Kļavinska, Antra

Thumbnail Image
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

Filters

3
3
3
3
Reset filters

Settings

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Publication
    Collocations and contextual semantics of the ethnonyms leiši and lietuvieši ‘Lithuanians’ in the text corpus of modern Latvian language
    (2021)
    Kļavinska, Antra 
    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.
  • Publication
    NAMES OF THE ETHNOGRAPHIC GROUPS IN THE DICTIONARY OF CONTEMPORARY LATVIAN LANGUAGE
    (2017)
    Kļavinska, Antra 
    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.
  • Publication
    PLACE NAMES IN THE PHRASEOLOGY OF BALTIC LANGUAGES: INTERNATIONAL, NATIONAL AND LOCAL CULTURAL SIGNS
    (2015)
    Kļavinska, Antra 
    Contemporary researchers of proper nouns are increasingly paying attention to onym semantics in both theoretical discussions and practical research. Proper nouns, in the same way as foreign language components, are associated with various extralinguistic factors, and it is for this reason that they have been analyzed in culturohistorical, social, and cross-cultural communicative contexts. In addition, research has been conducted in many languages on proper nouns as phraseological structural elements, usually emphasizing the large number and importance of anthroponyms in phraseology. Place names as phraseological unit components of semantics in Latvian and Lithuanian are analyzed in this article using the linguoculturological approach. Latvian and Lithuanian phraseological dictionaries are used in the study as primary source, with a catalogue of Latvian and Lithuanian proverbs utilized as a secondary source, providing a wider insight into phraseology. A catalogue of Lithuanian-Latvian-Lithuanian parallel texts, in addition to online sources, was used to clarify the functionalities of idiomatic expressions.

    Contemporary texts are dominated by toponymic phraseologisms, in addition to national cultural signs, while phraseologisms with place names of local interest are used relatively rarely in a given area. Today, discerning the meaning of less current phraseologisms is difficult or impossible; without knowing the motivation of the phraseologisms, their semantics are unclear.