# Semasiological Perspectives on the Maritime Vocabulary of Dalmatia and Kvarner

*Perspectives sémasiologiques sur le vocabulaire maritime de la Dalmatie et du Kvarner*

Nikola Vuletić and Hrvoje Bazina

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

**Electronic version**

URL: https://journals.openedition.org/geolinguistique/33125

DOI: 10.4000/15bek

ISSN: 2650-8176

**Publisher**

UGA Éditions/Université Grenoble Alpes

**Printed version**

ISBN: 978-2-37747-578-0

ISSN: 0761-9081

**Electronic reference**

Nikola Vuletić and Hrvoje Bazina, "Semasiological Perspectives on the Maritime Vocabulary of Dalmatia and Kvarner", *Géolinguistique* [Online], 25 | 2025, Online since 10 December 2025, connection on 10 December 2025. URL: http://journals.openedition.org/geolinguistique/33125; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/15bek

This text was automatically generated on December 10, 2025.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

The text only may be used under licence CC BY-SA 4.0. All other elements (illustrations, imported files) may be subject to specific use terms.
# Semasiological Perspectives on the Maritime Vocabulary of Dalmatia and Kvarner

*Perspectives sémasiologiques sur le vocabulaire maritime de la Dalmatie et du Kvarner*

Nikola Vuletić and Hrvoje Bazina

## 1. Introduction

<footnote n="1">1 The maritime vocabulary of Croatian coastal and insular vernaculars has received remarkable scholarly attention due to its composite nature, which reflects a centuries-long process of Mediterranean acculturation of the Adriatic Slavs. This process included extensive lexical borrowing from Greek, autochthonous Romance varieties (the so-called “Dalmatian Romance”), and various Italo-Romance dialects, foremost Venetian. This is particularly true in the lexicon of marine fauna, with Vojmir Vinja’s remarkable etymological and motivational study (JaFa) serving as the reference point for all subsequent research. While Vinja’s extensive fieldwork in the 1950s admittedly owes some debt to the classical linguistic geography, his work primarily focused on the structural-motivational aspects of dialectal vocabulary rather than on the geolinguistic interpretation of its spatial distribution (cf. Bazina, 2024: 34–37). Drawing from Vinja’s experience and Deanović’s fieldwork for ALM (e.g. Deanović, 1959, 1966, 1967), the past two decades have seen several research initiatives more in line with the geolinguistic methodology. One of these, the *Linguistic Atlas of Maritime Culture in Dalmatia and Kvarner* (JAPRK), was first presented in this journal (Vuletić & Skračić, 2016). By the completion of the fieldwork, the JAPRK survey network has been significantly expanded to meet the growing interest of local communities (Vuletić et al., 2022: 200–202). In the semantic field of marine fauna, where greater diatopic variation was expected than in other sectors of the maritime vocabulary, JAPRK has been supplemented with microareal research based on an exceptionally dense network</footnote>
(cf. here 2). With the first series of JAPRK onomasiological maps still in preparation, this paper deals with several semasiological aspects of Croatian vernacular vocabulary of marine fauna, much in the spirit of the qualitative geolinguistic analysis proposed by such scholars as Jaberg (1936), Terracini (1963, 1964), and Telmon (1989). In doing so, we also address an important methodological issue concerning network density, i.e. the complementary relationship between macroareal and microareal tools in linguistic geography.

## 2. Methodological remarks

2. The five semasiological maps examined in this paper present five lexical types, recorded in Croatian vernaculars of Dalmatia and the Kvarner Gulf, that have undergone semantic differentiation, with different meanings covering different geographic areas, or, as Jaberg (1936: 42–77) called them, *aires sémantiques*. As such, these types are not the result of linguistic analyses but rather forms referring to the object of the analyses (cf. Bazina, 2024: 23, no. 18), in this case a lexical meaning.¹ We have chosen predominant vernacular realisations as type forms, an option frequently used in the process of lexical typification (cf. Regis, 2019). Each of our semasiological maps features geographically differentiated meanings of a given lexical type, represented by different colours and rendered by the respective taxa, e.g. the type ⌜ugor⌝ displays the meanings ‘Anguilla anguilla’ and ‘Conger conger’.² These maps are based on combined data from the respective onomasiological maps, which reflect the concepts of the JAPRK questionary (Q)—in this case animal species. For the sake of transparency of our analysis, the semasiological maps are accompanied by the respective onomasiological maps with typified data, following the principle of the predominant vernacular realisation, except in the case of ⌜pizdica⌝ (see further below).

3. Following the guidelines set out by Jaberg (1936: 44), the general aim of our maps analysis is to shed light on the conditions of formation, concurrence and geographical distribution of different meanings (cf. Jaberg, 1936: 44). With maritime lexicon representing an instance *par excellence* of what has been labelled *cultural vocabulary*, lexical areas are interpreted as the result of choices made by different points within a common cultural and social setting (cf. Terracini, 1964: 167).³ Such an approach underlines the eminently historical character of linguistic geography, as pointed out by several authors, most eloquently by Telmon (1989).

4. Although Jaberg (1936: 42) stated that the linguistic geography had “no pretension to create a corpus of particular doctrines”, he nevertheless endeavoured to formulate some principles of the interpretation of linguistic maps—a kind of methodological backbone of what he called “appreciation of linguistic probabilities”. We are, for our part, fully convinced of their heuristic value. In fact, as we shall see, four of our maps correspond simultaneously to Jaberg’s typology of “aires exclusives” and “aires contiguës” (or almost), while one, that of ⌜pizdica⌝, fits the case of “types lexicologiques décadents”, that is, of “aires sémantiques disséminées d’un type lexicologique en recul” (cf. Jaberg, 1936: 44, 45, 47). That being said, Jaberg’s masterly analysis is based on the materials of ALF and AIS, classical examples of macroareal (= großräumige, cf. Jaberg, 1955) linguistic atlases. Findings relying on such geolinguistic materials may risk overgeneralization due to their relative network density. As Camproux (1962: 760) observed, “on s’est satisfait d’une vue d’aigle”, while “l’humble attitude du ver luisant qui
éclaire sa lanterne à hauteur de ventre” would have enabled us to observe the real course of dialectal boundaries.

A denser survey network “may help to minimize validity and reliability problems” (König, 2010: 499), inherent to the geolinguistic method. It can also complicate observations on clear-cut limits of “semantic areas”. Jaberg was fully aware of this problem, as demonstrated in his essay on “Großräumige und kleinräumige Sprachatlanten” (Jaberg, 1955), yet he tended to identify macroareal atlases with national atlases. While JAPRK is undeniably a regional linguistic atlas, it nevertheless covers a considerable space, stretching over roughly 90% of Croatia’s 5,835.3 km-long coastline (more than the total length of the mainland coast of France, as a point of comparison). Previous experience, notably Vinja’s fieldwork for JaFa, suggested that the JAPRK’s survey network, designed to capture the essential geolinguistic structures of the maritime lexicon in general, might fail to do so in the case of marine fauna.⁴ To achieve a more informed geolinguistic analysis in this sector, supplementary fine-grained fieldwork, almost “point par point” as advised by Camproux (loc. cit.), was conducted with the same questionnaire in Northern Dalmatia (Vuletić & Skračić, 2018) and Central Dalmatia (Bazina, 2024) and is now underway in the Kvarner Gulf (Vuletić & Bazina ms.). The maps presented in this paper are thus based on multiple, yet methodologically homogenous sources. To distinguish these sources, JAPRK points are marked by circles, and those from our supplementary research by squares. In addition, some of Vinja’s points from JaFa, marked by triangles, were included to provisionally complete our ongoing research in certain areas. The following analysis concerns not only the geolinguistic interpretation of the maps but also the methodological interface of macroareal and microareal research, which together constitute the combined basis of our maps. We refer to the geolinguistic structures reflecting the basic JAPRK network as *macrostructures*, and to those reflecting the supplementary network as *microstructures*.

## 3. Analysis of the maps

Note: Throughout this paper, we will refer to the traditional terms *Čakavian* and *Štokavian*, denoting two macrodialects present on the Croatian coast, although they admittedly lack solid grounding in terms of historical and comparative linguistics. The same applies to the label *Dalmatian Romance*, used broadly to denote autochthonous Romance varieties of the Dalmatian coast, from the Kvarner Gulf to the Bay of Kotor, characterized by conservative features. We will make frequent use of the following abbreviations: Cr. – Croatian, DalmR. – Dalmatian Romance, ER. – Early Romance, Gr. – Greek, It. – Italian, Lat. – Latin, Ven. – Venetian, PSl. – Proto-Slavic.
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1. – Map S-1. ‘ugor’.</figcaption></figure>

7

Map S-1. ‘ugor’. Based on maps O-1. Anguilla anguilla (Q383) and O-2. Conger conger (Q385) (cf. appendix). A rare case of Slavic fish name transplanted from the continental Slavic *Urheimat* to the Adriatic shores, ‘ugor’ < PSl. *ogorb* (ERHJ II, s.v. *Ügor*; cf. ERHSJ III, s.v. *ugor*; JaFa I: 266) has experienced a threefold fate: it has retained the original Slavic meaning ‘eel’ on the coast and the inner islands (Krk, Rab, Pag) of the Northern Adriatic; it has come to designate another eel-shaped fish, the European conger, in most of the Central Adriatic; it has disappeared in Southern Dalmatia, as well as on the outer Kvarner islands and in the Zadar archipelago, except for its southernmost fringes.⁵ This is due to the presence of several Romance loanwords. For *Anguilla anguilla* (map O-1): ‘angulja’ and ‘jegulja’, both ultimately from Lat. *ANGUĪLLA*, the latter quite old, judging from the denasalisation *an# > Ę > e* and its presence elsewhere in the South Slavic area (ERHSJ I, s.v. *jegulja*; ERHJ I, s.v. *jegulja*; Ligorio, 2014: 77), the former somewhat younger, with no denasalisation and exclusively Adriatic; ‘bižat’ < Ven. *bisoto* (ERHSJ I, s.v. *bižot*; Ja Fa I: 157), originally a designation for smaller eel (Vuletić & Skračić, 2018: 41–42).
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2. – Anguilla anguilla (Map O-1).</figcaption></figure>

<footnote n="8">8 For Conger conger (map O-2): 「grug」, 「gruj」, 「grum」, 「grun」, and 「grunj」, all presenting areally specific developments of the DalmR. reflexes of Lat. CONGER, or rather ER. *CONGRU (ERHSJ I, s.v. grug; Ligorio, 2014: 116).</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Figure 3. — Conger conger (Map 0-2).</figcaption></figure>

9 The reason for the loss of ‘ugor’ in much of the (continental) South Slavic area must have been the early borrowing of ANGUILLA, while the necessity to distinguish between eel and conger on the Adriatic shores likely contributed to its preservation on the western periphery. This preservation followed different solutions: in the Northern Adriatic, the retention of ‘ugor’ ‘eel’ and the borrowing of Romance designations for conger; in the Central Adriatic, the semantic shift of ‘ugor’ to ‘conger’ and the borrowing of Romance designations for eel. In this way, the Adriatic area of ‘ugor’ is made of two exclusive semantic areas, in Jaberg’s terms, that of ‘ugor’ ‘eel’ and ‘ugor’ ‘conger’. These areas are geographically separated yet very close to one another. Attestations from supplementary fieldwork (blue squares) on the southern fringes of the ‘ugor’ ‘eel’ area help to narrow the costal discontinuity zone to barely 25 miles. Centred around Zadar, and with the identical distribution of the designations for eel and conger as on the islands facing the city (cf. maps 0-1 and 0-2), this zone may reflect the original Dalmatian Romance conditions of the former capital of Byzantine Dalmatia, with a subsequent introduction of Ven. bisoto. Alternatively, it is possible that the two ‘ugor’ areas were once in direct contact, and that the coastal vernaculars around Zadar eventually adopted the type ‘grug’ from nearby islands, owing to the prestige of insular fishing culture. It is worth noting that these vernaculars belong to the Southern Čakavian dialectal group that stretches all the way to Central Dalmatia and forms the very heart of the innovative ‘ugor’ ‘conger’ area, while the type ‘grug’ is characteristic mostly of Central Čakavian vernaculars.⁶ In this respect, it is interesting to observe the reactive character (cf. Telmon, 1989) of Povljana, a migrant Southern Čakavian point on the island of Pag situated in the Central Čakavian area. Exposed to the lexical pressure of the city of Pag, Povljana has endorsed ‘grug’ as ‘eel’, while retaining ‘ugor’ ‘conger’.
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4. – Map S-2. ‘lokarda’.</figcaption></figure>

10 Map S-2. 'lokarda'. Based on maps O-3. Scomber scombrus (Q437) and O-4. Scomber japonicus (Q438).

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>Figure 5. – O-3. Scomber scombrus (Q437).</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>Figure 6. — O-4. Scomber japonicus (Q438).</figcaption></figure>

11 From Lat. LACĚRTA (ERHSJ I, s.v. argitula) or, more likely, *lacarta (Vuletić & Skračić, 2018: 109), an early DalmR. loanword, as evidenced by the treatment of Romance protonic a (felt short) > o. Attested across our network in two meanings: ‘Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus)’ in the area from Eastern Istria continuing down to the borders of Northern Dalmatia, including the Kvarner islands of Cres, Krk, and (partially) Rab, and sporadically in the central part of Northern Dalmatia; ‘Atlantic chub mackerel (Scomber japonicus)’ elsewhere.

12 Since the two species are very similar, Vinja (JaFa I: 280) speculates that both were designated by the same term in DalmR. vernaculars. If such polysemy ever existed in the Romance substrate, it proved intolerable for Croatian fishermen. Several lexical types appeared to designate the species not called 'lokarda', most of them limited to a specific area, as shown by our maps 0-3 and 0-4. For *Scomber japonicus*: Cr. innovations 'plavica' and 'ljulja', and Ven. loanword 'lancarda' < *lanzardo*. For *Scomber scombrus*: 'skuša' of disputed etymology (cf. JE III, s.v. skuša; ERHJ II, s.v. skuša), Cr. innovation 'vrnut', Ven. loanword 'škombar' < *sgombro*, and 'skrdinula', possibly a DalmR. loanword (cf. JE III, s.v. skrdinula).

13 The area of 'lokarda' 'Scomber scombrus' generally overlaps—with the exception of the island of Cres instead of Pag—with that of 'ugor' 'eel', yet its borders with the 'lokarda' 'Scomber japonicus' area are fuzzy. The two semantic areas are exclusive but "à limites flottantes" (Jaberg, 1935: 50), which strongly supports Vinja's hypothesis. This becomes even more evident when we include supplementary data (squares): the microstructure reveals an important interpenetration zone of the two areas on the NW edge of Northern Dalmatia, while further corroborating the patchwork found by JAPRK in the central part of the region. The regional capital Zadar seems to have played no
role in creating this intricate lexical landscape on the mainland, aligning itself, as on
the map S-1, with its islands, where *lacarta* > ‘lokarda’ has probably never been
polysemous.

14 The preceding semasiological maps served as examples of macroareal semantic differentiation: both ‘ugor’ ‘eel’ and ‘ugor’ ‘conger’, as just as ‘lokarda’ ‘Atlantic mackerel’ and ‘lokarda’ ‘Atlantic chub mackerel’, cover extensive portions of the Eastern Adriatic coast. With the following two maps, we turn to lexical types that in their semantic differentiation display a different typology, namely macroareal vs. microareal.

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>Figure 7. – Map S-3. ‘gavun’.</figcaption></figure>

15 Map S-3. ‘gavun’. Based on maps O-5. Spicara smaris (Q425) and O-6. Atherina hepsetus (Q449) (cf. appendix).
<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>Figure 9. – O-6. Atherina hepsetus (Q449).</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /></figure>

<footnote n="16">16 Contrary to Skok (ERHSJ I, s.v. *agun*) and Vinja (JaFa I: 392–393), clearly from Ven. *agòn* (ERHJ I, s.v. *agun*; Vuletić & Skračić, 2018: 63; cf. also Filipi, 2020), a term designating</footnote>
several small fish species in different Venetian dialects, foremost those of the *Spicara* genus, and notably male *Spicara smaris*.⁷ We distinguish this type from the co-etymological ṛgavun¹, registered on some Kvarner islands with historically important Venetophone centres (cf. map O-6), phonetically more faithful to the Venetian source form. The distribution is clear-cut: most of the JAPRK network, except for the Kvarner area, has ṛgavun¹ ‘Mediterranean sand smelt (Atherina hepsetus)’; a microarea corresponding to the territory of the ancient district of Šibenik has ṛgavun¹ ‘picarel (Spicara smaris)’.⁸ The supplementary microareal survey does not alter this overall picture, it only adds to the accuracy of the conclusion. The perfect correspondence between lexical and administrative borders suggests that the ṛgavun¹ ‘Spicara smaris’ area was formed no earlier than the 15th century, when the district of Šibenik reached its definite extent on the coast (cf. Kolanović, 1995). This is somewhat confusing, since some other designations of *Spicara smaris* are very old, attesting to early interest in this species: for example, ṛgira¹ < Lat. GĚRRES is without a doubt a DalmR. loanword, as evidenced by the intact initial velar stop (ERHSJ I, s.v. gara; JaFa I: 346).

17

According to the principle of geographic coherence (cf. Telmon, 1989), the Northern Dalmatian insular microarea of ṛgira¹ can be interpreted as a remnant of a much larger area of this lexical type, nowadays characteristic of Central and Southern Dalmatia (cf. map O-5). Therefore, some external factor—most likely the introduction of Venetian designations for the fish of the *Spicara* genus—must have reshaped the original lexical landscape of Northern Dalmatia, with the Zadar area accepting *ménola* > ṛmanula¹, and Šibenik area adopting *agòn* > ṛgavun¹, both for *Spicara smaris*. In this respect, Šibenik shows remarkable originality and vitality (in the sense of Terracini’s writings; cf. also Telmon, 1989) against the rest of Dalmatia that selected *agòn* > ṛgavun¹ for *Atherina hepsetus*. Moreover, it goes a step further by adapting Gr. βρέφος (JaFa I: 397-398; JE I, s.v. *brfun*) to the morphological model offered by ṛgavun¹ (Vuletić & Skračić, 2018: 44), thereby creating ṛbrfun¹ ‘Atherina hepsetus’ (cf. map O-6).
<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>Figure 10. – Map S-4. ‘pauk’.</figcaption></figure>

18 Map S-4. ‘pauk’. Based on maps O-7. Trachinidae (Q435) and O-8. Uranoscopus scaber (Q436).⁹

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /><figcaption>Figure 11. – O-7. Trachinidae (Q435).</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_14.png" /><figcaption>Figure 12. – O-8. Uranoscopus scaber (Q436).</figcaption></figure>

19 An obvious metaphor, connecting a fish capable of inflicting painful sting with a spider (*pauk*, cf. JaFa I: 137). The compact area of 「pauk¹ 'weever' covers most of Central Dalmatia and the SE portion of Northern Dalmatia, reaching the outskirts of Zadar, where it meets the area of 「ranj¹ < Ven. *ragno* (cf. map O-7). As is the case with 「ugor¹ 'conger' (cf. map S-1), its NW limit falls very close to the Southern Čakavian – Central Čakavian dialect border.

20 In the SE, a contiguous microarea has 「pauk¹ ‘stargazer’. This fish is equipped with two venomous spikes on its gill covers, so the motivation is essentially the same as with 「pauk¹ ‘weever’. We might be dealing not with a case of semantic differentiation but with the results of two independent denomination processes relying on the same metaphor, however, the geographic contiguity of the two areas warns against that possibility. In fact, the area of 「pauk¹ ‘stargazer’ coincides with the one where the designations of weever belong to the type 「dragana¹ < Gr. δράκαινα, an old epichoric loanword probably mediated by some early DalmR. variety, further modified by the euphemistic intervention of Cr. *drag* ‘dear’ (cf. Bazina 2024: 140). It is easily conceivable that the westernmost vernaculars of this area, while not participating in the innovation of the neighbouring area, borrowed one of its fish names, fitting the needs of the local lexical system from a motivational point of view.

21 As far as methodology is concerned, this map is a good example of the importance of complementary macroareal and microareal geolinguistic research. The JAPRK network, although seemingly quite dense in this area, might lead one to believe that the innovation 「pauk¹ ‘stargazer’ is restricted to a tiny zone where the island of Hvar approaches the mainland and where both locations attesting this type, Brist (on the mainland) and Sućuraj (on Hvar), belong to the Štokavian macrodialect. Furthermore,
since the population of Sućuraj came from the mainland, it is reasonable to assume that
the innovation originated there. However, the microstructure shows not only that two
apparently isolated Štokavian points participate in a broader microarea, but also that
the centre of that area is formed by Čakavian vernaculars of the island of Korčula.
Furthermore, it is worth noting that the five rural points on Korčula attesting 'pauk'
'stargazer' show remarkable solidarity against two small urban centres on two opposite
sides of the island, Korčula and Vela Luka, which have the type 'bežmek' 'stargazer'.
Since the latter type is well documented in the Dubrovnik area, further south (cf.
map 0-8), there are solid grounds to believe that it reflects a more recent contact with
the Southern Dalmatian capital (as is the case with 'ovrata' 'gilt-head bream, Sparus
aurata', cf. Bazina, 2024: 111).

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /><figcaption>Figure 13. – Map S-5. ‘pizdica”.</figcaption></figure>

22 Map S-5. ‘pizdica’. Based on the data for as many as eleven concepts found in the JAPRK questionnaire, and several referents, mostly molluscs, not present in the questionnaire but mentioned by informants during our fieldwork. Situations where the informants warned us that a certain sea animal we did not ask about was named *pizdica* were not rare. Learning from this experience, we eventually introduced a supplementary semasiological question regarding *pizdica*.

23 Unfortunately, this intervention did not affect all our surveys, so the present map is necessarily incomplete. Given these circumstances, we provide no onomasiological maps for ‘pizdica’ here. A transparent type, it represents a diminutive form of *pizda*, colloquial and synchronically vulgar term for female genitalia. The association of open shells, particularly of those Bivalvia species with longitudinal bilaterally symmetrical meat, with this part of human anatomy is probably as old as our naming of the world.¹⁰ The present map is a good illustration of how persistent such motivation can be in folk
taxonomy. Nonetheless, the apparent semantic mess on the map shows that it is also subject to changing social scruples and restrictions. That is, the actual geographical dispersion of ῇpizdica¹ together with the complexity of its referential domain likely reflects what Jaberg (1936: 43, 47) called “*type lexicologique décadent*” or “*type lexicologique en recul*”. The historical reasons for a “retreat” of a wordform considered obscene are easy to list, from common social restraints in a Christian cultural setting to the ever-growing access to formal education, and, in the case of seafood, a necessity to reach broader markets. What concerns us here is the geographical and denotational pattern of that retreat, which in the case of ῇpizdica¹, turns out to be quite interesting.

24

Let us first observe the absence of this lexical type in Southern Dalmatia: either it was never present in this area or social restraints in the ancient Republic of Dubrovnik were more efficient that elsewhere. On the opposite side of our network, the entire Kvarner Bay must have known this lexical type, as isolated attestations in that area seem to suggest. Second, the most frequent referent of ῇpizdica¹ is, according to our data, the Mediterranean mussel, *Mytilus galloprovincialis*. This is hardly surprising, given the (internal) anatomy of this highly valued mollusc. The JAPRK network shows an important area of this subtype in Central Dalmatia, involving urban centres of Split, Trogir, and Hvar, with scattered attestations further to the NW (black circles). The microstructure (black squares), on the other hand, reveals that the Central Dalmatian area of ῇpizdica¹ ‘Mytilus galloprovincialis’ is quite dense, particularly along the coast, but it also identifies important remnants of this subtype in the Zadar archipelago, a geolinguistic structure that the macrostructure fails to document.¹¹ *Modiolus barbatus*, the bearded horse mussel, is quite similar, therefore, the attestations of ῇpizdica¹ denoting this mollusc in Northern Dalmatia (orange) can be attached to the area of ῇpizdica¹ ‘Mytilus galloprovincialis’. Whether it is hazardous to suppose that this is the primary meaning of ῇpizdica¹ depends on the interpretation of many other meanings documented in our research. We cannot reasonably exclude the scenario of initial polysemy.¹²

25

One could even imagine that ῇpizdica¹ was once the designation *par excellence* for seashells, except perhaps in Southern Dalmatia, probably denoting the most common or most valued species in each specific ecoregion. Nevertheless, going back to Jaberg’s teaching on dispersed semantic areas of retreating lexical types, we hypothesize that initially ῇpizdica¹ could have had one meaning, probably ‘Mytilus galloprovincialis’, in most of the Croatian Adriatic. Facing growing social restraints, this lexical type would have “pulled back”, so to say, to less valued referents, rarely named outside the local context, some of those not even remotely recalling the initial motivational impulse. This process of extreme semantic differentiation would have followed the pattern of local innovations, occasionally giving rise to relatively compact semantic microareas, such as ῇpizdica¹ ‘Cerastoderma edule’ on the island of Pašman (light blue), or ῇpizdica¹ ‘Naria spurca’ on the northwesternmost Zadar islands (magenta).

## 4. Conclusion

26

In the chapter “Methodological remarks”, we presented two primary objectives of this paper: from the methodological perspective, a brief discussion of the process of establishing a survey network, i.e. the implications encountered after the selection of survey points; and from the analytical point of view, the geolinguistic interpretation of
several semasiological maps, following Jaberg’s heuristic principles on the semantic differentiation of lexical phenomena. Establishing a network represents a particularly demanding phase of the research, where shortcomings are apparently inevitable. An excessively dense survey network would certainly raise many challenging questions, particularly when it comes to lexical types confined to very narrow areas (i.e. *geolinguistic noise*).

27

On the other hand, a thin raster can lead to a more balanced map, but it undoubtedly also hinders crucial attestations, especially when dealing with the historical dimension of geolinguistic structures. This problem was amended by introducing the *combined basemap*, which integrates data from multiple networks of different density, yet mostly collected using the same set of questions on the lexicon of marine fauna. Microstructural data were collected through the “*point par point*” fieldwork method, an idea taken from traditional linguistic geography. The *combined basemap* offers both a broad insight into the spatial distribution of different semantic areas associated with the same word form and the potential to retrieve data as detailed as needed. The result, we believe, is a precise analysis of geolinguistic macrostructures and microstructures, which are clearly observable at different levels of network density. Semasiological maps have already proved useful in revealing linguistic and cultural behavioural patterns of basilects (cf. Jaberg, 1936). However, even though Jaberg’s innovative ideas were mostly met with approval (cf. e.g. Bruneau, 1937; Malkiel, 2016), it seems that modern linguistic geography is more concerned with the application of exact quantitative methods, which often lack proper philological analysis, than with the interpretation of individual onomasiological and semasiological maps, especially when it comes to the analysis of geolinguistic structures. This contribution attempts to partially fill this gap.

28

We have discussed several semasiological and onomasiological maps, trying to shed light on the dynamics of geolinguistic structures in the Eastern Adriatic, as reflected in the spatial distribution of the lexicon of marine fauna. The first two maps show exclusive semantic macroareas of different meanings of the ‘ugor’ (cf. map S-1) and ‘lokarda’ (cf. map S-2) types, with an almost identical spatial pattern. In the case of the ‘ugor’ lexical type, Central Čakavian points in Northern Dalmatia represent a strong buffer zone between two mutually exclusive macroareas. However, as the accompanying onomasiological maps show (cf. maps O-1 to O-4), Northern Dalmatia is an area of important lexical dynamics, especially when it comes to the relationship between mainland and island points, manifested, on the one hand, in the conservation of the ‘grug’ or ‘skrdinula’ types, and on the other, in the acquisition of Venetian loanwords (e.g. *bisoto* and *lanzarda*). It is perhaps not surprising that in this colourful geolinguistic context, smaller areas emerge with their reactive character, often a non-negligible feature of migrant points (cf. Bazina, 2024). This is the case with Povljana, where a specific semantic shift between the ‘ugor’ and ‘grug’ types has occurred (cf. map S-1). Two maps (S-3 and S-4) deal with the semantic differentiation between macroareas and microareas. In the case of the map S-3 and following onomasiological maps, it is shown that the original lexical landscape in Northern Dalmatia has changed mainly because of the introduction of various Venetian names for fish of the Spicara genus (e.g. *ménola* and *agòn*). In addition, the discussion of map O-6, where points belonging to the old Šibenik district created the ‘brfun’ ‘Atherina hepsetus’ type, leads us to the conclusion that morphological phenomena
frequently indicate remarkable linguistic vitality (cf. Terracini, 1964). While these
conclusions are based on the JAPRK's macro-network, supplementary material
certainly contributes to a better understanding of the history of ῾pauk' 'stargazer' in
Central Dalmatia (cf. map S-4). The last semasiological map (S-5) refers to Jaberg's idea
of "type lexicologique décadent" or "type lexicologique en recul", illustrated both by the
large number of different semantic values and their intricate geographical distribution.
This so-called accident sémantique is easily attributed to the affective stimulus of the
word form pizdica. Our interpretation, based on microstructural attestations, marks just
one possible explanation of the extreme semantic differentiation of ῾pizdica', but the
history of this lexical type remains rather elusive.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

AIS = JABERG Karl & JUD Jakob, 1928–1940, *Sprach- und Sachatlas Italiens und der Südschweiz*, Zolfingen, Ringier, 8 vols.

ALF = GILLIÉRON Jules & EDMONT Edmond, 1902–1910, *Atlas linguistique de la France*, Paris, Champion, 9 vols.

BAZINA Hrvoje, 2024, *Arealna distribucija leksika morske faune u srednjoj Dalmaciji, I–II*, PhD
dissertation, Sveučilište u Zadru, Zadar (Croatia).

BRUNEAU Charles, 1937, "Linguistique française (1936)", *Revue de linguistique romane*, t. 13, pp. 1-46.

CAMPROUX Charles, 1962, *Essai de géographie linguistique du Gévaudan*, t. 2, Paris, Presses universitaires de France.

DEANOVIĆ Mirko, 1958, “Terminologia marinara e peschereccia a Ragusavecchia (Cavtat)”, *Studia Romanica et Anglica Zagrabiensia*, no. 5, pp. 3–31.

DEANOVIĆ Mirko, 1966, “Lingvistički atlas Mediterana II. Anketa na Visu (Komiža)”, *Rad JAZU*, vol. 14, no. 334, pp. 5–35.

DEANOVIĆ Mirko, 1967, “Lingvistički atlas Mediterana III. Anketa u Salima na Dugom otoku”, *Rad JAZU*, vol. 15, no. 348, pp. 27–60.

ERHJ I = MATASOVIĆ Ranko, PRONK Tijmen, IVŠIĆ Dubravka & BROZOVIĆ RONČEVIĆ Dunja, 2016, *Etimološki rječnik hrvatskoga jezika. 1. svezak (A - Nj)*, Zagreb, Institut za hrvatski jezik i jezikoslovlje.

ERHJ II = MATASOVIĆ Ranko, IVŠIĆ MAJIĆ Dubravka & PRONK Tijmen, 2021, *Etimološki rječnik hrvatskoga jezika. 2. svezak (O - Ž)*, Zagreb, Institut za hrvatski jezik i jezikoslovlje.

ERHSJ = SKOK Petar, 1971–1974, *Etimologijski rječnik hrvatskoga ili srpskoga jezika*, Zagreb, Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti, 4 vols.

FILIPI Goran, 2020, “O etimologiji ihtionima gavun”, *Hrvatski dijalektološki zbornik*, vol. 24, pp. 39–45.

HIRTZ Miroslav, 1956, *Rječnik narodnih zooloških naziva III. Ribe (Pisces)*, Zagreb, Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti.

JABERG Karl, 1936, *Aspects géographiques du langage (avec 19 cartes)*, Paris, Librairie E. Droz.
JABERG Karl, 1955, “Großräumige und kleinräumige Sprachatlanten”, *Vox Romanica*, vol. 14, pp. 1–61.

JaFa = VINJA Vojmir, 1986, *Jadranska fauna: etimologija i struktura naziva*, vols I–II, Split, Logos.

JAPRK = *Jezični atlas pomorske i ribarske kulture Dalmacije i Kvarnera*, unpublished materials.

JE = VINJA Vojmir, 1998–2016, *Jadranske etimologije. Jadranske dopune Skokovu etimologijskom rječniku*, Zagreb, HAZU / Školska knjiga, 4 vols.

KOLANOVIĆ Josip, 1995, *Šibenik u kasnome srednjem vijeku*, Zagreb, Školska knjiga.

KÖNIG Werner, 2010, “Investigating Language in Space: Methods and Empirical Standards”, in P. Auer & J. E. Schimdt (eds), *Language and Space. An international Handbook of Linguistic Variation*, vol 1: *Theories and Methods*, Berlin, De Gruyter, pp. 494–511.

LAMELI Alfred, 2013, *Strukturen im Sprachraum. Analysen zur arealtypologischen Komplexität der Dialekte in Deutschland*, Berlin / Boston, De Gruyter.

LIGORIO Orsat, 2014, *Problem leksičke stratifikacije u adrijatistici*, PhD dissertation, Sveučilište u Zadru, Zadar (Croatia).

MALKIEL Yakov, 2016, “Karl Jaberg and the Center of Gravity in Romance Linguistics”, *Romance Philology*, vol. 70, no. 2, pp. 477–508.

MELČUK Igor A., 2012, *Semantics: From Meaning to Text*, vol. I, Amsterdam / Philadelphia (PA), John Benjamins.

NINNI Alessandro Pericle, 1964, *Scritti dialettologici e folkloristici veneti. Vol. I. Giunte e correzioni al Dizionario del dialetto veneziano* [1890], in C. Tagliavini & M. Cortelazzo (eds), *Bologna, Arnaldo Forni Editore* [originally: *Giunte e correzioni al Dizionario del dialetto veneziano I–III*, Venezia, Tipografia Longhi e Montanari, 1890].

REGIS Riccardo, 2019, “Sul tipo lessicale”, *Géolinguistique*, no. 19. Available at <https://doi.org/10.4000/geolinguistique.1229>.

TADMOR Uri, HASPELMATH Martin & TAYLOR Bradley, 2010, “Borrowability and the Notion of Basic Vocabulary”, *Diachronica*, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 226–246.

TANZLINGHER ZANOTTI Giovanni, 1699–1704, *Vocabolario di tre nobilissimi linguaggi italiano, illirico, e latino con l’aggiunta di molt’erbe semplici, e termini militari*, digitalized manuscript. Available at <tanzlingher.disll.unipd.it>.

TELMON Tullio, 1989, “Principi di geolinguistica regionale: l’esempio dell’ALEPO”, in *Atlanti regionali: aspetti metodologici, linguistici e etnografici. Atti del XV Convegno del CSDI* (Palermo, 7–11 Oct. 1985), Pisa, Pacini, pp. 573–592.

TERRACINI Bevenuto, 1963, *Lingua libera e libertà linguistica*, Torino, Einaudi.

TERRACINI Bevenuto, 1964, *Saggio di un atlante linguistico della Sardegna in base ai rilievi di Ugo Pellis. II. Testo*, Torino, Stamperia editoriale Rattero.

VULETIĆ Nikola & SKRAČIĆ Vladimir, 2016, “Vers un atlas de la langue de la mer en Dalmatie et Kvarner : le projet JAPRK”, *Géolinguistique*, no. 16, pp. 91–105. Available at <https://doi.org/10.4000/geolinguistique.507>.

VULETIĆ Nikola & SKRAČIĆ Vladimir, 2018, *Leksik morske faune u sjevernoj Dalmaciji. Prvi dio: rječnik pučkoga nazivlja*, Zadar, Sveučilište u Zadru.
VULETIĆ Nikola, BAZINA Hrvoje & SKRAČIĆ Vladimir, 2022, "Projekt JAPRK (Jezični atlas pomorske i ribarske kulture Dalmacije i Kvarnera)", Hrvatski dijalektološki zbornik, no. 26, pp. 197–215.

VULETIĆ Nikola & BAZINA Hrvoje, ms., Leksik morske faune na Kvarneru, research in progress.

## NOTES

1. Jaberg (1936: 47) speaks of *types lexicologiques*. One might refer to such lexical types as *vocables*, i.e. sets of lexical units displaying the same signifiers and a significant semantic intersection (cf. Mel'čuk, 2012: 21–44). However, this would only be correct at the level of a diasystem. As we shall see, at the basilectal level, our lexical types are strictly monosemous.

2. From the diasystemic perspective (cf. n. 1), one could also encode them as types ῥugor 1' ‘Anguilla anguilla’ and ῥugor 2' ‘Conger conger’, respectively.

3. The concept of *cultural vocabulary* is notoriously hard to define, as it is language specific. For a recent discussion, see Tadmor et al. (2022). Yet, it is fairly safe to say that maritime vocabulary belongs to the portion of the lexicon that is exposed to intense cultural contacts.

4. The *geolinguistic structure* is to be understood as a spatial relation between network points in reference to a given language variable (cf. Lameli, 2013: 2).

5. Some sources (e.g. Hirtz, 1956: 440) document ῥugor 1 ‘eel’ in Herzegovina, but no geolinguistic data is available for that region.

6. Štokavian vernaculars of continental origin, introduced to the shores of North Adriatic during the Ottoman wars, took their maritime vocabulary from Čakavian.

7. This is how one should interpret the lines of optimally informed A. P. Ninni (1964 [1890]: 9): "Quelle specie di pesci marini del genere Smaris che hanno le forme strette ed allungate".

8. Note that the outermost point of the type ῥgavun 1 ‘Spicara smaris’ in the Kornati archipelago, while historically not pertaining to the district of Šibenik, represents the vernacular of migrant fishermen from Murter, which lies within the territory of that district.

9. Vinja’s experience and our preparatory fieldwork have shown that the lexical distinction between different species of the Trachinidae family (weevers) is extremely rare, so the questionnaire includes only a single concept from the folk taxonomy.

10. And vice versa: shell names not based on this association often serve as euphemistic designations for female genitalia. To give just one example, the manuscript dictionary of Tanzlingher Zanotti (1699-1704: 444) gives *kunjka* (*kuugnka*), the most common Croatian designation for seashells, as one of the equivalents of It. *figura*, *onestà*, *la natura della femmina*.

11. Rare examples of polysemy are found on the island of Čiovo, where ῥpizdica 1 denotes both *Mytilus galloprovincialis* and the anemone *Actinia equina*. As Jaberg (1936: 64) observed, writing on the relative tolerability of the polysemy, "des idées appartenant à deux domaines différents coexistent plus facilement".

12. Cf. Vinja’s interpretation of the motivation of *pidzica* ‘Naria spurca’ (JaFa II: 142).

## ABSTRACTS

This contribution addresses the geolinguistic analysis of five semasiological maps featuring lexical types that designate different sea animals in Croatian varieties of the Eastern Adriatic.
Drawing upon heuristic principles of the interpretation of linguistic maps, as formulated within the Romance tradition of linguistic geography (Jaberg, Terracini, Telmon), we examine the underlying factors in the spatial distribution of different meanings associated with individual lexical types. It is argued that geographic distribution, alongside dialectal affiliation and historical factors, can yield remarkable conclusions about the history of individual words and can also reveal patterns of lexical choice as an obvious tool for cultural identification. The analysis concerns also the methodological interface of macroareal and microareal research (macrostructure vs. microstructure), which together constitute the combined basis of our maps.

Cette contribution porte sur l'analyse géolinguistique de cinq cartes sémasiologiques présentant des types lexicaux désignant différents animaux marins dans les variétés croates de l'Adriatique orientale. En nous appuyant sur les principes heuristiques d'interprétation des cartes linguistiques, formulés dans la tradition romane de la géographie linguistique (Jaberg, Terracini, Telmon), nous examinons les facteurs sous-jacents à la distribution spatiale des différentes significations associées à chaque type lexical. Nous soutenons que la distribution géographique, associée à l'affiliation dialectale et aux facteurs historiques, peut fournir des conclusions remarquables sur l'histoire des mots individuels et révéler des schémas de choix lexical, outil évident d'identification culturelle. L'analyse porte également sur l'interface méthodologique entre recherches macro- et micro-aréales (macrostructure vs microstructure), constituant la base combinée de nos cartes.

## INDEX

**Keywords:** cultural vocabulary, geolinguistic structure, marine fauna, semantic areas, semasiology

**Mots-clés:** aires sémantiques, faune marine, sémasiologie, structure géolinguistique, vocabulaire culturel

## AUTHORS

### NIKOLA VULETIĆ

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /></figure>

https://idref.fr/168472929

University of Zadar (Croatia)
nvuletic@unizd.hr

### HRVOJE BAZINA

<figure><img src="image_17.png" /></figure>

https://idref.fr/292433549

University of Zadar (Croatia)
hbazina20@unizd.hr