Hybrids with Final Neoclassical Combining Forms in Baltic Languages

The article presents some ideas about the hybrids that are made by combining the neoclassical elements or are mixed of Lithuanian or Latvian and foreign origin combining forms. The examples of hybrids found in English are also provided. This corpus-based investigation reveals that the formation of hybrids with final neoclassical combining forms in modern Baltic languages is a sufficiently active, productive and unobtrusive process of creativity and wit. The identified structural types of hybrids are the following: 1) the hybrids with the international elements of different classical or neoclassical origin; 2) the hybrids with the initial element of non-classical origin. They are almost identical in the analysed languages, suggesting that they are often borrowed and translated rather than created, but if they are created, then this is done by obvious analogy. Some Lithuanian and Latvian hybrids have long been used and included in various dictionaries, and their frequency in the linguistic corpus is quite high. However, most examples of hybrid origin do not exist and probably do not appear in dictionaries due to their rare use, uniqueness, distinctive form or irregularity. The knowledge of hybrid formation and usage can be relevant to the learners of Lithuanian, Latvian, and English, as well as translators, terminologists, and lexicographers.

in neoclassical formations. Traditionally, they consist of a Greek or Latin element, i.e., stems, affixes, and of another one, in case of this analysis, of the Lithuanian and Latvian origin.
The aim of this paper is to find out the diversity of modern Lithuanian and Latvian hybrids with neoclassical final combining forms by applying the methods of corpus linguistics, and to provide insights regarding the reasons for their use.

Theoretical Background
The worldwide globalisation of cultures, and, at the same time, language contacts are as intense as never before. A crucial impact of the English language, which in many cases is presented as the language of progress, technologies, bussiness and science, is observed, too. Cross-cultural communication is very active; thus, English (either directly or as a mediator) is the source of many neologisms and new formations, especially in scientific terminology. Lithuanian and Latvian are also no exception. They are open and receptive to all the innovations caused by intercultural communication.
The studies of Lithuanian and Latvian linguists (Baldunčiks, 1989;Veisbergs, 2012;Rudaitienė, 2007Rudaitienė, , 2014Kvašytė, 2006;Vaicekauskienė, 2014) on the causes of the borrowings, their origin, and borrowing time suggest that the only two Baltic languages, i.e., Lithuanian and Latvian, have a similar history, structure, and are currently experiencing identical globalisation and indisputable influence of English not only on vocabulary and grammar, but also on semantics. Although the influence of English is usually negatively evaluated (e.g., Rudaitienė, 2007), it must be acknowledged in any case that borrowings can be hardly controlled or affected and deserve investigation (Veisbergs, 2012). According to Cabre (1991), "European languages may use similar word-formation processes in search of new terminology" (in Montero-Fleta, 2013).
This study does not attempt to look at different types of Lithuanian and Latvian language hybrids, but rather assumes that both languages use essentially the same international hybrids, usually coming from English speakers; thus, anglicisms can also be referred to as neoclassical elements, as the basis for the formation of hybrids and the structural models of hybrids are also the same.
There are quite a few different studies on loan words, hybrids, and neologisms in many languages, including Lithuanian and Latvian. Often, these studies are directly related to the concepts such as neoclassical elements, neoclassical internationalisms, neoclassical compounds, etc. According to Veisbergs, who refers to modern Latvian borrowings in his research, a "full loan corpus from English consists mainly of neoclassical words" (2012). Montero-Fleta (2013) claims that "[the] use of neoclassical elements is a characteristic of many scientific or technical lexical items". In fact, the research on words with neoclassical terms is sometimes controversial due to the status of those terms (Petropoulou, 2009). The main reason for this controversy is the fact that this word formation has involved borrowed items from Ancient Latin or Greek, but it presents a high degree of productivity. Neoclassical compounds are "at the border of composition and derivation" (Lassere, 2013); therefore, the morphological status of constituent elements of neoclassical compounds has still been debated (Prćić, 2008;Kastovsky, 2009).
Back in 1979, Keinys noted that Lithuanian, as well as other languages, uses the elements of certain international terms in term formation. These international elements are not used as independent words, but they are not considered to be real affixes either (2005). Skujiņa (2002), who analyses the formation of new compound terms in the Latvian language, notes that compounds with international prepositional (aero-, avio-, fono-, etc.) and postpositional (-grāfs, -grāfija, -logs, -loģija, -tēka, etc.) elements added to Latvian stems make the majority of hybrid terms. According to Keinys (2005), the prepositional neoclassical elements are much more common in Lithuanian hybrids than the postpositional ones. The hybrids with postpositional elements are accidental and sometimes used only to make a more vivid or sophisticated expression, to achieve an artistic or other expressive effect, e.g., šunomanija ('dog-mania'), moterofobija ('women-phobia'), etc.
In reference to what has been said above about the structure of words in neoclassical terms described in theoretical sources (e.g., Bauer, 1998), it can be concluded that in Lithuanian and Latvian, as well as in other languages, two main types may be distinguished. With such neoclassical elements, mainly coming from English, hybrids depending on the location of that element in relation to the Lithuanian or Latvian origin can be divided into those with prepositional, i.e., initial, or postpositional, i.e., final, neoclassical combining forms.
Hybrids with the second classical, neoclassical or English elements have received much less attention from terminologists or researchers of neologisms. In order to fill in this gap, further analysis of Lithuanian hybrids with the second final combining element and their analogues in the Latvian language corpus is needed. This corpus-based research has confirmed the assumption that in real use this type of formation is active, productive, its popularity is growing, and the increasing use of English also contributes to this growth.

Methodology of the Research
As already mentioned, hybrids with the final neoclassical origin combining forms were analysed. In spite of the fact that most Greek or Latin origin elements do not exist as independent words in language, they are quite ofen presented as separate lexical units in dictionaries. According to the Prćić (2008), this is probably due to their relevance to formation.
Approximately 50 final neoclassical origin elements were found in the Lithuanian Dictionary of International Words (Vaitkevičiūtė, 2007). Based on the examples collected from various sources, it is assumed that, due to their international status, the same elements exist in Latvian. All of them were found in English, too; however, with different phonetic and flexural expressions, such as Lithuanian -logija, -nautas, -skopas -statas, -zauras; Latvian -loģija, -nauts; -skops, -stats; -zaurs; English -logie, -naut, -scope, -stat, -saur. On the other hand, this study is not aimed at the analysis of English empirical data. But in order to demonstrate that hybrids or their components found in Lithuanian and Latvian also exist in English and to illustrate the universality and spread of the phenomenon of hybridisation, examples are provided for all three languages.
Another task was to find out which word formations of the mixed origin can be made and are used in everyday Lithuanian and Latvian languages. For this reason, a corpus-based analysis was carried out. First, neoclassical final word formations were checked in the Lithuanian web corpus ltTENTEN14. This corpus contains about 800 million words from various websites. Thus, because of its size and most recent data, the corpus can be considered a reliable source for the research into the real Lithuanian language usage. The Latvian examples were searched in the Latvian web corpus lvTENTEN14, while the English examples were searched in the English web corpus enTENTEN13. All corpora are available on Sketch Engine platform, which provides different tools for language analysis, too.

Structural Types of Hybrids
Before analysing the structural diversity of hybrids with the final neoclassical combining form, of note is the fact that the Lithuanian and Latvian languages have a high abundance of affixes, predominantly suffixes, but the derivatives with international elements are also very popular. The analogy with classical and neoclassical derivatives has a great influence on the production of hybrids. The structure is sometimes borrowed because hybrids are not necessarily originally created. Sometimes they become hybrids when the classical second element remains, and the first element is translated into Lithuanian or Latvian.
The analysis of examples and various theoretical sources showed that two main structural types of hybrids are determined. They can be observed in many modern languages, including English (Keinys, 2005;Prćić, 2008). The first type is more international, with both classical or neoclassical elements. The other type involves the hybrids with one (initial) native/national or foreign origin element and the second (final) neoclassical element. According to the ratio of the elements, they are usually determinative, because the first element narrows the meaning of the second one. The derivational meaning of all examples does not usually differ from the lexical meaning. Besides, although theoretically possible, not many hybrids with the figurative meaning were found.
For the purposes of this article, elements of the Greek origin have been chosen: -nautas (LT), -nauts (LV)/ -naut (EN), which is usually used in compounds in the figurative meaning rather than in the direct meaning related to swimming in the sea or rowing, and -manija (LT), -mānija (LV)/ -mania (EN), which in the compound words shows the connection with love, great atraction, passion or even addiction for someone. These final combining forms in Lithuanian and Latvian compound words occur quite often. The abundance and diversity of structures with this element may also be due to the fact that the Lithuanian manija and Latvian mānija are also used as independent words (analogous to the element -fobija/ -phobia), and therefore its meaning is transparent.
This subtype, with the first element of foreign language, not a classical one, is also characteristic of English. Similar examples with an identical initial element were found in Lithuanian and Latvian as well, as in example (1) There are hybrids of various origins with the first proper noun in the prepositional place, e.g. Lithuanian knutomanija ('Knut-mania') 3 or Latvian Alonsomānija ('Alonso-mania') 4 . All hybrids of this subtype are etymologically considered to be normative, international words. 1 The one who has successfully entered the world of literature. 2 Pandamania was the name of the period when it was considered to be a matter of honour for every Zoo to buy a panda 3 Knutas/ Knut was polar bear born in Berlin Zoo. 4 Fernando Alonso is a famos Spanish racing driver.
2b The hybrids with the first element of English origin. They were borrowed or came to Lithuanian and Latvian via English. Sometimes, in Baltic languages, this first element is already a well established, normative lexical unit, e.g., kompiuteriomanija ('computer-mania'), keksomanija and keksmānija ('cakes-mania'), but there are also hybrids with non-standard words, e.g., in Lithuanian, shopingomanija/šopingomanija, skateboardomanija (see example (2)). Note that neither skateboard-mania nor shopping-mania are found in the English web corpus.
Often, in the hybrids of this subtype, like in subtype 2a, the first element is a proper noun: 2c The last subtype of hybrids, due to their originality, unexpected sound or content, is markable but also most problematic. These hybrids are with the first element that is the stem of a Lithuanian or Latvian word or a borrowing that has long been considered as Lithuanian, e.g. blynomanija, darbomanija, druskomanija, knygomanija, paminklomanija ('pancake-mania' 'work-mania', 'salt-mania', 'book-mania', 'monument-mania'), kalbonautai ('language-nauts') or Latvian anglomānija, lielummānija ('English-mania', 'Megalomania, Grandiosity'). These are the most obvious hybrids, because the origin of the compoundness is transparent, e.g., as in example (3): This subtype also contains hybrids with initial proper Lituanian and Latvian elements (anthroponyms), such as Grybauskaitėmanija 5 , Kazlauskomanija 6 , Pinnomānija 7 ).
As for the hybrids found in the English corpus with the first element of the English origin and regarded as native, such as environaut, pumpkinmania, Stingomania, it appears that they should belong to this subtype 2c, while subtype 2b in English simply does not exist even in theory.
The first element in all hybrids, if it is the stem of an independent word, is usually a noun, e.g., Lithuanian juokopedija ('laugh-pedia'), Latvian barikadopēdija ('barricade-pedia'). However, with final combining neoclassical forms such as -pedija (LT), -pēdija (LV), -pedia (EN), we can find examples where the initial element is an adjective, e.g., Lithuanian linksmapedija and its equivalent in English corpus funnypedia.
The derivation of these hybrids is sometimes questionable. The first element of the Lithuanian compound words should be without an inflexion, and the connecting vowel can be any, except the vowel e. In the analysed examples, vowel o could be considered as connecting. 5 Grybauskaitė is the former President of Lithuania. 6 Kazlauskas is a famous Lithuanian basketball trainer. 7 Pinnis is a famous Latvian painter.
However, it may seem that these formations are a simple combination of nouns, the first word of which is a noun of masculine gender used in the descriptive possessive case with the ending -o: absurdo-manija, roboto-manija ('absurd-mania', 'robot-mania'). Irregular derivation is obvious when the first element is used in the plural with its original ending -ų: The usual pattern of combining simple words rather than derivatives is not followed, e.g., pirk-im-o-manija, keik-sm-o-manija ('buying-mania', 'swearing-mania'). Sometimes atypical derrivations with the third element, i.e., a prefix, occur, e.g., Lithuanian pseudodarbo-manija ('pseudo-work-mania'). The compounds of three elements are not very common, e.g., Latvian sierra-kūk-mānija ('cheesecake-mania').
Some of these hybrids have long been used and included in various dictionaries, and their frequency in the linguistic corpus is quite high. However, there are only scarce instances of most examples of the hybrid origin (1-3 times) observed in the corpus; they do not exist and probably do not appear in dictionaries due to their rare use, uniqueness, distinctive form or irregularity. Such hybrids are a good indication of the culinary, melomaniac, technological fashion and topical issues of the public in the particular period, represented in the analysed corpora.

Reasons for Hybridisation
This study was aimed at finding out the pragmatics of frequent use of hybrids and the main reasons for their intense borrowing, translation, or creation. The most important, extralinguistic reason is the impact of the extremely intensive technological progress. It is not possible to create new concepts based only on the stems and/or affixes of the mother tongue. Mixed derivatives of Latin and Greek origin easily become neoclassical new words, and in practice acquire the status of an international term.
Because of the high productivity, tradition, and suitability of the second element in a compound, an analogy helps to create a hybrid. For example, the element -grama always associates with something that is written and is usually not written in hand, e.g. sapnograma ('dream-gram'), sielograma ('soul-gram'). Analogy works not only for creating or borrowing hybrids with second neoclassical elements, as in example (5), but also for compounds with newer ones, such as -pedija/ -pedia, e.g., alupedija ('beer-pedia'); -landas/ -land; -vizija/ -vision, e.g., Lithuanian kaimynovizija ('neighbor-vision'), etc. Karkarlandas (an original name of a play-space) with the first onomatopoeic element karkar that imitates the sound of a crow.
In terms of stylistic text expression, hybrids are the means that often give the text of publicity or online communication a distinction, originality, irony, sarcasm or even cause a comic effect due to their very different components. Hansen wrote about this phenomenon in English and its examples (tradeocracy or weatherology) in 1961 (Sanchez-Stockhammer, 2011), and today we are still recording that the hybrids have not lost this stylistic connotation.

Conclusions
This study has highlighted that there is no no unanimous approach of researchers towards hybridisation in contemporary linguistics. The hybrid has had a long history of carrying in itself a controversial status. However, the present-day language usage in the context of globalisation, glocalization, and intercultural communication reveals that hybrids have become accepted and legitimate in many different fields of the Lithuanian and Latvian language. The analysed examples with neoclassical elements in both languages and sometimes in other languages, including English, suggest that hybrids as such are usually borrowed and made with the national initial element according to the derivational analogy, or are simply translated. Thus, at the same time, hybrids expand the range of choices to a modern language user.