LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI XXXVII (1997)

LEKSIKOGRAFIJOS IR LEKSIKOLOGIJOS PROBLEMOS

Jolanta ZABARSKAITĖ Jurgita PAULAUSKAITĖ

SEMANTIC FEATURES OF RIDDLE WORD-CODES

When the Theban Sphinx cunningly asked: “What walks on four legs in the morning, on two at noon, and on three in the evening?”—it did not expect Oedipus to solve the riddle. Perhaps after the Sphinx plunged from a cliff and was killed, riddle word-codes emerged, that is, lexemes that do not exist in everyday speech, for example: styplys “poppy stalk,” vingurgalvis “stream,” šiūžeika “comb,” tilindis “wind,” vaituklė “pig,” kabalas “pea pod,” takutis “wolf,” and so on.

That, of course, is a joke. Seriously, the lexemes used in riddles encode the word to be guessed in various ways. This lexical group lies at the very periphery of the lexical system, so universal features of lexical and semantic development are readily visible in it, since the system of riddle word-codes is very simple (rather like a lexical amoeba whose cellular structure can be seen even with a school microscope).

In the lexical system, the closest relatives of riddle word-codes (hereafter, for brevity, simply “word-codes”) are euphemisms and taboos. Neither lexical group has been studied in Lithuanian linguistics. The “Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language” (LKŽ I₁–II₁, LKŽ I₂–II₂, LKŽ III–XVII) uses a separate abbreviation to mark euphemisms. It seems that Lithuanian linguistics has not even described taboo, although, we believe, a closer look at the behavioral customs of an expectant woman and her relatives—or perhaps simply a more perceptive study of a wonder tale—would certainly provide a basis for doing so.

The semantic aspect of riddle vocabulary interests semioticians, ethnographers, etc. who study paremiology. (As an example, we might mention the article “The Semantics of Riddle Structure” by paremiology researcher J. Levin (Levin 1978: 283–314).) However, we have been unable to find a more detailed linguistic analysis of riddle vocabulary (and, of course, word-codes).

The main characteristic of word-codes is that they are signs of signs. A word, as is known, is a specific two-sided sign. A riddle’s word-code not only “conceals” the concept to be guessed, but also signals it in one way or another. As a sign, it is less complex than one at the center of the lexical system. Located at the very periphery of the lexicon, the word-code approaches the realm of quasi-lexicon, losing its specificity as a lexical sign. It tends to become a one-sided signifier (though it cannot become one without qualification, because, as noted, it belongs to the lexical periphery rather than the realm of qua-

101

si-lexicon). Thus, it denotes the concept to a greater extent. This is most clearly shown by the diagram:

1.1. Semantic encoding. The word to be guessed is “concealed” beneath the “guise” of a metaphor or metonymy. The mechanism of semantic encoding has several components. The intermediary in the process, whose poles are the word-code and the encoded word, is the key word. For example, the riddle’s word-code is barbočius (barbočius came to spingotčius and said: “Let’s go to the tavern for mead.” Spingotčius said: “I’m afraid of vingotčius.” Barbočius said: “We won’t go past vingotčius; we’ll go past girdė and through krungas gate.”) The encoded word is varmas. Why is varmas called barbočius? The answer is simple: at the center of the lexical system we find the key word. The second meaning of the word barbėti in LKŽ is “to speak persistently, to grumble.” Thus it is clear that the word is encoded by means of a metaphor. In this case, the nature of the code is similarity of impression. (In this case—annoyance.)

Another example: the word-code pirdonas. (Ten men are pulling a net onto the pirdonas.) The encoded word is buttocks. The key word is perstr “to break wind.” Encoding is by metonymy. The nature of the code is a property standing for an object.

We will discuss the metaphorical and metonymic variants of semantic encoding separately.

1.2. Word-codes as metaphors. We will discuss four: similarity of impression, similarity of color, similarity of sound, and similarity of appearance or shape.

1.2.1. Code—similarity of impression. There are many word-codes of this type. For convenience, we present them in Table 1.

Table 1

Word-code | Encoded word | Key word | Impression | Riddle bliuvonas | priest | bliuvoti “to shout loudly, to scream” | a loud, thunderous voice | A barn full of sheep, one baron—and he is bliuvonas; pea | chick | čižyliukas “a young titmouse” | smallness, roundness | Father is a fathom tall, mother a span tall, children like little titmice. kemža | baker’s peel | kemža “a feeble, destitute person; a stunted person” | flatness | A light shines, a cat stares, kemža carries kerus. kypštakojis | hare | kypšnoti “to walk awk- | large movement | Kypštakojis

102

1 lentelės tęsinys

a tuft of hair

meadow

with... steps”

a tuft of hair “someone with their hair cut short”

trajectory

staring

in the grove, backwards in the water. – Where are you going, little bud? – What business is it of yours, tuft of hair.

1.2.2. Similarity of appearance and form. The second-largest group of metaphorical coding consists of word-codes based on similarity of appearance or form. It is presented in Table 2.

Table 2

Code-word

Encoded word

Key word

Impression

Riddle

a hook

horn

kriūkas “hook”

curved shape

Two kriūkai, two lapūkai, four long ones and a kabaldūnas.

handle

brush

repeta “one who walks hunched over, on all fours”

branching

The little brush repeta creeps along the fences.

upright one

horn

stačiukas “rising straight upward”

verticality

Two stačiukai, two klapčiukai, four little Adams.

sty پlys

poppy stem

stypla “a lanky person, long-legged”

length, thinness

Father is a styPlys, mother a palmpa, the little ones are čiudžiurukai.

little chunks

millstones

stukas “a piece, a block”

size

Two stukúčiai, two mukūčiai, one matarlokas.

two-pronged fork

swallow

dvinagė “having two claws”

curved shape

The fork is two-pronged, the clothes are German, and it speaks adverniškai.

winding-head

stream

vinguriuoti “to wind in bends”

winding

“O winding stream, where are you winding?” — “A bare ford; what business is that of yours?”

1.2.3. Sound-similarity-based word-codes. There are fewer word-codes of this type. Their onomatopoeic nature is clearly evident. They are presented in Table 3:

103

Table 3

Word-code

Encoded word

Key word

Impression

Riddle

čerškutis barškutis

spoon

čerškutis “which rattles, clatters”, barškutis “which rattles”

heard when the object is moved

The čerškučiai barškučiai go to the lake to drink water.

čyrukas

lark

čyru vyru “the lark’s warbling”

the subject’s voice

A little fellow, hanging up in the air, is crying.

gagonas

gander

gagonas “one who honks”

the subject’s voice

A binocular looks over the fence, a gagonas goes through the yard.

kryku bildu

thunderstorm

krykti “to shriek, scream (of birds),” bildu “a rumbling sound expressed through repetition”

sound due to an object's characteristic

Kryku bildu in the clouds, kikimeža in the water, and sebutis in the ashes.

skalat ayškas

dog

skalatyti “to bark”

the subject’s voice

Having run up, the tr якulas asked the skalatauskas where the vaituoklė was among the birbyčiai.

šiužeika

comb

šiušinti “to tousle, to rustle”

sound arising from the object’s function

Šiužeika is taking the bride by cart.

terškėtas

reeds

terškėti “to rattle”

heard when the object is moved

It shines in the sky, sways in the forest, and rattles in the lake.

tilindis

wind

tilindžiuoti “to sound softly and high-pitched”

sound arising from the object’s property

Tilindis, tilindis, slipped into the barn without a key.

wailer

pig

wailer “one who wails, groans”

the subject’s voice

The trikulas came running and asked the skalatauskas where the wailer was among the birbyčiai.

1.2.4. Word-codes based on color similarity. This is the smallest thematic group of riddles involving metaphorical encoding. One clear example is when a carrot is called a brown little autumn thing, rather poetically combining the impression of the carrot’s color and the time when it grows. (“Brown, brown little autumn thing, your cap is green.”)

1.3. Riddle words as metonymies. Riddle words as metonymies are a fairly common case of lexeme encoding. From the perspective of semasiology, this is the second level of reference, arising from a deliberately rearranged combination of the figurative, concrete semes of an empirical concept. This is a simpler case of semantic derivation than the formation of metaphorical-type riddle words. The ways of metonymic encoding are easiest to identify by determining which seme of the encoded word

104

“embodies” the code-word. This may be a function turned into a code, for example, heard “ears”, saw “eyes” (A barbočius came to a spingočius and said: “Let’s go to the tavern to drink mead.” The spingočius says: “I’m afraid of the vingočius.” The barbočius says: “We won’t go past the vingočius. We’ll go past the saw, past the heard, and through the krungas gate.”) A fairly common code is the form of the encoded denotatum, for example, draikalas “pea pod” (Father is a draikalas, mother a kabalas, the children pabiručiai), pample “pea pod” (Father is a tutulis, mother a kabalas, the children are pabiručiai), tysūtis “pole” (The tysūtis stretches, the creaker creaks, a dumpling at the end), tišlys “pea pod” (Father is a tišlys, mother a bladder, the children—binbir, binbir binbiriukai). Riddles may encode by using features of the encoded word’s denotatum in terms of position, for example, statikas “bowl” (He scattered the little peas, set out the statikai, and called the kukuočiai), kabikas “cradle” (The kabikas hangs, the čiurikas lies—four legs and a kabaldūnas), karikas “sides of bacon”, tupikas “cat” (The tupikas sits, the karikas is at war; the tupikas prays to God that the karikas will fall), kabutis “apple” (The little tykutis lies in wait, the kabutis hangs; when the kabutis falls, the tykutis catches it), tysokas “a person lying down” (Juodtakis, on the juodtakis a medtakis, on the medtakis a šnabžtakis, on the šnabžtakis a baltakis, and on the baltakis—the tysoks). A fairly rare encoding method is to assign the object or subject to be guessed an indirect feature, for example, žibas “wolf” (A dark night. A žibs comes, asks the tulytės where the pig lies: “At the end of the shed, among the birbynai.”). This case is complex because it is bound by contextual relations, and therefore requires more precise encoding—the wolf comes not at just any time, but at night.

The main feature of metonymic encoding is that the key word is entirely transparent and requires no commentary. This shows that communication is an important criterion in creating a riddle, even though the bridge connecting the universal category of “question and answer” (from both linguistic and other perspectives) is masked. An interesting conclusion can nevertheless be drawn here (we hope, one of broader relevance than the problems of riddle lexicon). Metonymic encoding aims to imply the answer—that is, the encoded word—more clearly and intelligibly. This aim rests on uninterrupted internal semantic and conceptual connections between the code and the encoded word, and on the semantic and lexical transparency of the key word. Metaphorical encoding more fully “hides” the question-and-answer bridge: the code has a complicated semantics, and the key word does not reveal itself at all immediately. Paradoxically, however, metonymic encoding in the lexical system of riddles causes more homonymic confusion and communicative misunderstanding. (This is readily apparent from the examples we have already discussed.) It follows that a semantically simpler structure is not necessarily clearer, while a new lexical structure emerging from a more complex process has greater semantic value. (It would be interesting to investigate how this process affects the principles of poetic language.)

The two most common lexical groups of metonymic encoding are the feature of the encoded object and the property of the encoded object. To clarify these concepts, we should explain that by a feature we mean a permanent, differentiating characteristic of an object. It

105

may be both primary and secondary. The object's property is a nonpermanent, contextual, determinate and denotative stance. In other words, a feature is the object's state, while a property is its stance. We will present these groups of metonymic coding in tables. The keyword here is obvious, so we will not write it down.

1.3.1. Object-property. Metonymies of this type are shown in Table 4.

Table 4

Code word

Encoded word

Riddle

backwalker

crab: walks backwards

Three-horned one in the sky, little Barbara in the ashes, squeaker in the grove, backwalker in the water.

kabaldūnas

baby's head: bobs about

A hook hangs, a little bird lies—four legs and a kabaldūnas.

kniustas

pig: roots around

A little path came running and asked the little guard: “Where is the kniustas lying?”

pirdokas

buttocks: farts

Ten ten tenth-graders are pulling a net over the fart-buckets.

thirstlet

fish: longs for water

In the sky, a flat-nosed one; in the forest, a snub-nosed one; in the lake, a thirstlet.

1.3.2. Object-property. This is a somewhat larger group of metonymic encoding. It is shown in Table 5.

Table 5

Code word

Encoded word

Riddle

bizdonė

pig: farts constantly

A spyglass looks over the fence, a gagnons walks through the yard: “Gagone, go, Gagone, send me a bizdonė.”

good-hearer

dog: hears well

“Hello, knerpe.” “Hello, dzieliau.” “Where does the otter lie?” “At the end of the house.” “And the good-hearer?” “Under the barn.”

tupikas

a cat: stubbornly sits

Tupikas sits, the karikas wails. Tupikas prays to God that the karikas will fall down.

žiūronis

a dog: sees well

A monkey runs through the threshing floor, the žiūronis peers over the fence: “Oh, dear little monkey, scare that dog away for me.”

žiūrikas

a cat: stares intently

A hanger hangs, the žiūrikas looks, so that the hanger may not hang, the žiūrikas may not look.

The presentation of properties in place of an object as a code demonstrates especially clearly the imperfection of metonymic encoding.

106

The examples presented in the tables show that the principle by which a word-code is formed is exactly the same as that underlying processes of semantic derivation at the centre of the lexicon. This is a rather complex phenomenon, which semasiologists (more precisely, onomasiologists) call the stage of indirect reference, arising from connections within the signifying structure of the encoded word and from the analogy of the word-code. Such analogy is free and unconstrained by the object. Therefore, on closer inspection, the traditionally distinguished metaphors based on sound and on colour seem to tend towards being intermediate variants between metonymy and metaphor.

2.1. Phonosemantic creation of word-codes. It is not always possible to find a key word that would allow us to specify the type of code. There could be two reasons: the key word has a completely opaque semantic structure, like glass smoked by time, through which one can no longer see either the “outside”—the encoded word—or the “inside”—the code. The other reason is that the riddle word is created by means other than semantic ones. As we have already mentioned, although riddles mask the communicative bridge between “question and answer,” the question must contain signals that make an answer possible. Such are the rules of the semantic game. Thus, at first glance, completely unmotivated riddle words, for example, vilaidė laidė “scythe,” tuturs kepers “harrow,” are not (and cannot be) merely a lexical adventure, because even at the quasi-lexical periphery there lies the universal imperative that you be understood.

Kalboje egzistuoja fonosemantikos reiškinys (Jakobson, Waught 1979: 177–188). Garsų savybė sukelti vieną ar kitą pojūtį yra ir žodžių kodavimo galimybė bei potencialumas. Garsai konotuojami daugelyje periferinių komunikacijos sričių, pavyzdžiui, mitopoetinėje kalboje (Jakobson, Waught 1979: 204–209). Daroma labai pagrįsta prielaida, kad stengiantis užkoduoti žodį, kurį reikia įminti, ir laikantis semantinio žaidimo taisyklių, pasitelkiamas potencialus garsų konotatyvumas (Zabarskaitė 1995: 187–204)). Keletas fonosemantikos dėsningumų iš tiesų gana įdomūs.

2.2. How a scythe differs from a harrow, or the /l/ and /r/ opposition. Among the most highly connoted sounds of the Lithuanian language are /l/ and /r/ (Zabarskaitė 1995: 194–197). Both expressive vocabulary and poetic language attest to the opposition between these sounds, although, belonging to the same sound class, they also share connotative meanings. The sound /l/ has an obvious connotation of swinging back and forth (Zabarskaitė 1995: 195). Work tools used with a back-and-forth swinging motion, and which need to be signalled—encoded—with the sonorant /l/ chosen as the key: vilaidė laidė “scythe” (Vilaidė laidė scared the grass, came home, hanged itself on the gate), lidi lidi laidė “shuttle” (Lidi lidi laidė flew through the forest, left its guts behind, flew home), talalojus “threshing board” (Behind the birch grove talalojus barks).

Work tools (or implements) whose use does not involve a pronounced back-and-forth swinging movement are “hidden” beneath semantic structures in which the key sound is /r/. It is especially common in encoding “harrow.” Their function of tearing up the earth is emphasized more energetically, through the sound r, already described by Plato. They are called kevarža varža (Kevarža varža harrows across the field—yet the dogs do not bark), tuturs kepers (Tuturs kepers, don’t run away—I’ll catch up). Thus, the universal phonosemantic opposition between the sonorants /l/:/r/⟧

107

can also be found in riddles.

2.3. The drama of the sheep, or a classic example of phonosemantics. A well-known riddle tells how a wolf stole a sheep and was pursued on horseback. The most common version of the riddle is this: “kudubudu came, took kidibidi, give me kamandaki, I’ll chase kudubudu, I’ll take back kidibidi.” In other versions of the riddle, the wolf is also called duku duku, štukubuku, the sheep dvikipiki, štikibiki, and the horse kamantiniu, kubuldoku. We will not examine the consonant combinations in detail here. (This is a subject requiring more extensive investigation and richer empirical data. It is worth noting only that T-class consonants predominate, with their universal connotation of action, movement, and contact (Zabarskaitė 1995: 187–194).) This riddle ideally reflects the most universal of vowel connotative oppositions—/u/:/a/:/i/. Low-tone vowels signify darkness, roughness, and largeness, while high-tone vowels signify brightness, softness, and smallness. The centre of the triad—the compact /a/—is neutral (after all, the horse does not take part in the sheep’s drama; only in the final example is it dark and large, like the wolf). This fundamental regularity of phonosemantics is discussed more fully in the work by the distinguished phonologists mentioned above (Jakobson, Waugh 1979: 188–194).

2.4. A little on roughness and light, or the connotations of S-class consonants. Among S-class consonants, /š/ and /ž/ carry the greatest phonosemantic load. The sound /š/, probably because of its articulatory and acoustic properties, has a pronounced “uneven surface” connotation (Zabarskaitė 1995: 197–198). Riddle-makers noticed this too. Wool is encoded by the word šešuols kemuols (Šešuols kemuols—a hundred-branched, leafless thing), while a blanket is called šipkiliu tipkiliu (Šipkily s tipkily s: “Climb on me”). The “light, shining” connotation of the sound /ž/ (Zabarskaitė 1995: 197) is the key to the encoded word for fire. Fire is called žala žalaičiuke (Žala žalaičiukė licks the sky).

Thus, when we cannot find a lexical or semantic key to the encoded word, we can try looking for it in the sound structure of the word-code. The examples we have discussed show that this approach is not fruitless either. All that is needed is to examine more closely the regularities of phonosemantics, its universals, and its principal connotative oppositions.

3. Explanatory notes. Since there is some variation in specialized terminology, especially when dealing with such an unconventional area of Lithuanian linguistics as phonosemantics, we consider it necessary to explain that the categories and concepts of semantics are named using J. Lyons’s terminology (Lyons 1968), while the phonological categories, symbols, and classifications needed to describe phonosemantic phenomena are explained in due detail in Alekso Girdenio’s “Fonologija” (Girdenis 1981). Some semiotic terms can be found in the works of Algirdas Julius Greimas (Greimas 1989).

The riddles were collected from volume 5 of “Lietuvių tautosaka” (LTs V), and the key words were sought in “Lietuvių kalbos žodynas” (LKŽ).

4. Conclusions. A few more general practical conclusions and a theoretical summ

108

…drination. The lexicon of riddles is not a domain of quasi-lexicon, but a periphery of Lithuanian vocabulary that exists according to identifiable semantic laws. By examining the regularities of its process of generalization, it is possible to reveal the semantic structure of riddle words and to “make their content transparent.” It becomes clear that in such a complex and multifunctional structure as language, nothing can be accidental. And the language game (for creating riddles is a game of language–naming–communication) is played according to the rules of semantics. The regularities of semantic and phonosemantic encoding are analogous to the processes of nominative activity in the core vocabulary. The creation of metaphors and metonymies in riddles can serve as “test material” for investigating metaphorical and metonymic meanings that have arisen in the core vocabulary. The greater semantic value of more complex lexical structures (metaphors)—their precision, non-synonymy, and avoidance of lexical tautology—in riddles may also correlate with other lexical and textual layers, or perhaps with layers of linguistic structures that are not so complex. Sound-keys show that phonosemantic matters should not be ignored when studying the lexical periphery. They may explain something, since they have their own universals which, as we have seen, should not be denied. Two practical points should be noted: a riddle word that at first glance seems unreadable can be “read”—that is, it is not meaningless. This way of reading a riddle word can help establish criteria for distinguishing metonymic and metaphoric meanings, which are not always clear when analyzing metonymies and metaphors and distinguishing them in practice.

And finally, the lexicon of riddles is a genuine, conscious imitation of the path of meaning, the study of which is truly fascinating.

LITERATŪRA

G i r d e n i s A. 1981: Fonologija, Vilnius: Mokslas.

G r e i m a s A. J. 1989: Semiotika, Vilnius: Mintis.

J a k o b s o n W., W a u g h L. 1979: The Sound Shape of Language, Bloomington and London: Indiana University Press.

LTs V – Lietuvių tautosaka 5, Vilnius: Mintis, 1968.

L e v i n J. M. 1978: Semantičeskaja struktura zagadki. – Paremiologičeskij sbornik, Moskva: Nauka, 283 – 315.

LKŽ I₂–II₂ – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 1, Vilnius, 1941; 2, Kaunas: Valstybinė enciklopedijų, žodynų ir mokslo literatūros leidykla, 1947.

LKŽ I₂–II₂ – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 1–2, Vilnius: Mintis, 1968 – 1969.

LKŽ III – XVII – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 3 – 6, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla, 1956, 1957, 1959, 1962; 7 – 9: Mintis, 1966, 1970, 1973; 10 – 15: Mokslas, 1976, 1978, 1981, 1984, 1986, 1991; 16, 17: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 1995, 1996.

L y o n s J. 1968: Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics, Cambridge: G. B.

Z a b a r s k a i t ė J. 1995: Ištiktukų priebalsių fonosemantika (vienanariai priebalsių junginiai). – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 35, 187–204.

109

THE PECULIARITIES OF CODE – WORD SEMANTICS IN RIDDLES

Summary

Tthe paper investigates the ways the vocabulary of riddles is made up. It is created by coding words which are to be guessed. There are two ways of coding: semantic and phonosemantic. The semantic structure of coding has three components: the word under coding, the code-word, or the riddle word, and the key-word. The relation between the code-word and the word under coding be metonymic or metaphoric.

The coding process is different: in metonymic coding, the figurative semes of the word under coding change places, while metaphorisation is caused by the analogy between the free structure of the signited and the semantics of the code word. The analogy is indicated by the key-word. The key to phonosemantic code is the connotation of the sound. In this kind of coding the phonosemantic (l): (r) opposition, the opposition of the high: low tone vowels are observed, the most frequent connotations of the consonants (s): (ž) are realized. A conclusion can be made that the vocabulary of riddles is made up by consciously imitating the path of the meaning which is being generated.

110