DAIVA KARDELYTĖ-GRINEVIČIENĖ

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

Research interests: dialectology, dialect morphology and semantics.

ON THE SEMANTICS OF THE ILLATIVES LAUKAN, LAUKUOSUN IN THE SUBDIALECTS OF THE EASTERN AUKŠTAITIAN OF VILNIUS

On the Semantics of Illatives outdoors, in the fields in the Subdialects of the Eastern Aukštaitian of Vilnius

ANNOTATION

This article, drawing on the theoretical principles of reference linguistics, discusses the semantic peculiarities of the illative forms laukas laukan, laukuosun of the lexeme in the subdialects of the Eastern Aukštaitian of Vilnius. It raises the following questions: a) how the illative forms of the lexeme laukas used in different contexts differ from the defined function of this form, and b) whether the meaning of the illative as a paradigmatic case differs from the principal meanings of the lexeme laukas. The article also addresses the adverbialization of the singular illative laukan.

ANNOTATION

Based on the theoretical principles of reference linguistics, the article discusses the semantic peculiarities of the lexeme laukas illative forms laukan, laukuosun in the subdialects of the Eastern Aukštaitian of Vilnius. It brings forward several questions: a) how the illatives of the lexeme laukas used in different contexts differ from the defined function of this form, and b) whether the meaning of the illative, as a paradigmatic case, differs from the principal meanings of the lexeme laukas. It also discusses the issue of adverbialization of the singular illative laukan.

KEYWORDS: Eastern Aukštaitians of Vilnius, illatives laukan, laukuosun, illative semantics, adverbialization of the illative.

KEYWORDS: Subdialects of the Eastern Aukštaitian of Vilnius, illative laukan, laukuosun, illative semantics, illative adverbialization.

92

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVIII

Dėl iliatyvų laukan, laukuosun semantikos rytų aukštaičių vilniškių šnektose

Of the four postpositional locative cases in Lithuanian (inessive, or internal static, illative, or internal directional, adessive, or external static, and allative, or external directional), only the inessive and illative are still used in dialects. The inessive is characteristic of all dialects, while the illative remains in use across the South and East Aukštaitian dialect areas; forms of the allative are also still found in Gervėčiai (see LKA III 48–56; 72–78, maps 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 67, 68, 69, 70).

1. Questions concerning the formation and development of Lithuanian postpositional locative cases have been discussed in detail and written about by many linguists. The locative cases of the standard language were analyzed by Adelė Laigonaitė (1957a: 21–39). Zigmas Zinkevičius (1966: 200–203; 1980: 253–263; 1982: 21–38) described the formation and functioning of these forms in dialects. Drawing on pronouns and material from old writings, Albertas Rosinas studied the origin and development of postpositional locative cases (1995: 53–76; 2000: 272–273; 2001a: 173–183; 2001b: 136 ff.). Postpositional locative cases in old writings have been studied extensively (see Gelumbeckaitė 1997: 179–202, Kavaliūnaitė 2003: 33–49, Žilinskaitė 2010, and other works by these linguists). However, only a few linguists have so far focused on the semantic analysis of these forms (see Žilinskaitė 2010 and other works, which innovatively analyze locative cases in old writings).

This article also attempts to pursue the semantic analysis of locative cases. More precisely, it discusses the specific use of illative forms of the lexeme laukas in the East Aukštaitian Vilnius dialects, as well as questions open to discussion. The illatives laukan, lau- kuosun¹ have already been described by several linguists. Most attention has been paid to the problem of the adverbialization of these forms (Laigonaitė 1957b: 35 ff., Mikulskas 2003: 71–96, Lipartė 2000: 144–152). In her master’s thesis, Justina Petkelytė (2010: 17–20) briefly surveyed the use of the illatives under investigation in the East Aukštaitian Vilnius dialects from a semantic perspective.

2. The description of the object of study is based on the principles of referential linguistics. Reference concerns the relationship between a linguistic expression and reality. Referential mechanisms make it possible to relate linguistic messages and their components to non-linguistic objects, situations, events, facts, and the positions of things in the real world. In general terms, reference is the relation to individual, ever-new objects and situations. Reference is therefore oriented not toward words and linguistic expression, but toward their use in language—in contexts and their components (Padučeva 2001: 7–8).

One area of referential linguistics is the study of space and location. The reference of space concerns the relationship between a linguistic expression and spatial relations. Location re-

¹ The dialects under investigation use one singular illative form, laukan. Plural illative forms vary, with the variants laukuosun, laukuosan, laukuosna attested. For purposes of discussion, the plural illative form laukuosun has been selected. Morphological variants are not relevant to the semantic analysis and will therefore not be discussed further in this article. For the same reason, phonetic variants are not analyzed either.

Straipsniai / Articles

93

DAIVA KARDELYTĖ-GRINEVIČIENĖ

ference includes the location where an object or situation exists or takes place (in the narrow sense), reference to direction (i.e., movement from one place to another), and relations to a local point of departure (cf. X arrives from / departs from Y). A distinction is made between static (German Positionierung) and dynamic (German Direktionalisierung) spatial reference (for further discussion, see Vater 1996: 41; 2005: 71; 113–130). In the first case, the referent’s position (location, place) is analyzed; in the second, its movement from one place to another.

In Lithuanian, the inessive represents the location where a referent exists, while the illative case and prepositional constructions represent its direction of movement through space, e.g.: I am in the forest: I am going into the forest, I am going forest-ward; I live in the city: I am going to the city, I am going city-ward; I am sitting in the boat: I am climbing into the boat, I am climbing boat-ward, etc.

3. To illustrate more clearly how the lexeme laukas functions in the East Aukštaitian Vilnius dialects, the main meanings of this lexeme used here are presented first. In defining their explanations, the formulations given in LKŽe were used as a basis, but they were adjusted in light of the available dialect material.

(1) ‘cultivated land, an area of crops’: nù̇_tai pavá.sari_ jàu kàp | in_trã.kta.rù. pradíem jãu dí.rp(t) ti.ná.i laukùs nu balãn.že. mé nasi. | tai tadù jãu vienu.kar.(d) dúdava. vá.lgi.t pietù.² || (A. G., 1936, Bèčionys³); visakàs vírai dal̃.giem visùs laukùs | niẽkur neli.gda-và. niẽkas nešiená.uta | visur̃. sutvarkí ta | visakàs nù.-imta | vi.saz der̃.lus | į pasé ta | i nù.-imta || (M. R.-G., 1933, Rimšėnai).

(2) ‘an open, flat, usually empty place’: [zuikeliu] gal̃ į̃r̃ į dabar̃ | àš kàp nestu.sãu_gi laukaĩs | tai_nežináu || nežináu || e_bùr dava. kap mažì bù.ùa.m | tai_bù dava. aĩ.nam špici-ẽ.leĩ jeiška.tie || (P. V., 1925, Didžiasalis); cè_tai ká.imaz bù.ùa. *kiñù nai | a._tadù ti skai.ta.s ká.imi bù.ùa. | bù.ùa. | trĩ:s laukoi._gi bù.ùa. || (ž.: laukù. pavadí.nimas) i_tùs laukùš(s) skai.ta.s | i_pavadí.nimas || išẽj.na tã._lãu.ka. | vù_tai *mẽr.gašulnė. | ti skai.-ta.s | *vaikì ne.s visà tą.-pù.se. || (ž.: raí.sta.) nu_tadù raí.sta. | kur_ã.žeru. ù.turau | raí.s-taz bù.ùa. ã.žeru || ti.ná.ina.s skai.ta.tas_ã.žeras | tai_ĩ.škirsta bù.ùa. | laukù. laukù. pavadí.nimas_vɑ || (J. B., 1923, Kiniūnai).

(3) ‘a place under the open sky; the air, outdoors’: bù.ùa. skanì dúona labaĩ. || taĩ._gi kai_kẽpa dúonu. | tai_nèt laukì kvãpàs ìrà dúna.s (S. C., 1923, Barkuškė); e._mù su. piřkė nemažà bù.ùa. | tai_mù s piřkìs i_gi cè_i telefù.nus uñsì.vede. gi_cè visà ki_gi karinĩn.kai || [tai jie buvo jūsų pirkioj?] cè. mù.su. e._mẽ.s lun---| lauki bù.ùa.m visi || (O. Š., 1927, Maldenėnai).

Thus, the lexeme laukas has three main meanings in the East Aukštaitian Vilnius dialects. All forms of the lexeme under investigation are actively used across its paradigm, including the illatives.

² Dialect examples are transcribed according to the principles of dynamic synchrony, i.e., as informants pronounce them, rather than as they should be pronounced.

³ After each example, the informant’s initials, year of birth, and place of residence are given in parentheses.

94

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVIII

Dėl iliatyvų lauk an, laukuosun semantikos rytų aukštaičių vilniškių šnektose

4. In discussing the illative forms of the East Aukštaitian Vilnius dialect lexeme laukas, this study draws on the view currently prevailing in linguistics that contextual information is extremely important when analyzing individual grammatical or lexical units (cf. Klein 1990: 9 ff., Mikulskas 2003: 71–96, and others). According to Wolfgang Klein (1990: 9 ff.), a representative of referential linguistics, language abounds in utterances whose conventional meaning seems like an empty space (a gap in the system), which can be filled only by drawing on context. The author discusses contextual integration: the speaker and listener must appropriately link the meaning of individual utterances to contextual information so that the speech act achieves its purpose of conveying information. Context modifies the referential environment of lexemes. Contextual information is likewise undoubtedly of great importance in discussing the semantics of the illatives of the lexeme laukas.

Another aspect important for analyzing the form under study is the function of the illative case. Definitions of this function in scholarly literature are not uniform. Some sources state in general terms that the illative denotes the direction of an agent’s or action’s movement (Zinkevičius: 1966, 200), while others say that this form is used to express the direction of an action into the interior of an object or to a particular place (LKE: 1999, 250). The explanations of the meanings of laukas presented above show that the direction of action expressed by the illative of this lexeme is not necessarily into the interior of an object or to a particular place. Thus, the illative can indicate the direction of an action both into the interior of an object and into open space. In general, it can be said that the illative has only one function: to indicate movement in one direction or another. The contexts in which the illative form is used can modify its meaning in various ways and lend it different nuances. This article will therefore attempt to discuss: a) how the illatives of the lexeme laukas used in different contexts differ from the established function of this form, and b) whether the meaning of the illative as a paradigmatic case differs from the primary meanings of the lexeme laukas.

5. Analysis of East Aukštaitian Vilnius dialect material drawn from the East Aukštaitian Vilnius Database (RAVDB), other unpublished transcribed sources, and recordings⁴ makes it possible to distinguish several variations in the meanings of the illative forms of the lexeme under study, emerging from specific contexts.

5.1. The first group of examples under discussion:

(4) There was only one of them | the man and his wife | just the two of them | they had no children. | So the man went out into the field. | To mow hay, as all the men used to do back then. | And the woman stayed at home ‖ (K. Č., 1934, Naujasalis);

(5) mɔ̜̀ma liēka namu̜s rušė vá.lgíc | mè(s) sá.ula. netėkė⁽ⁱ⁾ išěi.nam papjá.unam iki_aštu̜-nū̜ ka.kū̜ vá.lundu. | tadū grīštam namā̜ jāu | pū.šri.ču(s) suvā.lga.m ‖ tadū_jāu kaṗ_iš-ėi.nam | tai_ikì pirmā̜s vá.landa.s ‖ pirmā.i vá.landa.i pietāi. ‖ ē. jau pá̜ piecei bū̜ da.u̜.

⁴ Since not all the recordings have been listened to, it is assumed that the conclusions may need to be revised.

Straipsniai / Articles

95

DAIVA KARDELYTĖ-GRINEVIČIENĖ

for about five hours. | That would bring them out into the field ‖ that’s how we would sit and eat ‖ (V. Ž., 1924, Mėčionys);

(6) I was twelve years old in August. | So, that was when they used to pull flax in August. | My mother would take me along to pull flax out in the field. ‖ (S. Š., 1926, Liepiškės).

In all the examples, the same referent can be identified—the singular illative laukan ‘into the field’. The referential environment differs across the contexts presented and indicates what exactly the form under study denotes in each instance. In sentences (4) and (5), the referential environment is defined by the noun namai ‘home’, the verbs išeiti ‘to go out’ and šienauti ‘to mow hay’ (4), and pjauti ‘to cut’ and atnešti ‘to bring’ (5). The subject moves from an enclosed space (the home) to an open space (the field) with the aim of performing a particular physical task (mowing hay, cutting, carrying something away). In example (6), the place from which the movement begins is not specified, but the referential environment indicates that movement into open space also takes place with a purpose—to pull flax. Contextual information shows that in the examples mentioned, the form laukan is understood as a plot of land cultivated in one way or another. Thus, here the illative does not differ in meaning from the first meaning of the lexeme laukas presented in section three. Examples of this type show that the function of the illative here is to mark movement from an enclosed or implied space into open space.

The contexts also bring out oppositions that characterize the meaning of the referent under study:

+ concrete: − abstract / − without boundaries: + with certain boundaries / − enclosed: + open / + associated with a particular purposeful activity: − not associated with a particular purposeful activity.

It should be noted once again that these features are characteristic of the singular illative form.

5.2. The form under investigation acquires a somewhat different semantic nuance in contexts such as these:

(7) tai_ti kaṫrīe lī.ka, ká.imi | e. katu--- | kitùs iškėla. laukúosaⁿ | vienkiemúosaⁿ | žė.mi. razdalį.ja ‖ (J. D.-R., 1918, Dindos)⁵;

(8) tr̥₂.be.sei. plé.ša. i_ne.ša | vė.ža | j_vė. statī.t | tai_tús palī.ka. in_vieṫa.s val--- | valžė ‖ ne_lx ckù prā.šie | ne_savan:ĩ rei | ne_savan:ĩ rei išė.ja.m laukúosan | i_và pamiškieñ k2.-k̄2.n ‖ paskī.re. ir_plė:še ‖ (J. D.-R., 1918, Dindos).

In these examples, the referent is the plural illative laukuosan / lauk uosna. The referential context is indicated by the noun kaimas and the verbs iškėlė (7), išėjome (8). The formal function of the illative is the same as in the examples discussed earlier—

⁵ Here one may also mention the example given in LKŽe Seniau mes kaime gyvenom, tik paskui išėjom ant laukų (į vienkiemius) (Veliuona), and the example recorded in Zietela Jau aš norėjau ait an lauko.

96

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVIII

Dėl iliatyvų laukan, laukuosun semantikos rytų aukštaičių vilniškių šnektose

the implied subjects move into open space. However, the place from which they move is not a closed object. It is a geographical region denoted by the noun kaimas (in example (7); in (8), it is implied). In these examples, the subjects’ direction of movement is from one formally open space to another. The lexeme laukas, denoting an empty space, is here opposed to an inhabited, built-up space—the village.

Lipartė also discusses this type of use of the form under investigation in the article “Meanings and possible synonyms of the illative or adverb laukan in Lithuanian dialects” (2000: 145–146). The author classifies examples of the type mentioned as referring to a specific place where an action takes place outdoors, with no purpose specified. According to the researcher, in this case the primary function of the lexeme laukas and its forms is distinctive: a field is contrasted with a forest, a settlement, or (more often, in the plural form) a town or village6

In contexts of the type discussed, the illative laukuosun in Eastern Aukštaitian Vilnius subdialects not only indicates movement toward open space but also acquires a distinctive feature. It should be noted that this is characteristic of the plural illative form of the lexeme under investigation.

The fifth meaning of the word laukas in LKŽe is ‘village, hamlet (as distinct from a town)’. In Eastern Aukštaitian Vilnius subdialects, the aforementioned lexeme acquires the meaning ‘single homestead’ only when used in the plural form and denoting presence in, or movement to, the place it describes.

The examples discussed reveal the same oppositions as the illative laukan, meaning movement into an area of cultivated land, with one additional opposition indicating a distinctive feature (− built-up space: + unbuilt space). The nature of the activity performed by the referent in the place named also differs: in the first case it is physical work (mowing hay, cutting, etc.), whereas in the second it is unspecified activity (which could be denoted by the verb gyventi ‘to live’).

5.3. In Eastern Aukštaitian Vilnian subdialects, the illative of the lexeme laukas is also used in contexts of another type:

(9) ir_á.na(s) sá.ka. ka(p)_pavá.ļge. | išėja. | jī pīkīnt pradėja. | jis_laukañ. išėja. isipīkina. || (J. K., 1926, Šileikiškė);

(10) jé.igu jìs išėja. laukañ. | iškar.t grūna | a_jei.gu iš_lāu.kā. atėi.na kambarin. | ir_vėl grū-na | já.m̄_jau š.rā. trūksta || (O. B., 1930, Krikonys);

(11) anà kai_kàs kalbė davɔ. sá.kɔ. un_aguõnu. | anà išėi.na laukañ. | kap_vė jas pū.čė | pa-vė.juī. i. kal̄.ba išėi.na || (1932, Stanislavavas).

In the contexts presented, the referential environment of the forms under investigation (the verb išėjo ‘went out’) indicates that the subject moves from an enclosed, three-dimensional space (in examples (9) and (11), this is implicit—a room where people were eating or doing something; in example (10),

⁶ It should be emphasized that Evija Lipartė was unable to find examples in which the illative form laukan is used with this meaning of a solitary farmstead contrasted with a town and a village.

Straipsniai / Articles

97

DAIVA KARDELYTĖ-GRINEVIČIENĖ

in the example, a room) into an open space. The function of the open space is not relevant in these contexts. What matters here is the subject’s movement into spaces of different dimensions⁷. The distinctive feature of the illative laukan becomes apparent: in this case it denotes the opposition between inside and outside. This is especially clear in example (10) (room (inside): field (outside)). This was not characteristic of the illative uses discussed earlier. It is also worth noting that only the singular illative form is attested in contexts of this type.

Daugelis kalbininkų (Laigonaitė 1957b: 49), Ulvydas 2000: 291 t. ir kt.) panašaus tipo kontekstuose vartojamą iliatyvo formą laukan yra linkę laikyti prieveiksmiu. Mikulskas (2003: 85) remdamasis šiaurinių Lietuvos šnektų⁸ ir LKŽ duomenimis nurodo iliatyvo laukan prieveiksmėjimo motyvus. Pasak jo, spartų aptariamosios formos prieveiksmėjimą greičiausiai lėmė daiktavardžio laukas semantinės struktūros abstraktėjimas. Šio daiktavardžio abstrakčiausios reikšmės ‘vieta po atviru dangum’ ir ‘išorė’ dažniausiai žymi tik erdvės opozicijos vidus: išorė vieną pusę. Autorius teigia, jog tokia leksema prarandanti objektinę reikšmę, tik abstrakčiai rodanti kryptį erdvėje (iš vidaus į išorę) ir faktiškai jau esanti prieveiksmis.

It is worth considering whether the singular illative laukan, used in the aforementioned contexts in Eastern Aukštaitian Vilnian subdialects, should also be considered an adverb. As already mentioned, the illative is a living, paradigmatic case here. Like all illatives, the form laukan is not detached from the paradigm. Forms considered adverbs, by contrast, are usually more distant from it.

Prisim inus Mikulsko (2003: 85) mintį, kad leksema laukas, vartojama reikšme ‘vieta po atviru dangum; išorė’, prarandanti objektinę reikšmę ir tik abstrakčiai rodanti kryptį erdvėje, norėtųsi atkreipti dėmesį į pragmatinį kalbos akto aspektą. Lingvistinė pragmatika tiria, kaip reikšmės perdavimas priklauso nuo pasakymo konteksto, žinių apie pokalbio dalyvių statusą, interferuotos kalbėtojo intencijos, pasakymo būdo, vietos laiko ir t. t. (žr. Ryvitytė 2011: 7–12). Turint tai galvoje, galima paprieštarauti minčiai, jog minėta reikšme vartojama forma laukan praranda objektinę reikšmę. Konkrečiame kontekste adresantas, perduodamas adresatui tam tikrą informaciją (mūsų aptariamuoju atveju tai yra nuoroda, kad subjektas / objektas juda iš uždaros erdvės į atvirą), ją sieja su daugeliu kalbinių ir nekalbinių faktorių. Konkrečiuose kontekstuose forma laukan suvokiama ne tik kaip abstrakcija „išorė“, bet ir kaip konkreti vieta. Adresantas, sakydamas „einu laukan“, gal-

⁷ In contexts of this type, illative forms of the lexeme oras may also be used in Eastern Aukštaitian Vilnian dialects; compare the second meaning of oras, ‘a place under the open sky, a field’: tai ai.nam’e jau or’an. klaus’ič’ | kur šuva lo.s (Padvarės); patstatė tinarį iir i.švedė oran ta.s merga.s pa.s ta.s akėtsas ir pra.ršė ažū kasu (ps.) (Žižmai) (DvŽ II 33). The illative forms of the lexeme oras are not discussed further in this article.

⁸ In this article, the author draws on the article by Aleksas Girdenis and Genutė Kačiuškienė, “Parallel phenomena in the Latvian and Northern Lithuanian verb systems” (2000: 307–314).

98

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVIII

Dėl iliatyvų laukan, laukuosun semantikos rytų aukštaičių vilniškių šnektose

it also has a specific location to which someone will arrive after leaving an enclosed space. In examples (9) and (10), this is presumably a yard; in (11), a yard or an open area near a house. The following example can also be cited here:

(12) aš_sakâu. | né. brá.î | jáu_su_ši.tɔ.ku niekadà nę.jáu. š’kt ir_neišù || ir_aš_rá.s ir_nu-ę.- jáu. | nugi_á.nas vi.ràsni.s | ir_acistš’jau || ir_á.nas išė.jà. | išė.jà. | paskui. mergãî.tę.š išė.jà. laukañ. | ti.ná.i an_sá.vâ. rëî.kalà. tèna.s || (J., 1938, Ažušilė).

In this context, the illative laukan, used with the verb eiti ‘to go’, acquires an additional nuance of meaning: ‘to defecate’⁹.

In the Eastern Aukštaitian Vilnius subdialects, the interpretation of the singular illative form laukan, used with verbs of motion, depends on context and pragmatic information. Only these factors can help determine the meaning of the form used in a particular instance, as well as its grammatical status.

Since, as already mentioned, the illative is a paradigmatic case in the subdialects under study, and the forms laukan, used with the meaning ‘a place under the open sky; the outside’, cannot be considered wholly abstract, it can be concluded that the form laukan in the Eastern Aukštaitian Vilnius subdialects has not become adverbialized. It should be regarded as the singular illative case.

5.4. One more, final group of examples illustrating the form under study merits separate discussion:

(13) nù | šituõ·s rũ bus visùs kur_jáu_nakvój’ja. | tai_į_šņes laukañ || (J. B., 1916, Mileikiškiai);

(14) tai nušà.vâ._ji. | i._ná.mu. ažù.degę. ši.tu. || ę. | já. žmã’nai i_mèrgã tie mažà | tai liēpe. lã.pšî’s isinè.št laukañ | e._tũ. diedù. anà ti’se. aš_nežinãu ar_sù.degę. taz_diedãs | su_na-mù || tèp_kat | bãū.de. iš_visù. šá.nu. || (A. G., 1936, Bėčionys);

(15) alè vis_tiek jɔ.z_gi lauka(ñ) nemesi._gi | vą_ši.te vis_tiek_và.lgi.davà.m || (E. M., 1928, Smilgin iškė).

In the cited contexts, the referential setting is identified by the verbs iš(si) nešti ir mesti ‘to carry (out) and throw away’. They belong to the verbs denoting removal (separation) (for further discussion, see Mikulskas 2003: 84).

In example (15), the action described is directed from an enclosed object (‘house’) into open space. The direction is not specified explicitly in examples (13) and (14), but it is understood to be the same. Thus, these contexts again highlight the opposition inside: outside, but here it is of a different kind from that described in examples (9)–(11).

Lipartė (2000: 149–150) taip pat mini panašaus tipo atvejus ir aprašydama juos aptaria partikulininius veiksmažodžius. Dėl partikulininių veiksmažodžių susidariusią vieną iš ternarinės veikslo sistemos kategorijų – perfectentyvą – yra apžvelgę Gir-

⁹ Plačiau apie frazeologizmą eiti laukan žr. Lipartė 2000: 150–151.

Straipsniai / Articles

99

DAIVA KARDELYTĖ-GRINEVIČIENĖ

denis ir Kačiūškienė (2000: 307–314; dar žr. Kaikarytė, 2011). Perficientyvas sudaromas su tam tikrais „nublukusios” semantikos prieveiksmiais – postverbais, savo reikšme ir funkcija artimais perfekt yvinio veiksmažodžio priešdėliams. Eidami po vadinamųjų anihiliacinės reikšmmės veiksmažodžių, šie postverbai rodo, kad veiksmas artėja prie pabaigos arba tam tikros ribos. Pasak minėtojo straipsnio autorių, šis reiškinys būdingas tik šiaurinėms tarmėms (šiaurės vakarų žemaičių, šiaurinių šiauliškių ir panevėžiškių šnektoms) ir yra atsiradęs dėl kaimyninės latvių kalbos poveikio¹⁰ (Girdenis, Kačiūškienė 2000: 311). Lipartė teigia, kad šis reiškinys nėra vien tik nurodytų tarmių ypatybė, ir dėl to esą negalima tvirtinti, jog jis atsirado dėl latvių kalbos įtakos. Jos duomenimis, atskiri pavyzdžiai užrašyti taip pat iš vakarų, vidurio aukštaičių ir už Lietuvos sienų (Baltarusijoje) esančių lietuvių kalbos salų (Zietelos, Lazūnų, Ramaškonių).

Mikulskas (2003: 75, 5 išn.) pastebi, kad Lipartės pavyzdžiai rodo tik lokalinę reikšmę, o vadinamosios partikulos, kaip ir jų priešdėliniai atitikmenys, čia neatlieka veikslo rodiklio funkcijos¹¹. Autorius taip pat atkreipia dėmesį, jog forma lauka(n), ypač einanti po slinkties veiksmažodžių, dažnai gali būti suprantama dviprasmiškai. Šio neaiškumo priežastis – daiktavardžių, iš kurių yra kilę tokios formos, semantinė raida abstraktėjimo link. Tyrėjas teigia, kad „bendrai tereikšdamos veiksmo kryptį iš vidaus (centro) į išorę (periferiją), šios iliatyvo formos labiau linkę prieveiksmėti ir menkiau tinka reikšti perficientyvui svarbią ribos funkciją. Kadangi formos lauka(n) (ir lokaliniai variantai) bei šalin plačiai vartojamos visoje Lietuvoje kaip krypties prieveiksmiai, dėl galimos dvejopos interpretacijos sunkiau atpažinti jų postverbinės vartosenos atvejus. Sprendžiant šių formų leksikografinio pateikimo klausimą neaiškiais atvejais reikėtų orientuotis į tą geografinę perficientyvinių konstrukcijų paplitimo ribą, kurią šiaurinėse lietuvių tarmėse patikimai eksplikuoja populiariausio postverbo žemė(n) (ir jo lokalinių variantų) vartosena” (Mikulskas 2000: 82–86).

In the examples from the aforementioned Eastern Aukštaitian Vilnius subdialects, the form laukan is not a postverb. In the contexts under discussion, the direction of movement expressed by the illative laukan remains the same as in the preceding examples—from the inside to the outside. Here the inside: outside opposition is prominent; the illative laukan often barely marks an objective meaning, instead denoting an abstract place outside ((18) and (20)). In its meaning, this illative

¹⁰ Cf. Samogitian Kirškit köje žėmen (Tirkšliai) = Latvian Cērtiet kāju nuost, Tas vēlnias jau skesta žemyn (Šatės) = Latvian Tas veļns jau slīkst nuost, Malku neturiu – ziemā šalu į žemę (Papilė) = Latvian Maļkas man nāv – ziemā sālstu nuost (Girdenis, Kačiūškienė 2000: 308–309).

¹¹ Based on the LKŽ card index, Rolandas Mikulskas mapped the precise distribution boundary of the perficientive constructions used in the northern subdialects. The area in which these constructions are distributed also includes the northern Kupiškėnai and Utena subdialects (Mikulskas 2003: 76).

100

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVIII

Dėl iliatyvų laukan, laukuosun semantikos rytų aukštaičių vilniškių šnektose

is remote from the core meanings of the lexeme laukas. It may be assumed that the singular illative laukan, used with verbs meaning removal (separation), tends to become adverbial¹².

6. GENERALIZATION

The material presented shows that in the Eastern Aukštaitian Vilnius subdialects, the function of the illative forms of the lexeme laukas is to indicate the direction of an action: (a) from an enclosed object¹³ into a specific open space with defined boundaries, where a particular purposeful activity is carried out; (b) from an enclosed object into an abstract, open space without defined boundaries, where a particular purposeful activity is not necessarily carried out.

- The meanings of the illative under investigation do not differ from the core meanings of the lexeme laukas when it indicates the direction of an action toward cultivated land, a crop-growing area, or a place outdoors. In both cases, singular illative forms are used.

- The plural illative form laukuosun acquires a more pronounced semantic nuance in contexts where it is contrasted with lexemes denoting an inhabited geographical feature. The direction of an action is from an open object into an open space, from a built-up area into an undeveloped one. In such cases, this illative is used in the sense ‘isolated farmstead’.

- The singular illative form laukan in the Eastern Aukštaitian Vilnius subdialects, indicating the direction of an action toward a place outdoors, the exterior, is to be regarded as a paradigmatic case, except when it is used with verbs meaning removal (separation). In those instances, the form tends to become adverbial.

LITERATURE AND SOURCES

DvŽ II – Mikulėnienė Danguolė, Morkūnas Kazys, Vidugiris Aloyzas 2006: Dieveniškių šnektos žodynas 2. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

Gelumbickaitė Jolanta 1997: Postpoziciniai vietininkai J. Bretkūno Evangelijos pagal Luką vertime. – Baltistica 32(2), 179–202.

Girdenis Aleksas, Kačiuškienė Genutė 2000: Paraleliniai reiškiniai latvių ir šiaurinių lietuvių veiksmažodžio sistemose. – Kalbotyros darbai 2, 307–314. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

¹²It cannot be stated with certainty that the meaning of the forms under investigation is always abstract in the contexts indicated. Here, too, grammatical status is determined by contextual and pragmatic information; compare example (14) or the command “Throw him out into the yard,” where laukan is understood as the yard or the area around the house.

¹³Often, the object or place from which movement takes place is implied.

Straipsniai / Articles

101

DAIVA KARDELYTĖ-GRINEVIČIENĖ

Kaikarytė Aušra 2011: Perficientyvas šiaurinėse šiauliškių šnektose, Tarptautinės mokslinės konferencijos Kalba ir jos tyrimo aspektai tezės. Vilnius. Prieiga internete: http://lki.lt/LKI_LT/images/Naujienos/20111124_bendros_tezes.pdf.

Kavaliūnaitė Gina 2003: Postpozicinių vietininkų sistema Chylinskio Naujojo Testamento vertime. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 49, 33–49.

Klein Wolfgang 1990: Überall und nirgendwo. Subjektive und objektive Momente in der Raumreferenz. – Sprache und Raum. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 78, 9–42.

Laigonaitė Adelė 1957a: Pašalio vietininkai dabartinėje lietuvių kalboje. – Kai kurie lietuvių kalbos gramatikos klausimai. Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla, 21–39.

Laigonaitė Adelė 1957b: Vietininkų reikšmė ir vartosena dabartinėje lietuvių kalboje. Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla.

Lipartė Evija 2000: Iliatyvo resp. prieveiksmio laukan reikšmės ir galimi sinonimai lietuvių tarmėse. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 43, 144–152.

LKA III – Atlas of the Lithuanian Language 3. Morphology. Vilnius: Mokslas, 1991.

LKE – Encyclopedia of the Lithuanian Language. Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopedia Publishing, 1999.

LKŽe – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas (I–XX, 1941–2002): elektroninis variantas. Redaktorių kolegija: Gertrūda Naktinienė (vyr. redaktorė), Jonas Paulauskas, Ritutė Petrokienė, Vytautas Vitkauskas, Jolanta Zabarskaitė. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Prieiga internete: www.lkz.lt.

Mik ulskas?

Mik ulskas

Mik ulskas

Mik ulskas

Mik ulskas

Mik ulskas

Mik ulskas

Mik ulskas

Mik ulskas

Mik ulskas

Mik ulskas

Mik ulskas

102

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVIII

Dėl iliatyvų lauk an, laukuosun semantikos rytų aukštaičių vilniškių šnektose

Rosinas Albertas 2001a: Inesyvo ir adesyvo formų kilmės ir raidos klausimu. – Baltistica 35(1), 173–183.

Rosinas Albertas 2001b: Mikalojaus Daukšos tekstų įvardžių semantinė ir morfologinė struktūra. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

Ulvydas Kazys 2000: Lietuvių kalbos prieveiksmiai. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

Vater Heinz 1996: Einführung in die Raum-Linguistik. Hürth: Gabel Verlag.

Vater Heinz 2005: Referenz-Linguistik. München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag.

Zinkevičius Zigmas 1966: Lietuvių dialektologija. Vilnius: Mintis.

Zinkevičius Zigmas 1980: Lietuvių kalbos istorinė gramatika 1. Vilnius: Mokslas.

Zinkevičius Zigmas 1982: Lietuvių kalbos postpoziciniai vietininkai. – Baltistica 18(1), 21–38.

Žilinskaitė Eglė 2010: Vietos raiška Mikalojaus Daukšos Postilėje: postpoziciniai vietininkai ir jų funkciniai ekvivalentai. Daktaro disertacija.

On the Semantics of the Illatives laukan, laukuosun in the Subdialects of the Eastern Aukštaitian of Vilnius

SUMMARY

Scientific literature provides an in-depth discussion on the issues of formation and development of postpositive locatives in the Lithuanian language; the locatives in the old writings have received considerable attention in research studies. However, only individual linguists have so far focused on the semantic analysis of the afore-mentioned forms. The article discusses the illative forms laukan, laukuosun of the lexeme laukas used in the subdialects of the Eastern Aukštaitian of Vilnius in the semantic aspect. The analysis is based on the theoretical principles of reference linguistics focusing on the interpretation of relations between linguistic expression and the reality and the importance of contextual information. After defining that the function of the illative is to denote the movement of one or another direction (from open to close space and vice versa), the article brings forward the tasks to identify: (a) how the illatives of the lexeme laukas used in different contexts differ from the defined function of this form and (b) whether the meaning of the illative, being a paradigmatic case, differs from the principal meanings of the lexeme laukas. Four cases of usage of the illative laukan, laukuosun associated with different contexts are separately discussed. After discussing the material, conclusions are made that the function of the illative forms of the lexeme laukas in the subdialects of the

Straipsniai / Articles

103

DAIVA KARDELYTĖ-GRINEVIČIENĖ

Eastern Aukštaitian of Vilnius is to specify the direction of action from a closed object into a specific open space delineated by certain boundaries and defined by certain targeted activities or from a closed object into an abstract open space without specific boundaries, which is not necessarily defined by certain targeted activities. The meanings of the illative under analysis do not differ from the meanings of the principal lexeme laukas in such cases when it is used to denote the direction of action to the cultivated land, crop area and place under the sky. The plural illative form laukuosuan acquires a more vivid notional shade, when it is juxtaposed to the lexemes denoting the settled geographical object in different contexts. The singular illative form laukan denoting the direction of action to a place under the open sky, outwards, is considered a paradigmatic case, except for the cases, where it is used with the verbs denoting the meaning of expulsion (separation). Therefore, the form is inclined to adverbialization.

Submitted on 11 October 2012.

DAIVA KARDELYTĖ-GRINEVIČIENĖ

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

Petro Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius, Lietuva

[email protected]; [email protected]

104

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVIII