Jaunųjų rytų aukštaičių – anykštėnų, kupiškėnų ir uteniškių – tarminės kalbos vaizdiniai: ribos ir objektyvusis tarmiškumas

LAURA BRAZAITIENĖ Institute of the Lithuanian Language ORCID id: orcid.org/0000-0003-1930-1762 Research areas: areal studies of the Baltic languages, dialectology, geolinguistics, perceptual dialectology. DOI: doi.org/10.35321/all91-08 DIALECTAL LANGUAGE IMAGES OF YOUNG EASTERN HIGHLANDERS – ANYKŠTĖNAI, KUPIŠKĖNAI AND UTENIŠKIAI –: BOUNDARIES AND OBJECTIVE DIALECTICITY Dialect Images of the Young Eastern Aukstaitians of Anykščiai, Kupiškis and Utena: Borders and Objective Dialecticity ANNOTATION The article presents a study of dialectal language images among young Eastern Highlanders—Anykštėnai, Kupiškėnai and Uteniškiai. The research material consists of data on high-school students’ attitudes, collected using a questionnaire developed according to the methodological principles of perceptual dialectology. Analysis of the data shows that young Uteniškiai (the respondents from Utena and Rokiškis) consider themselves the most active users of the dialectal code. Anykštėnai (the students from Anykščiai) admit to speaking dialectally. Kupiškėnai (the high-school students from Kupiškis) tend to distance themselves from this form of expression. Similar attitudes among the respondents are revealed by drawn (mental) dialect maps. Young Eastern Highlanders first recognize a dialect speaker by phonetic features. The respondents’ system of objective dialecticity features includes not only the indistinctive, but also the characteristic and distinctive features of the subdialects under analysis. The images of dialectal language (of places and features) emerging from the attitudes of young language users and evaluators make it possible to identify the studied members of the language community not only as Eastern Highlanders, but also as Anykštėnai, Kupiškėnai and Uteniškiai Eastern Highlanders. KEYWORDS: perceptual dialectology, mental map, traditional dialect, boundary, objective dialecticity. 198 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica XCI Jaunųjų rytų aukštaičių – anykštėnų, kupiškėnų ir uteniškių – tarminės kalbos vaizdiniai: ribos ir objektyvusis tarmiškumas ANNOTATION The article presents a study of the images of the dialect spoken by the young Eastern Aukštaitians of Anykščiai, Kupiškis and Utena. The research material is the data on schoolchildren’s attitudes from their answers to the questions in the questionnaire conducted and prepared according to the methodological principles of perceptual dialectology. The data analysis shows that young Eastern Aukštaitians of Utena (the subjects of Utena and Rokiškis) consider themselves the most active users of the dialect code. The Eastern Aukštaitians of Anykščiai (schoolchildren from Anykščiai) also admit to speaking the dialect. The Eastern Aukštaitians of Kupiškis (schoolchildren from Kupiškis) tend to distance themselves from this code. Drawn (mental) maps of the dialects reveal the similar attitudes of the subjects. Young Eastern Aukštaitians recognise a person who speaks the dialect mainly by the sound characteristics. The system of the objective dialecticity features of the speakers under research includes not only the fuzzy but also the characteristic and distinguishing traits of the subdialects analysed. The images of dialecticity (places and features) that have emerged from the attitudes of young language users and evaluators allow us to identify the researched members of the language community not only as Eastern Aukštaitians but also as Eastern Aukštaitians of Anykščiai, Kupiškis and Utena. KEYWORDS: Perceptual Dialectology, Mental Map, Traditional Dialect, Border, Objective Dialecticity. INTRODUCTION In recent years, numerous publications have been devoted to the discourse of perceptual dialectology (Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė 2016a: 89–120; 2016b: 17–33; 2019: 1–22; Geržotaitė 2016: 321–339; 2019: 175–198; Geržotaitė, Čepaitienė 2016: 84–100; Kardelytė-Grinevičienė 2018: 1–12; Aliūkaitė 2019: 1–22; 2020a: 85–100; 2020b: 1–22; 2021: 262–292; Brazaitienė 2020: 267–291; Mikulėnienė et al. 2023 et seq.). In addition to numerous articles, two scholarly monographs have been published. The first presents the results of a study of the geolinguistic competence of young members of the language community, covering linguistic homeland, dialectal and standard language1 2 ¹ The geolinguistic competence of ordinary members of a language community is defined as knowledge and abilities to recognize language variation and associate it with certain geographical, social and cultural areas (Diercks 2002: 52–53; Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė 2016a: 92). ² A linguistic homeland (English linguistic homeland) is understood as an individual’s linguistic environment, associated with the linguistic differences and spatial distances of that environment (Diercks 2002: 51; Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė 2016a: 92). Straipsniai / Articles 199 LAURA BRAZAITIENĖ questions of code localization and other issues (Aliūkaitė et al. 2017). In the second, seeking to investigate young people’s geolinguistic competence, the links between the features of new dialectal formations and their linguistic value and the image of erroneous standard language (quasi-standard) were analyzed (Aliūkaitė et al. 2020). The results obtained confirm the importance of attitudes revealing objective dialecticity from the perspective of the ordinary language user for the vitality and continuity of language varieties⁴. Novelty and relevance. From the perspective of dialect vitality, the perceptions of representatives of the strong Uteniškiai subdialect and of the Anykštėnai and Kupiškėnai subdialects influenced by it have hardly been studied. Perhaps the only study seeking to assess the vitality of the Kupiškėnai subdialect analyzed only part of the attitudes of young Kupiškėnai and Uteniškiai (Geržotaitė 2019: 175–198). The abundant material collected that could highlight the connections between the boundaries of dialects established in the self-awareness of representatives of all three subdialects and the characteristics of local language varieties, and would allow prognostic assessments of these subdialects, has not yet been analyzed. Thus, the aim of this article is, drawing on the model of perceptual dialectology described in previous studies, to analyze the dialectal language images (boundaries and features) of high-school students representing the Eastern Highlander Kupiškėnai, Anykštėnai and Uteniškiai subdialects and to assess the vitality of these three subdialects. The object of the article is the images of dialecticity among students from Anykščiai, Kupiškis, Rokiškis and Utena. The respondents are students aged 15–18 from four high schools (see the table for information about the respondents). TABLE. Characteristics of the young respondents from Anykščiai, Kupiškis, Rokiškis and Utena ³ Quasi-standard refers to an erroneous image of a linguistic (dialectal) variety; for example, a dialectal variety may be recognized as non-dialectal and vice versa (see Long 1996: 118–135; Aliūkaitė 2009a: 168; 2016: 67–68; Mikulėnienė 2016: 340–346); ⁴ Two types of dialecticity should be distinguished: objective, or feature-based, and subjective, or associated with the value (of a feature, linguistic variety or user of that variety) (Aliūkaitė 2019: 67–69). 200 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica XCI Jaunųjų rytų aukštaičių – anykštėnų, kupiškėnų ir uteniškių – tarminės kalbos vaizdiniai: ribos ir objektyvusis tarmiškumas High-school students can be assigned to one age group if their linguistic, cultural and social experience, rather than their biological age, is chosen as the criterion of distinction (Eckert 1997: 151–167; Aliūkaitė 2007: 145). During the study, the students were surveyed using the anonymous conscious-attitudes questionnaire “Evaluation of Dialectal Speech and Standard Language,” presented in several previous studies and developed during the 2014–2016 project “The Place of Standard Language in the Mental Map of the Lithuanian Language” (for more details, see Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė 2016a: 97–99). Its introductory section records the respondents’ sociodemographic data (sex, age, place of origin and place of residence) and includes questions concerning dialect knowledge and usage activity, as well as the distribution of language varieties. The main part consisted of a drawn-map task devoted to the localization of dialectal and standard language, supplemented by open-ended questions asking respondents to indicate associations with a person speaking dialectally and with a person speaking standard language, to list features characteristic of a dialect speaker, and so on (see Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė 2016a: 97–99; Aliūkaitė et al. 2017: 51–59). The research material consists of 390 questionnaires. Of these, 119 were completed by students of the Laurynas Stuoka-Gucevičius High School in Kupiškis during the 2014–2016 project “The Place of Standard Language in the Mental Map of the Lithuanian Language”⁵. These data were supplemented by 131 questionnaires collected by the article’s author at the Jono Biliūnas High School in Anykščiai before the announcement of the global COVID-19 pandemic in Lithuania, 72 at the Juozas Tumas-Vaižgantas High School in Rokiškis, and 68 at the Adolfo Šapoka High School in Utena⁶. Part of the data collected in Kupiškis and Utena and used in this article—namely, the prototypical dialectal-language areas in the drawn maps—has been published (for more details, see Aliūkaitė et al. 2017: 78–102, 140, 185, 263; Geržotaitė 2019: 175–198). The following tasks were set in order to highlight the images of dialectal language formed in the self-awareness of young Eastern Highlanders: 1) to discuss the data from students’ answers to questionnaire questions concerning knowledge and usage activity of the dialectal code; 2) to examine the material from the maps of respondents representing all three subdialects, in which they were asked to mark where dialectal speech is used; and 3) to analyze the data from the high-school students’ answers to an open-ended questionnaire question asking them to indicate the language features by which a dialect speaker can be recognized. ⁵ The project was funded by the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language (Agreement No. K-5/2014). The project leader was Prof. Dr. Daiva Aliūkaitė. For more information about its results, see Aliūkaitė et al. 2017. ⁶ The questionnaires completed at the Kupiškis High School are kept at the Institute of Languages, Literature and Translation Studies of the Kaunas Faculty of Vilnius University; those from the Anykščiai, Rokiškis and Utena high schools are kept in the Dialect Archive of the Geolinguistics Centre of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language. Straipsniai / Articles 201 LAURA BRAZAITIENĖ The subdialects under study at the beginning of the 21st century: objective dialecticity. As already mentioned, the subdialects examined in the article differ in terms of dialect vitality. Geolinguistic studies conducted a decade ago and earlier established that the pronunciation among Anykštėnai of the stressed lengthened stem vowel a as o with an a coloring, e.g., rō.tas ‘wheel’, is being recorded increasingly rarely (Aliūkaitė et al. 2014: 184). The tendency is to abandon the most noticeable dialectal feature of Kupiškėnai—the realization of vowels e, ę at the end of a word and before a hard consonant as a of varying length, e.g., dā.da. ‘uncle’ (ibid.: 188; Balčiūnienė et al. 2017: 54–55; 2019: 214). The distinctive feature of the Eastern Highlander Uteniškiai is the realization of unstressed ē and ie as e., less often o and uo—as a., e.g., te.vė.li.s ‘daddy’, pe.ne.li.s ‘little bread’, a.ba.li.s ‘apple’—which has been retained almost consistently in the speech of representatives of all generations (Aliūkaitė et al. 2014: 176; Balčiūnienė et al. 2017: 54–55; 2019: 214). It has been established that, in their linguistic features, Kupiškėnai and Anykštėnai are becoming similar to the neighboring and still strong Panevėžiškiai and Uteniškiai subdialects. On the basis of the Uteniškiai subdialect, researchers have recorded a newly forming larger local linguistic formation—the Eastern Eastern Highlander regiolect (with Utena as its center of attraction)—which encompasses not only the areas of the Uteniškiai themselves, but also those of the surrounding Anykštėnai and Kupiškėnai (Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė 2014: 261; Geržotaitė, Mikulėnienė 2014. Map XII and commentary; Mikulėnienė, Meiliūnaitė 2017: 169–195). This area is interconnected, and the stability of the new formation is demonstrated, by the use of other features not identified by language users as dialectal, e.g., the pronunciation of unstressed o as a (Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė 2014: 261; Geržotaitė 2019: 190–191). Thus, the data on perceptions of (non-)dialectal language areas and the dialectal features characteristic of them, collected in the areas of the Eastern Highlander Anykštėnai (at the Anykščiai high school), Kupiškėnai (Kupiškis) and Uteniškiai (Rokiškis and Utena), will provide a more detailed picture of the variety used in the areas of the subdialects under study as formed in local students’ self-awareness and will make it possible to forecast its future. 1. (IN)ACTIVITY OF DIALECTAL CODE USE FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF YOUNG ANYKŠTĖNAI, KUPIŠKĖNAI AND UTENIŠKIAI Analysis of the data shows that high-school students representing all three Eastern Highlander subdialects stated that they knew the dialect (spoke dialectally) (see the table). The largest proportion of those who knew it was found among the respondents from Utena (73.53%), fewer among those from Rokiškis (47.22%) and Anykščiai (38.17%), and the smallest among those from Kupiškis (23.53%). 202 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica XCI Jaunųjų rytų aukštaičių – anykštėnų, kupiškėnų ir uteniškių – tarminės kalbos vaizdiniai: ribos ir objektyvusis tarmiškumas When asked which dialect they knew, the young Eastern Highlanders, except for the Kupiškėnai, most often indicated aukštaičių (Ut_M01, Rk_M18, Rk_M01, An_M02), aukštaitiškai (Ut_M05, Rk_V18, An_M17), aukštaitišką (Rk_V10, An_M16)⁷. More than one student from Kupiškis specified their answers; for example, they wrote that they knew kupiškėnų (Kp_1(4)_M01, Kp_1(4)_M58), kupiškėnų tarmę (Kp_1(4)_M17), kupiškėnišką (Kp_1(4)_M28) or kupiškėniškai (Kp_1(4)_M47). Similar answers were recorded among the high-school students surveyed in Rõkiškis. They stated, for example, that they knew aukštaičių šiaurės rytų (Rk_M10), Northern Eastern Highlander (Rk_V39), aukštaitiškai, rokiškėniškai (Rk_V18), rokiškėnų aukštaičių (Rk_V41), Rokiškio tarmę (Rk_M06), rokiškietišką (Rk_M17), rokiškietiškai (Rk_V48), rakiškietiškai (Rk_V07, Rk_V08), rokiškėniškai (Rk_V12). The respondents from Utena and Anykščiai specified their dialect less frequently, for example, Utenos (Ut_V04, Ut_V05), anykštietiškai, aukštaitiškai (An_M49). Similar attitudes emerged not only with regard to dialect knowledge but also to its use (see the table). Representatives of the Eastern Highlander Uteniškiai subdialect (from Utena and Rokiškis) consider themselves dialect speakers. Dialectal expression is also characteristic of a considerable proportion of the Anykštėnai. In terms of dialectal language use, Kupiškėnai should be considered the least active. Thus, the young people surveyed in the areas of all three Eastern Highlander subdialects not only know the dialectal code but, presumably, use it to one degree or another. On the basis of the available data, the Uteniškiai subdialect should be considered the most vital, while the Kupiškėnai subdialect is declining. 2. DIALECTAL LANGUAGE IMAGES IN THE DRAWN MAPS OF YOUNG ANYKŠTĖNAI, KUPIŠKĖNAI AND UTENIŠKIAI The results concerning knowledge and use of the dialectal code are supplemented by the markings made by young Eastern Highlanders on drawn (mental) dialect maps⁸. As previous studies conducted in Lithuania show, these most clearly reveal the image of dialectal language, and the largest group in terms of the number of markings consists of maps of prototypical dialectal-language areas. ⁷ The following abbreviations for localities are used in the study: Anykščiai—An, Kupiškis—Kp, Rõkiškis—Rk, Utena—Ut; the letters M and V indicate the respondents’ sex; the numbers denote questionnaire numbers. ⁸ In perceptual dialectology research, the drawn (mental) map task is of two types: respondents either localize known dialects on maps or mark the areas of listened-to texts-stimuli of dialectal language (or other varieties) on maps (Aliūkaitė et al. 2020: 54). Straipsniai / Articles 203 LAURA BRAZAITIENĖ More than one-third of the Uteniškiai (students from Utena and Rokiškis), as can be seen from their map markings, tend first to regard Panevėžys, located in the area of the neighboring Eastern Highlander Panevėžiškiai, as the most dialectal (39.29%) (see Fig. 1).⁹ These young people acknowledge the dialecticity of their linguistic homelands—Utena (30.71%) and Rokiškis (30%)—but identify as more dialectal the localities of the Western Highlander and Samogitian dialect areas highlighted by previous studies: Marijampolė (37.86%), Plungė (36.43%), Mažeikiai (32.14%) and Telšiai (31.43%). FIG. 1. The most prototypical dialectal-language zones of the young Eastern Highlander Uteniškiai Only one-quarter of the young Uteniškiai associated neighboring Anykščiai with dialecticity. Kupiškis emerged from the maps marked by these respondents as a zone of a low degree of dialecticity. According to local students, the language used both in Utena and Rokiškis is beautiful, but incorrect (Rk_M01); around Utena, Molėtai and even Kėdainiai it is beautiful (Rk_M13), and so on. It should be added that the language of inhabitants not only of their native surroundings but also of the neighboring areas around Anykščiai and Kupiškis (Rk_M14), and Anykščiai, Kupiškis, Biržai and Panevėžys (Rk_M14), is considered beautiful, correct (see Fig. 2). ⁹ An earlier study summarizing data collected only in Utena, that is, in one locality within the area of the Eastern Highlander Uteniškiai subdialect, revealed the respondents’ tendency to regard the linguistic homeland as the most prototypical dialectal-language zone (Geržotaitė 2019: 185). 204 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica XCI Jaunųjų rytų aukštaičių – anykštėnų, kupiškėnų ir uteniškių – tarminės kalbos vaizdiniai: ribos ir objektyvusis tarmiškumas Rk_M01 Rk_M14 Straipsniai / Articles 205 LAURA BRAZAITIENĖ Ut_M11 Ut_M13 FIG. 2. Examples of marking the linguistic homeland of the young Eastern Highlander Uteniškiai among other prototypical dialectal-language zones on maps The linguistic homelands or their surroundings are evaluated by the young Eastern Highlander Uteniškiai as among the more prominent dialectal areas in the eastern part of the Lithuanian language area, e.g., most emphasized dialect and distinctiveness: Jurbarkas, Šiauliai, Panevėžys (Ut_M05); the dialect used is described as Highlander dialect. Incorrect. Beautiful (Rk_M15), while its users, as Highlanders—beautiful, have errors (Rk_V09). 206 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica XCI Jaunųjų rytų aukštaičių – anykštėnų, kupiškėnų ir uteniškių – tarminės kalbos vaizdiniai: ribos ir objektyvusis tarmiškumas Young Anykštėnai (students from Anykščiai) tend to associate the same localities with the dialect, differing only in their degree of salience (see Fig. 3). Marijampolė emerged from their maps as the most dialectal (53.44%), followed by Panevėžys (45.04%), Telšiai (45.04%) and Plungė (44.27%). FIG. 3. The most prototypical dialectal-language zones of the young Eastern Highlander Anykštėnai As in Utena, in Anykščiai too, the linguistic homeland is characterized, in the opinion of local high-school students, by a similar degree of dialecticity (the markings account for 38.93%). Young Anykštėnai tend to assign Kupiškis to the less prominent localities from a dialectal perspective. The dialect used in their native and/or neighboring areas—namely, Panevėžys, Kupiškis, Rokiškis and Utena—is described by the respondents as Highlander correct (on map An_M04, see Fig. 4; An_M06), Highlander, beautiful, correct (An_M07, An_M11) (see Fig. 4). Straipsniai / Articles 207 LAURA BRAZAITIENĖ An_M04 An_M49 FIG. 4. Examples of marking the linguistic homeland of the young Eastern Highlander Anykštėnai among other prototypical dialectal-language zones on maps 208 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica XCI Jaunųjų rytų aukštaičių – anykštėnų, kupiškėnų ir uteniškių – tarminės kalbos vaizdiniai: ribos ir objektyvusis tarmiškumas On some maps made by the high-school students from Anykščiai, the linguistic homeland is not only marked as a dialectal-language zone, but its language and that of the surrounding areas are also evaluated, e.g., Anykščiai district—beautiful, incorrect; Panevėžys district—ugly, incorrect (An_M72), [Biržai, Rokiškis, Kupiškis, Anykščiai, Utena] Highlander. The dialect is beautiful, correct (An_V06). On other maps, the linguistic homeland is marked as a dialectal-language zone, but only the language of its surroundings is commented on, e.g., The Panevėžys (Highlander) dialect is incorrect; the Utena (Highlander) dialect is incorrect, but beautiful (An_M59). There are also maps on which only the language of the surroundings of the linguistic homeland is marked and evaluated, e.g., The dialect of Panevėžys district is not very beautiful and not very correct (An_M69). As the examples show, the perceptions of young Anykštėnai reveal a more favorable view of the linguistic variety used in the Uteniškiai area. In the view of some respondents, the beautiful Highlander dialect, and therefore possibly a correct one closer to the standard language, is spoken not only in Anykščiai, Utena, Panevėžys and Biržai, but also in Kaunas (An_M08). From the researcher’s, or etic10, perspective, it should be noted that the Eastern Eastern Highlander regiolect recorded on the basis of the Uteniškiai subdialect, encompassing the neighboring areas of the Anykštėnai and Kupiškėnai, is identified by scholars as the new formation closest to the standard language in the Eastern Highlander area (Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė 2014: 261). According to earlier perception studies, the language of this regiolectal area, as well as that of representatives of the Southern Highlander regiolect, is evaluated by young Eastern Highlanders as most similar to the standard language (Kardelytė-Grinevičienė 2018: 5–6). Young Kupiškėnai (students from Kupiškis), as the results of a previous study show, first distinguished Marijampolė of the Western Highlanders in the drawn maps of dialectal language, followed by Telšiai, Plungė and other areas of the Samogitians (Aliūkaitė et al. 2017: 140; Geržotaitė 2019: 188) (see Fig. 5). 10 For more on the distinction between emic and etic, or subjective and objective, perspectives, see Cramer 2018: 62–79; Aliūkaitė 2020a: 85–100; 2020b: 1–22; 2021: 262–293; Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė 2019: 1–22; Aliūkaitė et al. 2020: 27–29, 49–58. Straipsniai / Articles 209 LAURA BRAZAITIENĖ FIG. 5. The most prototypical dialectal-language zones of the young Eastern Highlander Kupiškėnai In the Eastern Highlander area, Panevėžys and Biržai emerged with higher values (the markings account for more than a quarter of all questionnaires from respondents in this city), but Anykščiai, Utena and Rokiškis received very low scores. It was established that the linguistic homeland was more often not assigned than assigned to the most prototypical dialectal-language zones (Aliūkaitė et al. 2017: 140; Geržotaitė 2019: 188) (see Fig. 5). When Kupiškis was marked as a dialectal-language zone, evaluations of the linguistic expression used there were more often positive, e.g., the most beautiful Kupiškėnai (Kup_1(4)_M01), Kupiškėnai (beautiful) (Kup_1(4)_M20), beautiful (Kup_1(4)_M31), Kupiškis—one of the most beautiful (see map Kup_1(4)_M70, Fig. 6), Kupiškėnai, very beautiful (Kup_1(4)_V20) (see Fig. 6). 210 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica XCI Jaunųjų rytų aukštaičių – anykštėnų, kupiškėnų ir uteniškių – tarminės kalbos vaizdiniai: ribos ir objektyvusis tarmiškumas Kup_1(4)_M70 Kup_1(4)_M73 FIG. 6. Examples of marking the linguistic homeland of the young Eastern Highlander Kupiškėnai among other prototypical dialectal-language zones on maps Like the Uteniškiai, the Kupiškėnai indicated the Biržai and Panevėžys zones as the most distinctive from a dialectal perspective in the Eastern Highlander area (Kup_1(4)_M35). In some maps (e.g., Kp_1(4)_M17, Kp_1(4)_M23, Kp_1(4)_V02), the transfer of the Kupiškėnai subdialect to the localities of the Panevėžiškiai subdialect was recorded; together with the low activity of dialectal-code use, this apparently makes it possible to speak of the young Kupiškėnai’s consistent distancing from the expression of their own dialect. Straipsniai / Articles 211 LAURA BRAZAITIENĖ Thus, the drawn maps of dialectal language and their commentaries highlighted the relationship of young language users representing all three subdialects with the local (non-)dialecticity. By marking not only Samogitian and Western Highlander localities (identified in earlier perception studies as the strongest from a dialectal perspective) but also their native surroundings, the respondents confirm the dialecticity of the places under study. Anykštėnai and Uteniškiai, who identified themselves as more active users of this code, are most inclined to associate the linguistic homeland with dialectal expression. By creating actual 11 distance from localities of another subdialect, Kupiškėnai may be distancing themselves from their own dialectal code, although they evaluate it positively. 3. FEATURES REVEALING A DIALECT SPEAKER FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF YOUNG ANYKŠTĖNAI, KUPIŠKĖNAI AND UTENIŠKIAI The answers to open-ended questionnaire question no. 5 help reveal the relationship of young Eastern Highlanders to the objective dialecticity of the places distinguished (circled, colored or marked in another way) on the maps. The respondents were asked to indicate several language features by which they recognize that a person speaks dialectally. It should be noted that some students indicate dialectal features not only in their answers but also when commenting on the markings on the maps (see Fig. 7). 11 When evaluating language varieties and localizing them on maps, a distinction is made between real (objective) and actual (not corresponding to geographical parameters, associated with the cultural, stereotypical value of a variety) distance (Diercks 2002: 51; Aliūkaitė 2009b: 172; Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė 2019: 8–9). 212 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica XCI Jaunųjų rytų aukštaičių – anykštėnų, kupiškėnų ir uteniškių – tarminės kalbos vaizdiniai: ribos ir objektyvusis tarmiškumas Rk_V47 An_M08 Straipsniai / Articles 213 LAURA BRAZAITIENĖ Kup_1(4)_M27 FIG. 7. Examples of naming dialectal features in map commentaries There are more examples of such commentaries on the maps: Highlander [Pasvalys, Anykščiai]—beautiful, incorrect, because vowels are lengthened (An_M62), [in Pasvalys] different word endings (Kp_1(4)_M07), [in Biržai] incorrect, cuts off endings (Kp_1(4)_M31). The summarized answers to the aforementioned fifth questionnaire question show that the high-school students surveyed in the Eastern Highlander area first recognize a dialect speaker by phonetic features (see Fig. 8). 214 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica XCI Jaunųjų rytų aukštaičių – anykštėnų, kupiškėnų ir uteniškių – tarminės kalbos vaizdiniai: ribos ir objektyvusis tarmiškumas FIG. 8. Distinctive features of dialects according to the responses of young Eastern Highlanders Young Utenians conceptualize this feature through examples such as lengthen short vowels or shorten long ones (Ut_M20), some vowels are changed (Ut_M39), vowels are switched in words (Ut_V22), vowels in roots are lengthened or shortened (Ut_M05), vowels are pronounced long (Ut_M24), instead of o, u they often pronounce a (Rk_M01), replacement of letters in position: o or a (Rk_M01), instead of “o” they say “a” (Rk_M05), letters are lengthened (Rk_M14), they change some letters of standard-language words (Rk_V05), they change some letters (Rk_V51). The features listed first of all show that the gymnasium students comment on the dialecticity of their own, close environment, in other words, on dialecticity known and familiar to them. Researchers identify the realization of o, uo as a as a distinctive feature of the Utenians’ subdialect. This feature is known to these members of the speech community (cf. also their designation of the variant they themselves use – in the Rokiškis manner (Rk_V07, Rk_V08). The lengthening or shortening of vowels emerging in the students’ perceptions is also one of the distinctive features of this subdialect and, as systematic studies by geolinguists have shown, one that has been recorded to the present day (Aliūkaitė et al. 2014: 176; 177). More abstract responses (i.e., the changing or switching of vowels) may be associated either with the distinctive feature of the Utenians’ subdialect or with the realization, distinguishing all Eastern Aukštaitians from Western and Southern Aukštaitians, of the diphthong an, am, en, em as un, um, in, im. The Anykštėnai hold similar attitudes. According to the respondents, in the speech of persons distinguished by dialectal expression, vowels, diphthongs, diphthongoids, etc. are lengthened or shortened, changed (An_M34), letters in a word are changed (An_M39), lengthened vowels (An_M49, An_M62), vowels, diphthongs, diphthongoids, etc. are lengthened or shortened, Straipsniai / Articles 215 LAURA BRAZAITIENĖ changed (An_M34), lengthens in the word some letters (An_M01), by emphasizing certain vowels (An_M05). These young people know the pronunciation of the vowel o, which from the researcher’s perspective distinguishes the Utenians and some other Eastern Aukštaitians, although they themselves identify it as characteristic of another, Samogitian, dialect – words are pronounced differently; Samogitians pronounce “a” instead of “o” e.g. obuolys – abalys (An_V32). As can be seen from the responses assigned to the group of features under discussion (i.e. the pronunciation of sounds), young Kupiškėnai also mention the lengthening and emphasizing of sounds, and the realization of some sounds as others. Representatives of this subdialect, more often than students surveyed in the areas of the already discussed Utenian and Anykštėnai subdialects, specified their responses, e.g., they lengthen vowels (Kup_1(4)_M16), conspicuous pronunciation of long vowels (Kup_1(4)_M17), long vowels (Kup_1(4)_M21), they lengthen vowels (Kup_1(4)_M56), emphasis of vowels (Kup_1(4)_M57), a peculiar emphasis of vowels or consonants (Kup_1(4)_V02), according to vowel alternation (Kup_1(4)_M36), Kupiškėnai say o instead of a: lapai and lopai (Kup_1(4)_M29), they change e to a (Kup_1(4)_M38), vowels and diphthongs are pronounced differently in the same words (Kup_1(4)_M40), they change letters (Kup_1(4)_M65), most often when, in pronouncing words, o is pronounced instead of the vowel a (Kup_1(4)_M68), “o” is emphasized (Kup_1(4)_V27). The examples provided show that young Kupiškėnai distinguish their native subdialect from neighboring subdialects. Knowledge of the distinctive features of their linguistic homeland (the realization of word-final and pre-velar-consonant vowels e, ė as a of varying length) is, from the perspective of dialects, very precise. The features listed—namely, the pronunciation of the stressed stem vowel a as o with an a coloration, characteristic of the speakers themselves and distinguishing the neighboring area around Anykščiai—not only indicate experience with their own code but also reveal certain connections with representatives of the Anykštėnai subdialect. Judging from comments on the o pronunciation they themselves notice, certain links apparently also exist with neighboring Utenians. The conceptualization of other groups of dialectal features (accentuation, ending reduction, and lexis) differs among the responses of students representing the respective Eastern Aukštaitian subdialects. The young Utenians indicated that they also quite often recognize a person speaking dialectally from words without endings (Rk_V28), or, from the researchers’ perspective, from ending reduction. Their speech is characterized by omission of endings (Ut_M04), shortening of endings (Ut_M12), words with truncated endings (Ut_M15), cut-off endings (Rk_M19), shortened endings (Rk_V12), and so on. Less often, these young people associate dialectal expression with accentuation, e.g.: they accent words strangely (Ut_M26), accent them differently than usual (Ut_V11), they are accented differently (Ut_M12). Least often, respondents from the Utenians’ subdialect state that they recognize dialect speakers by their lexis, e.g.: they use unusual words (Ut_M42), there are unheard-of words (Ut_M38), specific words (Ut_V16), borrowed words (Ut_M25). In the Anykštėnai’s view, persons distinguished by dialectal expression use different words than those used today—older words that have survived (An_M24). According to them, these words can 216 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica XCI Jaunųjų rytų aukštaičių – anykštėnų, kupiškėnų ir uteniškių – tarminės kalbos vaizdiniai: ribos ir objektyvusis tarmiškumas be understood only by a person speaking that dialect (An_M77). It is summarized that a person speaking dialectally uses words not used in the standard language (An_V47). Less often, representatives of the Anykštėnai subdialect mention accentuation (different accentuation from what I am accustomed to An_M13) and the ending reduction associated with it (he speaks somewhat differently from us; when speaking dialectally, people simply do not pronounce the endings (An_M12). Young Kupiškėnai also recognize a person speaking dialectally by the way they place accents on words (Kup_1(4)_M09). Less often, they associate dialectal expression with ending reduction, illustrated by responses such as the frequently mentioned cutting off of endings (Kup_1(4)_M28), “snipping off” of endings (Kup_1(4)_M37), biting off of endings (Kup_1(4)_M61), and so on. Least often, they mention lexical differences, e.g.: unusual words (Kup_1(4)_M02), old, strange words (Kup_1(4)_M07), unheard-of words (Kup_1(4)_M32), words that are incomprehensible (Kup_1(4)_V18). Thus, the gymnasium students surveyed in the areas of all three Eastern Aukštaitian subdialects clearly distinguish the objective dialecticity of their own linguistic environment. They tend to associate it not only with the (sub)dialects’ less salient (more widespread) and characteristic features, but also with their distinctive features12. On the basis of the latter features, these students may be regarded as representatives of their native subdialects (Anykštėnai, Kupiškėnai, and Utenians). CONCLUSIONS The study of images of dialectal language conducted in the area of the traditional Eastern Aukštaitian subdialects—Anykštėnai, Kupiškėnai, and Utenians—highlighted young language users’ relationship with this region. 1. Analysis of the data concerning dialect competence and activity reveals the following tendencies: 1) the respondents representing all three subdialects know and use the dialectal code; 2) Eastern Aukštaitians from Utena are most inclined to associate themselves with dialectal expression; 3) Anykštėnai also admit to speaking dialectally; 4) Kupiškėnai’s distancing from the dialectal variant is recorded. 2. The drawn dialect maps show that the respondents mark not only the localities of the Samogitians and Western Aukštaitians, which earlier perception studies identified as the strongest from a dialectal perspective. By more or less associating their native areas with this expression and favorably evaluating the linguistic code used there, the surveyed Eastern Aukštaitians confirm the dialecticity of the localities analyzed: 1) young Anykštėnai and Utenians are most inclined to associate their linguistic homeland and surrounding areas with zones of dialectal language; 2) Kupiškėnai’s distancing from their linguistic variant may possibly be indicated by the current distance being created from the localities of the neighboring subdialect. 12 On the typology of the three-part classification of dialectal features (primary, secondary, and tertiary) (see Taeldeman 2005: 23–248 for more detail). Straipsniai / Articles 217 LAURA BRAZAITIENĖ 3. In the area of the Eastern Aukštaitians, the gymnasium students surveyed first recognize a person speaking dialectally from phonetic features, based on the projection of their own linguistic environment. Analysis of the responses illustrating this group of features shows that the young people clearly distinguish the objective dialecticity of their linguistic homeland and surrounding areas. 4. The system of objective dialectality features, encompassing not only less salient and characteristic features but also distinctive ones, makes it possible to identify the surveyed students not only as Eastern Aukštaitians but also as Eastern Aukštaitians—Anykštėnai, Kupiškėnai, and Utenians. Thus, the images of dialecticity (of places and linguistic features) emerging from the attitudes of young language users and evaluators correlate not only with the objective linguistic variation of the respondents’ linguistic environment but also with the linguistic variation of nearly the entire eastern part of the Lithuanian language area. LITERATŪRA Aliūkaitė Daiva 2007. Terminıs kalbėjimas ir bendrinė kalba: objektyviųjų ir subjektyviųjų skirtumų kultūrinė vertė: daktaro disertacija, rankraštis, Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas. Aliūkaitė Daiva 2009a: Bendrinės kalbos vaizdinių tikslumas: kvazistandarto problema. – Respectus Philologicus 16(21)A, 160–187. Aliūkaitė Daiva 2009b: Perceptyviniai dialektų tyrimai: mentalinis žemėlapis. – Respectus Philologicus 15(20), 164–179. Aliūkaitė Daiva 2019: Objektyvusis tarmiškumas: požymiai ir vertė. – Respectus Philologicus 35(40), 63–91. Prieiga internete: https://www.zurnalai.vu.lt/respectus-philologicus/article/view/12717 [žiūrėta 2024-04-22]. Aliūkaitė Daiva 2020a: Tarmiškumo tvarumas didmiestyje: emic naratyvo kūrėjo perspektyva. – Respectus Philologicus 38(43), 85–100. Prieiga internete: https://www.zurnalai.vu.lt/respectus-philologicus/article/view/20645 [žiūrėta 2024-03-22]. Aliūkaitė Daiva 2020b: Tarmiškumo tvarumas Lietuvos regionuose: emic naratyvo kūrėjo perspektyva. – Lietuvių kalba 15, [1–22]. Prieiga internete: https://www.zurnalai.vu.lt/lietuviu-kalba/article/view/22435 [žiūrėta 2024-03-24]. Aliūkaitė Daiva 2021: Tarmiškumo estetinė vertė: paprastųjų kalbos bendruomenės narių vaizdiniai. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 85, 262–292. Aliūkaitė Daiva, Bakšienė Rima, Jaroslavienė Jurgita, Judžentytė Gintarė, Leskauskaitė Asta, Lubienė Jūratė, Meiliūnaitė Violeta, Pakalniškienė Dalia, Ragaišienė Vilija, Rinkauskienė Regina, Švambarytė-Valužienė Janina, Urbanavičienė Jolita, Vaišnienė Daiva 218 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica XCI Jaunųjų rytų aukštaičių – anykštėnų, kupiškėnų ir uteniškių – tarmĭnės kalbos vaizdiniai: ribos ir objektyvusis tarmiškumas 2014: Punktų tinklo tankis geolingvistinės skirties aukštaičiai: žemaičiai požiūriu. – XXI a. pradžios lietuvių tarmės: geolingvistinis ir sociolingvistinis tyrimas (žemėlapiai ir jų komentarai), sud. D. Mikulėnienė, V. Meiliūnaitė, Vilnius: Briedis, 129–196. Aliūkaitė Daiva, Mikulėnienė Danguolė 2014: Geolekty ir regioninių dialektų formavimosi ypatumai Lietuvoje. – XXI a. pradžios lietuvių tarmės: geolingvistinis ir sociolingvistinis tyrimas (žemėlapiai ir jų komentarai), sud. D. Mikulėnienė, V. Meiliūnaitė, Vilnius: Briedis, 257–262. Aliūkaitė Daiva, Mikulėnienė Danguolė 2016a: Perceptyviosios dialektologijos instrumentai ir tyrimų kryptys: variantų arealai mentaliniuose žemėlapiuose (Biržų atvejis). – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 74, 89–120. Aliūkaitė Daiva, Mikulėnienė Danguolė 2016b: Lietuvos gimnazistų požiūris: išsilavinimas bendrinės kalbos vaizdiniuose. – Verbum 7, 17–33. Prieiga internete: https://www.zurnalai.vu.lt/verbum/article/view/10283 [žiūrėta 2024-05-04]. Aliūkaitė Daiva, Mikulėnienė Danguolė 2019: Paprastojo kalbos bendruomenės nario naratyvas: kur ir kodėl (su)kuriamas vietos tarmiškumas. – Lietuvių kalba 13, [1–22]. Prieiga internete: https://www.zurnalai.vu.lt/lietuviu-kalba/article/view/22481 [žiūrėta 2024-04-03]. Aliūkaitė Daiva, Mikulėnienė Danguolė, Čepaitienė Agnė, Geržotaitė Laura 2017: Kalbos variantiškumas ir jo vertinimas perceptyviosios dialektologijos požiūriu: variantų ir vietų vaizdiniai, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. Aliūkaitė Daiva, Mikulėnienė Danguolė, Čepaitienė Agnė, Brazaitienė Laura 2020: Lietuvių kalbos variantai: tyrejo ir paprastojo kalbos bendruomenės nario perspektyvos, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. Balčiūnienė Asta, Rinkauskienė Regina, Meiliūnaitė Violeta 2017: Kupiškėnų ir uteniškių paribio šnektų fonetinė kaita XXI a.: Vabalninko, Daršiškių ir Salamiestčio punktų atvejis. – Lituanistica 63, 1(107), 38–60. Balčiūnienė Asta, Meiliūnaitė Violeta, Rinkauskienė Regina 2019: Kupiškėnų, uteniškių ir panevėžiškių paribio šnektos XXI amžiuje, Klaipėda: Klaipėdos universitetas. Brazaitienė Laura 2020: Research on perceptual dialectology in Lithuania: subjective dialectal variation of Lithuanian language area in relation to objective variation. – Lithuanian dialectology profiles: problems and findings, ed. V. Meiliūnaitė, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 267–291. Prieiga internete: http://lki.lt/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/KIDP6.pdf [žiūrėta 2024-05-15]. Straipsniai / Articles 219 LAURA BRAZAITIENĖ Cramer Jennifer 2018: The Emic and the Etic in Perceptual Dialectology. – Language Regard: Methods, Variation and Change, eds. B. E. Evans, E. J. Benson, J. N. Stanford, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 62–79. Diercks Willy 2002: Mental maps. Linguistic-Geographic Concepts. – Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology 2, eds. D. Long, D. Preston, Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 51–70. Eckert Penelope 1997: Age as a Sociolinguistic Variable. – Handbook of Sociolinguistics, ed. F. Coulmas, Oxford: Blackwell, 151–167. Geržotaitė Laura 2016: Vartotojo veiksnys: subjektyvusis Lenkijos lietuvių šnektų vaizdas mentaliniuose žemėlapiuose. – Lietuvių tarmių kaita XXI a. pradžioje: Lenkijos lietuvių šnektos, sud. D. Mikulenienė, A. Leskauskaitė, V. Ragaišienė, L. Geržotaitė, N. Birgėlienė, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 321–339. Geržotaitė Laura 2019: Jaunųjų rytų aukštaičių – kupiškėnų ir uteniškių – kalbinės gimtinės vaizdiniai. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 81, 175–198. Prieiga internete: https://journals.lki.lt/actalinguisticalithuanica/article/view/399 [žiūrėta 2024-03-05]. Geržotaitė Laura, Čepaitienė Agnė 2016: Vilkaviškio jaunuolių kalbinė gimtinė: ribos, taisyklingumo ir patrauklumo vertės. – Verbum 7, 84–100. Prieiga internete: http://www.zurnalai.vu.lt/verbum/article/view/10288 [žiūrėta 2024-04-02]. Geržotaitė Laura, Mikulenienė Danguolė 2014: Geolektų ir regiolektų formavimasis Lietuvoje: žemėlapis ir komentarai. – XXI a. pradžios lietuvių tarmės: geolingvistinis ir sociolingvistinis tyrimas (žemėlapiai ir jų komentarai), sud. D. Mikulenienė, V. Meiliūnaitė, Vilnius: Briedis, XIII žemėlapis ir komentaras (sp. įklija). Kardelytė-Grinevičienė Daiva 2018: Kvazistandarto variantas: jaunosios kartos aukštaitiškojo arealo atstovų požiūris. – Lietuvių kalba 12, [1–12]. Prieiga internete: https://etalpykla.lituanistika.lt/object/LT-LDB-0001:J.04~2019~1550676206089/J.04~2019~1550676206089.pdf [žiūrėta 2024-04-03]. Long Daniel 1996: Quasi-standard as a Linguistic Concept. – American Speech 71(2), 118–135. Mikulėnienė Danguolė 2016: Pietų aukštaičių kvaziregiolekto formavimasis Punsko ir Seinų apylinkėse. – Lietuvių tarmių kaita XXI a. pradžioje: Lenkijos lietuvių šnektos, sud. D. Mikulėnienė, A. Leskauskaitė, V. Ragaišienė, L. Geržotaitė, N. Birgėlienė, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 340–346. Mikulėnienė Danguolė, Bakšienė Rima, Brazaitienė Laura, Čepaitienė Agnė, Ivoška Darius, Šidlauskas Žydrūnas 2023: (Ne)atrasti Pakaunės turtai: kalbinis variantiškumas sociogeolingvistikos požiūriu, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. 220 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica XCI Jaunųjų rytų aukštaičių – anykštėnų, kupiškėnų ir uteniškių – tarminės kalbos vaizdiniai: ribos ir objektyvusis tarmiškumas Mikulėnienė Danguolė, Meiliūnaitė Violeta 2017: Tarmiškumo matmuo Lietuvos etnografinių regionų struktūroje. – Naujos regionų tapatybės konstravimas: integralumas, sumanumas, konkurencingumas, sud. A. Augustinaitis, J. Zabarskaitė, D. Mikulėnienė, V. Meiliūnaitė, L. Labanauskas, A. Kiškienė, R. Venckus, K. Rudokas, Vilnius: Kazimiero Simonavičiaus universitetas, 169–195. Taeldeman Johan 2005: Polarisation Revisited. Language Variation. – European Perspectives: Selected Papers from the Third International Conference on Language Variation in Europe (ICLaVE3), ed. F. Hinskens, Amsterdam: Benjamins, 23–248. Prieiga internete: https://benjamins.com/catalog/silv.1.15tae [žiūrėta 2024-04-09]. Dialect Images of the Young Eastern Aukštaitians of Anykščiai, Kupiškis and Utena: Borders and Objective Dialecticity SUMMARY The article discusses the images of the dialectal language of the young Eastern Aukštaitians of Anykščiai, Kupiškis and Utena analysed using the methodological principles of perceptual dialectology. The research material is the data on schoolchildren’s attitudes collected from the questionnaire that was administered in the central areas of the subdialectal zone (Anykščiai, Kupiškis, Rokiškis and Utena) before the global COVID-19 pandemic was declared in Lithuania. Based mainly on the material of the drawn (mental) map of dialects presented in the questionnaire and the answers to the question about the characteristics of a person who speaks the subdialect, an attempt is made to evaluate the viability of these subdialects. The data analysis shows that the dialect code is known and used more or less often by the subjects representing all three subdialects. The young Eastern Aukštaitians of Utena (schoolchildren from Utena and Rokiškis) consider themselves the most active dialect users. The Eastern Aukštaitians of Anykščiai (the subjects of Anykščiai) also admit to speaking the dialect. The Eastern Aukštaitians of Kupiškis (schoolchildren from Kupiškis) tend to distance themselves from this expression. The drawn maps of dialects reveal that the subjects, marking not only the areas of Žemaitians and Western Aukštaitians (which were indicated by previous perception studies as the strongest from a dialectal point of view) but also their native places confirm the dialecticity of the localities analysed. Mainly young people of the Eastern Aukštaitians of Utena and Anykščiai tend to associate their hometown and its surroundings with dialectal Straipsniai / Articles 221 LAURA BRAZAITIENĖ language areas. Creating an actual distance from the neighbouring areas, the schoolchildren of Kupiškis possibly distance themselves from their linguistic expression. Based on the projection of their linguistic environment, young Eastern Highlanders recognise a person speaking in the dialect mainly by sound characteristics. The analysis of the answers illustrating this group shows that the schoolchildren clearly distinguish between the objective dialect of the native town and the surrounding area. The study of objective dialect features encompasses both the distinctive and defining traits of the analyzed subdialects, including their nuanced and characteristic elements. Thus, the images of dialecticity (places and features) that have emerged from the attitudes of young language users and evaluators allow us to identify the researched members of the language community not only as Eastern Aukštaitians but also as Eastern Aukštaitians of Anykščiai, Kupiškis and Utena. Įteikta 2024 m. birželio 26 d. LAURA BRAZAITIENĖ Lietuvių kalbos institutas Petro Vileišio g. 5, LT–10308 Vilnius, Lietuva [email protected] 222 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica XCI