Options
Kļavinska, Antra
Preferred name
Kļavinska, Antra
Alternative Name
Klavinska, Antra
Main Affiliation
Email
antra.klavinska@rta.lv
Scopus Author ID
57392271700
Researcher ID
AAA-9426-2022
Research Output
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
- PublicationCollocations and contextual semantics of the ethnonyms leiši and lietuvieši ‘Lithuanians’ in the text corpus of modern Latvian language(2021)The aim of this paper is, by using Computational linguistics method to analyse collocations of ethnonyms leiši and lietuvieši ‘Lithuanians’ in “Balanced Corpus of Modern Latvian” (Līdzsvarots mūsdienu latviešu valodas tekstu korpuss), compare contextual semantics of both ethnonyms. Comparing the frequency of use of the lexemes lietuvieši and leiši ‘Lithuanians’ in the modern Latvian language text corpus, the prevalence of the ethnonym lietuvieši is evident, therefore, the ethnonym leiši, regardless of its use as synonymic designation (sometimes in one and the same text), can be considered as an obsolete word. The desemantisation cases of the ethnonym leiši, detected in the corpus, show its oldness and varied functionality in Latvian language. The evidences to prove the statement of the “Modern Latvian Language Dictionary” (Mūsdienu latviešu valodas vārdnīca) that the lexeme leiši nowadays “carries slightly pejorative stylistically expressive colouring” were not found in the text corpus. In general, the image of a Lithuanian reflected in the modern Latvian language text corpus is rather positive – mostly in historical, language, culture and sports contexts, yet in the context of economics and emigration rather negative impression of Lithuanians is expressed.
- PublicationNAMES OF THE ETHNOGRAPHIC GROUPS IN THE DICTIONARY OF CONTEMPORARY LATVIAN LANGUAGE(2017)Determination of the ethnonymic lexical semantics can be considered as one of the aspects of ethnic studies in linguistics. Who are the Latgalians, Latgals, Suits, Selonians and other ethnographic groups, according to the modern concepts? The answer to this question can be found in the Dictionary of Contemporary Latvian Language (MLVV), which is fully available on the Internet since 2014. The aim of the paper is to analyse the names of Latvian ethnographic groups and the principles of defining meanings in MLVV, especially focusing on issues related to names of Latgalian Latvians. Lexicographic data analysis and contextual approach are applied in this research with the help of which extralinguistic factors (linguistic and situative context) are revealed. One of the most important tasks in lexicographic work is the inventory of the material, in other words, selection of word entries, illustrative texts, collection and classification of information from preceding dictionaries. In the present paper, the electronic version of the eight-volume Dictionary of the Literary Latvian Language (1972–1996) has been used for comparison. The Balanced Corpus of Modern Latvian, consisting of ~4.5 million word use cases, is applied to determine the contextual semantics and the usage frequency of the names of ethnographic groups. MLVV materials show that there is a lack of consequence in the designation of ethnographic groups and definition of their meaning. The names of ethnographic groups (as well as other ethnonyms) as entries are mostly provided in the plural, for instance, latgalieši, suiti, zemgalieši (Latgalians, Suits, inhabitants of Zemgale), etc., some of them in singular forms: kurzemnieks, vidzemnieks (inhabitant of Kurzeme, inhabitant of Vidzeme). In the previously published Dictionary of the Literary Latvian Language, the names are provided in the plural, and the data of the modern Latvian language corpus show that all the analysed lexemes are used in plural form more often. The definitions of the meanings are lacking consistency. Firstly, the scope of definitions is broad: the territorial belonging to a certain Latvian ethnographic region is taken as a basis for all the explanations of the meaning; some definitions have references to linguistic and cultural peculiarity. Secondly, none of definitions has a reference that it is an ethnographic group of Latvians; only in one case, the designation of ethnic origin latvieši (Latvians) is provided. The explanation ‘inhabitants’ (of the region) is applied most often, which indicates the belonging of the lexeme to katoikonyms, not ethnonyms; also, the explanation ‘indigenous inhabitants’ (of the region) indicates indirectly that they might be Latvians. The novelty of the dictionary is that there are two meanings for the lexemes latgaļi (Latgalians) and sēļi (Selonians): the first one characterizes the Baltic tribes, the second – inhabitants/ natives of the cultural historical region (more precisely – ethnographic group of the Latvian nation). At the same time, it is not considered that lexemes latgalieši, kurzemnieki, vidzemnieki, zemgalieši (Latgalians, inhabitants of Kurzeme, Vidzeme, Zemgale) in contemporary Latvian also have at least two meanings: the meaning of ‘ethnographic group of the nation’ in modern texts, especially in the media, is complemented by a more general meaning of ‘inhabitant of the region’, in other words, the ethnonym becomes a katoikonym. The advantage of the electronic dictionary of contemporary Latvian is the possibility to edit it constantly; therefore, it is worth to pay attention to separate lexical semantic groups when developing the dictionary. In that way, it will be possible to avoid inconsistency in definitions of meanings. In order to separate ethnonyms from katoikonyms, in the definitions of the ethnonyms analysed in the paper, the designation of ethnic community ‘ethnographic group of Latvian nation’ can be applied as the main component, supplemented by semes indicating the connection with a certain territory, and possibly, the characterization of cultural, religious and linguistic peculiarity.
- PublicationETHNONYMS IN THE SYSTEM OF PROPER NAMES OF LATGALE(2013)Proper names, including ethnonyms (folk, tribal and other ethnic community names), is an essential component of any language lexis, which particularly brightly reveals a variety ofextralinguistic processes. The aim of the paper is to analyze the conformity of ethnonym transonymization (the change of proper name class) and deonymization (the change of proper name into appellative) in the culture of Latgale, and linguistic techniques and extralinguistic factors. Linguo-culturological approach has been used in the research, and the link between cultural-historical and social processes in the research of linguistic processes has been taken into account. Determining the origin of ancient ethnonyms, the researchers of the Baltic languages acknowledge a transonymization model typical to the Balts: hydronym → name of region→ ethnonym (Zinkevičius 2005, 186–187). This paper attempts to reveal various ethnonym (denoting mostly foreigners) transonymization models in the system of proper names of Latgale, nominating motivation, and the types of word-formation. It seems that the ethnonyms that denote the neighbouring nations (Estonians, Lithuanians, Russians) most frequently turn into other proper names. Transonymization models have been identifi ed as follows: 1) ethnonym → anthroponym → oikonym (or ethnonym → oikonym → anthroponym), for example, l ī t a u n ī k i ‘the Lithuanians’ → L ī t a u n ī k s ‘a surname’ → L ī t a u n ī k i ‘a village in Preiļi county’; 2) ethnonym → microtoponym, for example, ž y d i ‘the Jews’ → Ž y d a p ū r s ‘a marsh in Vārkava county’; 3) ethnonym → anthroponym, for example, č y g u o n i ‘the Roma people’ →Č y g u o n s ‘a nickname for a dark-haired man’; 4) ethnonym (→ oikonym) → ergonym, for example, l a t g a ļ i ‘The Baltic tribe’ → “L a t g a ļ i” ‘a farm in Mērdzene rural municipality of Kārsava county’. Transonymization of ethnonyms in the culture of Latgale is motivated by historical and social processes. Transonymization processes present the evidence of Latgalians’ stereotypical perception of foreigners, compact settlement of different ethnic groups in Latgale, and historical events. Various types of word-formation are used in the transonymization process: 1) semantic, i.e., only the meaning changes, the morphemic system of lexeme is notchanged, for example, ethnonym p o ļ a k i → oikonym P o ļ a k i (→ surname P o ļ a k s (the male singular form of the ethnonym)); 2) morphological, typically suffixes are added to ethnonyms (sometimes phonetic changes in the root occur), for example, i g a u n i ‘the Estonians’ → surnames I k a u n ī k s (ikaun-+-nīk-s); I g o v e n s (igov-+ - en-s); 3) syntactical, forming compound words, for example, the ethnonym k r ī v i ‘the Russians’ has motivated the oikonym K r ī v a s o l a <Krīva sola ‘Russian Village’, K r ī v m a i z e s < Krīvu maizes ‘Russian bread’; 4) formation of analytical forms, where one of the components has ethnonymic semantics and the second component is a nomenclature word (hill, meadow, marsh, lake, etc.), for example, Ž y d a p ū r s ‘Jew’s marsh’, an attributive adjective, for example, a village M a z i e L ī t a u n ī k i ‘small Lithuanians’, a substantive of other semantics, for example, a meadow Č i g o n e i c a s j ū s t a ‘Gypsy’s belt’. Proper names of foreign origin motivated by ethnonyms have taken their stable place in the system of proper names of Latgale, for example, L a t i š i, a village in Pušmucova rural municipality of Cibla civil-parish (in Russian латыши ‘the Latvians’). Proper names of ethnonymic semantics, used to name various phenomena and realities, are often included in the lexicon of various dialects of Latvian and even other languages. If to assume the fact that ethnonyms are proper names, then it can be concluded that the appellatives mentioned above have appeared in deonymization process: ethnonym → appellative. Moreover, the material of Latgalian dialects confirms the existence of deethnonymic proper names, for example, a lot of different realities are associated with the ethnonyms denoting Roma people: č y g u o n i ‘participants of masquerade parade’; č y g o n k a 1) a sort of winter apples, the apple of this sort (dark green and red); 2) the railroad; 3) achimenes (flower, Achimenes); 4) mushrooms: wild champignon (Rozites caperata) or ugly milkcap (Lactarius necator); č y g u o n a s a u l e ‘the moon’. Appellativeness of ethnonyms has an associative character. The names are reflecting the Latgalians’ stereotypical perception of appearance, occupation, character traits, and traditions of foreigners as alien and different, however, acceptable and assimilable phenomena.