS In studies of word formation, atypical formations whose “formation is based on a more distant, inaccurate, largely merely presumed analogy with pairs of typical [...] formations and their base words (derivational oppositions)” are generally called analogical formations (Urbutis 2009: 328). During the period under study, approximately 30 indigenous analogical formations were found in the ND, e.g.: ausiratis ‘the area of the surroundings that can be heard with the ears’—cf. akiratis; galvapūtė, kainapūtė—cf. rugiapiūtė; kiemšīkis ‘an undistinguished yard-guard dog; a dog walked by disorderly owners’—cf. kiemsargis; kišenpildis—cf. kišenovagis; lietpuodis—cf. greitpuodis; links­makojis ‘ironically, the cheerful “dance” of intoxicated construction workers—a job at a construction site’—cf. klumpakojis; noskaras—cf. auskaras; tvorlaikraštis—cf. sienlaikraštis; žemėraižis ‘a building sunk deep underground, the opposite of a skyscraper’—cf. dangoraižis, and others. Such neologisms arise by exploiting the analogy of an existing formation that is formally similar in some respect and semantically related in one way or another; thus, in addition to the regular opposition between a compound and its base words, another factor operates. Word formation as a whole is, of course, based on analogy (KTŽ 1990: 19; Urbutis 2009: 327–328), but in the present case the analogies are only “superficial, essentially not corresponding to the structure of the formations, similar only in sound” (Paulauskienė 1994: 53). In some cases, however, they do not prevent a neologism from being regarded as a member of a particular word-formation type, because its derivational analysis shows that the essential laws of word formation are not violated. For example, the neologism neskaitadienis ‘a day when there is nothing to read’, formed by analogy with nekalbadienio, belongs to the same type of verb-and-noun compounds as the latter (: neskaityti + diena). However, nelovadienis ‘spouses sleeping in separate beds after a quarrel’ and the hybrid neseksadienis ‘a day when a quarreling couple refuses sex’ are atypical formations because their first constituents, which contain negation, are nouns in the lists of suffixes provided by Lithuanian grammars. Concerning the suffix -vis, -ė, they state that most of the names of persons (agents and bearers of a verbal feature) derived with it are based on prefixed derivatives of the verb eiti (DLKG 2006: 110–111; LKG 1965: 331). For further information on formations ending in -eivis, -ė, see J. Vaskelienė’s detailed study and its conclusions concerning the possibility of treating this ending synchronically as a suffix in certain cases, and the emerging –eivis, -ė derivational type (Vaskelienė 2019). Straipsniai / Articles 39 DAIVA MURMULAITYTĖ (bed, sex). The irregular presence of negation can be explained only by the fact that they clearly draw on nekalbadienio, and the analogical nature of their formation is perfectly illustrated by the examples of usage selected in the ND. By constantly hurting each other, resentments accumulate in the heart. In time, such relations develop into silent days and sexless days, eventually into mockery, a desire to humiliate one’s spouse, revenge, and so on.; But if, even after hardships experienced together and daily routine work, after N years the touch of a loved one still kindles fires in the heart (well, I am not saying constantly; there are all kinds of days—silent days, separate-bed days), then one can say that this is love. Judamatis ‘a device that records and measures a person’s mobility’ is an analogical formation modeled on the names of other tools, machines, devices, and means generally with the second constituent –matis, derived from the verb matuoti. Regularly, the first constituent indicates what the measurement is directed at, what constitutes its object; thus, the first constituent is a noun (DLKG 2006: 162; LKG 1965: 464), cf. also the following forms given in the ND: akirmatis, cukrormatis, laikmatis, garomatis, drėgmematis, vidmatis. Cf. also the terms from the field of standardization and metrology in the Terminology Bank: aidamatis, slėgmatis, gylmatis, tolimatis, akytmatis, srautmatis, atspindžiamatis, apskritmatis, aukščiamatis, lygmatis, bangomatis, blizgomatis, stormatis, dažniamatis, greitmatis, dujomatis, dulkėmatis, druskomatis, gebomatis, jautriamatis, jėgomatis, kampamatis, kietmatis, kreivėmatis, lietmatis and others.⁹ Judamatis could hardly be based on the rarely used abstract noun juda, characteristic only of the written language, ‘movement’ (LKŽe); reliance on the abstract noun judumas is likewise doubtful (in this case, one would also have to speak of the disintegration of the first stem—the omitted suffix –um–). Thus, because of the different part of speech of the first base word, judumatis does not belong to the type of noun-and-verb compounds and is atypical. The simplest way for it to arise was probably the aforementioned “superficial” analogy with other compounds containing this second constituent. The other analogical formations examined belong to the same types as the compound nouns on whose model they were created, e.g. the aforementioned ausiratis, lėtuodis, noskaras. The form of still others would seemingly allow them to be associated with their prototypes, but semantically their derivational motivation can be understood only indirectly, through that ⁹ http://terminai.vlkk.lt/paieska?search=matis&zodzio_dalis=2&kaip1=on&sritys=%2C577&statusas=0&rykiavimas=0 [accessed 2019–03–15, 2020–04–03, and 2020–04–17]. It should be noted that some compounds recorded in the Terminology Bank with the second constituent –matis may, at least semantically, also be associated with adjectives, e.g. akytmatis ‘a paper porosity meter’ (cf. akytas, –a), apskritmatis (cf. apskritas, –a and the Russian equivalent of the term кругломер). However, before assuming that names of measuring instruments with the second constituent –matis may also be based on adjectives, they need to be examined separately and thoroughly. 40 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXII Naujųjų dūrinių analizės ir klasifikacijos galvosūkiai prototype. For example, from the derivational meaning of the compound žemėraizis ‘one who cuts the earth’, it is practically impossible to infer its lexical meaning ‘a building sunk deep underground, the opposite of a skyscraper’, because the association with cutting comes from the semantics of dangoraižio (cutting the sky—being tall). In this case, it is less important that dangoraižis itself is a calque (cf. Russian небоскрёб, English skyscraper), since associating height with reaching or cutting the sky is also recorded in Lithuanian folklore: A billy goat comes running, tumbles along, cuts the sky with its horns, and sweeps the earth with its beard (LKŽe). BLENDING OR DISINTEGRATIVE COMPOSITION? 1. Lexical blending (Lithuanian maišyba, English blending) is the (deliberate) creation of a new word by combining at least two source words and fusing parts of them (cf. Gries 2004a: 416). This phenomenon is probably most characteristic of English; it has also been extensively studied in research on other, even typologically different, languages (Elsen 2008; Brdar-Szabo, Brdar 2008; Marković 2009: 226–236; Mikić Čolić 2015; Ефанова 2015; Ефанова 2015; 2016; Bat-El 1996, 2013; Balteiro 2017 and others), often in comparison with this English word-formation process (Renner 2015; Renner 2015; 2019; Хрущева 2010; Orekhova, Badelina 2019 and others). Not only do the terms naming this phenomenon and its results vary, but so do the definitions, which differently foreground one or another feature of blending. Common points of contact with other ways of forming new lexical units are sought (López Rúa 2002; Renner 2015). In this study (and in Lithuanian linguistics generally), the non-morphemic nature of blending is important: lexical blending differs from compounding in that new words are created by fusing, mixing, or combining non-morphemic, usually parts of two or more words (cf. Bauer 1983: 234–235; Gries 2004: 639; Gries 2004: 639; 2004b: 201, 214; Ефанова 2016: 8–9; Marković 2009: 223–224; Hosseinzadeh 2014: 19 and others). Examples of blends from the ND: skiepenis, -ė ‘a person opposed to vaccination and vaccines’ (an allusion to Member of Parliament Dainius Kepenis, who became famous for promoting a healthy lifestyle and holding a negative attitude toward vaccines) < skie­pai + Kepenis, batakovė ‘a shaft attached to a shoe’ < batas + rankovė, šlapkritis ‘a wet late autumn’ < šlapias, -ia + lapkritis, pusbrolakis ‘a book character—the cousin of a werewolf’ < pusbrolis + vilkolakis, feisbučkis ‘a virtual kiss on social networks’ < feisbukas + bučkis, prezidentas ‘a president who uses police working methods’ < prezidentas + mentas slang ‘police officer’, and others. According to ND data, although such formations constitute a very small proportion of Lithuanian neologisms, their number is gradually increasing. During the study, they accounted for approximately 4.2 percent in this source; cf. approximately 4 percent in 2018 and more than 3 percent at the end of 2014. Straipsniai / Articles 41 DAIVA MURMULAITYTĖ (Murmulaitytė 2018: 63); when this article was being completed, in April 2020, there were (possibly) approximately 4.5 percent blends in the Database.10 It is traditionally believed that blending is not characteristic of Lithuanian as a word-formation method; this way of creating vocabulary is not regarded as word formation, which is understood exclusively as morphological formation (Urbutis 2009: 324, 355; Barauskaitė 1985: 44)11. Without going into the distinctions between speech and language (i.e. unintentional and deliberately created) blends and related aspects, which are essentially important when evaluating this way of enriching the lexicon, several cases should be mentioned in which assigning a neologism to compounds or blends raises doubts. 2. Blending is characterized by shortening the source words as they are fused. This is a simple phonetic shortening of the base stem, which, incidentally, occurs not only in blends; cf. drūgalis (: drūtas + galas), kiaupienė (: kiaulė + pienė) (Urbutis 2009: 23512). Cf. also diemedis (< dievamedis), kirpentė (< kirvagpentė), kraugerys (< kraujagerys), Naumiestis (< Naujamiestis), Tauragė (< *taura-ragė), vėpūtinis (< *vėja-pūtinis), and others (Skardžius 1943: 427). Other factors also operate in blending: the source words almost always have segments in common (cf. Kabašinskaitė 1998: 69–73); they are generally similar—mutually and/or to the blend—phonologically, semantically, and syntactically (Gries 2004: 656–660; 2004a: 419–427; 2004b: 206–213, cf. Kabašinskaitė 2014: 140–142); syllabic structure, stress, and other factors also play a role, but the shortening of the constituents is specifically phonetic. Meanwhile, in morphological word formation, morphemic disintegration of the stem of the base word occurs; this is essentially understood as the omission of an affix (affixes) from the morphologically segmentable stem of the base word as it passes into a derivative, e.g.: vokiškas (: vok-iet-is), vienaląstis (: vienas + ląst-el-ė). This is essentially a shortening of a different nature13. Stem disintegration is a kind of morphemic formation of the base stem (underlined in the original), manifested by the removal of an affix from the stem of the base word; the derivative does not retain the base word 10It should be noted that the entry for a contaminational derivative in the Database is assigned not only to contaminants of indigenous origin but also to borrowings created in this way. Indigenous formations account for less than half. 11Cf. a different view of the relationship between word formation and contamination – Gries 2004: 639; Лапрова 2008: 45; Лапрова 2008: 45; 2013: 5–15; Прокопенец 2006: 140; in Lithuanian linguistics – Girčienė 2013: 82–83; Mikelionienė 2002: 279. 12The source contains a proofreading error – kiaulpienė, but in the first edition of this work (Urbutis 1978: 198) the example is presented correctly – kiaupienė. 13In the case of morphological word formation, base words (stems) are shortened because of the “very characteristic tendency to rely on simple (not morphologically or derivationally segmentable) or at least less complex base stems (Urbutis 2009: 234). A 2019 study of ND neologisms (compound nouns) showed that compounds with more complex morphemic structures continue to increase and that this structure is becoming more diverse (especially in occasional compounds), but the tendency to rely on simple words remains; this may perhaps be determined by the law of linguistic economy (Murmulaitytė 2019: 112–115, 119). 42 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXII Naujųjų dūrinių analizės ir klasifikacijos galvosūkiai of an affix or one of its constituent parts. Only the final part of a (complex) affix may be omitted, but morpheme boundaries are nevertheless observed, e.g., spekuliac-in-is, –ė (: speku-liac-ij-a) (Urbutis 2009: 236, 239–240). For example, A. Umbrasas, discussing the fact that in the suffix –inis, –ė adjectives he studied “half of the suffix disappears” through disintegration (Umbrasas 2000: 82), nevertheless has extended (or complex) suffixes in mind; thus, what is disintegrated is not merely a sequence of sounds (letters), but a morpheme. An example of such formation from ND could be the authorial neologism knygskirtė ‘a bookmark for marking the place being read’ (: knyga + skirt(uk)as)14 Although the omission of suffixes or prefixes is usually discussed, Vincas Urbutis also mentions the phenomenon of disintegrational composition (Urbutis 2009: 355), though he does not provide examples. It is unclear whether he has in mind such morphemic shortening in which the affixes of base stems are omitted, or roots as well (when compounds are formed from compound words). Incidentally, disintegrational composition is mentioned precisely in the context of contamination, in discussing the boundaries of the latter concept (whether it also encompasses disintegrational composition) and its attribution to word formation. According to V. Urbutis, if the concept of contamination (meaning the conscious blending of words) “is not expanded too far (if disintegrational composition, the formation of compounds from shortened forms or half from shortened forms and full words are not included in it) [...]”, this phenomenon is not a grammatical (morphological) process, and its results (blends, i.e. contaminants) are not derivatives, but simple, derivationally unsegmentable words (Urbutis 2009: 355). Thus, it can be understood that disintegrational composition is a different kind of, i.e. morphological, process and differs fundamentally from contamination. 3. In this respect, an interesting pair of new slang formations has been examined in greater detail (the fact that their second component is non-Lithuanian is not so important in this case) – žalfanis, –ė ‘a fan (supporter) of the “Žalgiris” basketball team’ and rytfanis, –ė ‘a fan (supporter) of the “Lietuvos rytas” basketball team’15. Should the neologism žalfanis, which is based on the phrase “Žalgirio” fanas, be regarded as a contaminational derivative or as a disintegrated compound in which the second of the roots of the first component (Žalgiris) was omitted during formation? Bearing in mind that contamination is not considered word formation, one may further ask: is it a simple word or a derivative? Thus – can its stem ¹⁴ Attention should be drawn to the gender of the compound, by which it differs from the second base word; in traditional Lithuanian word formation, only 1⁄10 of compounds formed from two nouns display this feature (DLKG 2006: 154). Perhaps the change in gender was influenced by the fact that ordinary bookmarks are shaped like strips (a material reality associated with the paradigms of feminine nouns). The possibility of mixed formation – composition-suffixation (: knyga + skirti + –tė) – is rejected after consultation with the neologism’s author. ¹⁵ Thus, on April 3, 2020, the word was still defined in ND in this way. The basketball team (club) was renamed Vilniaus „Rytu“ in 2018 (https://www.rytasvilnius.lt/lt/apie-mus/klubo-metrastis/ [accessed 2020–03–04]). However, the neologism appeared considerably earlier than the club was renamed; the earliest example of its use in ND is from 2005, so in this article it is examined as possibly being based on the team’s earlier name. Straipsniai / Articles 43 DAIVA MURMULAITYTĖ could still be segmented into morphemes (in this case they do not overlap and are easily distinguishable), or, in a morphemic analysis, should only a new root žalfan and the ending -is be distinguished in it? Cf. rytfanis (< “Lietuvos ryto” fanas), which could likewise be considered the result of syntagmatic contamination, i.e. contamination occurring between the members of a more stable word combination (for the term, see Kabasinskaitė 1998: 63; for an example, cf. ibid., 67), except that in this case contamination omits not a component of the original compound word but one of the words in the combination. On the other hand, bearing in mind that the unquestionably analogically related žalfanis and rytfanis are slang formations, and that in informal style “Lietuvos rytas” (especially with the basketball team in mind) was usually abbreviated even before the team was renamed as simply “Rytas”, the latter name for a team supporter may, from a derivational perspective, be treated either (traditionally) as a compound of the nouns “Rytas” and fanas, or as a suffixal derivative from the word combination “Ryto” fanas¹⁶ (for this type of formation, cf. Smetona 2005: 85–86; Paulauskienė 2007: 20). In both cases, it would be a result of genuine word formation, not contamination. In such a regular compound, the ending of the second component would also characteristically change (cf. –fanis and fanas). Meanwhile, it would be difficult to explain the change in the ending in the case of žalfanio (if it is treated as contaminational), because such a change is not characteristic of contamination. To sum up and taking all the circumstances set out above into account, it would probably be logical to imagine that these neologisms arose as follows: žalfanis was formed by analogy with rytfanio (both in terms of the ending and the number of syllables), while the latter is a regular derivative from the shortened team name and the slang word fanas. Perhaps žalfaniui also arose by analogy because in the derivative rytfanis only part of the team’s official name at the time has likewise remained. Of course, more well-founded conclusions could be drawn only after a comprehensive investigation of the history of the emergence of these words, attempting to establish whether rytfanis really did arise even slightly earlier. 4. The emergence of the neologism dvirtakis ‘cycle path’ may also have been influenced by the analogy of words containing the same second component (cf. bėgtakis, and perhaps, with more distant semantics but similar phonetics, žvyrtakis?). However, merely establishing this does not help answer whether this neologism should be assigned to compounds or contaminants, because it has features of both: non-morphemic shortening of components is characteristic of contaminants, whereas change in the ending of the second component is characteristic of compounds. If it is a compound (judging from the changed ending of the second component), its first, compound component is shortened non-morphemically, leaving only one sound (letter), –r-, of the second root. If it is a contaminant (judging from the non-morphemic shortening), then its discrepancy from the ending of the original word takas ¹⁶ Cf. the usage example provided in ND (punctuation authentic) – Let us begin with how Rytas fans (later I will call them rytfaniai) announced on the Basketnews portal that they had travelled to support Žalgiris in a match against Power Electronics. 44 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXII Naujųjų dūrinių analizės ir klasifikacijos galvosūkiai is irregular. The following explanation of the origin of this word is also scarcely convincing: dvirtakis < dvirk-takis (: dvirka slang ‘bicycle’ + takas). In this case, it would be a compound with a disintegrated base stem, but no written usage of dvirtakio was found during the study. See also Murmulaitytė 2018: 67. However, can we perhaps assume that the methods of morphological word formation and contamination, e.g. disintegration of the base stem and phonetic shortening of the source words, are sometimes confused or applied together? Much more data must be examined to test this assumption. CONCLUSIONS 1. The absolute majority (more than 99 per cent) of the new indigenous compound nouns recorded in the Database belong to combination types described in grammars. Two neologisms may have been formed from combinations of parts of speech not described in grammars: an interjection and a noun (karkadienis) and two verbs (sėdnėse). 2. It is assumed that, when data are collected manually, occasional neologisms are more easily noticed and recorded because of their atypicality than potential derivatives that are realized, which are provided for by the system and can be formed whenever needed. For this reason, it is likely that there are proportionally more occasional neologisms in ND than in usage generally. 3. Various interpretations of the formation of occasional derivatives are often possible (kūnova-ra), and their assignment to one or another classification group depends on them (megztipaltis). This may affect the identification of tendencies and innovations in Lithuanian neologism formation. 4. Analogy helped bring about a considerable number of the neologisms recorded in the Database. Some analogical compounds (ausiratis, lė́tpuodis, noskaras) belong to the same types as the compound nouns on which they were modeled (cf., respectively, akiratis, greitpuodis, auskaras). However, the composition of a larger part of analogical compounds is atypical, e.g. judamatis, which consists of two verbal components (judėti, matuoti), is based on the analogy of other compounds containing this second component, but the first component of the prototypes is nominal, cf. laikmatis (: laikas + matuoti). 5. Several derivatives recorded in the Database may involve mixed formation. The neologism saulėdengtė ‘an exterior curtain for windows or balconies; a shelter protecting from the sun’ (: saulė + dengti + -tė) was undoubtedly formed by composition-suffixation. In the emergence of several others by this method, analogy probably also played a greater or lesser role, e.g. trešnėdra (cf. žmogėdra), galvapiūtė, kainapiūtė, valdziapiūtė (cf. rugiapiūtė). Straipsniai / Articles 45 DAIVA MURMULAITYTĖ 6. Contamination differs from traditional word formation in its non-morphological nature; in Lithuanian, contaminants are traditionally not considered derivatives. However, some neologisms have features of compounds and contaminants, making it difficult to assign them unambiguously to one or the other. In some cases, e.g. when the ending of the second component changes (a characteristic feature of compounding), this may perhaps sometimes be explained by analogy (dvitakis – cf. bėgtakis). The question arises whether the methods of morphological word formation and contamination, e.g. disintegration of the base stem and phonetic shortening of the source words, cannot sometimes be confused or applied together. Much more data must be studied to test this assumption. LITERATURE AND SOURCES Baltai.lt. Gateway to Baltic knowledge. Available online: http://www.baltai.lt/ [accessed 2019–03–11 and 2020–03–07]. Balteiro Isabel 2017: Emerging hybrid Spanish–English blend structures: ‘Summer-gete con socketines’. – Lingua 205, 1–14. Prieiga internete: 10.1016/j.lingua.2017.12.010. Barauskaitė Dalia 1985: Derivational word analysis: A methodological aid, Šiauliai: Šiauliai Pedagogical Institute. Bat-El Outi 1996: Selecting the Best of the Worst: The Grammar of Hebrew Blends. – Phonology 13(3), 283–328. Bat-El Outi 2013: Blends. – Keith Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, 371–343. Bauer Laurie 1983: English Word-Formation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brdar-Szabo Rita, Brdar Mario 2008: On the marginality of lexical blending. – Jezikoslovlje 9(1–2), 171–194. Available at: https://www.academia.edu/4389203/Jezikoslovlje_09_171_Brdar_Szabo_Brdar [accessed 2020–04–02]. DLKG – Grammar of Contemporary Lithuanian, ed. V. Ambrazas, 4th revised edition, Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopaedia Publishing, 2006. DŽ₂ – Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian, responsible editor J. Kruopas, 2nd supplemented edition, Vilnius: Mintis, 1972. DŽ₇ – Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian, chief editor S. Keinys, 7th revised and supplemented edition, Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language, 2012; electronic version, 2015 (updated version, 2017). Available online: http://lkis.lki.lt/dabartinis [accessed 2019–02–03]. 46 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXII Naujųjų dūrinių analizės ir klasifikacijos galvosūkiai Elsen Hilke 2008: Contaminations at the margins of German grammar. – German Language: Journal for Theory, Practice, Documentation 36(2), 114–26. Available online: https://doi.org/10.5282/ubm/epub.14541 [accessed 2020–01–03]. Girčienė Jurgita 2013: Stylistic neologisms online. – Directions and Problems of Contemporary Stylistics, Vilnius: Edukologija, 78–88. Gries Stefan Th. 2004: Shouldn’t it be breakfunch? A quantitative analysis of blend structure in English. – Linguistics 42(3), 639–667. Gries Stefan Th. 2004a: Isn’t that Fantabulous? How Similarity Motivates Intentional Morphological Blends in English – Michel Achard og Suzanne Kemmer (ed.), Language, Culture, and Mind, 415–428. Gries Stefan Th. 2004b: Some characteristics of English morphological blends. – Andronis, Mary A., Depenport, Erin, Pycha, Anne, Yoshimura, Keiko (eds.). Papers from the 38th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society 2, The Panels, Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 201–216. Hosseinzadeh Naghmeh Mirzaie 2014: New blends in English language. – International Journal of English Language and Linguistics Research 2(2), 15–26. Kabašinskaitė Birutė 1998: Folk Etymology of the Lithuanian Language and Related Phenomena, Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopaedia Publishing. Kabašinskaitė Birutė 2014: Outlines of Etymology: History, Theory, Readings, Vilnius: Eugrimas. Keinys Stasys 1999: Word Formation in Standard Lithuanian, Šiauliai: Šiauliai University Press. Club Yearbook – BC „Rytas“. Available online: https://www.rytasvilnius.lt/lt/apie-mus/klubo-metrastis/ [accessed 2020–03–04]. KTŽ – Dictionary of Linguistic Terms, by K. Gaivenis, S. Keinys, Kaunas: Šviesa, 1990. Terminology Bank of the Republic of Lithuania. Available online: http://terminai.vlkk.lt/ [accessed 2019–03–15 and 2020–04–17]. LAALPTŽ – Lithuanian–English and English–Lithuanian Glossary of Psychoanalysis Terms [Electronic resource], compiled by T. V. Kajokas, V. Mickutė, B. Didžiokaitė, Vilnius: Lithuanian Psychoanalytic Society, 2011. Available online: http://psichoterapija.org/zodynas [accessed 2020–04–17]. LKG – Grammar of the Lithuanian Language 1, ed. K. Ulvydas, Vilnius: Mintis, 1965. Straipsniai / Articles 47 DAIVA MURMULAITYTĖ LKŽe – Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language 1–20 (1941–2002), chief editor G. Naktinienė; electronic version, Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language, 2005 (updated version, 2017). Available online: www.lkz.lt [accessed 2019-02-03]. LLV – Latvian–Lithuanian Dictionary, by A. Butkus. Available online: https://www.letonika.lv/groups/default.aspx?g=2&r=10621063 [accessed 2019–03–11]. López Rúa Paula 2002: On the structure of acronyms and neighbouring categories: A prototype-based account. – English Language and Linguistics 6.1, 31–60. Mikelionienė Jurgita 2002: Analogy in Lithuanian word formation. Potential and occasional derivatives. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 46, 73–80. Marković Ivan 2009: Three non-Croatian formations: infixation, reduplication, fusion. – Discussions of the Institute for the Croatian Language and Linguistics 35, 217–241. Mikić Čolić Ana 2015: Word formation of Blends. – Mostariensia: Journal of Social and Humanistic Sciences 19(2), 21–36. Available online: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d7b2/b938660b3ebc9d4d724988978ae00510ae2b.pdf. Miliūnaitė Rita 2014: New contaminational derivatives in the Lithuanian language. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 71, 246–264. Miliūnaitė Rita 2018: Presentation and search possibilities for neologisms in the Database of Lithuanian Neologisms. – Standard Language 91, 1–21. Available online: http://www.bendrinekalba.lt/Straipsniai/91/Miliunaite_BK_91_straipsnis.pdf. Murmulaitytė Daiva 2018: Contamination and Lithuanian neologism formation. – Language and Contexts 8(1), Vilnius: Press of the Lithuanian University of Educational Sciences, 60–70. Murmulaitytė Daiva 2019: Formation of Lithuanian compound-noun neologisms and the norms of the standard language. – Baltu filologija 28(2), 107–122. Available online: https://doi.org/10.22364/bf.28.2.03. ND – Rita Miliūnaitė, Agnė Aleksaitė. Database of Lithuanian Neologisms [Ongoing online reference work since 2011]. Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language. Available online: http://naujazodziai.lki.lt [accessed in 2019 and January–April 2020]. Orekhova Elena, Badelina Mariya 2019: Teaching students of non-linguistic specialties to translate telescopisms into Russian in texts of journalese style. – Amazonia investiga 8(19), 333–345. Paulauskienė Aldona 1994: Lithuanian Morphology. Lectures for Students of Lithuanian Studies, Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopaedia Publishing. Paulauskienė Aldona 2007: Fundamentals of Lithuanian Morphology, Kaunas: Technologija. 48 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXII Naujųjų dūrinių analizės ir klasifikacijos galvosūkiai Renner Vincent 2015: Lexical blendings as Wordplay. – Angelika Zirker, Esme Winter Froemel (ed.), Wordplay and Metalinguistic/Metadiscursive Reflection. Authors, Contexts, Techniques, and Meta-Reflection, 119–134. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110406719. Renner Vincent 2019: French and English lexical blends in contrast. – Languages in Contrast 19(1), 27–47. Prieiga internete: 10.1075/lic.16020.ren. Skardžius Pranas 1943: Lithuanian Word Formation, Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language. Smetona Antanas 2005: On the issue of distinguishing the main methods of word formation. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 52, 83–89. Soon, dictionary to describe clothes like whorts, cardigowns, treggings. Prieiga internete: https://www.dnaindia.com/lifestyle/report-soon-dictionary-to-describe-clothes-like-whorts-cardigowns-treggings-1441592 [žiūrėta 2019-03-10 ir 2020-03-04]. Umbrasas Alvydas 2000: Terminological expressions of V. Mykolaitis-Putinas’s literary scholarship with form components –inis, -ė. – Terminologija 6, 78–90. Urbutis Vincas 2009: Theory of Word Formation, Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopaedia Publishing. Vaskelienė Jolanta 2019: On derivatives ending in -eivis, -ė. – Standard Language 92, 1–16. Available online: http://www.bendrinekalba.lt/Straipsniai/92/Vaskeliene_BK_92_straipsnis.pdf. Ефанова Лариса Г. 2015: Contamination (materials for a dictionary of linguistic terms). Part 1. Broad and narrow understanding of the term “contamination”. – Bulletin of Tomsk State University. Philology 2(34), 14–22. Ефанова Лариса Г. 2016: Contamination. Part 2. Main varieties of contamination. – Bulletin of Tomsk State University. Philology 1(39), 5–14. Лаврова Наталия А. 2008: The concept of contamination: form and content. – Bulletin of the Moscow State Linguistic University. Current Problems of Contemporary English Lexicology, Moscow: Rema. Issue 552, 44–53. Лаврова Наталия А. 2013: Contamination as a word-formation model: structure, semantics, stylistics, pragmatics: based on contemporary English. Abstract of a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philological Sciences, Moscow: Moscow State Pedagogical University, 1–48. Straipsniai / Articles 49 DAIVA MURMULAITYTĖ Прокопец А. П. 2006: Semantic models of word-formation contaminants. – Scientific Notes of the Taurida National University named after V. I. Vernadsky. Series “Philology”. No. 3, vol. 19(58), 140–146. Хрущева Оксана А. 2010: Universal features of branding. – Bulletin of VSU. Series: Linguistics and Intercultural Communication 2, 187–189. The Puzzles of New Compounds’ Analysis and Classification SUMMARY The analysis of coinages frequently raises some questions regarding the ways of their appearing, formation and classification. The article aims at overviewing the atypical cases of the formation of Lithuanian neologisms that are coined from two or more words. The analysis focuses on the nouns, mostly indigenous ones, which are included into The Database of Lithuanian Neologisms (DLN). This source contained about 560 of such words in the beginning of 2019. 99% of indigenous compounds belong to the main types of composition in the Lithuanian language, and their second component is either a nominal or verbal one. But there are some examples of atypical compounding in DLN as well. Two compounds (karkadienis ‘symbolic birthday of ice-cream “Kar kar”, sėdnešė ‘a saddlebaby’) are composed of an onomatopoeic interjection and a noun as well as two verbs, respectively. These combinations of the parts of speech of base words have not been described in Lithuanian grammars as the types of composition. It can be assumed that because of the manual way of data collection, new-coined occasionalisms are noticed and recorded more easily due to their atypicality compared to the potential words, which are foreseen in the system and can be coined any time they are needed. For this reason, the percentage of new-coined occasionalisms in DLN may be higher than in the daily usage. Various interpretations of the formation of new-coined occasionalisms are often available and they predetermine the attribution of coinages to one or another group of classification. This may have influence in identifying the trends and innovations in new word-formation in the Lithuanian language. Such words as saulėdengtės ‘sunblind’ are the products of composition-suffixation. Several other compounds of this type were formed via analogy to a bigger or smaller extent, e.g., trešnėdra ‘sweet cherry eater’ (cf. žmogėdra ‘man-eater’), galvapjūtė ‘head harvesting – large-scale firing of people in high posts seeking transparency and renewal, valdžiapjūtė 50 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXII Naujųjų dūrinių analizės ir klasifikacijos galvosūkiai ‘a wave of firing of people in charge’, kainapjūtė ‘price harvesting — discount time in retail business’, (cf. rugiapjūtė ‘rye harvesting’). The analysis of 30 analogical compounds reveals that some of them (e.g. ausiratis ‘an area within hearing distance’, lėipuodis ‘a crock-pot’, noskaras ‘a nose ring’) belong to the same types as the compound nouns on the basis of which they were coined (cf. akiratis ‘an outlook’, greitpuodis ‘a pressure pot’, auskaras ‘an earring’, respectively). However, the composition of a bigger number of analogical compounds is of atypical character. For example, judamatis ‘a movement meter’, which consists of two verbal components (judėti ‘to move’, matuoti ‘to measure’), is formed following the analogy with other compounds containing this second verbal component. However, the first component of prototypes is nominal, e.g., laikmatis ‘a timer’ (: laikas ‘time’ + matuoti ‘to measure’). Blending differs from word-formation in its non-morphological character. Traditionally, blends are not regarded as formations in the Lithuanian language. However, a number of neologisms possess the features of compounds and blends. That is why, it is complicated to unambiguously attribute them to either type. Some cases, such as, for example, the changed flexion of the second component (a typical feature of composition), can be explained through analogy (dvirtaikis ‘a cycling trail’ — cf. bėgakis ‘a treadmill’). However, can’t it also be assumed that the methods of morphological word-formation and blending, e.g., disintegration of base stem and phonetic shortening of the source word, are sometimes combined or used together? The verification of this assumption calls for more extensive data. Received on April 6, 2020 DAIVA MURMULAITYTĖ Institute of the Lithuanian Language, 5 Petro Vileišio St., Vilnius, LT–10308, Lithuania [email protected] Straipsniai / Articles 51