New word formation of compound nouns and standard language norms in Lithuanian

Straipsnyje darybos tipiškumo ir inovacijų aspektu tyrinėjami Lietuvių kalbos naujažodžių duomenyne fiksuotieji savakilmiai sudurtiniai daiktavardžiai. Siekta išsiaiškinti, ar šie naujadarai atitinka gramatikose aprašytas lietuvių kalbos žodžių darybos taisykles; ar lietuvių kalbos daiktavardžių dūrybos inovacijos yra sistemiškos, ar būdingos tik okazinei vartosenai; kokiu mastu norminant naujažodžius reikia remtis gramatikose išdėstytais postulatais ir kiek atsižvelgti į naujadaros polinkius. Nustatyta, kad sudėtingesnės morfeminės sandaros dūrinių toliau gausėja ir ta sandara darosi įvairesnė (ypač okazinių dūrinių), tačiau polinkis remtis paprastaisiais žodžiais išlieka. Pamatinių žodžių priesagos atmetamos retai, greičiausiai dėl to, kad jos paprastai nėra ryškios ir skiemenų atžvilgiu žodžio neilgina. Pasitaikantys priešdėlėti pamatiniai žodžiai dažniausiai būna ne daiktavardžiai. Kai kurie svetimybių pakaitai (pvz., turintys priesaginių sandų) rodo, kad norminant į vartosenos tendencijas atsižvelgiama. Lietuvių kalboje akivaizdžiai gausėja savakilmių kontaminantų, todėl reikėtų iš naujo įvertinti kontaminacijos (nemorfologinės darybos) santykį su tradicine (morfologine) daryba.huanian Neologisms, attempts were made to clarify if they comply with the rules of word formation in the Lithuanian language presented in grammar books. The description of noun compounding in the academic Lithuanian Grammar (1965), inter alia, presents the following: 1) to form nouns from simple words rather than from derivatives or compounds is much more common practice; 2) rare components contain suffixes; if this happens, sometimes suffixes are dropped while forming compounds; 3) nouns with prefixes never turn into elements of compound nouns; 4) the biggest number of compounds are formed of two nouns, etc. The same postulates are repeated in the Grammar of Modern Lithuanian (4 editions in 1994, 1996, 1997 and 2006). However, as early as at the end of the previous century it was noticed that the strict tone of the old principle – to rely only on simple base words – has been getting weaker. The research on coinages revealed an increasing number of compounds characterised by more complex morphemic structure and this structure is gaining a greater variety (especially due to occasionalisms). However, the tendency to rely on simple base words has remained, which is predetermined by the economy principle in language. Suffixes of base words are rarely dropped and, in all likelihood, this happens due to the fact that they are frequently not well-marked and do not increase the length of words in terms of syllables. Base words with prefixes are found but they are most frequently non-nouns. More valid conclusions require the analysis of a bigger number of coinages, particularly the ones selected automatically. Nevertheless, it is obvious that standardising the language or seeking its accuracy, the postulates outlined only in grammar books should not be followed blindly. Some substitutes suggested for barbarisms (e.g., didriestainis, naujienlaiškis possess suffix elements) show that usage tendencies are followed in the process of standardization. The obviously growing numbers of indigenous blends in the Lithuanian language call for re-evaluation of the relation of blending (non-morphological word building) to the traditional (morphological) word formation