Liaudiški ir tarmiški augalų genčių vardai šiuolaikinėje lietuvių prozoje

AURELIJA GRITĖNIENĖ Institute of the Lithuanian Language Research areas: lexicology, dialectology. FOLK AND DIALECTAL NAMES OF PLANT GENERA IN CONTEMPORARY LITHUANIAN PROSE Folk and Dialectal Names of the Genera of Plants in Contemporary Lithuanian Prose ABSTRACT The subject of this study is the 203 one-word names of plant genera found in 80 works by 49 authors of contemporary Lithuanian prose, which differ in some respect (root, meaning, formation, or phonetic composition) from scientific names. Plant names that do not belong to the standard language lexicon, bear clear regional markers, and are used more widely in one or several dialects are referred to in this article as dialectal forms or dialectal plant names. Plant names whose roots differ from those customary in scientific terminology, but which belong to the general lexicon—that is, are known to nearly all users of the Lithuanian language and have no marked associations with any particular dialect—are referred to in this article as folk plant names or colloquialisms. The main aim of the study is to determine which folk and dialectal one-word names of plant genera are used in contemporary Lithuanian prose, analyze their structure, origin, and distribution, and discuss the functions and context of their use in literary texts. KEYWORDS: literary style, prose, plant name, dialectal form, colloquialism. ANNOTATION The object of research presented in the article is 203 one-word names of the genera of plants from 80 works of 49 authors of contemporary Lithuanian prose which are in some way (by their root, meaning, formation or phonetic composition) different from their scientific names. The names of plants which do not belong to the standard lexis, have clear features of regionalism and are more commonly used in one or several dialects are referred to as dialecticisms or dialectal names of plants in the article. The names of plants having Straipsniai / Articles 85 AURELIJA GRITĖNIENĖ a different root than that usually used in scientific terminology but belonging to general lexis, i.e. known to nearly all users of the Lithuanian language and having no clear links with any of the dialects, are referred to as folk names of plants or colloquialisms. The main research aim is to identify what folk and dialectal one-word names of the genera of plants appear in contemporary Lithuanian prose, to analyse their structure, origin and prevalence and to discuss the functions and context of their use in the texts of fiction. KEYWORDS: artistic style, prose, name of the plant, dialecticism, colloquialism. INTRODUCTION Until the middle of the twentieth century, Lithuanian literary language was nourished by the living springs of dialect. At that time, the written-language canon was shaped largely by living dialects, which is why linguistic richness remains an important criterion for the value of a work even today. As popular entertainment culture increasingly flourishes in the twenty-first century, texts are also more and more often “manufactured” in literature, and it is forgotten that the essence of literature is the art of the word, and that there can never be a good work without a proper command of words. Absolutely everything is admitted uncritically into literary texts, and Lithuanian prose has therefore experienced a genuine anti-aesthetic shock in recent years (Sprindytė 2006: 23, 29, 34). As a counterbalance to the rapid-fire speech promoted by mass media, the archetype of folk speech preserved by some authors emerges in creative writing (Kubilius 2003: 43–44). A closer examination of the texts of contemporary Lithuanian prose writers from several generations reveals two quite distinct tendencies: some writers, sensing the impact of globalization, open themselves to world cultures, turn away from national culture, and adopt slang; the texts of others are oriented toward enduring values, remain connected to their ancestral land and childhood experience, and retain the oral narrative of the village and songlike intonations (Bukelienė 2004: 106; Kubilius 2003: 95). These latter works prompted a closer examination of how many traces of regional character—diversity, richness, and vividness of verbal expression—have survived in the literary texts of professional authors. Dialectal forms are meant first and foremost. They enrich not only the standard language. In literary works, dialect words help individualize characters’ speech and create an authentic setting; writers often use them not only in dialogue but also in the authorial narrative. The use of dialect forms is therefore of interest not only to literary scholars but also to linguists (especially dialectologists, lexicographers, ethnolinguists, and ethnostylists). The types and functions of dialect forms in Lithuanian fiction have been described in detail by Juozas Pikčilingis (Pikčilingis 1975: 99–125). Pranas Kniūkšta wrote about colloquial-language words in the prose of Ieva Simonait y tė and Mykolas Sluckis (Kniūkšta 1981: 52–72). Kazys Morkūnas discussed eastern dialect forms in the works of Ignas Šeinius (Morkūnas 86 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXII Liaudiški ir tarmiški augalų genčių vardai šiuolaikinėje lietuvių prozoje 2009: 1–8). The lexical dialect forms in Romualdas Granauskas’s works have been analyzed on numerous occasions (Akelaitienė, Žiliūtė-Batavičienė 2011: 5–15; Paulauskytė 2001: 19–20). The author of this article has previously discussed folk plant names used in contemporary Lithuanian children’s prose (Gritėnienė 2014: 50–62). Dialect forms in literary texts have been studied extensively by Russian linguists. We will mention just a few studies covering works of Russian literature from different periods: Boris Larin analyzed the functions of dialectisms in the texts of Leonid Leonov, Mikhail Sholokhov, and other Russian writers (Ларин 1974: 238–261); Irina Kurnosova and Alina Popovich discussed the functional and stylistic features of dialectisms used in early-twentieth-century Russian prose (Курносова 1995; Попович 2013); Taisiya Kudinova examined the origins and functions of dialectisms in the works of Anton Chekhov (Кудинова 2000). Dialectisms used in twentieth-century Spanish fiction have been described in detail (Дворецкая 2005). A separate study investigates plant names used in the works of William Shakespeare (Ryden 1978). The subject of this article is folk and dialectal plant genus names collected from the works of Lithuanian prose writers of the early twenty-first century1. Literary critics observe that non-poetic expression has become markedly more prominent in recent Lithuanian prose, and there is even talk of an obvious decline in the word (Sprindytė 2006: 275); alongside this, however, dialectal expression emerges as a counterweight to half-language, jargon, and nonstandard language. After reading more than 100 works of contemporary Lithuanian prose, folk plant names were found in 80 works by 49 authors2. The research material consists of 203 distinct phytonyms. The selected authors have produced texts in a variety of short and long narrative forms. In gathering material for the study, primary attention was paid to classical prose genres—novellas, short stories, novelettes, and novels3; however, given that these genres are ceding ground to so-called boundary or marginal genres—essays, memoirs, diaries, stylization, and so on (Arnatkevičiūtė 2006: 63)—several works belonging to these genres were also included in the scope of the study. Structurally, several types of folk and dialectal plant names are attested in Lithuanian prose: 1) one-word genus names, for example, notrelė ‘nettle’ (Urtica) 1 This is a purely chronological choice. Literary scholars point out that a new stage in Lithuanian literature began even earlier—in the 1980s. After independence was restored, writers entered a period in which they could write freely, unlike before; favorable conditions for experimentation and improvisation emerged. For more on this, see Brazauskas 2014: 14; Martinaitis 2003: 23–26; Sprindytė 2006: 9–10. 2 Detailed metadata is provided at the end of the article, under “Abbreviations of Sources.” 3 For traditional genre classifications and problems concerning the determination of their boundaries, see Kalėda 1996: 11–14. Straipsniai / Articles 87 AURELIJA GRITĖNIENĖ (K. Saj. 2010 96)4, paleistuvė ‘kalanchoe’ (Kalanchoe) (L. Čern. 2009 (a) 90), etc.; 2) two- or three-word idiomatic genus and species names5, for example, queen of the night ‘echinopsis’ (Echinopsis) (B. Jon. 2009 220), keys of Saint Peter ‘cowslip’ (Primula veris) (H. Gud. 150, E. Ign. 274), etc.; 3) two-word species names6, for example, wild poppy ‘corn poppy’ (Papaver rhoeas) (L. Gut. 2007 9), wild chicory ‘common chicory’ (R. Šer. 2014 60), etc.; 4) one-, two-, three-, or even four-word cultivar names7, for example, the potato cultivar Užuvara (A. Žag. 559), the tomato cultivar Puškino-Bizono (A. Žag. 544), the pear cultivar Mičiurino žieminė Bėra (A. Žag. 558), and the apple cultivar Antaninė Perpus Finkuota (Mičiurininė). This article analyzes in greater detail only the plant names in the first group, that is, one-word plant genus names that differ in some way from scientific plant names. Obvious authorial coinages (for example, žirgarūgštynė (J. Kral. 73))8, names occurring only in written language (for example, bizonžolė ‘cup plant’ (Silphium) (H. Gud. 359), kinmedis ‘cinchona tree’ (Cinchona) (L. Gut. 2013 94), vėjažolė ‘windflower’ (Anemone) (J. Skab. 2004 220)), slang terms (for example, siemkė ‘sunflower’ (Helianthus) (R. Šer. 2008 22)), and unidentified plant names (for example, burtažolė (J. Skab. 2004 170), devynžolės (J. Kral. 44), rumbė (J. Skab. 2004 183)) are not discussed in greater detail in the article9. Plant names that do not belong to the standard-language lexicon, have clear regional markers, and are used more widely in one or several dialects are referred to synonymously in the article as dialectal forms or dialectal plant names. Plant names that have a different cha- 4 The page of the work in which the plant name is first recorded is indicated after the abbreviated author’s surname. 5 About 20 idiomatic plant names were recorded in the works selected for the study. 6 About 80 different colloquial plant species names were found in the selected prose texts. 7 About 70 different colloquial plant cultivar names were found in the texts. Most of them (about 60) were recorded in Agnė Žagrakalytė’s novel Eigulio duktė: byla F 117 (2013). Other Lithuanian prose writers (Henrikas Čigriejus, R. Granauskas, Kazys Saja, Renata Šerelytė, etc.) most often mention some of the more popular apple and wheat cultivars, for example, Antonovka apple (R. Šer. 2010 123), antanupkos (H. Čig. 2011 105), grapšteinas (R. Šav. 2009 100), papinkos (H. Čig. 2011 105), paper apple (R. Gran. 2013 (a) 29), awned, awnless, two-row, four-row, soft wheats (K. Saj. 2010 147). 8 Many more authorial coinages are used in contemporary Lithuanian children’s prose. See Gritėnienė 2014: 8–13 for further discussion. 9 Some names should be considered proofreading or ignorance errors rather than dialectal forms: they differ only slightly from the names used in scientific language—in vowel length, by one consonant, and so on—and occur only once in a work by a given author. Examples include antūris ‘anthurium’ (Anthurium) (A. Meil. 136), galinzoga ‘galinsoga’ (Galinsoga) (H. Gud. 60), kupolis ‘kūpolis’ (Melampyrum) (H. Gud. 293), machonija ‘mahonia’ (Mahonia) (J. Skab. 2000 45), etc. Such phytonyms are also not analyzed in greater detail in the article. 88 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXII Liaudiški ir tarmiški augalų genčių vardai šiuolaikinėje lietuvių prozoje names that are less common than those in scientific terminology but belong to the general vocabulary, that is, are known to almost all users of the Lithuanian language and have no strong ties to any particular dialect, are referred to in the article as colloquial plant names or colloquialisms. The main aim of the study is to determine which colloquial and dialectal one-word plant genus names are used in contemporary Lithuanian prose, and to discuss their origin, distribution, and usage tendencies. PROBLEMS IN IDENTIFYING FOLK AND DIALECTAL PHYTONYMS Scientific plant names were identified primarily on the basis of the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language (LKŽ), its card files, and various terminology dictionaries. The nomenclature of Lithuanian and Latin scientific plant names has changed more than once; therefore, the article draws not only on the Dictionary of Botanical Names (1998), compiled by Ramunėlė Jankevičienė, but also on data provided in the LR Terminų bankas (http://terminai.vlkk.lt). Plant names are easiest to identify when the authors themselves explain the meaning or motivation of a dialectal name, or indicate in which part of Lithuania the plant is called by that name. “To use a dialectal form, an author must ‘demonstrate the ability’ to present it: weave it into a sentence or a broader context in such a way that the latter reveals the word’s content” (Pikčilingis 1975: 121). There is more than one example of how context helps determine the meanings of phytonyms: “Here, around Demeniškės, people call this powerful and prickly plant durnaropę. The Botanical Dictionary, in turn, calls it dagišiumi, describes it as a member of the daisy family, and gives its Latin name as Carduus” (R. Sad. 92). “The Karvelukai are already ripening their seeds, but these really are karvelukai; nobody ever called them sinavadais” (H. Gud. 113). “[...] vaistinė baltašaknė, also called kurvažole by ordinary people. Why be surprised that it is poisonous—its very name says it all” (R. Šer. 2013 55). “[...] Cikorija. This word is known only from books, because the Dzūkai call that splendid flower of the fallow fields arkline rugiagėle. Like the names of other herbs, this name was invented by the people, and is especially apt and mysterious. It resembles rugiagėlę cikoriją in its blue flower; you could not tell them apart by their color” (R. Sad. 230). A scientific plant name (especially when a word has several meanings) can be identified with the help of the author’s morphological description of the plant or mention of its medicinal properties: “The yard grass is still green, summery; near the path are gyslalapėliai, really good when, as used to happen, you cut yourself—they draw the heat out” (H. Čig. 2007 153). “[...] I wanted to tug my sister by the sleeve and show her the withered ‘Pelenės batelį’; that is what we called an unknown flower with a long halberd-shaped stem, swaying clusters of blue blossoms like little shoes threaded with gold” (R. Šer. 2008 172). Straipsniai / Articles 89 AURELIJA GRITĖNIENĖ When reading prose texts, several plant names were found whose scientific names could not be identified. Sometimes even a very general description of a plant does not help identify its name, for example: “Devynžolės protect against illness and suffering. [...] I feel happy when I save a person’s life with devynžolėm” (J. Kral. 44). “And the ežiukai had not yet bloomed; they are autumn flowers, with very tiny blossoms” (H. Gud. 113). Another problem in determining a plant’s precise scientific name is the polysemy of names. In everyday speech, several plants are often given the same name, so if an author does not specify the exact scientific plant name, it is difficult to decide which particular plant is mentioned in the work, for example: gumbažolė (R. Šer. 2013 88)—many herbs once used to treat swellings are popularly called gumbažolės; jievaras (J. Kunč. 2006 37, R. Marč. 316), jovaras (R. Sad. 100)—these names are popularly used for several trees: ‘black poplar’ (Populus nigra), ‘sycamore maple’ (Acer pseudoplatanus), ‘European hornbeam’ (Carpinus betulus), ‘hawthorn’ (Crataegus), ‘plane tree’ (Platanus); kupstukai (H. Gud. 113)—this general name may refer to more than one clump-forming garden plant: fescue, primrose, various stonecrop species, etc.; kregždžolė (V. Mart. 187) denotes several plants in everyday speech: ‘swallow-wort’ (Vincetoxicum hirundinaria), ‘greater celandine’ (Chelidonium majus), and ‘common snapdragon’ (Antirrhinum majus). As mentioned earlier, such plant names that have not yet been identified are not analyzed in this article. COLLOQUIALISMS Almost a quarter of the plant genus names discussed in the article are familiar and readily understood by everyone, widely used throughout Lithuania, and recorded in at least one edition of the Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian. As mentioned earlier, such phytonyms associated with the informal, everyday sphere should be called not dialectal forms but folk plant names or colloquialisms—words in common use in folk spoken language (Jakaitienė 2010: 174). Colloquialization is one of the more prominent features of contemporary Lithuanian speech. Recently, texts of nearly all styles have included elements of colloquial style (Smetonienė 2013: 150). Lexicon characteristic of colloquial style is especially abundant in the public sphere—in television and in politicians’ speeches (Tamaševičius 2009: 143–146; Župerka 2013: 185). This tendency is also evident in literary texts. More than 30 phytonyms that can be considered colloquialisms were found in the selected works of prose writers, for example: abrikosmedis ‘common apricot’ (Armeniaca vulgaris) (V. Mart. 33), apelsinas (K. Sab. 2012 59, M. Sluc. 144), apelsinmedis (V. Rykš. 234, K. Sab. 2012 59, R. Šav. 2013 61) ‘sweet orange’ (Citrus sinensis), batvinis 90 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXII Liaudiški ir tarmiški augalų genčių vardai šiuolaikinėje lietuvių prozoje ‘table beet’ (Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris var. conditiva) (L. Gut. 2013 236), dagilis ‘thistle’ (Carduus) (A. Žag. 234), dilgynė (L. Gut. 2013 168, K. Sab. 2008 29, J. Skab. 2000 228, J. Skab. 2004 147, A. Žag. 255) ‘nettle’ (Urtica), dobilėlis (D. Jaz. 15), dobiliukas (L. Gut. 2013 168, V. Mart. 165, J. Skab. 2000 151, A. Žag. 15) ‘white clover’ (Trifolium repens), eglės ‘juniper’ (Juniperus) (L. Gut. 2011 58, L. Gut. 2013 14, J. Kral. 19, A. Zur. 2010 112, A. Žag. 181), epušė ‘aspen’ (Populus tremula) (L. Gut. 2007 234, L. Gut. 2008 48, S. Par. 29), erškėtrožė ‘rose’ (Rosa) (L. Čern. 2009 (b) 132, L. Gut. 2008 156, L. Gut. 2013 10, E. Ign. 17, B. Jon. 2011 27, K. Sab. 2008 154, M. Sluc. 179, J. Skab. 2000 162, R. Šer. 2013 78, G. Vil. 104, A. Žag. 323), figmedis ‘fig tree’ (Ficus) (L. Gut. 2007 274, M. Ivaš. 238, K. Sab. 2014 15), gladiolė ‘gladiolus’ (Gladiolus) (A. Žag. 393), granatas ‘pomegranate’ (Punica granatum) (K. Sab. 2008 26), kačpėdelė ‘common cat’s-foot’ (Antennaria dioica) (B. Jon. 2009 198), karkliukai ‘garden phlox’ (Phlox paniculata) (H. Gud. 113), lauras ‘laurel’ (Laurus) (L. Gut. 2013 96), metėlė ‘wormwood’ (Artemisia absinthium) (L. Gut. 2007 66, R. Šer. 2010 113), nasturta ‘nasturtium’ (Tropaeolum) (B. Jon. 2007 20, J. Kunč. 2000 59, J. Kunč. 2006 30, I. Mer. 61, K. Sab. 2008 26, J. Skab. 2000 18, A. Žag. 124), pelynas ‘wormwood’ (Artemisia absinthium) (H. Čig. 2003 24, H. Čig. 2011 40, L. Gut. 2007 66, L. Gut. 2008 82, L. Gut. 2011 58, L. Gut. 2013 112, E. Ign. 317, K. Sab. 2011 166, K. Saj. 2010 55, J. Skab. 2000 178, J. Skab. 2004 179, R. Šer. 2010 8, R. Šer. 2013 89, A. Urb. 2014 226, A. Zur. 2000 57), piktadagis ‘nodding thistle’ (Carduus nutans) (J. Kral. 88), puplaiškis ‘bogbean’ (Menyanthes trifoliata) (H. Čig. 2007 51, R. Gran. 2014 15, J. Kunč. 2006 58), ramunėlė (J. Ap. 288, L. Gut. 2013 211, B. Jon. 2007 75, J. Skab. 2004 117), ramunėlis (H. Čig. 2007 119, A. Žag. 124) ‘German chamomile’ (Chamomilla recutita), šaltmėtė ‘peppermint’ (Mentha × piperita) (R. Šav. 2009 141), švendrė ‘common reed’ (Phragmites) (L. Čern. 2009 (b) 133, L. Gut. 2008 260, J. Skab. 2000 172, J. Skab. 2004 79, R. Šav. 2009 197, R. Šer. 2006 8), topolis (J. Ap. 396, H. Čig. 2003 63, H. Čig. 2007 115, H. Čig. 2011 76, R. Gran. 2005 (a) 29, R. Gran. 2007 248, E. Ign. 260, B. Jon. 2011 68, A. Žag. 154) ‘poplar’ (Populus), trauklapis ‘plantain’ (Plantago) (L. Gut. 2007 241, L. Gut. 2013 101, S. Par. 93), trūkžolė ‘common chicory’ (Cichorium intybus) (H. Čig. 2003 182), vynuogė ‘grapevine’ (Vitis) (R. Šer. 2014 21, L. Gut. 2011 322, B. Jon. 2011 82, A. Žag. 453), zuikiakrūmis ‘broom’ (Sarothamnus) (B. Jon. 2011 87), žibutė ‘liverleaf’ (Hepatica nobilis) (V. Čep. 124, R. Gran. 2014 135, H. Gud. 273, L. Gut. 2011 59, E. Jan. 43, J. Kunč. 2000 91, V. Mart. 164, R. Mat. 13, I. Mer. 195, N. Peč. 11, S. Sak. 35, J. Skab. 2004 146, M. Sluc. 10, R. Šer. 2001 130, R. Šer. 2013 42, Š. Šim. 6, A. Žag. 130), žilvitis ‘basket willow’ (Salix viminalis) (H. Čig. 2003 44, H. Čig. 2011 131, L. Gut. 2008 254, L. Gut. 2011 58, L. Gut. 2013 96, B. Jon. 2011 76, A. Rus. 34, A. Zur. 2000 6, A. Zur. 2010 150, A. Žag. 154). “Closeness to spoken language is a sign of a word’s vitality” (Pikčilingis 1971: 151), so we might say that colloquialisms in literary texts serve as an intermediate link, allowing the writer to venture further still—toward dialect speech. Straipsniai / Articles 91 AURELIJA GRITĖNIENĖ PHONETIC AND MORPHONEMIC DIALECT FORMS Relatively few phonetic and morphonemic dialect forms were recorded in the selected prose texts. They are all used purposefully in literary language. Phonetic dialect forms are used most often in dialogue. In creating realistic, lifelike character portraits, the aim is also to convey their speech as authentically as possible. The most prominent phonetic features of the Eastern Aukštaitian subdialect are reduction of short word-final vowels, the change of stressed ą to ū, and the change of unstressed uo to half-long a, for example: ūžals10 (A. Žag. 565) (Northern Panevėžys subdialect), ūžalėliu (L. Gut. 2001 128) (Utena subdialect) ‘oak, little oak’ (Quercus). Southern Aukštaitian features dzūkavimas (Dzūkian pronunciation) and pronunciation of hard consonants l and š before e, for example: blindzės ‘willows’ (Salix) (L. Gut. 2011 384), dzirgelės ‘nettles’ (Urtica) (B. Jon. 2007 102), eglali ‘little fir’ (Abies) (L. Gut. 2011 397), gvazdikuciai ‘marigolds’ (Tagetes) (H. Gud. 113), lenkuciai (H. Gud. 113), marguciai (H. Gud. 113) ‘such garden plants’, pucinelis ‘little guelder rose’ (Viburnum) (L. Gut. 2011 58), pušalė ‘little pine’ (Pinus) (L. Gut. 2011 101). Northern Samogitians pronounce ou instead of standard-language uo, change stressed ą to ɔn, and pronounce ie as ė in the word stem, for example, onžouls ‘oak’ (Quercus) (R. Gran. 2007 235), vuobilieliu ‘little apple trees’ (Malus) (R. Gran. 2007 17). Southern Samogitians pronounce the diphthong ie as the diphthong-like sound iˀi, for example, kvyčius ‘wheat’ (Triticum) (E. Ign. 119). The prose texts also contained several morphonemic dialect forms, that is, names that differ from scientific plant names through irregular changes in root or stem vowels or consonants: aržuolas ‘oak’ (Quercus) (K. Saj. 2003 31), činčibiras ‘cinchona’ (Strychnos) (V. Čep. 420), kačiažolė ‘catnip’ (Nepeta) (R. Šer. 2008 159), kačpedė ‘cat’s-foot’ (Antennaria) (B. Jon. 2007 104), kadugys ‘common juniper’ (Juniperus communis) (J. Kral. 50, K. Saj. 2003 27, K. Saj. 2010 17, R. Šav. 2009 31, R. Šer. 2013 147), lendrė ‘common reed’ (Phragmites australis) (J. Ap. 372), palergonija ‘geranium’ (Pelargonium) (H. Čig. 2007 160, H. Čig. 2011 150), tabokas ‘tobacco’ (Nicotiana) (H. Čig. 2007 49). Phonetic dialect forms are most often used when authors seek to convey the intonations of spoken language. R. Granauskas’s characters speak dialect most often—the older generation in the countryside, which has preserved its authentic speech: “Don’t trample the plots, don’t scratch the hay, don’t break the vuobilieliu; I planted them myself for you. Don’t jump over those ėgleles, or you’ll break the tops” (R. Gran. 2007 17). “The oak asked me to tell you it’s still alive and well. [...] She said: oak, oakling... All the Telšiai people say it like that” (R. Gran. 2007 235). R. Granauskas 10 All phonetic dialect forms recorded in the texts are presented in the article in the case form in which the authors used them. 92 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXII Liaudiški ir tarmiški augalų genčių vardai šiuolaikinėje lietuvių prozoje The Samogitian dialect features are open, natural, and spontaneous, emerging without rational effort on the author’s part (Bukelienė 2004: 65), lending the work’s authenticity depth and a major-key quality (Sprindytė 2013: 135). Leonardo Gutauskas’s novella characters—the old men—also speak in the Dzūkian dialect just as naturally. His prose contains many dialectal insertions. They allow the beauty of the dialect to be felt and reveal the author’s wish to preserve it (Daubaraitė 2012: 13), for example: „[...] vieni mišką družbantais darbuja, pūšalaites laidžia, kici laukuosa aria [vyrai]“ (L. Gut. 2011 29). „[...] aš ir tep, ir kitap, iššokįs pabarškinu botagu pūšalaitėn, parėkaunu [...]“ (L. Gut. 2011 38). „[...] paūliais auga užalai, tai ciej let mūsų kunigaikščių laikus prismintų, jei prakalbėt [...]“ (L. Gut. 2011 102). The dialectal substrate breaks through consciously, judiciously, and purposefully in contemporary Lithuanian prose. Only writers of the older generation dare to make their characters speak this way—writers who themselves know the dialect and are unafraid to show it. Sentences written by authors in dialect sometimes depart from its pure norms, and its phonetic features are not always reflected with precision, but that was not the creators’ main aim. Readers believe in this way of speaking for the characters: it seems authentic and natural, and that is entirely sufficient to create vivid character portraits or colorful Lithuanian landscapes. LEXICAL DIALECTAL FEATURES The principal feature of artistic language is imagery. Special expressive devices help create it. By using lexical dialect forms—words containing a root found neither in the standard language nor in other dialects (Jakaitienė 2010: 178)—authors seek to create the most compelling, realistic, and vivid possible image of the world they depict. “The vitality of language is determined above all by the authentic spirit of the Lithuanian language, handed down through the ages and expressed in a rich vocabulary, breadth and vitality of meaning, and traditional relations between words” (Pupkis 2005: 382). Texts by authors from Samogitia, who live or create there, contain numerous Samogitian dialect forms. The following plant names are used in the Samogitian dialect area: gyslapis (R. Gran. 2013 (a) 74) ‘plantain’ (Plantago), gudnoterė ‘stinging nettle’ (Urtica urens) (J. Kral. 14), kalakutžolė ‘silverweed’ (Potentilla anserina) (J. Ap. 73, R. Gran. 2013 (a) 74, E. Ign. 54), kibišis ‘woolly burdock’ (Arctium tomentosum) (J. Ap. 10), kumelrūgštė ‘meadow dock’ (Rumex confertus) (V. Jas. 2007 55), notrelė ‘nettle’ (Urtica) (K. Saj. 2010 96), raskilėlis (E. Ign. 28) ‘lady’s mantle’ (Alchemilla), rūgštelė ‘common sorrel’ (Rumex acetosa), and others. The following names are considered Eastern Lithuanian dialect forms: degutis ‘ragged robin’ (Lychnis flos-cuculi) (J. Kral. 83), gyslalapis ‘plantain’ (Plantago) (H. Čig. 2007 153), raitūzai ‘tiger lily’ (Lilium lancifolium) (A. Žag. 124), rasakėlėlis (J. Kral. 44) ‘lady’s mantle’ (Alchemilla), šilkvagvaizdikis ‘sweet William’ (Dianthus barbatus) (H. Čig. 2003 Straipsniai / Articles 93 AURELIJA GRITĖNIENĖ 125), tekšnė ‘cloudberry’ (Rubus chamaemorus) (J. Skab. 2004 183), vilkarnė ‘mezereon’ (Daphne mezereum) (J. Skab. 2004 110), and others. Several Dzūkian dialect forms have been recorded in the prose of authors from Dzūkija or writing there (Henrikas Gudavičius, L. Gutauskas, Jurgis Kunčinas, Romas Sadauskas): gaidžia uogė ‘stone bramble’ (Rubus saxatilis) (J. Kunč. 2006 98), martukės ‘daisy’ (Bellis perennis), mėlynukai ‘forget-me-not’ (Myosotis), raguotukai ‘larkspur’ (Consolida regalis), raktukai ‘primrose’ (Primula) (H. Gud. 113), rugiagėlė ‘chicory’ (Cichorium intybus) (R. Sad. 230); compare also plant names with the suffixes –ai-tė and –ukas, widely used in the Southern Aukštaitian subdialect: bulbaitė ‘potato’ (Solanum tuberosum) (L. Gut. 2008 277), panaitės ‘a kind of flowering garden plant’ (H. Gud. 113), brolukai ‘garden pansy’ (Viola wittrockiana) (H. Gud. 113, B. Jon. 2009 199), karvelukai ‘columbine’ (Aquilegia) (H. Gud. 113), sausukas ‘everlasting flower’ (Xeranthemum) (H. Gud. 113). Other lexical dialect forms are used even more widely, throughout the entire Aukštaitian dialect area: drigniažolė ‘black henbane’ (Hyoscyamus niger) (R. Šer. 2013 69), levukas ‘snapdragon’ (Antirrhinum) (B. Jon. 2007 18), naktinukė ‘evening stock’ (Matthiola bicornis) (L. Gut 2013 262, R. Marč. 110), palazdys ‘liverleaf’ (Hepatica nobilis) (A. Žag. 130), spalgena ‘cranberry’ (Oxycoccus) (H. Čig. 2007 84, L. Gut. 2011 58, A. Žag. 491), svėris ‘wild radish’ (Raphanus raphanistrum) (A. Žag. 207), šarkakojis ‘larkspur’ (Consolida regalis) (A. Žag. 198), žirniukai ‘sweet pea’ (Lathyrus odoratus) (A. Žag. 190), and others. Other popular plant names are widely used throughout Lithuania: goštautas ‘Maltese cross’ (Lychnis chalcedonica) (H. Gud. 113, A. Žag. 393), levažandis (B. Jon. 2007 18, A. Žag. 124) ‘snapdragon’ (Antirrhinum), riešutynas ‘hazel’ (Corylus) (A. Žag. 237), slyvukas ‘cherry plum’ (Prunus cerasifera) (E. Ign. 219), šaltapusnis ‘coltsfoot’ (Tussilago) (J. Skab. 2000 189), šimtažiedis ‘daisy’ (Bellis perennis) (A. Žag. 393), zinija ‘zinnia’ (Zinnia) (B. Jon. 2007 20, A. Žag. 124), and others. A distinct type of lexical dialect form is semantic dialect forms, that is, words having a meaning specific to a particular dialect (Jakaitienė 2010: 179). About 20 such plant names have been recorded in the prose of our authors: broliukas ‘garden pansy’ (Viola wittrockiana) (H. Gud. 113), durnaropė ‘thistle’ (Carduus) (R. Sad. 92), gaidukai ‘common bistort’ (Bistorta major) (J. Kral. 83), gvazdikėlis ‘marigold’ (Tagetes) (R. Šer. 2006 29, R. Šer. 2013 63), jurginas ‘cutleaf coneflower’ (Rudbeckia laciniata) (V. Jas. 2008 28), linelis ‘garden cosmos’ (Cosmos bipinnatus) (H. Gud. 113, J. Kunč. 2000 59, J. Skab. 2004 165), maurai ‘duckweed’ (Lemna) (E. Kurk. 32, L. Gut. 2001 114), naktibalda ‘evening stock’ (Matthiola bicornis) (B. Jon. 2007 19), pūkučiai ‘cottongrass’ (Eriophorum) (R. Mat. 282), paleistuvė ‘flaming Katy’ (Kalanchoe) (L. Čern. 2009 (a) 90), raitūzai ‘tiger lily’ (Lilium lancifolium) (A. Žag. 124), riešutas ‘common hazel’ (Corylus avellana) (L. Gut. 2011 192), rykštė ‘garden gladiolus’ (Gladiolus communis) (J. Kunč. 2006 56), rugiagėlė ‘chicory’ (Cichorium 94 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXII Liaudiški ir tarmiški augalų genčių vardai šiuolaikinėje lietuvių prozoje intybus) (R. Sad. 230), saulutė ‘blue felicia’ (Felicia amelloides) (B. Jon. 2007 16), šilas ‘heather’ (Calluna vulgaris) (L. Gut. 2008 147), verba ‘goat willow’ (Salix caprea) (L. Gut. 2011 58), žemčiūgas ‘nasturtium’ (Tropaeolum) (A. Žag. 124), žirniukai ‘sweet pea’ (Lathyrus odoratus) (A. Žag. 190). Another type of lexical dialectal form is derivational dialect forms, that is, words formed according to dialect-specific word-formation patterns (Jakaitienė 2010: 179). Some phytonyms recorded in the authors’ texts differ from scientific plant names in their endings, for example, astra ‘aster’ (Aster) (H. Čig. 2003 43, B. Jon. 2007 42), činčiberis ‘strychnine tree’ (Strychnos) (J. Skab. 2000 133), obelė ‘apple tree’ (Malus) (H. Čig. 2011 95, R. Gran. 2007 203, A. Žag. 455), serbenta (R. Gran. 2005 (b) 70, L. Gut. 2008 276) ‘currant’ (Ribes). In everyday speech, there is often a tendency to refer to plants with a shorter word—especially by dropping one of the formatives, most often a suffix, for example: čiobris ‘thyme’ (Thymus) (L. Gut. 2008 338, L. Gut. 2011 58, L. Gut. 2013 101), dilgė (L. Gut. 2013 242, J. Kral. 131, R. Šer. 2001 124, R. Šer. 2006 13, R. Šer. 2013 58). Some plant names used by the authors entered our language relatively recently—they are not recorded in any edition of the Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian, nor are they found in LKŽ. The current use of these names is demonstrated by the online sphere: these phytonyms are mentioned repeatedly on various websites and by multiple authors, so they cannot be regarded as authorial neologisms. Most often, a new name (compound) is formed from the name of a plant’s fruit and a concept11 denoting the plant’s life form (the second element of such compounds is most often one of the words tree, shrub, herb). Most such phytonyms have been recorded in the works of younger or middle-generation authors, in intellectual and psychological prose, for example: bambukmedis ‘bamboo’ (Bambusa) (D. Kaj. 180), bananmedis ‘banana’ (Musa) (K. Sab. 2012 60), bukmedis ‘beech’ (Fagus) (L. Gut. 2008 298), erškėtrūmis ‘rose’ (Rosa) (V. Bubn. 74), liepmedis ‘lime tree’ (Tilia) (R. Mat. 167), mangmedis ‘mango’ (Mangifera) (P. Dirg. 19), migoldmedis ‘almond’ (Amygdalus) (L. Gut. 2007 274, L. Gut. 2008 83), sandalmedis ‘sandalwood’ (Santalum) (R. Šer. 2013 15), serbentkrūmis (V. Jas. 2007 53) ‘currant’ (Ribes), slyvmedis ‘plum’ (Prunus) (L. Čern. 2009 (a) 9, J. Skab. 2000 9, J. Skab. 2004 169), also compare the similarly formed ricinžolė ‘castor bean’ (Ricinus communis) (H. Gud. 113). Sometimes plant genus names are formed from the Lithuanian species name—the ending of the specific epithet is changed, or its suffix is dropped, and so on; for example: baltauogis ‘white-berried snowberry’ (Symphoricarpos albus) (A. Žag. 159), koksagyzas ‘kok-saghyz dandelion’ (Taraxacum kok-saghyz) (V. Mart. 164). 11 Dėl šio termino žr. Marozas 2008: 65–67. Straipsniai / Articles 95 AURELIJA GRITĖNIENĖ In terms of origin, a fairly large group consists of various plant names borrowed from other languages and used extensively by our prose writers. Most of them (17 names) have a Latin root (the names derive from the Latin genus name), but entered Lithuanian through other languages (usually Slavic or German), for example, alijošius (Polish aloes, elijasz, Belarusian альянс)¹² ‘aloe’ (Aloe) (L. Čern. 2008 28, L. Gut. 2008 82, L. Gut. 2013 137, R. Marč. 185, J. Skab. 2004 154, R. Šer. 2013 57, A. Zur. 2010 30), asfodelija (Russian асфодель) ‘asphodel’ (Asphodelus) (J. Skab. 2000 159), cikorija (Russian цикорий, Belarusian цыкорья, Polish cykoria, German Zichorie) ‘common chicory’ (Cichorium intybus) (H. Gud. 231, R. Sad. 230, M. Sluc. 175), fasolis (Russian, Belarusian фасоль, Polish fasola, fasolka) ‘common bean’ (Phaseolus vulgaris) (A. Žag. 545), irisas (Russian ирис, Polish irys, German Iris) ‘iris’ (Iris) (B. Jon. 2009 174, A. Meil. 19, J. Skab. 2004 222), jeronimas (Russian герань, German Geranium) ‘scented geranium’ (Geranium odoratissimum) (G. Adom. 94, R. Gran. 2013 (b) 123, V. Jas. 2007 69), konvalija (Polish konwalia) ‘lily of the valley’ (Convallaria) (R. Ašk. 24, A. Rus. 108, M. Sluc. 200, A. Žag. 422), krakatūzas¹³ (Polish krategus, Russian кратегус) ‘hawthorn’ (Crataegus) (R. Šer. 2001 163), laminarija (Russian ламинария, Belarusian ламінапыля) (H. Gud. 127) ‘brown seaweed’ (Laminaria), pinavija (H. Čig. 2007 62, H. Čig. 2011 32, K. Sab. 2008 154, R. Šer. 2006 146, A. Žag. 181), pivonija (H. Gud. 113) (Polish piwonia, Belarusian півоня, compare also Russian пеон, пион, German Paeonie) ‘peony’ (Paeonia), rododendronas (Russian рододендрон, Polish rododendron, Belarusian родадэндран, German Rhododendron) ‘rhododendron’ (Rhododendron) (B. Jon. 2009 12), rozeranija ‘fragrant rosemary’ (Russian розмарин, Polish rozmaryn) (Rosmarinus officinalis) (J. Skab. 2000 161), salvinija (Russian сальвиния, Belarusian сальвінія, Polish salwinia) ‘water fern’ (Salvinia) (J. Skab. 2000 87, J. Skab. 2004 85), silvija (Russian сальвия, Polish szałwia) ‘scarlet sage’ (Salvia splendens) (H. Gud. 333), šparagas (Polish szparag, Russian, Belarusian спаржа) ‘asparagus’ (Asparagus) (K. Sab. 2014 135), zinija (Russian цинния, Belarusian цынія, Polish cynia, German Zinnie) ‘zinnia’ (Zinnia) (B. Jon. 2007 20, A. Žag. 124). Three names are derived from a Latin species name: beladona ‘deadly nightshade’ (Atropa belladonna) (A. Žag. 570), čampaka ‘champak michelia’ (Michelia champaca) (V. Bubn. 15), kaprifolija ‘Italian honeysuckle’ (Lonicera caprifolia) (A. Žag. 126). Other loanwords came from Slavic languages. Nineteen such names have been recorded, for example: amerikonka (Russian американка, Belarusian амерыканка, Polish amerykanka) ‘galinsoga’ (Galinsoga) (R. Šer. 2010 117), bezdas (A. Žag. 59), bėzas (R. Sad. 135) (Polish bez, bezd, Belarusian бэз) ‘lilac’ (Syringa), bulbė (Belarusian бульба, Polish bulba, bulwa) ‘edible 12 When giving plant names in other languages, the data in the LR Terminų bankas (http://terminai.vlkk.lt) and the Botanical Names Dictionary compiled by R. Jankevičienė (1998) are used. The names were also checked in electronic dictionaries of the respective languages: http://www.wsjp.pl; http://www.gramota.ru, http://www.skarnik.by and others. 13 Plačiau apie krakatūzų kilmę ir sinonimus žr. Klimavičius 2005: 8–9. 96 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXII Liaudiški ir tarmiški augalų genčių vardai šiuolaikinėje lietuvių prozoje ‘potato’ (Solanum tuberosum) (H. Gud. 34), čarnobylas (L. Gut. 2007 12), černobylas (L. Gut. 2007 66) (Ukrainian чорнобилъ) ‘common mugwort’ (Artemisia vulgaris), čemerýčia (Russian чемерица, Belarusian чамярьца, Polish ciemėžyca) ‘white hellebore’ (Veratrum album) (K. Saj. 2010 180), čyžna (Russian пижма, Belarusian пижма) ‘common tansy’ (Tanacetum vulgare) (R. Šer. 2013 88), karagačius (Russian карагач) ‘Chinese elm’ (Ulmus parvifolia) (A. Žag. 549), kaštanas (Russian каштан, Polish kasztan) ‘horse chestnut’ (Aesculus hippocastanum) (A. Žag. 510), kaštavolas (Polish kosztywał) ‘common comfrey’ (Symphytum officinale) (H. Gud. 403), kolčikai (Russian колокольчик) ‘bellflower’ (Campanula) (H. Gud. 113), lochas (Russian лох) ‘narrow-leaved oleaster’ (Elaeagnus angustifolia) (A. Žag. 530), muškėtėlis (Polish muszkateł, also cf. Russian мускатель ‘a certain kind of wine’) ‘zonal geranium’ (Pelargonium zonale) (A. Žag. 548), notka (Russian ноготки, Polish nagietek) ‘marigold’ (Calendula) (B. Jon. 2009 199), pijolka (Russian фиалка, Polish fiołek) ‘dog violet’ (Viola canina) (R. Gran. 2005 (a) 160), radas-tas (Polish rdest) ‘wrinkled-leaved rose’ (Rosa rugosa) (A. Žag. 124), stanauny kas (Polish stanownik) ‘pipsissewa’ (Chimaphila umbellata) (N. Peč. 235), vosilka, vosil-kas (Russian василек, Belarusian васілёк) ‘cornflower’ (Centaurea cyanus) (E. Jan. 54, A. Žag. 215). Only three phytonyms borrowed from German have been recorded: kartupelis (German Kartoffel, also cf. Russian картофель) ‘potato’ (Solanum tuberosum) (K. Sab. 2014 164), šabalbonas (E. Kurk. 92), šebelbonės (A. Žag. 118) ‘scarlet runner bean’ (Phaseolus coccineus) (cf. East Prussian German schaballône). Some names used by the authors are, by origin, to be regarded as hybrids. Under the narrower concept of a hybrid (associated with codification) (Jakaitienė 2010: 255; Keinys 1984: 114), words are considered hybrids if they have a Lithuanian root but a foreign (nonstandard) derivational affix (or, conversely, a foreign (nonstandard) root and a Lithuanian derivational affix), as well as compounds whose one component is Lithuanian and the other a foreign, unacceptable word in the standard language, for example: cukierkaitės (Polish cukier) ‘broad-leaved cottongrass’ (Eriophorum latifolium) (L. Gut. 2011 58), čebatėlis (A. Žag. 190), čebatukai (H. Gud. 113) (Belarusian чобам) ‘monkshood’ (Aconitum napellus), kurvažolė (R. Šer. 2014 110, R. Šer. 2013 55), kurvažolynas (R. Šer. 2013 55) (Russian, Ukrainian and other Slavic languages курва) ‘Solomon’s seal’ (Polygonatum odoratum), levužandis (B. Jon. 2007 18, A. Žag. 124), levukas (B. Jon. 2007 18) (Russian лев, Belarusian леў, Polish lew) ‘snapdragon’ (Antirrhinum), plaskažolė (Polish plaski) (R. Sad. 20) ‘couch grass’ (Agropyron), zubražolė (Russian, Belarusian зубр) ‘sweet grass’ (Hierochloe) (J. Skab. 2004 193). In literary texts, nonstandard linguistic features are most often used to evoke an archaic style; they are generally associated with earlier times or the older rural generation, and therefore nonstandard words in texts carry less a sense of foreignness than of archaism (Župerka 2012: 11). The use of such plant names is most often motivated: they help the author recreate a time in the past Straipsniai / Articles 97 AURELIJA GRITĖNIENĖ (the texts of Kristina Sabaliauskaitė, L. Gutauskas, and A. Žagrakalytė are written from the perspective of the past—the eighteenth century and the first half of the twentieth century are depicted); such names are quoted from old writings (in the novels of R. Šerelytė and A. Žagrakalytė); older-generation characters use these names in dialogue (rural elders in the works of L. Gutauskas, H. Gudavičius, and H. Čigriejus), or they are used by a narrator who has reached old age (in the narratives of R. Granauskas, R. Sadauskas, and K. Saja). CONTEXTS AND TRENDS IN THE USE OF FOLK NAMES More folk plant names have been recorded in the works of authors of the older generation and in traditional everyday prose texts with rich vocabularies. Plant names most often pour forth when prose writers create simple, sincere stories based on personal experience, painting concrete landscapes in words (describing flower gardens, meadows, woodland edges, and so on), for example: “Here in Samogitia, you can see plenty of žemčiūgų too; there is no shortage of mėtų, šalavijų either. In the second flower bed, by the cottage windows, there are rūtos and real, white lelijos—not those that people here call raitūzais because of their curved petals. [...] The annual flowers change here from year to year: some sow more leukonijų, zinijų, while others like petunijas, levažandžius, nasturtas... Around the flower boxes are ramunėliai, to keep the soil from spilling out. In the corner of the garden is radastas, while on the street side, growing almost all along the end of the cottage, are bezdų, levandų, šeivamedžių” (A. Žag. 124). “Eugenija Kuliėšienė opens the gate and calls her plants by their old-fashioned names: pivonijos, karvelukai, margučiai, sausukai, raguotukai, lenkučiai, kupstukai, vijokliukai, gvazdikuciai, raktukai, čebatukai, kolčikai, martukės, mėlynukai, lineliai, goštautai, karkliukai, ežiukai, panaitės, Juozapo rykštės, saulutės, razetos...” (H. Gud. 113). “At other times, remembering the bundles of dried medicinal herbs hanging in his herbalist mother’s little pantry, he would try to list them: jonžolės, medetkos, dedės vos, čiobriai, pelynai, or kartieji kiečiai, mėtos, bruknių leaves, meškauogės, erškėtuogės, linden blossoms, vingiorykštės for heartache, the bark of baltųjų gluosnių for a cough, amalas, kadagio berries, šaltalankio oil for wounds [...]” (L. Gut. 2011: 58)14. Dialectal plant names also appear in prose texts when an author quotes a work of folklore (most often folk songs, mentioning dance names, and so on): “Oh, my little son, my soldier, why have you turned into a užlėliu, while the little horse has become the north wind 14 Particularly numerous such lists occur in L. Gutauskas’s prose, where plant names repeatedly pour forth in an unbroken stream. Literary scholars even describe this as the author’s verbosity: he speaks for the sheer pleasure of beautiful expression, rather than because he has something to say (Bukelienė 2004: 24). 98 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXII Liaudiški ir tarmiški augalų genčių vardai šiuolaikinėje lietuvių prozoje […]” (Gut. 2001 128)15. “Let’s build, men, jievaro bridge, aleliumai rūtеле, jievarėlio bridge” – “What are you building the jievaro bridge from, aleliumai rūtеле, the jievarėlio bridge” (R. Marč. 316). “[…] the dance group keeps rehearsing ‘lievaro bridge’ […]” (J. Kunč. 2006 37); “[…] in the garden grew serbenta, in the garden grew serbenta, in the garden, dear heart, serbenta” […] “not for you [little birds] serbenta, not for you, dear heart, serbenta” (L. Gut. 2008 276)16. Folklore is the domain where we can sense the vertical associations between words. In songs and rituals, the oldest uses of words are remembered and ancient images emerge. Living spoken language and folklore allow us to experience that “our worldview, way of thinking, and fundamental spiritual attitudes are programmed there, in the depths of the word” (Martinaitis 1992: 142). Folk plant names are also mentioned by the authors when quoting written sources from earlier times and verses from songs and poems by known and unknown authors: “[…] this song is so beloved everywhere now: Don’t leave, don’t leave the village, / Don’t leave the willows all alone […]” (H. Čig. 2003 44)17; “Black henbane, the guide. Sleep-herb also called. It contains potent alkaloids […]” (R. Šer. 2013: 68)18; “Why do Lithuanians sow and eat few peas and beans (šėbelboniū)? From the information given above, we clearly understood how useful legumes are as food, namely peas and beans (called šėbelbonėmis)” (A. Žagr. 118)19. In Lithuanian prose, some plant species are referred to by several different folk names; for example, conferted dock (Rumex confertus) is called arklarūgštyne (R. Gran. 2003 24), arkliarūgšte (D. Grig. 39, R. Šer. 2006 28), arkliarūgšyne (J. Kunč. 2026 59), and žirgarūgštyne (J. Kral. 83), by different authors. Common dog rose (Rosa canina) is called erškėtrože (L. Čern. 2009 (b) 132, L. Gut. 2008 156, E. Ign. 17, K. Sab. 2008 154, M. Sluc. 179, R. Šer. 2013 78, A. Žag. 323) and šunrože (L. Gut. 2013 151, 356). R. Šerelytė even lists several names for the same plant in a single sentence: “Bitkrėslė, bitkrėslė, gumbažolė, čižma siūbuojanti, your little flowers are yellow bones, swaying along the cemetery’s edge, a whole forest of them, coated with bee honey” (R. Šer. 2013 88). “Miegažole, drigniažole, how blue the moon shines above the wasteland where you grow!” (R. Šer. 2013 69). 15 The same folk song, but with more Dzūkian phonetic features, is quoted in another short story by L. Gutauskas: “Oh, little son, little steed, / why have you turned into a green shoot, / why have you turned into a green shoot, while the horse is a swift wind” (L. Gut. 2011 390). 16 We find almost the same quotation from a Lithuanian folk song in R. Granauskas’s novel Kenotafas (2005): “[…] they danced in the dance group to ‘Serbentėlė’. […] He remembers both the melody and the words: In the yard grew serbenta, / In the yard grew serbenta, / In the yard, dear heart, grew serbenta” (Gran. 2005 (b) 70). 17 An excerpt from a poem by Pranas Gudaitis that became a popular song. 18 R. Šerelytės romane Vardas tamsoje (2013) ne vieną kartą cituojamas Jono Dagio sudarytas Lietuviškas botanikos žodynas (1938). 19 The novel quotes the Ūkiškasis kalendorius, published in Tilsit in 1908. Straipsniai / Articles 99 AURELIJA GRITĖNIENĖ Sometimes different plant names are used in the work of the same author: in his short stories, H. Čigriejus calls the poplar (Populus) topoliu (H. Čig. 2003 63, H. Čig. 2007 115, H. Čig. 2011 76) and topiliu (H. Čig. 2007 57); R. Granauskas calls this tree tapaliu (R. Gran. 2007 230) and topoliu (R. Gran. 2005 (a) 29, R. Gran. 2007 248); H. Gudavičius calls the violet broliukais and brolukais (H. Gud. 113); L. Gutauskas uses both verbą (L. Gut. 2011 58) and blindę (L. Gut. 2011 291), riešutą (L. Gut. 2011 192) and lazdyną (L. Gut. 2011 48); on the same page we find ėglį and kadagį (L. Gut. 2011 275), gyslotį and trauklapį (L. Gut. 2013 101), dilgėlę and dilgynę (L. Gut. 2013 168). This variety of forms shows that writers of the older generation still feel the strong influence of dialects, and that standard and colloquial vocabulary often compete in their texts, even unconsciously. Moreover, the use of different lexemes is often motivated by the author himself (different lexemes are used by the narrator and the characters). The context in which a folk plant name is used in a prose work is important. As has already been noted several times, dialect names are primarily associated with the older generation—parents, grandparents, ancestors—with people who still speak the dialect and are close to nature, live in it and by its rhythms: “[…] those tiny herbs brought from the meadows of the Skroblus, whose proper name she did not know, but which Mother called cukierkaitėm, saying: I dream of a meadow of cukierkaitių”20 (L. Gut. 2011 58). “With a scarf that smelled of kačpėdelėm wrapped around my coat, I would wade, holding my grandmother’s hand, through the whole village of Vidugiriai […]” (B. Jon. 2009 198). “Brolukai. That’s what my grandparents called them, that’s what Magdukė called them. And she was the queen of herbs...” (B. Jon. 2009 202). “The great family oak has been gone for ages, but as long as there is a word, I’ll be able to hear the ūžals rustling—so it rustles from my father’s lips” (A. Žag. 565). The setting depicted in a work also influences the use of a dialect word: quite often, alongside folk phytonyms, specific place names (names of villages, streams, forests), ethnographic regions, or ethnonyms are mentioned, for example: “Sta-naunýkas—that’s the Dzūkian ginseng. For colds. It strengthens the whole body […]” (N. Peč. 235). “Here in Žemaitija, you’ll see žemčiūgų growing in many places too; there’s no shortage of mėtų, šalavijų either” (A. Žag. 124). “I remember that they were such blue, blue [eyes], like the blossoms of uosilkų amid the rye-surrounded village of Skaistgiriai” (E. Jan. 54). Sometimes the prose writers’ depiction of the past determines their use of folk plant names. In her novels, Kristina Sabaliauskaitė recreates the eighteenth-century Vilnius setting. Thus, old plant names bearing the mark of that period come quite naturally to the characters’ lips: kartupelis (K. Sab. 2014 164), 20 In 2000–2001, Šalcinis newspaper (Nos. 36–41) published the memoirs of Vladzė Ališauskaitė-Ališauskienė, from Merkine, about her vanished native village of Rudnia, titled “I Dream of a Meadow of Cukierkaitės.” Most likely, this is where the phrase found its way into L. Gutauskas’s short story “Bees and Fire.” For the motivation behind the name cukierkaitės, see Lapelė 2007: 5. 100 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXII Liaudiški ir tarmiški augalų genčių vardai šiuolaikinėje lietuvių prozoje bulba, Lutheran potato (K. Sab. 2014 161), asparagus (K. Sab. 2014 135), peony (K. Sab. 2008 154), etc. However, the time when the work was written is revealed by the author’s use of recent loanwords: “[...] disgusted, he [Norvaiša] pulled a leaf of arugula from under the mail-” (K. Sab. 2014 161)21. L. Gutauskas’s gaze is also very often directed toward the past. Many of his short prose works could be called catalogues of stories from the past, in which the present appears only as a backdrop, a prompt for remembering something. Some of his texts can be read as authentic stories or recollections (Daubaraitė 2012: 13), and it is most often the older generation, still remembering the old plant names, that recalls the war and postwar years. Foreignisms and hybrids (cukierkaitės, čarnobylas, radastas, etc.) bring the reader even closer to the reality of that time (the war and postwar period). CONCLUSION Literary critics argue that at the turning point between eras, reality changes rapidly and beyond recognition. Although “the beloved hill, the old oak, the little meadow of childhood strawberries” (Sprindytė 2006: 47) are gradually disappearing from contemporary Lithuanian prose, folk and dialectal plant names are nevertheless used quite extensively in our prose. A systematic reading of nearly 100 prose works by 21st-century Lithuanian authors yielded 203 plant names in 80 works by 49 authors that differ in some respect (root, meaning, formation, or phonetic composition) from scientific plant names. Most of these names can be found in LKŽ, but about 50 names are recorded neither in the comprehensive dictionary nor in its supplementary card index. The dictionary includes not only plant names with foreign roots (beladona, čampaka, čarnobylas, čerbolylas, kaprifolija, karagačius, krakatūzas, muškėtėlis, etc.), but also some indigenous Lithuanian names (baltauogis, karvelukai, kibišis, lenkučiai, martukės, paleistuvė, raguotukai, raktukai, vilkarnė, etc.). The latter names should be included at least in the supplementary texts of LKŽ, since their currency in dialects is confirmed not only by the authors of the literary texts analyzed, but also by material recorded by the article’s author during field expeditions. In terms of origin, a fairly large group consists of various plant names borrowed from foreign languages and used widely by our prose writers. Most of them (17 names) have a Latin-derived root, but entered Lithuanian through other 21 The Lithuanian name of the oilseed plant in the Brassicaceae family is gražgarstė (Eruca); cf. Italian rucola, English arugula (see L. Vaicekauskienė 2013: 20). Straipsniai / Articles 101 AURELIJA GRITĖNIENĖ (most often Slavic or Germanic) languages. Nineteen loanwords came from Slavic languages. Nine plant names are considered hybrids. By distribution, the plant names recorded in prose texts fall into several groups. Samogitian, eastern Aukštaitian, and Dzūkian dialect forms have the narrowest distribution. A cluster of lexical dialectisms is used more widely—throughout the Aukštaitian dialect area. Other names are known throughout Lithuania. The plant names discussed in this article perform several functions in prose works. First, their nominative function should be mentioned (that is, they directly designate particular plants). Deliberate use of dialectal plant names, together with other artistic devices, helps prose writers individualize the speech of characters. In addition, old and foreign-origin names reflect the past depicted in the works, while dialectal names for medicinal plants and old names for flowers in ethnographic gardens help authors paint authentic settings and bring out local color. It is also noteworthy that folk and dialectal plant names sometimes become characters’ names in prose texts, for example, the girl Astra (R. Ašk.), Uncle Jievaras (A. Zur. 2000), the doctor Žibutė (Žiba, Žibka) (P. Dirg.), the goat Žibutė (J. Kunč. 2006), Aunt Konvalija, Uncle Jeronimas (R. Šer. 2001), and others. Clearly, in an age of globalization and the agony of words, our prose writers do not turn their backs on national identity and dialectal expression once and for all; they often deliberately emphasize them at various levels of language. In seeking impact, contemporary literature draws on slang, nonstandard expression, and even low-register colloquial speech (Smetonienė 2013: 156); as a counterbalance, some authors deliberately foreground dialectal expression, the distinctive character and otherness of verbal expression. Folk (dialectal) plant names are only one semantic group of words, yet patterns of their use show that in the modern narrative, living language is one of the cornerstones that help authors maintain their individuality and distinctive national style. ABBREVIATIONS OF SOURCES G. Adom. – Adomait y tė Gintarė. Gėlių gatvė. Vilnius: Gimtasis žodis, 2005. J. Ap. – Juozas Aputis. Rails Disappear in the Mist. Vilnius: Lithuanian Writers’ Union Publishing House, 2010. R. Ašk. – Aškinytė Rasa. Žmogus, kuriam nieko nereikėjo. Vilnius: Vaga, 2013. V. Bubn. – Bubnys Vytautas. Balandžio plastejime. Vilnius: Alma littera, 2002. V. Čep. – Čepas Vytautas. Po saule keičiasi tik laikas. Vilnius: Alma littera, 2008. L. Čern. 2008 – Laura Sintija Černiauskaitė. Benedict’s Thresholds. Vilnius: Alma littera, 2008. 102 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXII Folk and Dialectal Names of Plant Genera in Contemporary Lithuanian Prose L. Čern. 2009 (a) – Laura Sintija Černiauskaitė. A Room in a Jasmine Bush. Vilnius: Alma littera, 2009. L. Čern. 2009 (b) – Laura Sintija Černiauskaitė. Breathing into Marble. Vilnius: Alma littera, 2009. R. Čern. – Černiauskas Rimantas. Miestelio istorijos. Vilnius: Versus aureus, 2012. H. Čig. 2003 – Henrikas Algis Čigriejus. Ekv主nokcijų žmonės. Vilnius: Vaga, 2003. H. Čig. 2007 – Henrikas Algis Čigriejus. The Crow Wipes Away a Tear. Vilnius: Lithuanian Writers’ Union Publishing House, 2007. H. Čig. 2011 – Henrikas Algis Čigriejus. And Brought Back the Scent of Hops. Vilnius: Lithuanian Writers’ Union Publishing House, 2011. P. Dirg. – Petras Dirgėla. Alibi Books. Vilnius: Lithuanian Writers’ Union Publishing House, 2004. R. Gran. 2003 – Romualdas Granauskas. The Hollow. Vilnius: Lithuanian Writers’ Union Publishing House, 2003. R. Gran. 2005 (a) – Romualdas Granauskas. Dogs in the Sky. Vilnius: Lithuanian Writers’ Union Publishing House, 2005. R. Gran. 2005 (b) – Romualdas Granauskas. Cenotaph. Vilnius: Lithuanian Writers’ Union Publishing House, 2005. R. Gran. 2007 – Romualdas Granauskas. Mist over the Valleys. Vilnius: Lithuanian Writers’ Union Publishing House, 2007. R. Gran. 2011 – Romualdas Granauskas. Three Solitudes. Vilnius: Lithuanian Writers’ Union Publishing House, 2011. R. Gran. 2013 (a) – Romualdas Granauskas. The Expelled. Vilnius: Lithuanian Writers’ Union Publishing House, 2013. R. Gran. 2013 (b) – Granauskas Romualdas. Lives of the Saints. Vilnius: Lithuanian Writers’ Union Publishing House, 2013. R. Gran. 2014 – Granauskas Romualdas. The Third Life. Vilnius: Lithuanian Writers’ Union Publishing House, 2014. D. Grig. – Grigaliūnienė Danutė. Saulėlė vakaran. Kaišiadorys: Gija, 2008. H. Gud. – Gudavičius Henrikas. The Garden of the Nature-Worshipper. Vilnius: Lithuanian Writers’ Union Publishing House, 2013. Straipsniai / Articles 103 AURELIJA GRITĖNIENĖ L. Gust. – Gustainis Liudas. The Shadow of the Linnet, the Dog, and Others. Vilnius: Lithuanian Writers’ Union Publishing House, 2012. L. Gut. 2001 – Gutauskas Leonardas. Shadows. Vilnius: Lithuanian Writers’ Union Publishing House, 2001. L. Gut. 2007 – Gutauskas Leonardas. Flies. The Attic. Vilnius: Vaga, 2007. L. Gut. 2008 – Gutauskas Leonardas. Things. Vilnius: Lithuanian Writers’ Union Publishing House, 2008. L. Gut. 2011 – Gutauskas Leonardas. Songs of Dogs. Vilnius: Gimtasis žodis, 2011. L. Gut. 2013 – Gutauskas Leonardas. Fragments. Vilnius: Lithuanian Writers’ Union Publishing House, 2013. E. Ign. – Ignatavičius Eugenijus. Full Moon in Mars. Vilnius: Lithuanian Writers’ Union Publishing House, 2000. M. Ivaš. – Ivaškevičius Marius. Žali. Vilnius: Tyto alba, 2002. E. Jan. – Janušaitis Edmundas. Žaliakalnis – A Story of Resurrection. A Novel of 36 Dreams. Vilnius: Lithuanian Writers’ Union Publishing House, 2013. V. Jas. 2007 – Jasukaitytė Vidmantė. When We Were Wolves. Vilnius: Alma littera, 2007. V. Jas. 2008 – Jasukaitytė Vidmantė. I Killed My Daughter. Vilnius: Alma littera, 2008. D. Jaz. – Jazukevičiūtė Dalia. Jo vardas Sibiras. Vilnius: Alma littera, 2013. B. Jon. 2007 – Jonuškaitė Birutė. The Swallow’s Nest. Vilnius: Versus aureus, 2007. B. Jon. 2009 – Jonuškaitė Birutė. The Tango of White Zippers. Vilnius: Lithuanian Writers’ Union Publishing House, 2009. B. Jon. 2011 – Jonuškaitė Birutė. Fasten Me Up. Vilnius: Lithuanian Writers’ Union Publishing House, 2011. D. Kaj. – Kajokas Donaldas. Kazašas. Vilnius: Lithuanian Writers’ Union Publishers, 2007. J. Kral. – Kralikauskas Juozas. Dinastijos žūtis. Vilnius: Tyto alba, 2002. J. Kunč. 2000 – Kunčinas Jurgis. Kasdien į karą. Vilnius: Lithuanian Writers’ Union Publishers, 2000. J. Kunč. 2006 – Kunčinas Jurgis. Night of the White Bristles. Vilnius: Gimtasis žodis, 2006. 104 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXII Liaudiški ir tarmiški augalų genčių vardai šiuolaikinėje lietuvių prozoje E. Kurk. – Elena Kurk lietytė. The Weaver of Shadows. The Story of Wild Todė. Vilnius: Alma littera, 2009. R. Marč. – Marčėnas Rimantas. Lėtas skubėjimas pas Domą. Vilnius: Lithuanian Writers’ Union Publishers, 2002. V. Mart. – Martinkus Vytautas. Dvylika liepų. Vilnius: Lithuanian Writers’ Union Publishers, 2011. R. Mat. – Mataitytė Rūta. Svaponė apie sniegą. Versus aureus, 2013. A. Mil. – Meilūnaitė Alina. Negyvenami miestai. Vilnius: Tyto alba, 2014. I. Mer. – Meras Icchokas. Stotelė vidukelėj. Vilnius: Lithuanian Writers’ Union Publishers, 2004. J. Mik. – Mikelinskas Jonas. Dinozauro ausyje. Vilnius: Lithuanian Writers’ Union Publishers, 2009. S. Par. – Parulskis Sigitas. Tamsa ir partneriai. Vilnius: Alma littera, 2012. N. Peč. – Pečiūra Nėrius. Vilniaus kiberpoema. Vilnius: Tyto alba, 2004. U. Rad. – Radzevičiūtė Undinė. Žuvys ir drakonai. Vilnius: Baltos lankos, 2013. V. Rykš. – Rykštaitė Vaiva. Kostiumų drama. Vilnius: Alma littera, 2013. A. Rus. – Ruseckaitė Aldona. Marios vandens. Vilnius: Lithuanian Writers’ Union Publishers, 2010. K. Sab. 2008 – Sabaliauskaitė Kristina. Silva rerum. Vilnius: Baltos lankos, 2008. K. Sab. 2011 – Sabaliauskaitė Kristina. Silva rerum II. Vilnius: Baltos lankos, 2011. K. Sab. 2012 – Kristina Sabaliauskaitė. Danielius Dalba & Other Stories. Vilnius: Baltos lankos, 2012. K. Sab. 2014 – Sabaliauskaitė Kristina. Silva rerum III. Vilnius: Baltos lankos, 2014. R. Sad. – Sadauskas Romas. Gyvenimas prie vieškelio. Demeniškių paveikslėliai. Vilnius: Žuvėdra, 2009. K. Saj. 2010 – Saja Kazys. Nežinia kur nežinia kas. Vilnius: Lithuanian Writers’ Union Publishers, 2010. S. Sak. – Sakalauskaitė Saulė. Sudužusių širdžių diena. Vilnius: Alma littera, 2010. J. Skab. 2000 – Skablauskaitė Jolita. Trečiasis tūkstantmetis. Vilnius: Lithuanian Writers’ Union Publishers, 2000. Straipsniai / Articles 105 AURELIJA GRITĖNIENĖ J. Skab. 2004 – Skablauskaitė Jolita. Seven-layered space. Vilnius: Lithuanian Writers’ Union Publishing House, 2004. M. Sluc. – Sluckis Mykolas. Fulfilment Not According to Joana. Vilnius: Lithuanian Writers’ Union Publishing House, 2003. R. Šav. 2009 – Šavelis Rimantas. The Shutter in the Windstorm. Vilnius: Versus aureus, 2009. R. Šav. 2013 – Šavelis Rimantas. A Little Moonlight. Vilnius: Lithuanian Writers’ Union Publishing House, 2013. R. Šer. 2001 – Šerelytė Renata. And All She Said Was Meow. Vilnius: Lithuanian Writers’ Union Publishing House, 2001. R. Šer. 2006 – Šerelytė Renata. The Embalmer. Vilnius: Lithuanian Writers’ Union Publishing House, 2006. R. Šer. 2008 – Šerelytė Renata. The Blue-Bearded Children. Vilnius: Alma littera, 2008. R. Šer. 2010 – Šerelytė Renata. The Wind Rider. Vilnius: Lithuanian Writers’ Union Publishing House, 2010. R. Šer. 2013 – Šerelytė Renata. A Name in the Dark. Vilnius: Lithuanian Writers’ Union Publishing House, 2013. R. Šer. 2014 – Šerelytė Renata. Cocoon Ballads. Vilnius: Alma littera, 2014. Š. Šim. – Šimulynas Šarūnas. In the Rye by the Apple Trees. Vilnius: Lithuanian Writers’ Union Publishing House, 2001. A. Tap. – Tapinas Andrius. Vilko valanda.Vilnius: Alma littera, 2013. A. Urb. 2012 – Urbanaitė Audronė. Sugared Fish. Vilnius: Alma littera, 2012. A. Urb. 2014 – Urbanaitė Audronė. A Room of Jewish Things. Vilnius: Alma littera, 2014. G. Vil. – Viliūnė Gina. Vilniaus madona. Vilnius: Alma littera, 2014. A. Zur. 2000 – Zurba Algimantas. It Goes... Vilnius: Lithuanian Writers’ Union Publishing House, 2000. A. Zur. 2010 – Zurba Algimantas. Krisius. Vilnius: Gimasis žodis, 2010. A. Žag. – Žagrakalytė Agnė. The Forester’s Daughter: Case F 117. Vilnius: Tyto alba, 2013. 106 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXII Liaudiški ir tarmiški augalų genčių vardai šiuolaikinėje lietuvių prozoje LITERATŪRA Akelaitienė Gražina, Žiliūtė-Batavičienė Dainora 2011: R. Granausko kūrinių leksinės tarmybės. – Žmogus ir žodis: Didaktinė lingvistika 13, 5–15. Arnatkevičiūtė Laima 2006: Lietuvių esė postmodernizmo situacijoje: Rolandas Rastauskas. – Lituanistica 65(1), 63–72. Brazauskas Nerijus 2010: XX a. lietuvių modernistinis romanas: raidos ir poetikos linkmės. Vilnius: Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas. Bukelienė Elena 2004: Proza ties tūkstantmečio riba. Kaunas: Šviesa. Daubaraitė Jolanta 2012: Leonardas Gutauskas. „Šunų dainos“: praeities katalogas. – Literatūra ir menas 22, 12–13. Gritėnienė Aurelia 2014: Liaudiški augalų vardai šiuolaikinėje lietuvių vaikų prozoje. – Žmogus ir žodis: Didaktinė lingvistika 16, 50–62. Gritėnienė Aurelia 2014: Šakutmedžiai, bulbūmai ir žlembės šiuolaikinėje lietuvių vaikų prozoje. – Gimtoji kalba 2, 8–13. Jakaitienė Evalda 2010: Leksikologija. Studijų knyga. Antras pakartotinis leidimas. Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. Jankevičienė Ramunėlė 1998: Botanikos vardų žodynas. Vilnius: Botanikos instituto leidykla. Kalėda Algis 1996: Romano struktūros matmenys: literatūrinės komunikacijos lygmuo. Vilnius: Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas. Keinys Stasys 1984: Lietuvių kalbos hibridai (sąvoka, rūšys ir normiškumas). – Lietuvos TSR mokslų akademijos darbai. A serija 3(88), 113–123. Klimavičius Jonas 2005: Kas yra krakatūzai? – Gimtoji kalba 10, 8–9. Kniūkšta Pranas 1981: Rašytojas ir žodis. Vilnius: Mokslas. Kubilius Vytautas 2003: Tautinė literatūra globalizacijos amžiuje. Kaunas: VDU leidykla. Lapelė Mindaugas 2007: Kempės upelio slėnyje. – Šalcinis 62, 4–5. LKŽ – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 1–20, 1941–2002, elektroninis variantas, redaktorių kolegija: Gertrūda Naktinienė (vyr. red.), Jonas Paulauskas, R. R. Petrokienė, Vytautas Vitkauskas, Jolanta Zabarskaitė. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Prieiga internete: www.lkz.lt [2015-02-28]. Marozas Vitas 2008: Sausumos ekosistemų įvairovė ir apsauga. Kaunas: Akademija. Straipsniai / Articles 107 A U R E L I J A G R I T Ė N I E N Ė M a r t i n a i t i s M a r c e l i j u s 2003: Dešimtmečių sąvartoje. – Naujausioji lietuvių literatūra (1988–2002), sud. Giedrius Viliūnas. Vilnius: Alma littera, 9–30. M a r t i n a i t i s M a r c e l i j u s 1992: Papirusai iš mirusiųjų kapų: Atgimimo ir Vilties knyga, 1988–1991. Vilnius: Lietuvos rašytojų sąjungos leidykla. M o r k ū n a s K a z y s 2009: Bagaslaviškio šnekta Ignui Šeiniui: gimtoji ar gimtinės. – Lietuvos lokaliniai tyrimai. Kalba. Lietuvos valsčiai. Gelvonai. Prieiga internete: http://www.llt.lt [2014–02–27]. P a u l a u s k y t ė T e r e s ė 2001: [recenzija] Romualdas Granauskas. Raudonas ant balto. Vilnius: Lietuvos rašytojų sąjungos leidykla, 2000. – Gimtoji kalba 4, 19–20. P i k č i l i n g i s J o n a s 1971: Lietuvių kalbos stilistika 1. Vilnius: Mintis, 1971. P i k č i l i n g i s J o n a s 1975: Lietuvių kalbos stilistika 2. Vilnius: Mokslas, 1975. P u p k i s A l d o n a s 2005: Kalbos kultūros studijos. Vilnius: Gimtasis žodis. R y d é n M a t s 1978: Shakespearean plant names. Identifications and interpretations. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1978. S m e t o n i e n ė I r e n a 2013: Buitinio stiliaus invazija į kitus funkcinius stilius. – Šiuolaikinės stilistikos kryptys ir problemos. Vilnius: Lietuvos edukologijos universiteto leidykla, 150–158. S p r i n d y t ė J ū r a t ė 2006: Prozos būsenos 1988–2005. Vilnius: Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas. S p r i n d y t ė J ū r a t ė 2013: Rašymai, užrašymai – į sąmonę ar į griovį? (R. Granausko „Šventųjų gyvenimai“). – Metai 5–6, 135. T a m a š e v i č i u s G i e d r i u s 2009: Kalbos paprastėjimo polinkiai viešojoje erdvėje. – Kalbos kultūra 82, 138–148. V a i c e k a u s k i e n ė L o r e t a 2013: „Skolos bijosi – turtų nepadarysi“. Leksikos skolinimosi poreikiai ir polinkiai 1991–2013 m. rašytiniuose tekstuose. – Taikomoji kalbotyra 2013(3). Prieiga internete: www.taikomoji.kalbotyra.lt [2015–02–24]. Ž u p e r k a K a z i m i e r a s 2013: Dėl kalbos etnostilistikos objekto. – Šiuolaikinės stilistikos kryptys ir problemos. Vilnius: Lietuvos edukologijos universiteto leidykla, 183–191. Ž u p e r k a K a z i m i e r a s 2012: Stilistika. Šiauliai: Šiaulių universiteto leidykla. Д в о р е ц к а я Е к а т е р и н а 2005: Андалусские диалектизмы и регионализмы в художественной литературе Испании XX века. Prieiga internete: http://www.dis-sercat.com/content/andalusskie-dialektizmy-i-regionalizmy-v-khudozhestvennoi-literature-ispanii-xx-veka [2015–01–14]. 108 A c t a L i n g u i s t i c a L i t h u a n i c a LXXII Liaudiški ir tarmiški augalų genčių vardai šiuolaikinėje lietuvių prozoje Кудинова Таисия 2000: Просторечие и диалект в языке А. П. Чехова. К характеристике языковой личности писателя. Prieiga internete: http://www.disser-cat.com/content/prostorechie-i-dialekt-v-yazyke-p-chekhova-k-kharakteristike-ya-zykovoi-lichnosti-pisatelya [2015-02-12]. Курносова Ирина 1995: Диалектная лексика в художественной прозе начала XX в. Prieiga internete: http://cheloveknauka.com/dialektnaya-leksika-v-hudozhestvennoy-proze-nachala-xx-v [2015.01.16]. Ларин Борис А. 1973: Диалектизмы в языке советских писателей. – Эстетика слова и язык писателя. Ленинград: Художественная литература, 228–261. Попович Алина 2013: Диалектизмы в повестях И. А. Бунина «Деревня» и «Суходол» (функционально-стилистический аспект). Prieiga internete: http://dspace.onu.edu.ua:8080/bitstream/123456789/5082/1/108-113.pdf [2014-02-21]. Folk and Dialectal Names of the Genera of Plants in Contemporary Lithuanian Prose S U M M A R Y Following a thorough reading of nearly 100 works of prose of 21st century Lithuanian authors, 203 names of plants which are in some way (by their root, meaning, formation or phonetic composition) different from scientific names of plants were found in 80 works of 49 authors. The main aim of research was to identify what folk and dialectal one-word names of the genera of plants appear in contemporary Lithuanian prose, to analyse their structure, origin and prevalence and to discuss the functions and context of their use in the texts of fiction. In terms of origin, various names of plants borrowed from foreign languages and widely used by Lithuanian authors of prose make up a rather numerous group. The majority of them (17 names) have a Latin root but they came to the Lithuanian language through other (usually Slavic or German) languages. 19 loanwords derive from Slavic languages. 9 names of plants are considered hybrids. In respect of prevalence, the names of plants recorded in prose texts can be divided into several groups. The words displaying the features of Samogitian, Eastern Aukštaitian and the Dzūkų dialect are used in the narrowest area. A group of lexical dialecticisms are more widely used – in the whole area of Aukštaitian dialect. Other names are known across Lithuania. Straipsniai / Articles 109 AURELIJA GRITĖNIENĖ The names of plants discussed in the article perform several functions in the works of prose. The nominative function should first be mentioned (i.e. they are simply used to name certain plants). A conscious use of dialectal names of plants together with other artistic means of expression contributes to the attempts of the authors to individualise the speech of their characters. Besides, the old names and the names of foreign origin reflect the past that is displayed in the works, whereas dialectal names of medicinal plants and the old names of ethnographic garden flowers help authors depict authentic images of the environment and highlight the colouring of the locality. Occasionally, folk and dialectal names of plants become the names of characters in the texts of prose as well. It is obvious that in the age of globalization and the agony of the word our prose writers tend not to abandon the national and dialectal spirit altogether – often, they consciously highlight it at various language levels. To be more suggestive, the new literature makes use of slang, non-standard expression, even the vernacular of the lowest social class. Dialecticism, peculiarity of expression of the word and otherness highlighted by some authors emerge as a counterbalance to these processes. Folk (dialectal) names of plants are only a separate semantic group of words but the tendencies of its use show that in the narrative of modern times the living language is one of those cornerstones that help authors maintain their individuality as well as their peculiar national style. Įteikta 2015 m. gegužės 10 d. AURELIJA GRITĖNIENĖ Lietuvių kalbos institutas Petro Vileišio g. 5 LT-10308 Vilnius, Lietuva [email protected] 110 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXII