Lietuvių kalbotyra 2003-aisiais metais: Lietuvoje išleisti darbai

ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA LI (2004), 125–139 REVIEW OF NEW WORKS Survey of Recent Publications LITHUANIAN LINGUISTICS IN 2003: WORKS PUBLISHED IN LITHUANIA The year 2003 was not a generous one for Lithuanian linguistics. Three monographs published in Lithuania that year are reviewed here (by Vytautas Kardelis, Rita Miliūnaitė, and Juozas Jurkėnas), along with three collections of articles (Problems of Lexicography and Lexicology, Studies in Syntactic Relations, and Volume 3 of Zigmas Zinkevičius’s Selected Articles) and a publication on Lithuania’s historical onomastics (Jonas Palionis’s Personal Names and Place Names of the Punios Parish in the Second Half of the 17th Century). 1. Vytautas Kardelis’s monograph Features of the Phonology of Slavicisms in Eastern Aukštaitian Dialects (Vilnius: Vilnius University Press, 2003, 195 pp., ISBN 9986-19-562-4 [Vilnius University Faculty of Philology Research Papers]) is based on a dissertation defended in 1999. It consists of a preface, an introduction, and three chapters. At the end of the book is a detailed German summary of the work, translated by Birno Wiemer (pp. 146–158), an extensive bibliography (pp. 159–168), an explanation of abbreviations (p. 169), and an alphabetical list of Slavicisms (pp. 170–195), indicating the grammatical forms, stress pattern, meaning, and possible sources of borrowing for each Slavicism. In the preface (pp. 9–10), the relevance of the work is explained: although Slavicisms in Lithuanian have already been studied to a considerable extent, “structural and especially diachronic studies of Slavicisms are still lacking. One of the least studied areas is the phonology of Slavicisms” (p. 9). The rather extensive introduction (pp. 11–33) discusses research directions and problems in the study of Lithuanian Slavicisms, as well as methodological principles of research and reconstruction. Internal reconstruction is chosen as the principal research method; the study is regarded as an introduction to further and broader research into the integration of Slavicisms (p. 27). The material under study was selected with regard to primary sources (cf. pp. 27–28), and is therefore reliable and unproblematic. The introduction concludes with a concise review of the principles of phonological reconstruction (pp. 29–33). It is noteworthy that the author felt the need to emphasize in the introduction such fundamental theoretical matters as the different chronologies of borrowings and the systematic nature of phonological integration. The first chapter, “The Phonological System of the Dialects” (pp. 33–44), briefly discusses the most important and distinctive features of the dialects, phoneme distribution, distinctive features, and the phonological system. The second chapter, “Features of Slavic Vocalism” (pp. 44–62), together with the preceding chapter forming the introductory part of the study, discusses relevant terms and classifications of the Slavic languages and surveys their vowel systems. The chapter is informative, but somewhat too extensive, and contains some repetition. The third and main chapter, “The Development of the Integration of Slavicisms” (pp. 62–145), examines the qualitative and quantitative integration of Slavic vowels and its development, and summarizes the influence of Slavicisms on the dialects’ vocalism system. 126 | ARTŪRAS JUDŽENTIS The study of qualitative integration begins with the vowels o and e. The principal laws of integration in stressed position are established: “Slavic o → stressed half-long ā. in Slavicisms,” “Slavic e → stressed half-long ē. in Slavicisms,” and their reformulation into the laws “Slavic o → stressed half-long u̯ō. in Slavicisms,” “Slavic e → stressed half-long i̯ē. in Slavicisms” is demonstrated. The reasons for reformulating these laws—the gap in the dialects’ subsystem of half-long vowels (the lack of mid-height members)—are convincingly revealed (p. 89). The relative chronology corresponding to the changes in the laws of integration is as follows: Slavicisms with stressed half-long ā. and ē. are supposedly older, while those with stressed half-long u̯ō. and i̯ē. are newer (p. 76). The non-etymological laws “Slavic o, e → stressed half-long ū., ī. in Slavicisms” arose as a result of the development of the vocalic systems of the Slavic languages: during borrowing, vowels of the u and i types derived from “yers” later merged with o and e in those languages (pp. 78–81). Slavicisms with vocalism of this origin formed the oldest layer of Slavicisms in the dialects: they are thought to have been borrowed before the 12th century. The dialectal Slavicisms with stressed long ie: are explained differently from Būga’s account: not by the diphthongal pronunciation of the former Slavic “yat,” but by the development of the dialects’ own vowel ie:. At the time of borrowing, the dialect vowel *e., a narrow mid-height front vowel, was closest to “yat”; later, in stressed position, it developed into ie: (pp. 84–85). This argument does not appear to take sufficient account of the chronology and semantics of the loanwords. In examining the laws governing the integration of the Slavic vowel a, their changes are elegantly revealed, with the dialectal change *a → ɒː providing the impetus (pp. 89–91). The interrelationships among the reformulations of the integration laws for Slavic vowels o, e, and a are convincingly demonstrated, and the motives behind them, determined by the development of the dialects’ vocalism, are revealed. On the basis of the earlier distribution of the dialect vowels *a: and *e: (after palatalized consonants, in the position of neutralization, only the vowel *e: could have occurred), Būga’s explanation is rejected—that Slavicisms whose reflexes of Slavic ja differ across dialects were borrowed at different times (Būga 1912/1958: 347). The formation of the integration law “Slavic y → stressed diphthong ui in Slavicisms” is explained by phonological causes. Būga’s view that ui in Slavicisms could have arisen from back vowel Slavic y (1912/1958: 348) is rejected, and the hypothesis is advanced that it “could have formed when į, u changed from sonorants into vowels. With this change in the status of į, u, u, as a vowel, could have formed the first component of a diphthong” (p. 103). This explanation of the origin of the diphthong ui is not very convincing. In discussing quantitative integration, the book explains differences in the quantity of vowels in Slavicisms not, as Būga did (1912/1958: 344), by the length or shortness of the Slavic vowels themselves, but by the development of the dialects’ phonological system. Slavicisms with vowels of different lengths are thought to have been borrowed at different times and to reflect the development of the dialects’ vocalic system: earlier, stressed short vowels in the dialects had not yet lengthened or become tense, and so, by the distinctive feature of tenseness, Slavic i, y, u were closer to the dialects’ long iː, uː. Later, when tense half-long iː, uː had emerged in the dialects, the aforementioned Slavic vowels formed correlations with them (pp. 111–113). The unstressed-position reflexes had been adjusted to those in stressed position. The new explanation seems convincing, but it should also be supported by research into the chronology and semantics of the Slavicisms. The change in the laws discerned in the development of quantitative integration is explained by a historical shift in the phonological center of integration: initially it consisted of the subsystem of long vowels, and later of half-long vowels. The shift in the phonological center was caused by a quantitative change in vocalism—the lengthening of short i, u in stressed position to half-long vowels (pp. 116–119). The integration of Slavic vowels a, ja in unstressed position is explained with sound argumentation and insight: in the integration of low vowels, quality rather than quantity (or tenseness) is thought to be the most important feature (pp. 122–124). In summarizing the influence of Slavicisms on the dialects’ vocalic system, the author argues that it was not great: “all the vowels of Slavic loanwords have been integrated into the system and adapted to its model of syntagmatic and paradig- NAUJŲ DARBŲ APŽVALGA | 127 matic relations” (p. 124). Only two elements supplement the system—half-long ie., uo., which are possible in both stressed and unstressed position. The study “On the Sequences le, re, se in Slavicisms” (pp. 126–138) examines the so-called hardening of consonants l, r, s in the Eastern Aukštaitian dialects. The research conclusions (pp. 138–145), which form the concluding part of the third chapter, discuss the laws of integration and their development once again. The relative chronology of all the laws is established. Only those Slavicisms from the earliest layer whose stressed half-long (and, depending on position, unstressed short) ů, į. represent the Slavic “yers” can be dated reliably. The lengthening of short vowels u, i in stressed position produced new laws of integration, which also mark the boundary of the newer layer of Slavicisms. The newest layer of Slavicisms began to form after the dialectal change a·, e· → ɔ·, ɛ·. Vytautas Kardelis’s study is characterized by its systematic approach, sound argumentation, insight, and measured caution. Thanks to its thorough examination of extensive and reliable dialect material, its new ideas, and its substantial conclusions, the work is significant for Lithuanian dialectology, historical phonology, lexicology, and etymology. The book was reviewed by Danguolė Mikulėnienė and Olegas Poliakovas. Its publication was funded by the Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Lithuania and the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language. A more detailed review of the monograph was published in the journal Baltu filologija (Judžentis 2004). 2. Ritos Milūnaitės monograph Foundations for the Standardization of Lithuanian Grammar (Vilnius: Publishing House of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language, 2003, 332 pp., ISSN 1648-3316, ISBN 9986-668-47-6 [Opera Linguistica Lithuanica 3]) is likewise based on a dissertation defended at Vilnius University in 1992. Over an entire decade, this work “remained the only dissertation defended directly in the field of language culture” (p. 5). It is published as originally written, with editorial notes added in footnotes where necessary (p. 6). The work under review consists of a preface, four chapters, and conclusions. At the end of the book are a list of sources and literature (pp. 301–306), information about the author’s articles published before and after the dissertation defense (pp. 306–307), a fairly extensive English-language summary (pp. 309–323), and an index of persons compiled by the author (pp. 325–328). The convenient table of contents is placed at the beginning of the book (pp. 7–11). The book’s preface (pp. 13–17) presents an understanding of the formation and development of the standard language. After a brief overview of the history of the Lithuanian standard language, it concludes that “today a considerable number of linguists hold the view that a unified scholarly theory of the standardization of Lithuanian standard language has not yet been developed” (pp. 13–14); consequently, in practical standardization work, “each linguist relies not only on established standardization traditions, but also on their own experience, intuition, language sense, and the basis of the dialect they know” (p. 14). The research object selected is “not the language system itself, but the motives for linguists’ conscious influence on the standard language and for regulating its norms” (pp. 14–15), and corresponding research aims are set: to try to reveal methods (motives) for evaluating grammatical phenomena and to seek regularities in grammar standardization (p. 15). The preface then lists the sources of the research data and describes the methodology, structure, and approval of the work. The first, introductory chapter of the book (pp. 19–53) discusses theoretical aspects of grammar standardization, describes sources of recommendations and the methodology for studying them, and defines the main concepts (grammar, contemporary language, norm, variant, standardization). It begins with the most general matters—prescriptive linguistics, levels of language, language change and functioning, and language development. The causes and prerequisites of language change are discussed, and the question of language 128 | ARTŪRAS JUDŽENTIS the problem of development. These topics are examined on the basis of theoretical literature from the 1960s and 1970s (mostly Russian and Czech), in which linguistic ideas from the first half of the twentieth century are often still being discussed. The limits of the synchronically studied grammatical system are set as a 60-year period from Jablonskis’s death until the restoration of independence (1930–1990). The concept of language standard, significant for the work as a whole, is described: the understanding of the language standard in the Prague School and Eugenio Coseriu is said to be insufficient, “requiring substantial supplementation and clarification” (p. 32), because it does not take into account the opposition between the language of the people and the standard language, whose most essential features are said to include a conscious effort to adhere to language standards. Since the book does not discuss the concept of the standard language, the opposition between the language of the people and the standard language remains somewhat unclear. On the other hand, the role of “conscious creation and regulation” (p. 32), at least at the current stage of the development of the standard language, seems exaggerated. The tendency of Lithuanian language-culture practitioners to equate the language standard with codification is aptly noted (p. 33). The proposed concept of the actual standard-language norm, which “exists in the field of tension between the usage of the standard language and the effect of codification (i.e. the codified norm)” (p. 35), seems neither very clear nor necessary. It becomes even less clear when it is claimed that the current actual standard-language norm “exists only insofar as it is upheld by codification and consciously cultivated habits” (p. 37). The author (and many language-culture practitioners) understands codification as part of standardization activity, one of its stages (the others being the refinement of codified norms and their introduction into usage) (p. 42). The introduction describes the sources of the recommendations under study: Juozas Balčikonis’s Rinktiniai raštai and the journals Gimtoji kalba (1933–1941), Gimtoji kalba (1958–1968), Kalbos kultūra (1961–1990), Mūsų kalba (1968–1989); statistics are provided for the recommendations published in them (p. 50). The recommendations for grammatical standardization in the journal Kalba, published in 1930, are briefly surveyed. The introduction concludes with a discussion of the methodology for studying language corrections and definitions of recommendation, its rationale, and several other concepts. The second chapter, “A Survey of the Standardization of Grammatical Phenomena” (pp. 55–213), is the largest, making up half of the book. It aims to investigate “the basis on which specific grammatical phenomena discussed in the collected recommendations were standardized” (p. 55). The chapter begins with methodological remarks and examines the concept of grammatical variation, the classification of variants, and issues involved in interpreting recommendations. It is emphasized that the book does not revise the evaluation of grammatical phenomena, but merely seeks to understand the author’s intention. Grammatical phenomena that exhibit variation are divided into five groups: first come word forms, followed by phrases and constructions, indirect sentence components, complex sentences, and word order in the sentence. The chapter concludes with summary remarks. The interpretation of the grammatical corrections under examination lacks critical evaluation. Recommendations that are unjustified or insufficiently justified are discussed alongside those that are well argued. For example, the proposal to avoid coordinate sentences with the connective kai tuo tarpu ‘whereas’ to express comparison, on the grounds that this connective arose through translation (p. 189), is classified as justified by the requirement of linguistic purity. However, without assessing whether the recommendation is sufficiently justified or whether the foreign origin of the sentences in question has been demonstrated, its interpretation lacks a foundation. The same applies to other cases (sentences with jei(gu)…, tai; kuomet; tegu(l);; concessive subordinate clauses with the verbal prefix be-): classifying recommendations according to the rationales their authors themselves give, without considering whether those rationales are justified, does not seem meaningful. The author herself notes that “incorrectness and the tradition of correction are not, in themselves, sufficiently informative” as reasons for corrections (p. 196). The author does not always take account of the chronology of corrections, which should be quite important to the study. For example, sentences with NAUJŲ DARBŲ APŽVALGA 129 the conjunctions o taip pat ‘and also’ were first corrected, according to the author’s data, by Aldonas Pupkis (1970 and later), yet the survey of corrections begins with Stasys Keinys (1977) and Angelė Kaulakienė (1983) (p. 189). This part of the work is a useful thematic register of the grammatical recommendations from the period covered by the book. In the chapter’s summary remarks, grammatical phenomena that vary are divided into formal and functional types, and their distribution is discussed from the perspective of the actual standard-language norm. Since the work does not consider the validity of the recommendations, the state of research on the phenomena being evaluated, or the psychological factors identified by the author herself (cf. p. 212), the proposed system of degrees for evaluating variant grammatical phenomena (pp. 209–212) does not seem sufficiently well founded. The third chapter (pp. 215–278) compares the rationales for the grammatical recommendations discussed. For example, the following rationales are distinguished for Juozas Balčikonis’s corrections: living speech, literature and old writings, the authority of Jonas Jablonskis, correctness, purity, functional-stylistic appropriateness, and several others (language intuition, language etiquette). The chapter does not consider the accuracy or validity of the rationales stated in the recommendations. The fourth chapter, “Principles and Criteria of Grammatical Standardization” (pp. 279–292), is a summary. It discusses the principles and criteria followed by the authors of the recommendations examined. The discussion begins with justification based on the domain of use, that is, the source of norms. The other principles and criteria for evaluation are grouped into primary ones (systematicity, correctness, purity) and auxiliary ones (language intuition, language etiquette, linguistic aesthetics, linguistic economy, convenience of use, clarity). The primary criteria are said to be “oriented toward the intrinsic character of the language,” while the auxiliary ones are “oriented toward the language user” (p. 283). Discussed separately from all these is “the most general principle, oriented toward language users—appropriateness” (p. 288), as well as non-standard ways of justifying recommendations. The substance of the listed principles and criteria is revealed, their interaction is demonstrated, and their often unclear boundaries are shown. The book’s conclusions (pp. 293–300) recapitulate the main claims of the work. In this part of the book, the principles of standard-language standardization (the stability of norms and attention to changes in usage) are perhaps most clearly distinguished from the criteria, with the first principle considered more important (p. 296). The conclusions contain the author’s insightful observations about the differing evaluations of the same phenomenon in different recommendations and the subjective reasons for such evaluations (p. 295); about the rather a priori theoretical discussions of recent decades on the principles and criteria of standard-language standardization, which are not sufficiently grounded in factual data (p. 297); about how each linguistic phenomenon has its own particularities of usage and evaluation (p. 298), and therefore no universal scheme of principles and criteria can be established for all grammatical phenomena (p. 299); and about how clear boundaries cannot be drawn between the functional styles of the standard language (ibid.). The material examined leads the author to conclude that “standardization work has not been free of inconsistencies and, at times, somewhat superficial and insufficiently scientifically grounded reasoning” (ibid.). While emphasizing the importance of the metalanguage used in standardization work—that some corrections, among other things, lack “clearer and more precise terminology (in terms of a system of language-culture concepts) that would enable language users to understand unambiguously the value of a given phenomenon” (p. 299)—the role of linguists and the terminology they create is somewhat overstated. Rita Miliūnaitė’s study is conducted conscientiously and meticulously, and inspires confidence. Its definitions of key terms and explanations of concepts will be useful for the future development of applied linguistics. For researchers of the grammatical structure of contemporary Lithuanian, the book is valuable as a register of grammatical phenomena that exhibit variation, reflecting the state of research on them. For sociolinguists and language- 130 ARTŪRAS JUDŽENTIS For historians of language, it is useful for understanding the state of Lithuanian language culture in the mid- and latter half of the twentieth century. The book is undoubtedly of particular importance for the further work of codifying Standard Lithuanian. The publication of the book was supported by the Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Lithuania. The monograph was reviewed in the journal Kalbos kultūra (Labutis 2004). 3. The book by Juozas Jurkėnas, written in Russian, Baltic and Slavic Anthroponymy: Fundamentals (Основы балтийской и славянской антропонимики, Vilnius: UAB Ciklonas, 2003, 194 p., ISBN 9955-497-40-8), examines the old Lithuanian name-stock. It summarizes the author’s research over many years (cf. publications in the bibliography, pp. 186–187). His doctoral dissertation (now called a habilitation dissertation), “The Onymization of Appellatives and the Development of Anthroponymic Systems in Indo-European Languages,” was defended in Moscow as early as 1980. The issues examined in the book are considered to lie at the intersection of linguistics, cultural history, ethnogenesis, and even psychology (cf. p. 10). The interweaving of cultural and linguistic principles is also emphasized on the back cover, where the book is presented as an account of ways and means of reconstructing thought as reflected in the proper names that have come down to us. The preface (pp. 9–10) explains the circumstances that prompted the study of ancient anthroponymy: dissatisfaction with research into Baltic and Slavic anthroponymy that, although beyond reproach, was conducted according to a single methodology. The author was concerned with finding answers to questions such as why proper names are formed only on the basis of certain appellatives, and whether etymologies based solely on the formal similarity between an anthroponym’s root and the corresponding appellative can be considered sufficiently well-founded and acceptable. The view adopted was that the emergence of a proper name is determined not so much by the form of the motivating appellative as by its semantic structure. The aim was to describe the ancient European anthroponymic system comprehensively and from various perspectives. The book sets out to identify a defined set of roots sharing semantic components and tending to become anthroponyms; to distinguish word families in related languages from which personal names are formed in different languages; to draw attention to the possibilities and prospects of areal studies of anthroponyms; and to formulate preliminary observations on points of contact and mutual interaction between Baltic and Slavic anthroponymy (“Introduction,” p. 14). The study consists of six chapters. The first discusses the place of proper words in the lexical system, drawing on the views of linguists, philosophers, and cultural scholars from different periods and schools (“The Place of Proper Words in the Lexical System of Language,” pp. 16–20). The second chapter, “Methodological Problems of Anthroponymy” (pp. 21–35), emphasizes the inadequacy of etymology based solely on the formal aspect of language, as well as borrowing in anthroponymy, mutual influence between anthroponymic systems, the incorporation of elements from one anthroponymic system into another, homonymy, and other issues. What Tomas Gamkrelidze and Viacheslav Ivanov (1984) call a model of the world (mythology and ritual), Jurkėnas relates to the cognitive aspect of language (cf. p. 39); accordingly, in “Cognitive Aspects of Anthroponymy” (pp. 36–46), he examines the role of semantic oppositions and semantic components in ancient anthroponymy. The main and largest chapter of the book is the fourth: “The System of Roots That Played a Special Role in the Formation of Anthroponymy in Indo-European Languages” (pp. 47–115). Since the etymology of proper words is understood as the identification of the onymization patterns of the common words on which they are based (p. 47), this chapter focuses primarily on the principles for selecting words that tend to become proper names (to be onymized). The elements of the Indo-European world model identified by Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (1984) NAUJŲ DARBŲ APŽVALGA 131 are compared with components of ancient anthroponymy in various Indo-European languages, with the aim of producing a synoptic outline of the vocabulary that played a major role in the formation of anthroponymy in Indo-European languages (a draft of this outline is given on p. 49). According to the established scheme, common words with particular meanings are systematically compared with anthroponyms in various Indo-European languages that have a root with a corresponding meaning (pp. 53–115). The author offers few comments; neither the formation nor the etymology of the anthroponyms presented is examined, and the source from which they were taken is far from always indicated (a general list of sources is appended at the end of the book). For example, the following is the set of anthroponyms associated with Lithuanian naujas ‘new’ and its equivalents in other Indo-European languages, given in the section “Age, Change of Generations” (p. 108): Lith. naujas ‘new’, Old Prussian nauns same, Old Church Slavonic новъ, Greek νέος ‘new, young’, Latin novus ‘new’, Old Irish næue same, Gothic niujis same, Old High German niuwi same, etc. // anthroponyms: Lith. Naujalis, Naujikas, Navūlis; Old Prussian Nawne, Naw-sude, Naw-tarre, Naw-tinte; Bel. Новак, Новак, Polish Nowo-siodł, Nowosz; Germanic Nivo, Nevo, Nivilo, Neu-fred, Niwi-rat, Niwi-rich, Niv-ulf, Niujila, Newio-gast, Nevitta; Celtic Neus, Ne vica, Nevilla, Nevio-dūnon, Novantius, Novānus, Novaros, Novellius, Novios; Greek Νέ-ανδρος, Νεο-κλῆς, Νεο-φίλη, Νέας. After discussing the ancient components of the Indo-European anthroponymic system, the author turns to areal studies of name-stock (“Areal Study as a Search for Remnants of the State of the Oldest Anthroponymy,” pp. 116–134). He invokes Kazimieras Būga’s call to compare river names with one another and, only after establishing their distribution, to undertake etymology—that is, comparison with common words (1961: 510). In Jurkėnas’s view, some two-stem personal names and their short forms are relics of the old European name-stock (p. 119). Identifying and studying an archaic layer of anthroponyms can provide additional information about the origin and development of the old system of proper names. The following personal-name roots are considered such relics: ar-, bur-, daun-, gail-, leik-/lik-, sei-/sai-, sal-, sar- (pp. 120–130). It is noted that new anthroponyms arise not only through derivation and compounding but also through the blending of personal names from different anthroponymic series (p. 131). Jurkėnas explains commonalities among European anthroponymic systems either by the spread of certain proper names that already existed earlier or by genetic kinship. He regards his research findings as a supplement to the work of Hans Krahe and Wolfgang P. Schmidt (p. 134). Ideas already expressed by the author are repeated quite often in this chapter. The final, sixth chapter of the book (“Anthroponymy as a Source of Information on the Oldest Linguistic and Cultural Relations between the Baltic and Slavic Peoples,” pp. 135–153) emphasizes that the findings of research on old personal names do not correspond to the genetic closeness of the Baltic and Slavic languages. Many Baltic personal names are said to be archaic, while the Slavic anthroponymic system contains more innovations (pp. 135–136). In the author’s view, establishing mutual influence between the Baltic and Slavic anthroponymic systems requires examining proper words of the same form (or their components). Such forms often have different etymologies, but may nevertheless be related or borrowed. A derivational, typological, and areal study of anthroponymic systems makes it possible to establish the relationships between isomorphic components of the name-stock and to refine their etymologies. The key task in such studies is determining the place of an anthroponym within the entire personal-name system. Jurkėnas provides examples of analyses of such isomorphic Baltic and Slavic personal-name components, discussing the roots but-, bub-, liaud-, nan- and vaid- (pp. 144–152). The concluding remarks (pp. 154–165) summarize the work discussed. Jurkėnas considers convergence, brought about by formal anthropon- 132 | ARTŪRAS JUDŽENTIS the similarity of words derived from different appellatives. Language contacts played an important role in the formation of the lexicon of various languages. The aim of typological research is considered to be the creation of a hypothetical model of appellative anthroponymization. At present, it is only possible to establish a system of fairly frequently used roots that can be identified in the anthroponymy of many Indo-European languages. The Baltic anthroponymy system consists of fairly archaic units. Their study could be significant for reconstructing the system of Indo-European proper names. The book concludes with summaries in Lithuanian (pp. 166–170) and English (pp. 171–176), lists of abbreviations (pp. 177–179), sources (pp. 180–182), and literature (pp. 183–190). An appendix at the end of the book contains a list of anthroponyms and their components associated with two or more onomastic series (pp. 191–193). The monograph leaves a mixed impression. Its broad scope, far-reaching ideas, and interesting explanations of the development of ancient anthroponymy do not sit well with the rather free and one-sided interpretation of the factual material, which gives insufficient attention to the etymology and formation of personal names in individual languages. The best results would probably be achieved through multifaceted studies of ancient anthroponymy that take account of both semantic and expressive aspects. The book was reviewed by Simas Karaliūnas and Olegas Poliakovas, and its publication was supported with funds from the Lithuanian Republic State Language Use and Development Programme for 1996–2005. 4. The collection of articles Problems of Lexicography and Lexicology (compiled by the Lexicography Centre of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language; editorial board: Pietro U. Dini et al., Vilnius: Publishing House of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language, 2003, 344 pp., ISBN 9986-668-53-0) contains twenty-seven articles on various topics in historical and contemporary lexicography. They are grouped into four sections by subject. Each article has a list of references (and, where necessary, abbreviations) and an abstract in English or German. In the book, the introduction customary in similar collections of articles is replaced by Evalda Jakaitienė’s article “The Aims and Objectives of Contemporary Lexicography” (pp. 9–14). It addresses the most general questions of lexicographic theory and practice. Lexicography is defined as “applied scientific creative activity based on scientific data and propositions” (p. 12). The stages of lexicographic activity are distinguished, and the tasks of lexicographic theory are set out. The relationship between lexicographic theory and practice, the role of dictionaries, and the purpose and value of lexicographers’ work are discussed. The general issues examined in the article could have been more closely linked to the current state of Lithuanian lexicography. The first section, “The History of Lexicography,” features articles by Pietro U. Dini and Diego Ardoino, Vidmantas Kuprevičius, Virginija Stankevičienė, Vilma Šaudina, and Angelė V. Vilutytė-Rimševičienė. Among the others, Ona Kažukauskaitė’s article “Not Jumskis, but Ivinskis” (pp. 19–31) stands out. It convincingly demonstrates that the so-called “Jumskis dictionary” is in fact Laurynas Ivinskis’s “Polish–Lithuanian Dictionary.” The author’s conclusion that it is time to publish this manuscript dictionary should also be endorsed. The second section, entitled “Contemporary Lexicography,” is the largest in the book. The articles by Aloyzas Gudavičius, Evalda Jakaitienė, and Jolanta Viburytė warrant separate discussion. In Aloyzas Gudavičius’s article “The National Aspect of Word-Meaning Definitions” (pp. 61–69), ideas from cognitive linguistics are applied to lexicography. The article draws primarily on the work of Anna Wierzbicka. The national character of meaning definitions is grounded in “words naming ordinary, everyday objects and phenomena, and phenomena of a nation’s material and spiritual culture,” NAUJŲ DARBŲ APŽVALGA 133 a richer semantic structure and stronger associative links with other words (cf. p. 63). Such an understanding of the national character of a definition, and the corresponding principle of national character, is construed far too narrowly and literally; they seem simply to have been adopted from another current of modern linguistics—ethnolinguistics. At the end of the article, the author also relates the nature of meaning definitions to the purpose (type) of the dictionary. Evalda Jakaitienė’s article “Homonymy in Parallel Lithuanian Dictionaries” (pp. 70–79) summarizes experience gained from practical work. It examines specific problems and ways of resolving them, bringing out discrepancies between lexicology and lexicography (or between lexicographic theory and practice). It would be interesting to compare Lithuanian dictionaries in this respect with corresponding dictionaries in other languages. Jolanta Viburytė examines definitions of animal coat colors in the “Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language” (pp. 119–135). Having conducted a semantic analysis of the relevant dictionary entries, she points out shortcomings in the existing definitions and proposes defining animal coat color according to the pattern ‘of a particular color’. It is preferable to use familiar names for colors and shades in definitions. The article is analytical; the collected material is carefully examined according to established criteria, and the conclusions will be useful in the future work of lexicographers. The analytical articles in this section also include those by Vilija Sakalauskienė, Agris Timuška, and Jolanta Zabarskaitė. The articles by Jurgita Mikelionienė, Oleg Poliakov, and Ieva Zuicena are review articles. The third section, “Lexicology and Etymology,” contains two historical articles (by Bernd Gliwa and Jonas Klimavičius). Milda Norkaitienė’s article “Lithuanian zoonyms: Names for pigs (Sus domesticus)” has been included in this section with little justification. It also contains the rather superficial article by Vida Rudaitienė, “The Distinctiveness of the Lithuanian Language and Western Languages,” and Zita Šimėnaitė’s more substantial contribution, “The Semantics of Phraseological Units Containing the Noun širdis ‘heart’.” Bernd Gliwa’s article “Was Lithuanian ragana ‘ведьма; witch; Hexe’ once a ‘seer’? (pp. 159–169) is appealing for its interesting insights and its sound knowledge of the history of the question and the material under investigation. Nevertheless, the text is somewhat drawn out and difficult to read. The proposed new etymology of the word ragana, *‘a dead person; the wandering spirit of a dead person; a ghost,’ does not seem sufficiently well founded semantically. Even more doubts are raised by the proposed links between raganos and Latin regina ‘ruler,’ and the like. There is no shortage of interesting ideas in Jonas Klimavičius’s article “AUKA, APIERA, ATNAŠA: Features of Their History and Use” (pp. 170–194). According to him, Kazimieras Būga’s view that auka is Simonas Daukantas’s partial neologism should be revised: it is more plausible that Daukantas formed this suffixal derivative from aukuoti or revived an earlier word. Readers have to struggle through a thicket of facts, since the author’s argument is submerged by the abundance of data. The fourth section of the book, “Dialectology: Dialect Vocabulary,” brings together contributions on quite a variety of topics. Aurelija Genelytė’s article “Word-Formation Motivation of Folk Plant Names: A Comparative Perspective on Northern Panevėžys Dialects and Other Lithuanian Dialects” (pp. 271–306) is based on abundant authentic material, which is examined in an interesting way. The article’s theoretical section is rather weak; its inconsistent classification of motivation is problematic, and the comparative aspect of dialects indicated in the title receives little attention. The article has no conclusions and ends only with certain summary remarks. Rolandas Mikulskas’s article “Features of the Functioning of Dialectal Nominative Systems” (pp. 322–332) reveals the author’s original thinking and insight. The article begins rather dryly— 134 | ARTŪRAS JUDŽENTIS The theoretical principles discussed at the outset make it possible to analyze specific dialect material with great skill: cf. the study of the Samogitian kibeklis: kebeklis and the semantic analysis of the Eastern Aukštaitian vagis: kebeklis. The chapter also features works by Kazimieras Garšva, Adelė Judekienė, Genovaitė Kačiūskienė, and Janina Švambarytė. Aloyzas Vidugiris’s article “On the Names priegalvis and pagalvė in the Zietela and Other Lithuanian Dialects” would have been more appropriate in the book’s third chapter. As this brief overview shows, the articles in the collection differ in topic, methodological basis, and character. It includes problem-oriented analytical scholarly articles, but also quite a number of reviews. Some articles are akin to publications of linguistic data. Theoretical ideas and methodology are clearly linked to the Russian linguistic schools, while few authors draw on more recent specialist literature from the West. The collection gives a rather restrained impression of the current state of theory in Lithuanian lexicology and lexicography. Nevertheless, it too contains glimmers of hope that allow us to expect a faster renewal of these branches of our linguistics. The publication of the book was supported by the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language. 5. The book Studies in Syntactic Relations (edited by Axel Holvoet and Artūras Judžentis, Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language, 2003, 216 pp., ISSN 1648-8628, ISBN 9986-668-51-4 [Studies in Lithuanian Grammar 1]) contains articles written by staff members of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language’s Department of Grammar. It is the first volume in a series presenting the theoretical principles of the authors preparing a new Lithuanian grammar (series editorial board: Axel Holvoet, Artūras Judžentis, Bonifacas Stundžia). The collection contains seven articles written by Axel Holvoet, Artūras Judžentis, and Loreta Semėnienė. The articles draw on ideas from the major linguistic theories of the second half of the 20th century—structuralist, generative, and cognitive—and apply them to describing the grammatical structure of Lithuanian. The articles contain many footnotes that connect new perspectives with those already familiar in Lithuanian linguistics. The book contains quite a few genuinely new ideas. Here are some of them: only two types of subordination are distinguished—government and modification; agreement (like case government) is regarded not as a type of syntactic relation but merely as its marker (Axel Holvoet, Artūras Judžentis, “Types of Syntactic Relations”; Loreta Semėnienė, “Adjective Agreement”). The concept of semantic functionality is introduced to identify the head of a phrase (Axel Holvoet, Artūras Judžentis, “Types of Syntactic Relations”); instead of predicative modifiers and the nominal part of compound predicates, free and obligatory predicatives are distinguished (Axel Holvoet, “Free Predicatives and Their Syntactic Relations”). The topic and comment of a sentence are not associated with old and new information but are regarded as units of the sentence’s semantic structure; the concept of layered information structure is introduced (Axel Holvoet, “Problems of Information Structure”). Sentences with the conjunction nes ‘because’ are proposed to be treated as coordinate rather than subordinate; asyndetic sentences are considered a subtype of coordinate sentences (Axel Holvoet, “Coordinate and Subordinate Sentences from the Perspective of Form and Function”). Based on the position they occupy in a complex sentence, subordinate clauses are divided into nominal, adjectival, and adverbial clauses (Axel Holvoet, Artūras Judžentis, “Principles for Describing Complex Subordinate Sentences”). Coordinate phrases (except nominal ones) are considered reduced coordinate sentences (Axel Holvoet, Artūras Judžentis, “Principles for Describing Coordination”). At the end of the book (pp. 205–210) is a bibliography of the major works cited or discussed polemically in the articles. The relevant concepts, coordinating or correlative NAUJŲ DARBŲ APŽVALGA 135 Readers will be helped in finding words by the Lithuanian and English indexes compiled by Veslava Čižik (pp. 211–216). The English summaries of the articles prepared by Axel Holvoet are printed together (pp. 199–203). The study of the grammatical structure of a language can never be complete. Each generation of linguists writes a grammar in which it sets out its views on the matters under consideration and, in one way or another, broadens our understanding of our language. In the reviewed collection of articles, the authors of the new grammar, having presented their views, look forward to readers’ attention and comments that would help improve the grammar. 6. In the third volume of Zigmas Zinkevičius’s Collected Articles (Anthroponymy. Other Onomastics. Reviews. Personalities. On Scientific Conferences. Language Practice. Language Didactics. Articles Not Directly Related to Lithuanian Linguistics, Vilnius: Lithuanian Catholic Academy of Science, 2003, 759 [1] pp., ISBN 5-420-01506-4, vol. 3, ISBN 5-420-01493-9, complete set) contains publications of quite varied subject matter and genre. The main topic of the scholarly articles reprinted in it is Lithuanian onomastics. The volume includes eighteen longer and shorter articles on personal names and an equal number of shorter pieces on place names, mythological names, ethnonyms, names of holidays, and so on. It is a welcome feature that English summaries have been provided for all the articles and shorter pieces. The author’s reviews are also interesting and valuable—a vanishing genre in Lithuanian linguistics. No fewer than fifty-one are published in this volume! The reviews are arranged by the date of their first publication. The section on personalities offers a wealth of information: it contains ninety-two pieces about sixty people—almost an encyclopedia of researchers of the Lithuanian language. The pieces are conveniently arranged alphabetically by the surname of the person discussed. Conference reviews and other articles follow. The principles for preparing the reprinted publications are the same as those used for the first two volumes (cf. Judžentis 2003: 165–169). Spelling and punctuation were revised in accordance with the rules as amended; usage of words and forms that did not meet current standards, some cases of word formation, and word order were corrected; and typographical errors were fixed. As sometimes happens, one or two typographical errors escaped the notice of editor Agota Sriubienė and the proofreaders. For example, when the article “The Patronymic Personal-Name System in Lithuania” was reprinted, the caption beneath the map (p. 31) was not corrected: the suffix printed as -atis should be -aitis. In the third volume, the order of publication details given in the footnotes was standardized (though not completely). Bringing together in one place the onomastic studies, reviews, and biographical pieces of a distinguished linguist will make the work of language researchers and the studies of master’s and doctoral students easier: they will no longer need to search for these works across various periodicals, some already badly yellowed and worn. 7. In Jonas Palionis’s publication Personal Names and Place Names in the Punia Parish in the Second Half of the Seventeenth Century (Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopaedia Publishing, 2003, 204 pp. ISBN 5-420-01517-X), proper names recorded in the marriage and baptismal registers kept in the archives of Punia Church are published and examined. The Punia area, the homeland of the editor, is renowned for its past and lies beside the great loops of the Nemunas. Palionis modestly calls the publication a little book or a short study, and sees its value in the lists of personal and place names, which were compiled through “registration and reconstruction, without embarking on explanations of their origins” (p. 7). The book contains two kinds of texts: three-fifths of it consists of published source material—the lists of personal names from the second half of the seventeenth century (pp. 67–153) and place names (pp. 158–175), as well as personal names from the mid-eighteenth century (pp. 186–203); the remaining part of the book is the editor’s study. 136 | ARTŪRAS JUDŽĖNTIS After the preface (pp. 7–8), the list of abbreviations (p. 8), and the contents (p. 9), there is a map titled “Approximate Boundaries of the Punia Parish in the Seventeenth Century” (p. 10), which shows that the parish was considerably larger then than it is today. Next come notes on Punia’s past (the section “A Few Notes on Punia and Its Parish,” pp. 11–17) and bibliographic descriptions of the sources under study (the sections “Marriage Register (1658–1688),” pp. 18–22, and “Baptismal Register (1659–1672),” pp. 22–26). These sections briefly describe the formulas used in marriage and baptismal entries, which are of interest to linguists, and quote several examples in full (pp. 22 and 24–25). Four sheets of high-quality color photographs (photographed by Virginija Valuckienė) are bound between pages 16 and 17. Since facsimiles of the sources are not published, photographs of this kind, even if reduced in size, are very useful: they give a better impression of the sources under study than verbal descriptions can. Incidentally, the caption on the first sheet of photographs is probably inaccurate: the images shown appear not to come from the same book, as claimed. The linguistic analysis of the published personal and place names begins with their spelling (the section “Spelling Features of Personal and Place Names,” pp. 26–29). Although the spelling in the sources under study varies considerably and no particularly strict principles can be established, it nevertheless “was based on the Latin and Polish graphic and orthographic tradition of the time, characteristic of manuscripts” (p. 26). The characteristic cases of Slavicization of Lithuanian proper names are discussed separately (the section “Slavicization of Lithuanian Personal and Place Names,” pp. 29–40). It is observed that “in general, the degree of Slavicization of place names is greater than that of personal names” (p. 30). Phonological and morphological Slavicization are distinguished. The latter includes the dropping of personal-name endings, the replacement of personal- and place-name endings, and the use of Slavic patronymic suffixes. Personal names and place names are then described separately, beginning with the former. A total of about 2,070 surnames were deciphered in the two sources (patronymics were not distinguished from surnames), of which approximately 800 (more than a third!) are not found in the Dictionary of Lithuanian Surnames (the section “General Characteristics of Personal Names,” p. 41). Baptismal names (pp. 42–45), Lithuanian surnames (pp. 46–59), and non-Lithuanian surnames (pp. 60–64) are examined. The popularity of men’s and women’s baptismal names in the Punia parish of that period is established (the most common were Jonas and Kristina). Lithuanian surnames are divided into two-stem, one-stem, and nickname surnames; one-stem surnames are further divided into those with an unexpanded stem and those formed with prefixes, suffixes, or endings. The most common types—patronymic and non-patronymic surnames formed with suffixes—are discussed in the greatest detail. Since the Punia parish was ethnically and linguistically diverse in the second half of the seventeenth century, the book also briefly surveys Slavic, Tatar, and Jewish surnames. The alphabetical list of personal names found in the sources under study occupies most of the book—from pages 67 to 153. The headword form of a personal name is given in the nominative case. When a personal name is recorded in the sources in another case form, its singular nominative is reconstructed. If the masculine form of a personal name is not found in the register entries, it is reconstructed (with *) from the existing feminine forms. After the headword form (or forms), present-day surnames corresponding or similar to it are given from the Dictionary of Lithuanian Surnames. If a personal name found in the register books is absent from this dictionary, it is reconstructed “according to patterns characteristic of similar known personal names” (p. 65). Furthermore, if the dialectal stress of a personal name differs from that given in the dictionary mentioned, the dialectal form is followed rather than the dictionary form. After the reconstructed Lithuanianized forms of present-day personal names, the locations and dates where the headword names are recorded are provided. All recorded variants of a headword personal-name form are listed under the entry. Women’s personal names are given only NAUJŲ DARBŲ APŽVALGA 137 list, because “sometimes it is difficult to determine a person’s sex from the inflected form of a woman’s surname, especially her maiden name, owing to the variety of Lithuanian suffixes” (p. 66). Some of the principles mentioned for presenting personal names (especially restoring the gender of headword forms and their modern Lithuanized forms, and giving their dialectal stress) do not conform to scholarly principles for publishing old proper names and should be explained by an orientation toward the local residents of the Punia area and a desire to simplify the presentation of personal names. For this reason, a considerable number of questionable headword forms and their modern equivalents have been restored in the list. Here are a few examples. The form *CZERKASOW is restored from the personal name CZERKASOWA (p. 80). Why is the restored form provided with a suffix (cf. *CHUMIN from CHUMINOWNA, p. 79)? The form *TRAB is restored from the personal name TRABOWNA, and its modern equivalent—the surname Trabas—is given (with a question mark) (p. 143). Why is the restored form in this case without an ending (cf. *TUMAS from TUMOWNA, p. 143; *TALKUS from TALKOWNA, p. 142, and many others)? The modern equivalent selected for this personal name (incidentally, not recorded in the Dictionary of Lithuanian Surnames) is not the only possible one—the equivalents Trobas or Trobus would be no less plausible (they too are absent from the Dictionary of Lithuanian Surnames). The book then examines place names (the section “General Characteristics of Place Names,” pp. 154–156, and the introductory notes to the section “List of Place Names,” pp. 156–157). The origins and forms (formation) of 298 place names are discussed. As many as 60 place names were found that are not included in the Directory of the Administrative-Territorial Division of the Lithuanian SSR. The alphabetical list of place names (pp. 158–175) is compiled on principles similar to those used for personal names: the headword is the nominative form used in the records or a reconstructed form, while the current standard form, known to the author from usage and checked against the Directory of the Administrative-Territorial Division of the Lithuanian SSR, is given in square brackets. This list, too, contains questionable reconstructed forms. A good example is BIRSZTAN, already mentioned in the section on the Slavicization of proper names (p. 35), reconstructed from the entries ex BIRSZTANY, de BIRSZTANY, de BIRSZTAN, and de BIRSZTANI (p. 159). At least three of these constructions use the plural of the place name, yet the editor reconstructs the singular according to the current standard form (cf. CZESANY, reconstructed from de CZESAN, p. 160; NARUNY, from the place name NARUN, p. 166, etc.). The list also contains reconstructed place-name forms that are not marked with an asterisk (BALBIERISZKI, BUYWIDY, etc.). At the end of the book are a German translation by Irena Meikšinaitė, “Personen- und Ortsnamen der 2. Hälfte des 17. Jahrhunderts aus der Gemeinde Punia” (pp. 176–182), and a bibliography (pp. 183–185). A “List of Personal Names from the Punia Parish Marriage Register, 1732–1759” (pp. 186–203) is included as a kind of appendix. The publication prepared by Jonas Palionis is of unquestionable scholarly value: it presents for the first time the personal and place names of the Punia parish in the second half of the seventeenth century, analyzing and describing them from various perspectives. The aim of the publication was to make valuable onomastic material accessible to specialists—onomastics researchers—and, at the same time, to interest the public in the links between the published data and a particular place, as well as in the historical reality of the people mentioned in the records (cf. p. 204). It is indeed difficult (if possible at all) to satisfy both the professional needs of linguists and the curiosity of local residents in the same publication: the editor had to choose a middle course, that is, a compromise. The book is neither a scholarly critical re-edition of written heritage nor a popular publication intended for the general public, but it has features characteristic of both types. Above all, specialists will miss facsimiles of the sources under examination—in view of the booklet’s modest size (apparently, 64 and 93 pages of text), it would not have been difficult or very expensive to publish them. All the more so because the published lists do not include everything, and the forms of the proper names presented are not equally reliable: 138 | ARTŪRAS JUDŽENTIS “The lists of personal and place names do not include all words of these types, and some may also have been reconstructed inaccurately” (p. 20); “personal names that are illegible or give rise to considerable doubt have not been reconstructed or included in the list” (p. 64). Had the book been published in accordance with the requirements for scholarly publications, it would have been more valuable: a more popular publication can always be prepared from a scholarly edition, but, unfortunately, the reverse is not possible. The book was reviewed by Vitalija Maciejauskienė; the section on personal names was reviewed by Bronys Savukynas, who also offered advice to the editor. The publication was supported by the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language. In concluding this review, it is worth mentioning practical works on Lithuanian linguistics—grammar books, dictionaries, and bibliographic indexes. Meilutė Ramonienė and Joana Pribušauskaitė’s Practical Lithuanian Grammar (Vilnius: Baltos lankos, 2003, 256 p., ISBN 9955-584-36-X) is intended for learners of Lithuanian. Its grammatical structure is described from a functional perspective. Irenos Ermanytės Antonimų žodyne (Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla, 2003, XXIII, 584 p., ISBN 9986-668-52-2) abėcėlės tvarka pateikiamos antonimų poros iliustruojamos gyvosios kalbos, Lietuvių kalbos žodyno, jo kartotekos, grožinės literatūros ir smulkiosios tautosakos pavyzdžiais. Knygos pabaigoje įdėta antonimų lizdų rodyklė. Žodyną redagavo Jonas Paulauskas, jo rengimą ir leidybą rėmė Valstybinė lietuvių kalbos komisija. Zanavykų šnektos žodyno (teksto autorės Janina Švambarytė, Giedrė Čepaitienė, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 2003, 830 p., ISBN 5-420-01504-8) pirmasis tomas apima A–K raidžių žodžius. Tai išsamusis tarminis žodynas, atspindintis XIX a. antrosios pusės–XX a. zanavykų šnektos leksiką, gramatikos, iš dalies ir fonetikos ypatybes. Žodžiai jame pateikiami laikantis panašių principų kaip Lietuvių kalbos žodyne. Šis žodynas – kolektyvinis daugelio žmonių darbas, kuriam duomenis organizuotai pradėta rinkti dar 1987 metais. Žodyną redagavo Aldonas Pupkis (vyriausiasis redaktorius) ir Klementina Vosylytė. Išėjo net trys lietuvių kalbotyros bibliografijos rodyklės: Lietuvių kalbotyra, 1981–1985: Literatūros rodyklė, sudarė Regina Sedekerskytė, Adelė Ubeikaitė; spaudai parengė Lina Kanopkienė (Vilnius: Lietuvos mokslų akademijos biblioteka, Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2003, 339 p., ISBN 9986-498-28-7); Lietuvių kalbotyra, 1991–1995: Literatūros rodyklė, sudarė Sigita Dagienė, Jolanta Matuzaite; atsakomoji redaktorė Rasa Pukėnienė (Vilnius: Lietuvos mokslų akademijos biblioteka, Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2003, 544 p., ISBN 9986-498-32-5); Adelė Ubeikaitė, Lietuvių kalbotyra, 1944–1972: Literatūros rodyklė: Papildymai, redagavo Kazys Morkūnas, Algirdas Sabaliauskas (Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla, 2003, 396 p., ISBN 9986-668-46-8). Lietuvių kalbotyros bibliografija šiuo metu turbūt yra viena geriausiai sutvarkytų mūsų bibliografijos sričių. Ateina metas parūpinti elektroninę XX a. lietuvių kalbotyros bibliografiją su įvairiomis paieškos galimybėmis. LITERATŪRA BŪGA, K. 1912/1958: Lituanica. In: id., Rinktiniai raštai I, sudarė Z. Zinkevičius, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla, 339–383. BŪGA, K. 1923/1961: Upių vardų studijos ir aisčių bei slavėnų senovė. – In: id., Rinktiniai raštai III, sudarė Z. Zinkevičius, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla, 493–550. GAMKRELIDZE, T. V., IVANOV, V. V. 1984.: Индоевропейский язык и индоевропейцы. Реконструкция и историко-типологический анализ праязыка и протокультуры. Часть вторая: Семантический словарь NAUJU DARBŲ APŽVALGA 139 общеиндоевропейского языка и реконструкция индоевропейской пракультуры, Тбилиси: Издательство Тбилисского университета. Judžentis, A. 2003: Lietuvių kalbotyra 2002-aisiais metais: Lietuvoje išleisti darbai. Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 49, 2003, 153–170. Judžentis, A. 2004: [Rec.] Vytautas Kardelis, Rytų aukštaičių šneketų slavizmų fonologijos bruožai, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla, 2003, 195 p. (Vilniaus universiteto Filologijos fakulteto mokslo darbai). Baltų filologija XIII (2), 151–155. Labutis, V. 2004: [Rec.] Studija apie gramatikos norminimo pagrindus. Kalbos kultūra 77, 67–75. Artūras Judžentis