The article is devoted to the analysis of Lithuanian mono-component personal names, which represent a relatively new phenomenon in Lithuanian anthroponymy. Mono-component anthroponyms of Lithuanian origin, usually derived from appellatives, came into use at the beginning of the 20th century and continue to be actively used in Lithuania. The article provides a semantic classification of these anthroponyms, traces the history of their functioning over a hundred years (1920–2020), and considers the pragmatics of their use, as well as current developmental trends. The names are assessed according to the following parameters: the time of first use, the peak of popularity, the total number of uses over the observation period, the frequency of female and male versions of the name (where both exist), and current relevance. Based on statistical data obtained from the website of the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language, it is concluded that the most productive periods of naming were the first decades of independence in the 20th century and the subsequent period up to 1960 (1920–1960). The 21st century has seen a resurgence of new names, driven by parents’ desire to choose an original, unique name for their child, as well as by the fact that names that were popular in the mid-20th century are now perceived as too “common” and overly widespread. A semantic classification of the derivational stems of new names makes it possible to identify the most productive types and hypothesize about the reasons for their popularity. Thus, the most productive groups comprise anthroponyms derived from plant names, names associated with the aquatic sphere, and those derived from the names of pagan gods or bearing mythological connotations. The popularity of Lithuanian “pagan” names may reflect growing national consciousness, resistance to globalization, and a desire to return to one’s roots, thereby preserving elements of the ancient Baltic religion in personal names.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Maria V. Zavyalova (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: