Dėl leksinės sinonimijos santykio su žodžio geografija

LITHUANIAN AREA LINGUISTICS QUESTIONS LITHUANIAN SSR ACADEMY OF SCIENCES A. VIDUGIRIS ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEXIC SYNONYMIES AND WORD GEOGRAPHY Lexic, or synonymy of words, and word geography are closely related subjects of lexical research. Lexical synonymy is a purely linguistic phenomenon and belongs to the field of lexicology, while the geography of the word, understood not only as the spread of the word, its use in a certain territory, or the area it occupies, but also as a territorial, or area, geographical treatment of lexical units, belongs to the field of methodology. Separately, about lexical synonymy and about the geography of the word — more precisely, area linguistics, or linguistic geography! — there is written a lot, but about their relationship either silence is maintained, or only hints are made?. This is probably due to the external incompatibility of these two objects: the systemic nature of lexis requires that all its links, and thus synonymy, be studied on the basis of internal systemic relationships, and the arealy geographical method of studying these phenomena is applied as if from the outside, extralinguistically. On the other hand, linguistic atlases are very scarce and the lexical maps presented in them cover only a small part of the word treasure, and therefore they cannot satisfy the various lexical researchers. The authors were most encouraged to take up this difficult topic by the extremely diverse and abundant material of the volume* dedicated to the vocabulary of the Lithuanian language atlas and the long-term work on its collection, mapping and preparation for printing. Therefore, mainly the material of this atlas illustrates the main statements of the article. Lexical units (words or phraseological combinations), being two-sided — formal and semantic — linguistic signs, are related by various mutual relations both in terms of external form, or expression, and internal content, or meaning, semantics. In general, preference is given to the semantic criterion of internal content. | In the case of both synonymy and area linguistics, lexical units are usually identified, identified or similarized by the same basis of meaning, content. Words can also be identified by their expression — external acoustic or visual forms! Area linguistics, or linguistic geography, is a broad term. The main object of her research is the territorial differences of the various parts of the language system (phonetic, morphological, lexical and syntactic phenomena) and partly their functional, stylistic, as well as chronological aspects, cf. Bonpocki Teopuu JIiAHTBHCTHUecKOH reorpadun, Mocksa, 1962, p. 9—11. * Plg. A. Lyberis, Lithuanian Language Synonyms Dictionary, Kaunas, 1961, p. 4—5; J. Pikčilingis, Lexical and Grammatical Synonymy, Kaunas, 1969, p. 9, 24 and others. 3 Lithuanian Language Atlas, I, Leksika Vilnius, 1977. 109 the perspective. However, in this case, it is necessary to talk about the phenomena of polysemy, or polysemy, of homonyms of words, which no longer ir directly belong to the topic of this article. The term identification is to be interpreted lexicologically as the identification of at least two lexical units on one sub-level, differing as much as possible in the second plan. Thus, one word according to one of the iš (in this case values) is equated to another. This iš essentially corresponds to the definition of synonyms. ,,Lexical synonyms are differently sounding words of the same part of the language, denoting the same tą object (cave—grottą to), the same sign (zealous — stropus), ta the very action (running)’*. — In area linguistics (or in linguistic geography) similarly according to the same meaning (content) determines the distribution of differently sounding words in certain areas of use. — Often such words with different sounds, distributed in different areas of use in the territory of the Lithuanian language, are considered synonyms, e.g.: arklas* ,,an ancient tool close to the Earth“, drill, Zambia (including gill), sea bass, stagiité®; latch, "device for closing the door", damper, pulley (and pulled), pushed, shot (and Sova), kištūvas; rainbow, orūrykštė, dangorykštė, happiness belt, dermjuostė, straublys, drignė, linksmyné, etc.” ir The ranges of most of these words with a limited usage area are different. In other words, almost every one has a different range. Therefore, words with approximately overlapping ranges are relatively rare. However, the same criterion of equal significance in synonymy plays an ir unequal role in area linguistics. In synonymy, the common meaning is the most important, essential link connecting words of different forms. O In area linguistics, common meaning is only a means or condition for determining arizoglossal areas of differently sounding words. ba In this way, the language is able to identify different words in order to find equivalents in the entire jų language area. Thus, the common meaning only conditionally seems to unite. Iš indeed plays a ji distinctive role here. The most important feature of synonymy is its systematicity, because synonyms can be words used only in one linguistic system. Meanwhile, words with a limited range of use belong to different dialectal systems. These are iš essentially heterosystemic lexical units, a kind of lexical equivalents, or equivalents, combined, distinguished by the same meaning. ne o Some suggest that such heterosystemic Words, because of their identical meaning, should jų be referred to as tautonyms®. In our opinion, it is better to leave the term “nationalization” for identities of one linguistic system, e.g. for total or absolute synonyms, etc. ar Because the lexical units of one system that coincide in meaning, or 'homosemantics- ?, according to tradition i J, Picchiling, min. ill., p. 4. 5 These and other examples are presented mainly according to the aforementioned A. Lyberis thesaurus, whose ranges will be visible from the maps of the Lithuanian Language Atlas. Most of these words are also in,,Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian Language”, Vilnius, 1972 (hereinafter —DLKŽ). ¢ A. Lybers in the Thesaurus gives the form stagūtas. In the Lithuanian language atlas material is written only mot. g. forms: stagūtė, stūgė. " But plg. B. Rokaitė, Rainbow names in Lithuanian dialects,,- ,Works of the Lithuanian SSR Academy of Sciences. Serija A,“ 2(15), 1963, pp. 275-279. 8 pg. J. Filipec, Ceskd synonyma a hlediska stylistyki a lexikologie, Prague, 1961, p. 93; C. T. Bepexau, CeMaHruueckas 3KBHBAJIeHTHOCTb JieKkCHUeCKHX eaunuil, Kuumues, 1973, p. 303. ? Because of the inaccuracy of the terms synonym and synonym, it is sometimes suggested to replace them with the terms homosemy and homosemantic, C. I". Bepexanmn, min. veik., pp. 99-102. 110 are called synonyms, so equivalents of different systems, emphasizing their heterosystemic nature, would be better called heteronyms!®. Thus, heteronyms are characterized by belonging to different dialectal systems and at the same time by territorial limitation. However, not only heteronyms can be used in a limited way, but also various ethnonyms or names of rarer plants, etc. Rare ethnonyms or botanical terms used in a certain limited area are usually unknown elsewhere, because there are no realities themselves, e.g. the names of carriage husk, lushnap and thigh or sleigh husk. Heteronyms, which are common in one or more parts of a certain language territory, usually have equivalents of the same meaning elsewhere, which could be called territorial correlates. Thus, heteronyms are all Lithuanian words that are not only characterized by a limited area of use, but also have territorial correlations in the entire area of the relevant reality. In addition, the heteronyms themselves are not all equivalent. Some have entered the system of literary language and become part of it. Such heteronyms form synonymous pairs, rows or blocks on equidistant bases!. Therefore, taking into account that not all words of literary language have been used in the whole area of Lithuanian language since ancient times, and that many of them are only present in a larger or smaller part of that area (i.e., emphasizing that they have come into literary language from various dialectal systems- ), it is possible to speak about the heteronymous nature of a certain part of the lexicon of literary language, and thus also of some synonyms. Other narrowly used heteronyms, which do not normally enter the lexical composition of literary language, are called dialects or dialectisms. Therefore, they (DLKŽ usually given with the abbreviations dz, ryt., zem.) as heterosystemic lexical units should not be included in the composition of literary language synonyms. Since the basis for identifying both synonyms and heteronyms is the coincidence of meaning, it is important to establish a uniform unit of comparison, all the more so because different words often do not coincide in meaning, especially in its scope. In this case, the word with the smallest number of letters is called the semantic variant. The size of the semantic variant is best seen from the absolute synonyms, or homosemants, which are made up of heteronyms, e.g. dntin, gaigalas; kankorėžis, burkūtis, gurgūtis, kirkužė, Zebelys; karvėlis, baluidis, or a Lithuanian word and its non-Lithuanian (international or borrowed) equivalent, e.g., linguistics; hundredth, percentage; buy, buy, buy; barn, barn, etc. Their semantic volume is absolutely equal to each other and has no differences between them. Each member of the conjugation has one semantic variant and completely exhausts each other's content. The content of polysemantic words consists not of one semantic variant, but of their totality. With other words they can enter into synonymic relations according to one or ke10 The term heteronymy is also used by other linguists, e.g. J. Gossens, Structural Language Geography, Heidelberg, 1967, p. 86. 11 In the synonymic rows, words of similar meaning that sound differently are usually joined through each other, and into synonymic blocks — by branches, i.e. separately, e.g.: the word pilkas (grey) joins into synonymic relations separately with the words palšvas (palshvas), sirvas (sirvas) or širmas (širmas), žilas (grey), cf. C. T. Bepexamn, min, verb., p. 54—77. 12 The term semantic variant in this case is more convenient than semema and has long been used in linguistics, cf. Bonpocki JinkrBueTHueckKoli reorpacpun, MocksBa, 1962, p. 149; C. T. Bepexau, min. veik.,p. 46. In Lithuanian linguistics it is also not used for the first time, cf. On the question of the selection and grouping of semantic dialectisms, —Studies in the history and dialectology of the Lithuanian language (thesis), Vilnius, 1971, p. 22. 111 Tis semantic variants. For example, the unimportant word tvdrtas, which has only iš one semantic variant in total, is related to the multi-meaning word darigtis su only according to one semantic variant, according to other jo semantic variants o darigtis can have synonymous relations with the words sf0gas, dūgnas, etc. į su ir Similarly, the words ir cankerzezis skuja, : tvartas, gurbas, nūmas, etc. ir Words meaning broader concepts, such as dangtis, gurbas, namas, į skuja, enable the content of narrower meaning words, such as konkorėžis, tvartas (cases of inclusion). Two more ar poly- ‘miu words matching synonymic į relationships according to some semantic variant (e.g., khion laying, rutai : carrying), the contents : intersect. In both cases we have what is called partial synonymy, or parasemy.”* Thus, when examining homosemic synonymic lexical relations, it is necessary to operate on all ne Words, only on individual o component elements of the meaning structure in semantic variants. EquivalentsFor — determining such semantic variants, it is usually enough to use explanatory dictionaries, which provide a sufficient ju picture of the semantic structure of the polysemic word, reflects the total sum of semantic variants. t. y. The coincident. y. ce of word meanings, semantic variants There is an essential identifying or relevant synonymic feature. An additional relevant feature is the jų coincidence of the categorical grammatical meaning, t. y. belonging to one morphological class of — language daliail®, e.g.: barn, barn; heavy, heavy, heavy, heavy; work, work hard, work hard, work hard, work hard; slowly, gradually, etc. In addition, the same number of metric units are used for the same function. The coincident semantic variant as a criterion of division here is determined not only by the heteronyms entering into the literary language, but by the words used in the whole Lithuanian language area. Even the multi-meaning words written according to the unified “Program” are presented already differentiated according to the desired equivalent of the meaning and are separated from other meanings. When the whole material is in front of the eye, the semantic equivalence relationships of the words being compared are usually quite obvious. In synonymy, however, the relationship is not so clear. The basis of the comparison — the semantic variant — must be cleaned, separated from other values by splitting the scope of their analysis values. Thus, the application of area linguistics methods to synonymy can be of considerable help. In addition, it is characteristic of Lithuanian heteronyms that many of them are usually unknown in dialects in all the meanings presented in the DLKZ, in which they can be used in literary language. In dialects, they are mostly used only with certain meanings — in one dialect one way, in another dialect another way. For example, where a hut for storing uncultivated grain is called klojimas (this word usually means to crop the grains that have been planted on the grazing), kluonas means a yard, a meadow near the grazing, and where the hut is called kluonas, Zardiena is called mostly kluoniena or in Žemaitija, where the mentioned building is called jduja, jaujé, jaujas, jaujis, raja, daržinė, the words klojimas or kluonas are called grendymas. However, apart from the intersections of their ranges, these words are rarely used synonymously. Thus, in dialects, these words are usually not synonyms, just as they are not synonyms of one 3 C. T. Bepexam, min. virk., p. 97. '4 A. II. Esrensesa, OcHoBHBIE BOnpocbi JeKCHUECKOH cHHOHHMHH, —OuepkH no cuHOHHMHH COBPEMEHHOrO PyCCKOro JjHTepaTypHoro siseika, Mocksa—Jlennnrpax, 1966, p. 26; B. T. Tak, OnbiT npuMeHeHHsI CONOCTABHTEJIbHOTO aHAJIH3a K H3YUEHHIO CTPYKTYPH 3HAUCHHS «cJ108a, „Bonpocki s3sikosHanus“, 1966, Ne 2, p. 97; C. I. Bepexau, min. veik., p. 50. 15 C. I. Bepexan, min. veik., pp. 49-50. 112 from the point of view of any dialectal system are jų not suitable to be called ir heteronyms. These are simple heterolexic heteroserans ir (differing in form content) ir vocabulary units that are only dialectal boundaries, už t. y. in literary language, its polysemythanks to which can meet mo homosemic synonymous relations. į O in dialects they can become homosemantics only occasionally, when the representatit. y. ve of some dialect uses these Words in the meaning they have in the literary language or in the neighboring dialect, etc. ir The development ir of lexical improvement is conditioned by contradictions between its possibilities (resource ar word inventory) over a certain period of time of people's increasing ir desire to express their thoughts more comprehensibly, more accurately'®. ir "The word is a search," say — psycholinguists! ". The result of this contradiction is synonyms or ir homosemants. Relationships between lexical units are best expressed by complete non-overlap, difference jų both in form, expression (heterolexia), both in terms of content, meaning (heterosemia). Thus, synonyms, as communicative units that coincide in meaning, are redundant, additional language elements. But does the language tolerate them, even ir multiplying them by means of word borrowing, construction, semantic expansion, ir transfer of metaphorical metonymy meanings? *?. The very use of a synonym in language requires that it, replacing an already existing word with its own meaning, expresses it somewhat ir differently or tą slightly differently. ją Synonyms appear under the binary (duality) principle in the way of opposition, or ba contradiction: the word used is tried to oppose another — "more effective, more impressive", e.g. horse, horse, spear, horseman; snake, angry bird, worm (and worm), whistle, whistle, evil, long; forest, grove, mud mud. ir Such as synonyms with "more impressive" shades of meaning (plg. aspen, horse, worm worm, long, gray, whistle, forest, ir tree tree) are usually called by linguists Zymétae,,,marked* members of the opposition, in ir relation to the first, usually neutral, unmarked, “,marked” members of that opposition (plg. horse, snake, forest). Neutral, insignificant opposition members, having the most ir general meaning in synonymous rows of blocks, play the role of the dominant*. They are like supporting pillars, by which other marked ones are compared, identified (with different shades of meaning) synonyms. The marked members of the opposition, or synonyms, usually differ from the neutral ones in the unevenly expressed characteristic of the object, the ir uneven degree of intensity of action, the uneven scope of concepts, the different subjective evaluation of the ar phenomenon of the t. y. object, the jo speaker's su relationship with the expressed object, the uneven lexical environment and syntactic relationships. (distribution) ir pan. ?® basic Be information, lexical t. y. meaning load, such synonyms perform both expressive and aesthetic functions. ir So the synonym is a kind of transformation of the already existing word in the language? ! 16 P, A. Bynaros, Ilpo6aems pa3putusi szbika, Mocksa—Jlennnrpan, 1965, p. 33—36. 7 A. A. Jleonrses, Ilcnxojornueckas cTpykTypa 3HaueHus, — CeMaHTHUECKas CTPYKType caoBa, Mocksa, 1971, p. 18. 18 C. I. Bepexamn, min, veik., p. 133. 19 J. Pikčilingis, min. veik., p. 24. *0 J. Pikčilingis, min. veik., p. 22—24; Cj0Bapb CHHOHHMOB PyCCKOro s3bIKA, I. JlennuTpaz, 1970, p. 11. *t C. I'm. Bepexan, min. ill., p. 150. The transformation is also called renaming or semantic transformation. B. T. Yeah, CeMaurhueckas cTpyKTypa CJIOBa, KaK COMINOHEHT ceMaHTHUeCKOH CTpYyKTYDpBkI BbiCKa3biBaHHSA, CeMaHTHueckas — CTpyKTypa CAO0Ba, Mocksa, 1971, p. 81—82. 8. Užs. No. 1026 113 Lexical coincidence according to semantic variant (or by a quantitative parameter) is the most important indicator of word tų equivalence. Only stylistic functional differences ir (by qualitative parameter) shades. They usually form the basis for intersynonymic oppositions, which can impede those oppositions. ir to exchange members su with each other. However, these shades are non-essential or irrelevant differential signs of synonymy do not eliminate ir the semantic tų equivalence of words, because emotional expressive ir shades do not touch the logical nucleus of meaning®2. These stylistic ir functional (qualitative) differences are necessary for synonyms. They usually only ne condition the existence of synonyms, but ir determine jų vitality and multiplication. ,,Language ,,cannot tolerate“ meaningless ir identities, the emerging absolute, or complete, synonym eventually displaces its “,,partner” or makes the change jį of meaning become ir complete”*- ne *. For heteronyms, such qualitative shades of the meanings of the words in conjunction are only uncharacteristic, ne but undesirable, because they destroy semantic ir equivalence. In area linguistics, there must be complete semantic jų equivalence between the members to be mapped, both in terms of semantic variant (quantitative parameter) and in terms of expressive, emotional nuance of meaning (qualitative parameter). However, the terms “expressive, emotional, stylistic ir functional shades of meaning” should be used ka only when talking about synonyms of words of one linguistic system. — Therefore, when speaking about heteronyms, only qualitative differences in lexical meanings or shades, which constitute the most important difference between synonyms and heteronyms, should be considered. Thus, in area linguistics, it is not possible to compare, for example, the words arklys, bdimé, kūpeta with the words of the corresponding meaning žirgas, kuinas; frightened, terrified; cone, stirta, because the characteristics of the concepts expressed by those words do not coincide. They could only be compared if one of those words had, in a certain part of the territory, an equivalent meaning to the other words of the group in question according to both parameters. For example, in the main part of the Lithuanian language area, miškas and giria mean forests of different sizes (so they are synonyms here and in dialects), but on the edges of the area, the word giria, meaning forests of any size and having no other synonyms, can be treated as a heteronym and be compared, i.e. opposed, to the words miškas, mėdė, mėdžias. Thus, according to the qualitative parameter of meaning, synonyms and heteronyms are mutually negating. If the condition for the identification of synonyms is the coincidence of meaning according to the semantic variant, and the basis of the opposition is their qualitative differences in meaning or the expressive, emotional shades manifested in them, then the condition for the approximation, i.e. the distinction, of heteronyms is their complete coincidence in both parameters of meaning, and the basis of the opposition of heteronyms is their opposition according to the place (territory, area, geography). or diatopia and resolution, or form. Thus, heteronyms form oppositions not of meaning (content), but of diatopic expression (form), and equal meaning is the most important condition or lead of these oppositions. There are synonyms in both dialects and literary language. Some are common to dialects and literary language. Others are known only in dialects. Especially the latter are characterized by a high marking. According to the "Lithuanian Language Atlas Material Collection Program- ", mainly the main dialect names, so-called heteronyms, are recorded, and only occasionally. 2 C. I. Bepexan, min. veik., p. 68. # J. Pikčilingis, min. veik., p. 8. 114 At the junction of their isoglosses there are written a couple or more names, some of which have also entered into the literary language and in turn form synonymous lines. Many of these basic names in dialects can often have synonymous words, but except for one other case (e.g. horse and horseman), they were not required to be written in the,,Program“. Therefore, many of these dialectal synonyms are not written. However, even from the name of the dialect and its heteronyms alone, it is possible to judge the variety of dialectal synonyms, their expressiveness and emotionality, e.g.: dvėsena, dvasna, dienagalys, gaišena, galadiénis, kévé, spriogena, stipena. Other basic names written according to the “Program” are sometimes marked with similar names, e.g.: rainbow, petal, horsetail, bloodwort, etc. Some of them can be used quite widely, forming certain continuous areas, others are scattered over larger areas, others only in one other place. This is typical of both main names, or heteronyms, and their dialects, and often also literary synonyms. Such variation of names and uneven distribution of areas depends on the duality of the very nature of language, its dichotomy, i.e., the separation of systematic facts of the language level (or plan) from random, individual facts of the speech level (as a language process or speech, realization). Invariants of a system are the constants that are invariant to the system. With systematic use, the word, having entered the sphere of speech, retains its meaning even in the situation of,,non-use; the network of intraverbal relationships as if draws out the possible limits of the word’s use — its semantic potential- ”. This is called the systemic meaning of the word or semantics®. Systemic meaning, as a fact of higher-level language, is realized in the usage that maintains its permanence. In other words, the use of a word (as a set of phonemes and grapheme) and the concept (significance) expressed by that word establishes a constant connection, or relationship**. On the other hand, in the case of speech, or realization, the so-called signification relations come to the fore, which are unstable, because the same object or phenomenon (its content) can be expressed by different concepts, i.e., it can acquire different language signs — words?*. The meaning of words can be conveyed according to various associations or the words themselves can be interpreted differently. The narrator (and the writer) has at his disposal a relatively large number of possibilities to connect the objects of real reality with the most diverse meaningful connections and to name them at his individual discretion, of course, as far as the listener or reader can understand it. What are the extra-linguistic conditions that help the speakers?" Thus, the new meaning of the word depends on the context of the conditions and, appearing only in the speech of individuals, does not enter into the semantic structure of the word as its constant ingredient?*?. This is the so-called situational meaning of the word, or semantics?®. * A. A. Bpyaubiii, 3Hauenue CJ0Ba H NecHxojioTHA NpoTHBONocTAaBJeHHN, —CeMaHTHueckas CTpykrypa caosa, Mocksa, 1971, p. 20. 25 B, I. Tak, CeMaHTHueckas CTPYKTYpa CJIOBA KaK KOMMOHEHT CeMaHTHYEeCKOH CTPYKTYpb BeICKa3uiBaHus, —CemMaHTHuecKas CTpyKTypa caosa, Mocksa, 1971, p. 78-79. * Idem, p. 79. *7 C. I. Bepexan, min. veik., p. 110. * H. H. Amocosa, K sorpocy o jekcHueckoM 3HaueHHH cjoBa, „BecTHHK aewmurpancKoro yHHBepcHTeTa. Cepus HCTOPHH, S3bIKA H Jauteparypst”, Ne 2, smn. I, Jlenunrpan, 1957, p. 159. * A. A. Bpyauwmii, min. veik., p. 20. Be 115 In the same way that non-constant contextual or situational meanings are distinguished from systematic constant meanings, situational or contextual synonyms must be distinguished from systematic synonyms both in literary language and in dialects. ir The stricter requirements of this classification are usually imposed on the compilers of the synonymous dictionaries of contemporary literary languages. This is a list of writers whose works have been translated into a number of languages. Here, the transfer of the meaning of words, the expansion, as ir well as the use of various heteronyms or adjective variants, are considered jų the positiveness of the work, the merit of the writer. Finally, only language accuracy, but clarity, flexibility of ne visuality is required everywhere, both in the ir journalistic, popular ir scientific literature and in colloquial language. Thus, the selection of systematic contextual synonyms depends on the purpose of use. ir ar jų ir - On the other hand, over a longer period of time, transfers of the meaning of certain words become ir permanent when they are used by all members of a particular linguistic community. In this way, the non-constant facts of spoken language, so-called occasionalisms, can become normative facts of language as stylistic variants can ir meet the constant synonymic relationships of existing su words of the same or similar meaning in the language. For comparison, the aforementioned snake į names, which are considered synonyms, may be suitable. Worm, worm, whistle, whistle, long, wicked are clear words of colloquial language. iš In dialects, many have jų become systematic facts, a kind of heteronyms. Jų The “verbal” nature is revealed only by comparison su with the literary language term snake, which is generally known in all dialects, but as a kind of taboo is often avoided. Therefore, other names are used in its place, usually of euphemistical origin and related to taboos (when, due to superstition, fear of disaster, avoiding calling dangerous living by its real name). Those secondary names, although not always forming continuous areas, are sometimes used more often than the word snake, for example, kifminas in some Žemaičių dialects, etc. The use of two or three names in one place indicates that they may be synonymous in dialects. Synonymic pairs are usually made up of the “general national” term snake with one or two of the aforementioned euphemisms. The only difference is the synonym angis, which is an old heteronym and forms a diatopic opposition with the word snake. However, it occupies only a small area in the southwest In the part of Lithuania (previously used as ex. ir In the East Prussian Lithuanian dialects), is now being replaced by the more widely established and literary term snake. Although angis disappears as a heteronym, in literary language it is used as a synonym, often used in figurative meanings with certain shades of majesty and solemnity, etc. su ir ir This change in the meaning of the word angis is probably due to the old, mostly religious writings. How heteronyms, having į entered literary language, become synonyms, convincingly rodo ne only the latter case of angina, but most of ir the above examples. However, the literary language, as a newly formed linguistic system, due to its normative nature, į ją heteronyms, sometimes in its own way forcing them to change their ir meanings, etc. Therefore, it is best to trace how synonyms of heteronymous origin form naturally in dialects, e.g. barn. ir Where only one of the two words is used, they both mean the same tų thing and have exactly the same semantic tą volume in — both parameters of meaning. However, the tų convergence of the meanings of je jų the words is already being differentiated: klėtis is usually called a peasant's hut for storing grain, and barn 116 is a larger or more beautiful, often manor or wealthier peasant's barn. In the area of Klėtė, the word „svirnas“ may have come from another social environment (the enslaved manor) as a return loan, because the same object is quite widely called with the Baltic root „svir-n“ in the neighboring Belarusian, as well as in the Russian and Polish dialects*?. The tendency to call a larger barn a barn (usually in the barn area) had intensified for some time in the years of collective farming, when large barns (grain warehouses) were built. It is true that in recent times, modernized grain storages, called storehouses, are becoming more and more common, and the words barn and barn still refer to the same ethnographic objects. However, the rapid spread of the word barn in its changed meaning alone clearly shows the importance of semantic differentiation in the presence and abundance of synonyms of heteronymous origin. In dialects, there are also many cases of the opposite – the phenomenon of abstraction of meanings. In some dialects, two or more words may be used synonymously with differentiated meanings, while in others — mostly in the peripheral dialects — one of them is used with generalized meanings, for example, the aforementioned synonym for the forest, giria or mégti (ūnas mėgsta isgért; bernai sa mergomi mégstasi®* Zietela) and mylėti (aš myliu lietuviškai dudénc; ūnas myli vaikams Šalčininkai). Thus, the process of substituting a single word for several synonymous words is usually accompanied by generalization of meanings or semantic abstraction. It is more difficult to trace how synonyms become heteronyms, i.e. non-synonyms. The phenomena of desynonymization (when words cease to be synonyms) are relatively rare and not as obvious, because they are not affected by such an organizing and normative system as literary language. They are more characteristic of the mostly extinct and intertwining peripheral dialects, which, due to the former historical administrative, social and cultural division and closure, formed for quite a long time and therefore gradually isolated themselves from the dialects of the main Lithuanian language area. There are also cases of desinonimization in central dialects, but they usually belong to earlier periods of language development. For example, the surviving heteronyms — dialectisms mėdė in the north-western part of the Žemaičių dialect, mėdžias in the southeastern Highland dialects and relatively abundant root wood pronouns and other words in various dialects, as well as Latvian mežs “forest”, Prussian median, etc. p.“ would indicate that the ancient forest name had a wood root. ko It was later jį replaced by a newly created forest, because root wood products began to refer to a specific tree. Indirectly this phenomenon is illustrated by many etymological studies of lexicon, which usually rely on the indication of the areas of use of the words under consideration. Thus, heteronymir ous synonyms are closely related lexical units. Ir in dialects the same words can be both synonyms and heteronyms. This jų interdependence manifests itself in jų transitivity: heteronyms can become synonyms, synonyms 0 heteronyms. — Probably some obsolete dialectisms are the remnants of certain ir heteronymous dialectisms ir iš active use outgoing words, archaisms, out- *0 Pig. Qusanexranariuusl ar.jtac Genapyckait Moss, Minek, 1963, 239 map; B. Laas, TojikoBkili cjioBapb, IV, Mocksa, 1955, p. 150; Składnik języka polskiego, VI, Warsaw, 1915, p. 791. *" Examples recorded during the author's dialectological expeditions. 117