Pietų žemaičių raseiniškių šiaurinės dalies tarmiškumo pokyčiai (XX a. 2-oji pusė – XXI a. 2-asis dešimtmetis)

DIANA DAMBRAUSKIENĖ Institute of the Lithuanian Language ORCID id: orcid.org/0000-0002-0346-8421 Research areas: geolinguistics, sociolinguistics, DOI: doi.org/10.35321/all87-13 CHANGES IN THE DIALECTALITY OF THE NORTHERN PART OF THE SOUTHERN SAMOGITIAN RASEINIAI DIALECT AREA (SECOND HALF OF THE 20TH CENTURY – SECOND DECADE OF THE 21ST CENTURY) Dialectal Changes in the Northern Part of the Southern Samogitian of Raseiniai (2nd Half of the 20th Century – 2nd Decade of the 21st Century) ANNOTATION The article examines the dialectality of the northern part of the Southern Samogitian Raseiniai dialect area in the second half of the 20th century and the second decade of the 21st century. Changes in dialectality are revealed by analyzing dialectal data from two periods (fragments of handwritten texts from the second half of the 20th century and sound recordings from the second decade of the 21st century) from the seven LKA points that were intended to represent the Raseiniai subdialect most adequately in the 20th century: Kùrtuvėnai (LKA 195), Kušlekiai (LKA 225), Pãdubysys (LKA 226), Krãžiai (LKA 257), Kel̃mė (LKA 258), Adomáičiai (LKA 292), and Pãkražantis (LKA 293). Over more than six decades, the use of dialectal features in the northern part of the subdialect has changed. Nevertheless, in the second decade of the 21st century, representatives of the older and oldest generations of the Raseiniai subdialect speak local variants of the Raseiniai subdialect (dialectal language), formed on the basis of features of the traditional subdialect. Differences between the minimum and maximum dialectality indicators, as well as fluctuations in the prevailing indicators, demonstrate that dialectal heterogeneity was characteristic of the Kelmė zone under study as early as the second half of the 20th century. However, greater fluctuations in dialectality scores in sound recordings than in text 270 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVII Pietų žemaičių raseiniškių šiaurinės dalies tarmiškumo pokyčiai (XX a. 2-oji pusė – XXI a. 2-asis dešimtmetis) fragments cautiously suggest more rapid change in the subdialect in the 21st century, resulting from processes of convergence. KEYWORDS: Southern Samogitian Raseiniai subdialect, Kelmė zone, dialectality, dialectality indicator. ANNOTATION The article addresses dialectal speech (dialecticism) in the northern part of the Southern Samogitian of Raseiniai in the 2nd half of the 20th century and the 2nd decade of the 21st century. Dialectal changes are revealed by analysing the dialectal data of two periods (the fragments of manuscript texts of the 2nd half of the 20th century and the audio recordings of the 2nd decade of the 21st century) from seven points of Lithuanian Language Atlas, which were considered the best representatives of the subdialect of Raseiniai in the 20th century: Kurtuvėnai (LLA 195), Kušleikiiai (LLA 225), Padubysys (LLA 226), Kražiai (LLA 257), Kelmė (LLA 258), Adomaičiai (LLA 292), and Pakražantis (LLA 293). The usage of dialectal features has undergone certain changes over more than six decades. However, in the 2nd decade of the 21st century the representatives of the subdialect of Raseiniai of the older and oldest generation use the local varieties of the subdialect of Raseiniai (dialectal speech), which developed on the basis of the features of the traditional subdialect. The differences between minimum and maximum dialectal indicators and the variations in dominant indicators prove that the area of Kelmė already exhibited dialectal heterogeneity in the 2nd half of the 20th century. However, more pronounced variations in dialectal values demonstrated in audio recordings compared to textual fragments imply a careful conclusion about a more rapid change of the subdialect in the 21st century as a result of the processes of convergence. KEYWORDS: Southern Samogitian subdialect of Raseiniai, Kelmė area, dialecticism, dialectal indicator. 1. INTRODUCTION A comprehensive study of the entire area of the Southern Samogitian Raseiniai subdialect revealed the Kelmė zone in its northern part, characterized by active communicative ties among communities (Dambrauskienė 2021: 65, Fig. 19).1 It includes thirteen Atlas of the Lithuanian Language points (hereinafter – LKA): Gūdumoniškė (LKA 162), Šaukėnai 1 Communicative ties are understood as contacts between communities and other communities, determined by the most frequent directions of movement toward particular objects; see Dambrauskienė 2021: 64–65 and the literature cited there for more details. Straipsniai / Articles 271 DIANA DAMBRAUSKIENĖ (LKA 194), Kūr­tuvėnai (LKA 195), Vāigūva (LKA 224), Kušlėikiai (LKA 225), Padubysys (LKA 226), Kiaunoriai (LKA 227), Kražiai (LKA 257), Kelmė (LKA 258), Kubiliai (LKA 259), Týtuvėnai (LKA 260), Adomaičiai (LKA 292), and Pākražantis (LKA 293). According to sociocultural network data, the Samogitian communities are directly or through “structural holes” connected with the Highlanders (Western Šiauliai and Kaunas dialect speakers) and/or the Varniai Samogitians (Dambrauskienė 2021: 63–75)². This demonstrates that the Kelmė geolect, forming on the basis of traditional subdialect features, is transitional (cf. Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė 2014: 259–260; Dambrauskienė 2021: 93–97). Verification of the dialectality indicators confirmed the dialectal heterogeneity of the Kelmė zone, or the northern part of the subdialect (Dambrauskienė 2021: 102–106). Dialectality in the new dialectal formations, geolects (and regiolects), is understood as an expression of the realizations of dialectal features, dependent both on objective (sociodemographic) and subjective (linguistic attitudes) factors (Mikulėnienė 2020: 4–5)³. Based on an analysis of the isophones of distinctive and characteristic features established in the second half of the 20th century, it was determined that the mixing of Samogitian and Highland Lithuanian dialectal features could have occurred only at the boundary of the subdialect with the Western Highland Lithuanian Šiauliai dialect, around Gūdmoniškė (LKA 162) and Kūr­tuvėnai (LKA 195) (cf. LKA II: 44–45, map 27; LKA II: 53–54, map 35; LKA II: 77–79, map 64; LKA II: 77–79, map 66; LKA II: 84–86, map 69; LKA II: 87–88, map 71; LKA II: 93–97, map 80; Dambrauskienė 2021: 40); see Fig. 1. Figure 1 shows that the isophones of stem-stressed ē (27) and o (35) are situated at the subdialect’s northernmost edge (cf. LKA II: maps 27, 35). From the northern corner southward, the eastern boundary of the subdialect, separating Samogitians and Highlanders, follows the isophones of stem-stressed ie (64) and uo (66), while the western boundary, separating the Samogitian Raseiniai and Varniai dialect areas, follows the isophones of stem circumflex am, an (69) and em, en (71) (cf. LKA II: maps 64, 66, 69, 71). Only the isophone of the old clusters *tj, *dj (80), extending southward from the northern edge, divides the subdialect area (cf. LKA II: map 80). Thus, the bundle of isophones coincides with the boundary separating the Raseiniai dialect area from the Western Highland Lithuanian Šiauliai dialect area. Consequently, the mixing of dialectal features could not have occurred in localities distant from the boundary. However, ² For a fuller discussion of the sociocultural network concept, see Dambrauskienė 2021: 63–64 and the literature cited there. A “structural hole” is a situation in which one or more secondary sources of language diffusion are situated between two LKA points and may influence change in the local language; for a fuller discussion of the concept of “structural holes,” see Burt 1992: 8–311; 2000: 345–423; 2004: 349–399; cf. also Gečienė 2009: 133; Dambrauskienė 2021: 63, footnote 90. ³ It should be emphasized that in the newest dialectal formations the concept of dialectality “contains” both dialectal and dialect-like language. For the concepts of dialectal and dialect-like language, see Section 3 of this article. 272 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVII Pietų žemaičių raseiniškių šiaurinės dalies tarmiškumo pokyčiai (XX a. 2-oji pusė – XXI a. 2-asis dešimtmetis) A few years ago, the “overlapping” of Samogitian and Highland Lithuanian features was confirmed in the dialectal material from the second half of the 20th century at the Kelmė (LKA 258) point (Mikulėnienė, Čepaitienė, Bakšienė et al. 2019: 15–16, 270). 1 FIG. Isophones of distinctive and characteristic dialectal features in the area of the Southern Samogitian Raseiniai subdialect (compiled by L. Geržotaitė). The isophones are marked by numbers corresponding to the numbers of the LKA II maps. The numbers marking LKA points correspond to the indicated numbers of the LKA points (LKA I: 21–30; LKA II: 9–17; LKA III: 9–19) The discrepancies identified in the use of dialectal features in the second half of the 20th century, together with the confirmed transitional character of the entire Kelmė zone in the second decade of the 21st century, suggest that the features were not consistently retained even in the other LKA points that were intended to represent the Raseiniai subdialect most adequately in the 20th century. Therefore Straipsniai / Articles 273 DIANA DAMBRAUSKIENĖ it is important to assess the realization of dialectal features at those LKA points where the features should have been best preserved in the second half of the 20th century. The aim of this article is to determine changes in the dialectality of the northern part of the Southern Samogitian Raseiniai dialect area from the second half of the 20th century to the second decade of the 21st century. To achieve this aim, the following objectives were set: 1) to examine the realization of dialectal features in fragments of handwritten texts from the second half of the 20th century and in sound recordings of spoken language from the second decade of the 21st century, and to determine dialectality; 2) to calculate dialectality indicators and determine the level of dialectality; 3) to verify the generalized dialectality scores and assess changes in dialectality. The object of the study is the dialectality of the Kelmė zone in the second half of the 20th century and the second decade of the 21st century. Research material and its selection methodology. In the second half of the 20th century, dialectal features were not consistently preserved at all LKA points in the Kelmė zone⁴, while the Raseiniai subdialect was represented most adequately by seven LKA points: Kūr­tuvėnai (LKA 195), Kušleikiai (LKA 225), Padubysys (LKA 226), Kražiai (LKA 257), Kelmė (LKA 258), Adomaičiai (LKA 292), and Pākražantis (LKA 293) (cf. Zinkevičius 1966: 13–14, 101–102, 448, 452, 453, 473, 477–479, 487–489, 491–493, 503, 505, 512, 513, 515–516, 518; 1994: 106–108; LKA II: 73, 77–78, 80, 84–85, 87–88, maps 3, 7, 19, 20, 27, 32, 35, 40, 41, 43, 64, 66, 68, 69, 71, 105; LKT 1970: 22–23; see also the dialectal texts in LKT 1970: 100–103, 106–108, 111–112, 115–117, 118–128; LKTCH 2004: 206–208; 211–212; Salys 1992: 36; cf. Dambrauskienė 2021: 40–41, 43). Thus, the article compares dialectal material from two periods (from the second half of the 20th century to the second decade of the 21st century) from these seven LKA points in the Kelmė zone. The material for the first period was collected from fragments of handwritten notebook texts preserved in the Dialect Archive of the Geolinguistics Centre of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language, collected and transcribed around 1957–1961 (see Appendix 1). Handwritten texts are used because no dialectal sound recordings from the second half of the 20th century from the LKA points under study are held in the Dialect Archive of the Geolinguistics Centre of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language. The material for the second period consists of dialectal data from informants collected by the author of this article in 2016–2019 and recorded on a dictaphone (see Appendix 2). Fragments of handwritten dialectal texts from Kūr­tuvėnai (LKA 195), Kušleikių (LKA 225), Kražiai (LKA 257), Kelmė (LKA 258), Adomaičiai (LKA 292), and ⁴ Inconsistent use of dialectal features was established in Gūdumoniškė (LKA 162), Šaukėnai (LKA 194), Vaiguva (LKA 224), Kiaunoriai (LKA 227), Kubiliai (LKA 259), and Tytuvėnai (LKA 260) (see Dambrauskienė 2021: 30–31, 40–43 and the literature cited there for more details). Therefore, the dialectality of these LKA points is not analyzed in the article. 274 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVII Changes in the dialectality of the northern part of the Southern Samogitian Raseiniai dialect area (second half of the 20th century – second decade of the 21st century) Pākražantis (LKA 293) are coherent, while those from Padubysys (LKA 226) are incoherent⁵. Sound recordings were selected from the dictaphone material so that it would be as authentic as possible, i.e. not from the beginning of the conversation but somewhat later, when the informants were speaking naturally, “no longer correcting” their speech. The duration of the sound recordings analyzed is 3 hours 29 minutes 3 seconds; the informants’ ages range from 43 to 85; see Appendix 2. Examples illustrating dialectal features from fragments of texts dating from the second half of the 20th century are presented in the spelling of the handwritten notebooks, while those from sound recordings dating from the second decade of the 21st century were transcribed by the author of the article using the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)⁶. Since dialectal texts, as is customary in traditional dialectology, were collected according to the NORM criterion⁷, with the aim of ensuring the most objective comparison of the data possible, dialectality is determined by examining sound recordings of speakers from the older and oldest generations⁸. Since more than 50 years separate the processes of collecting material for the two periods, analysis of dialectality will reveal not only changes in the use of dialectal features from the second half of the 20th century to the second decade of the 21st century, but also the level of dialectality in the Kelmė zone. Methodology. Dialectality is determined both in text fragments and recordings by documenting all distinctive, characteristic, and recessive features that can be and are realized (written and spoken). Distinctive features: 1) the standard-language diphthongs uo, ie are realized as [i̯], [u̯] or as diphthongoids [i̯i̯], [u̯u̯]; 2) the diphthongs an, am, en, em are retained intact (Zinkevičius 1966: 13–14, 101–102, 503, 505, 512, 513; 1994: 106, 108; LKA II: 77–78, 84–85, 87–88, maps 64, 66, 68, 69, 71; LKTCH 2004: 206 et seq.). Characteristic features: 1) the long tense stem and stressed-final vowels ė, o are realized as [ɪɛ], [ʊɔ] (Zinkevičius 1966: 473, 479; 1994: 107; Salys 1992: 36; LKA II: maps 27, 35; LKTCH 2004: 207); 2) the old clusters *ti, *di are retained inconsistently (Zinkevičius 1966: 518; 1994: 107; LKA II: map 80; LKTCH 2004: 208). Recessive and other, or distinctive, features: 1) short vowels in unstressed endings are not pronounced (they remain only between s, š, z, ž and l, r, m, n), while long vowels are shortened ⁵ No coherent written text from the Padubysys (LKA 226) LKA point was found in the Dialect Archive collection of the Geolinguistics Centre. ⁶ For more on the use of IPA to transcribe dialectal features of the Lithuanian language, see Bakšienė, Čepaitienė 2017: 105–135; Bakšienė, Čepaitienė 2017a: 203–229. ⁷ English non-mobile older rural man, Lithuanian sėslus vyresnis kaimo vyras (cf. Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė 2014a: 32–33 and the literature cited there). ⁸ Representatives of the older generation are aged 36 to 60, and those of the oldest generation are aged 61 and above. For the assignment of informants to generations, see Dambrauskienė 2021: 10. Straipsniai / Articles 275 DIANA DAMBRAUSKIENĖ (Zinkevičius 1966: 448, 452, 453; 1994: 107; LKT 1970: 23; LKA II: maps 3 and 7; LKTCH 2004: 207), 2) unstressed final o, ė are pronounced [a], [ɪ], [ɛ] (Zinkevičius 1966: 477, 478, 487, 489; LKA II: maps 32 and 40), 3) unstressed y, ū are shortened in the stem and closed ending (Zinkevičius 1966: 491, 492, 493; LKA II: maps 41, 43; see also the dialectal texts in LKT 1970: 100–103, 106–108, 111–112, 115–117, 118–128), 4) the vowels i, u and the first components of the diphthong ui and the diphthongs il, ir, ul, ur are broadened (Zinkevičius 1966: 515, 516; 1994: 108; LKT 1970: 23; LKA II: maps 19, 20; LKTCH 2004: 108; see also the dialectal texts in LKT 1970: 100–103, 106–108, 111–112, 115–117, 118–128), 5) the diphthongs ai, ei are retained intact in the middle of the word, but in endings, in the suffix –aitis, –aitė and in the particles kaip, taip they are monophthongized (LKT 1970: 22; LKA II: 73; LKTCH 2004: 207), 6) the prefix per and preposition per are pronounced [per] (LKTCH 2004: 211, 212)⁹, 7) the prepositional pas construction is used with the genitive of a nominal (LKTCH 2004: 212), 8) stress is retracted from a short ending to any preceding syllable (LKA II: map 105; LKTCH 2004: 208), as well as features occurring in individual dialects. Dialectal data are presented in a matrix compiled on the basis of the dialectal data from both periods. Methods. The article employs quantitative assessment, statistical, comparative, and descriptive methods. To determine dialectality indicators, the methodology of the scale of dialectal-variant change developed by Danguolė Mikulėnienė is applied, prepared on the basis of Fumio Inoue’s quantitative language assessments (Inoue 2012: 121–122; Mikulėnienė 2020: 6; Dambrauskienė 2021: 89–106). The statistical method is useful for calculating dialectality and the averages of dialectality indicators¹⁰. Comparative and descriptive methods are applied when analyzing objectively calculated dialectality indicators, comparing the use of dialectal-feature realizations and dialectality-indicator data, and describing the results obtained. This article continues research on variation in the Southern Samogitian Raseiniai subdialect and examines, for the first time, Raseiniai dialectality scores in dialectal material from different periods. ⁹ This feature is not distinguished in the LKA volumes (LKA II, LKA III), but is indicated in LKTCH (2004) (see Dambrauskienė 2021: 39). ¹⁰ See footnote 16 of this article for the methodology used to calculate the averages. 276 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVII Changes in the dialectality of the northern part of the Southern Samogitian Raseiniai dialect area (second half of the 20th century – second decade of the 21st century) 2. MATRIX OF THE REALIZATION OF DIALECTAL FEATURES According to the analysis of the dialectal material, the use of dialectal features in the northern part of the subdialect changed over six decades. It was established that in both the second half of the 20th century and the second decade of the 21st century, the realization of dialectal features differs not only in almost all LKA points, but also in that each informant used them with varying frequency; see the table. It was established that the distinctive feature—the realization of the diphthongs ie, uo as monophthongs [iː], [uː] or diphthongoids [i̯i̯], [u̯u̯]—is used inconsistently in fragments of texts from the second half of the 20th century, e.g.: [l̃i̯.pi] ~ liẽpė, [v̯i.na] ~ viẽną, but [niẽka] ~ niẽko, [tie] ~ tiẽ (LKA 195), [padeg­lũ.s] ~ Padegliuosè, [gidúodami] ~ giedó­dami, [puõ miẽstą] ~ po miẽstą, [už ariẽlką] ~ už ariẽlką, [viẽna] ~ viẽną, [niẽka] ~ niẽko, [vakarienī] ~ vakarienę, [li.taũs] ~ lietaũs, [dī.nas] ~ dienàs, [žiẽmišką] ~ žiẽmišką¹¹, [tamsúoli] ~ tamsuõlė, [seniejė] ~ seniejì, [kiėk] ~ kiẽk, [dúti] ~ dúoti, [vūnc] ~ vienas, [niẽka] ~ niẽko, [niẽkur] ~ niẽkur, [kiėk] ~ kiẽk (LKA 195), [padeg­lũ.s] ~ Padegliuosè (Padeg­lių village – author’s note), (LKA 226), (LKA 257), (LKA 292). In sound recordings from the second decade of the 21st century, this feature is rare. A somewhat more frequent realization of ie, uo as monophthongs [i̯], [u̯] or diphthongoids [i̯i̯], [u̯u̯] was recorded only in the speech of informants from Kušleikių (LKA 225) and Kražiai (LKA 257) ([u̯aˈʒu̯dau̯] ~ važiúodavo (LKA 225_3_1), [ˈmʲiˈstʲe] ~ miestè (LKA 257_3_1); other informants more often used standard-language equivalents. The feature was not recorded (or was recorded only once) at the Padubysys (LKA 226), Adomaičiai (LKA 292), and Pākražantis (LKA 293) points (with more than one informant recorded in some cases), indicating its declining use. The realization of the long tense stem and stressed-final ė, o as [ɛ], [ɔ] is very frequent in the text fragments ([tuoks vu̯ãrkšas] ~ tóks varg̃šas, [žmũogus] ~ žmõgus (LKA 195), [pradėjau] ~ pradė́jau (LKA 225), [į̯ kalėjimą] ~ į kalėjimą (LKA 226), [pridėjom žuolės] ~ pridėjom žolės (LKA 257), [žvė́ju̯ot] ~ žvejóti (LKA258), [múotinas] ~ mótinos (LKA 292), [valduõvs] ~ valdõvas, [idė̃s] ~ idė̃s (LKA 293). In the recordings, the feature is used inconsistently: although it is very frequent in the speech of some informants, it was not recorded in the speech of the resident of Pākražantis (LKA 293), LKA 293_3 ([ˈʔkoːlukʲi] ~ kolūkyje, [bʲiˈbʲi̯ʑɔtʲɛka] ~ biblioteka). The broadening of the short vowels i, u (and of the first components of the diphthongs il, ir, ul, ur and the diphthong ui), as well as stress retraction, has survived; however, both features are used inconsistently in text fragments and sound recordings. ¹¹ The examples are presented as written in the original; therefore, this and the other cases of stress marking have not been corrected. Straipsniai / Articles 277 DIANA DAMBRAUSKIENĖ LKA point Kūr­tuvėnai (LKA 195) Kušlėikiai (LKA 225) Text fragment and sound recording LKA 195 LKA 195_2 LKA 195_3 LKA 225 LKA 225_3_1 LKA 225_3_2 Distinctive features Circumflex-final an, am, en, em (on, om (un, um)) ie, uo: y, ū Characteristic features Long tense e, o in the stem and stressed ending: ie, uo *tj, *dj Recessive features Preposition pas with genitive Prefix per and preposition per: par-, par Stress retraction Shortening of endings (except between s, š, z, ž and l, r, m, n) ai, ei: a, e i, u (il, ir, ul, ur, ui) broadening y, ū in unstressed stem and ending: i, u ė, o in unstressed stem and ending: a, i, e a, e, i, u in unstressed ending: a, e, i, u (an, en) Acute-initial am, an, em, en + + + + + + (+) (+) +/− + (+) (+) 0 +/− +/− 0 0 ¹ Sign meanings: “+” a very frequently (or universally) used feature; “(+)” a used feature; “−” a very rarely (or never) used feature; “+/−” a feature used by one generation (or very rarely); “0” a feature not used even once. Text fragments and their illustration are indicated by the LKA point number (e.g., a text fragment from Kūr­tuvėnai (LKA 195) is marked LKA 195); sound recordings are indicated by the LKA point number, with “2” denoting the recording of an older-generation informant and “3” the recording of an oldest-generation informant. LKA 225 is marked in italics, namely LKA 225_3_1–LKA 225_3_2. TABLE. Dialectality matrix¹² 278 Acta Linguistica LXXXVII Pietų žemaičių raseiniškių šiaurinės dalies tarmiškumo pokyčiai (XX a. 2-oji pusė – XXI a. 2-asis dešimtmetis) Straipsniai / Articles 279 DIANA DAMBRAUSKIENĖ Broadening cases are most frequent in text fragments from Kūr­tuvėnai (LKA 195) and Kušleikai (LKA 225) ([dùręs] ~ dùris (LKA 195), [didelẽ] ~ didelę, [išmirì] ~ išmirė (LKA 225); in Kražiai (LKA 257) and Adomaičiai (LKA 292), standard-language equivalents are also used alongside them ([būva] ~ būvo, but [dùkter.] ~ dùkterį, [rišėjoms] ~ rišėjoms, [aplinkine.] ~ aplinkiniai (LKA 257), [nūorem] ~ nórim, but [būva] ~ būvo, [auginti] ~ auginti, [biški] ~ biški (trupūtį, from German bißchen); in Padubysys (LKA 226), Kelmė (LKA 258), and Pàkražantis (LKA 293), broadening was either absent or not marked in the texts. Systematic broadening of the short vowels i, u (and of the first components of the diphthongs il, ir, ul, ur and the diphthong ui), like stress retraction, was established only in the sound recording of informant LKA 258_3 from Kelmė (LKA 258), who was born and lived until the age of 25 in Plungė district ([susʲiˈdʉrtʲ] ~ susidùrt, [ʒʲeˈmɛtʲɪˌjɛ] ~ Žemaitiją, [ˈdʉkra] ~ dukrą)13 Stress is most often retracted in the text fragments from Kūr­tuvėnai (LKA 195) and Pàdubysys (LKA 226) ([žmuõgus] ~ žmõgùs, [vìsus] ~ vìsùs, [tãda] ~ tadã (LKA 195), [pãčìus] ~ pačiùs, [jàvùs] ~ javùs, [jàunì] ~ jaunì (LKA 226); less frequently in Kelmė (LKA 258), while in the fragments from the other LKA points the feature was found only a few times. The realization of y, ū in the unstressed stem and ending as the short vowels i, u varies in the text fragments: it is very frequent in some, while entirely absent in others. Consistent shortening of y, ū was established in text fragments from Pàdubysys (LKA 226) ([gyvėntuojë] ~ gyvėntojai), whereas it was not recorded in those from Kūr­tuvėnai (LKA 195) and Adomaičiai (LKA 292) ([ku.tie] ~ kūtėje, [vãlgi.sma] ~ válgysime (LKA 195), [Bùtautìkė] ~ Butautikė, [žù.riek] ~ žiūrek, [gyvėnti] ~ gyvėnti, [paruodìti] ~ parõdyti, [vìniuo] ~ vynioja, [lãistìti] ~ láistyti, [rùpùži] ~ rupūžė (LKA 292). Short-vowel reflexes of y, ū were found in all sound recordings ([bʲerʒʲiˈnʲuks] ~ beržynūkas (LKA 225_3_2), [grʲi²nʲe] ~ grynai (LKA 258_3), showing that the feature is currently used more frequently in the northern part of the subdialect than in the second half of the 20th century. The use of the old clusters *tj, *dj has declined since the second half of the 20th century: although the feature is infrequent even in the text fragments ([nelėid] ~ neléidžia, but [išdžū.val] ~ išdžiūvo (LKA 195), [á.ud] ~ áudžia, but [iždžiuovi.n] ~ išdžiovina, [didžã.usi] ~ didžiausi, [su vì.ce] ~ su vytim (plona, lankščia šakele) (LKA 225), [išlėid] ~ išlėidžia, but [saldžùs] ~ saldžius, [plačáuses] ~ plačiausios (LKA 226), it was realized in only one sound recording ([liˈlʲeːid] ~ lėidžia (LKA 195_2). In sound recordings, the construction of the preposition pas with the genitive of a nominal is used less frequently than in the text fragments. Although both dialectal variants and standard-language equivalents occurred in the text fragments ([pàs buõžù] ~ pàs buõžės, ¹³ Although this person has lived in the Raseiniai area for more than half of his life, quite a few features of Western Samogitian probably remained in his speech. 280 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVII Pietų žemaičių raseiniškių šiaurinės dalies tarmiškumo pokyčiai (XX a. 2-oji pusė – XXI a. 2-asis dešimtmetis) but [pas bū.ožes] ~ pàs būožes, [pas tā. pū.ona] ~ pàs tā pŏnę (LKA 258), in the sound recordings the feature was found only a few times [pa_s'ėn'i'č'i'ų] ~ pas senelius (LKA 195_2), [pas_t'ė v̇ųkų] ~ pas tėvukus (LKA 195_3), [pas_'mūsu] ~ pas mūs (LKA 293_3). The use of [aː] [εː] in place of ai, ei and the realization [pər] of the prefix per and preposition per declined most sharply since the second half of the 20th century. In many text fragments, the features are very frequent ([gerã.] ~ gerai, [su lankā.s] ~ su lankais, [ka.ṗanì.] ~ kaip anìe, [kā.p] ~ kaip, virà ~ vỳrai, [darbinìrka.] ~ darbininkai, [regerã.] ~ negerai, [rn atā.] ~ rnatai, [la-bā.] ~ labai, [ketu ruo liktā.s] ~ keturioliktais, [Paldūnāti su Šimulāte] ~ Paldūnaitė su Šimulaitė, [par_tus bandītus] ~ pēr tuõs bandītus, [par_ṗi.tūs] ~ per pietūs, [pártverda va] ~ pértverdavo, [par rādija] ~ per rā diją, [pā.r dvārus] ~ per dvarùs, [pār dīnas] ~ per dienàs, [pársižegnuojo] ~ pérsižegnojo, [v̇eik'ė l'ė] ~ vaikėliai, [per_sᵊd'i-ba] ~ per sodybą, [per_t'ė l'ė'u'żor'ų] ~ per televizorių (LKA 195, 195_3, 225, 226, 257, 258, 292, 293, 258_2). In both text fragments and sound recordings, shortening of the endings ą, ę, į, ų to [a], [ε], [i], [u] is frequently found (fragments: [par rā dija] ~ per rādiją, [i.ri.ga] ~ į Rygą, [pruoš lāngą] ~ proč lāngą, [taūre] ~ taūrę, ['uaːlanda] ~ vālandą, [ts'i'ḃsl'u] ~ cibūlių, [būva dvārviētil] ~ būvo dvārviėte, [ą teka] ~ o tēko, [dū.dava] ~ dúodavo, [²'s'n'iegɔ] ~ sniego, [n'e'ḃyua] ~ nebūvo, [²'k'ei̯'m'ės] ~ Kel̃mės, [ka.ṗui.rs] ~ kaip ūyras, [vīnc vaĩks] ~ vienas vaikas, [Gudūks] ~ Gudūkas, [b'ėrʒ'3'i'n'uks] ~ beržynlūkas, [²'p'ļēnts] ~ pléntas (LKA 257, 292, 293, 292_2, 225_3_2, 226, 257, 258, 225_3_1, 226_3_2, 258_2, 195, 292, 225_3_2, 293_3). Changes in the use of these features in the northern part of the subdialect are minimal. The diphthongs an, am, en, em are retained most consistently (fragments: [pasigalánda] ~ pasigal cuándo, [vaikā.ms] ~ vaikāms, [krėmt]¹⁴ ~ krìnta, [bražẽntā] ~ brežėnto, [pas'i¹² skam'i̯b'in's'i] ~ pasiskambinsi; [²'ṗ'en's'i'n'ik̇el] ~ peñsiniňkai (LKA 195, 225, 226, 257, 226_3_1, 293_3). The analysis of dialectality shows that already in the second half of the 20th century the localities under study were characterized not by dialectality as the totality of dialectal features, but by dialectality as an expression of the realization of those features (cf. Mikulėnienė 2020: 4). ¹⁴ The Electronic Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language indicates the Samogitian form krėmta, see LKŽ. Straipsniai / Articles 281 DIANA DAMBRAUSKIENĖ 3. DIALECTALITY INDICES Thus, dialectality can be measured and its level determined both in new recordings of spoken language and in older text fragments. In determining the level of dialectality, all dialectal features are equally important (cf. Mikulėnienė 2018: 119–121; 2019: 60). After calculating all cases of possible and realized dialectal features15, a diagram was drawn that highlighted fluctuations in dialectality indices: smaller ones in text fragments and larger ones in recordings of spoken language; see Fig. 2. FIG. 2. Dialectality indicators in text fragments and recordings Dialectality is measured using a scale of variation in dialectal speech (dialectality): an indicator from 1.0 to 0.75 denotes a preserved traditional dialect variety, from 0.75 to 0.5 a dialectal language, and values below 0.5 a language variety strongly affected by convergence processes (cf. Mikulėnienė 2020: 6–7; Dambrauskienė 2021: 89). To date, the scale has been used in two studies of the southern Samogitian Raseiniai subdialect area during the period under observation: 1) in analyzing informants’ dialectality and the dialectality levels of informants from selected LKA points, and 2) in determining the correlation between dialectality indicators and objective extralinguistic factors in localities with closed sociocultural networks (see Dambrauskienė 2021: 136–141; 2021a: 101–116). However, the tool is also useful for clarifying changes in dialectality by examining dialectal material from several selected periods from the same 15 Calculation of dialectality indicators: 1) all possible cases of features characteristic of Raseiniai speakers that can be realized are counted in the text fragment (or sound recording), and they are assigned a coefficient of 1; 2) cases of realized features are counted; 3) the dialectality indicator is obtained by multiplying coefficient 1 by the number of cases of realized features and dividing by the number of all possible cases of features that can be realized. For an example of calculating dialectality indicators, see Dambrauskienė 2021: 90, footnote 119. 282 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVII Pietų žemaičių raseiniškių šiaurinės dalies tarmiškumo pokyčiai (XX a. 2-oji pusė – XXI a. 2-asis dešimtmetis) localities. Consequently, measuring the dialectality of dialectal material from the same LKA points from the second half of the 20th century and the second decade of the 21st century using the scale will reveal changes in dialectality during this period. Since different amounts of source material were used to calculate the dialectality indicators, the means of the dialectality indicators of the text fragments and sound recordings were calculated16 in order to assess dialectality objectively. The dialectality means (0.919 for text fragments and 0.776 for sound recordings) show that local Raseiniai subdialect varieties formed on the basis of the traditional subdialect were preserved in the material from both periods. The small difference between the means (0.143) allows us to state that these varieties have not been strongly affected by convergence processes since the second half of the 20th century. It should be emphasized that the means and their difference revealed general trends in the use of dialectal features. The level of dialectality and language change are assessed by the minimum and maximum limits of dialectality (Mikulėnienė 2020: 9; cf. Dambrauskienė 2021: 135–136). Thus, the difference between the minimum (0.869) and maximum (0.944) dialectality indicators established in the text fragments is 0.075, indicating not only a fairly high and stable level of dialectality, but also a relatively similar number of cases of realized dialectal features. The box plot illustrating the generalized dialectality estimate for the text fragments shows that the prevailing dialectality index fluctuates approximately from 0.91 to 0.93 (the principal value is about 0.925). This indicator means that dialectal language was recorded in the text fragments. However, a borderline situation also emerged, marked by a dot in the diagram; see Fig. 3.17 A non-dominant borderline situation indicates an especially large deviation from the prevailing indicator. However, it is known to denote the minimum dialectality indicator, 0.869, which, according to the scale of variation in dialectal speech, is considered dialectal language. Although this borderline situation does not substantially change dialectality, it signals stronger change in the local language in the vicinity of Pākražantis (LKA 293) than in other localities. This is also confirmed by the sound-recording data: the lowest dialectality indicator (0.574), denoting a dialectal language variety, was likewise established in the speech of the informant (LKA 293_3) from Pākražantis (LKA 293). 16 The means are derived as follows: the sum of all dialectality indicators for the material from one period (text fragments or sound recordings) is divided by the number of items of material from that period. For example, dividing the sum of all dialectality indicators for the text fragments, 6.434, by the number of fragments, 7, yields the rounded mean of 0.919. 17 Horizontal thin lines indicate the data quartiles (percentiles) and means (minimum and maximum data). The bold line is the median, indicating the center of the sample; unlike the mean, it is not affected by large fluctuations in the data and remains the same (for more detail, see Lapinskas 2010: 2–1–2–5; see also Mikulėnienė 2020: 7). Straipsniai / Articles 283 DIANA DAMBRAUSKIENĖ FIG. 3. Dialectality estimate in text fragments Different results emerged when the difference between the minimum (0.574) and maximum (0.957) indicators in the sound recordings was calculated. The difference (0.383) allows us to assert that strong convergence processes are currently taking place, together with considerable changes in the use of dialectal features. When the generalized dialectality estimate of the recordings was illustrated in a box plot, no borderline situations occurred, while the prevailing dialectality index fluctuated approximately from 0.68 to 0.85; see Fig. 4. FIG. 4. Dialectality estimate in recordings 284 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVII Pietų žemaičių raseiniškių šiaurinės dalies tarmiškumo pokyčiai (XX a. 2-oji pusė – XXI a. 2-asis dešimtmetis) As can be seen in this diagram, there is a fairly substantial fluctuation from the lowest estimate (approximately 0.57) to the highest (approximately 0.96). However, the principal estimate (approximately 0.79) allows us to assume that the older and oldest generations of residents of the localities under study speak a dialectal language. Thus, the diagrams of the generalized dialectality indices for both periods show that over more than five decades the traditional Raseiniai subdialect in the Kelmė zone has not experienced the effects of particularly strong convergence processes: in this part of the subdialect area, dialectal language is used both in text fragments from the second half of the 20th century and in recordings of spoken language from the second decade of the 21st century. However, greater fluctuations in dialectality estimates in the recordings than in the fragments allow us to assert that more rapid changes are taking place in the 21st century. It is also important to note that fluctuations in dialectality estimates and the revealed borderline situation confirm the transitional character of the LKA points in the northern part of the southern Samogitian Raseiniai area, or the Kelmė zone, since the second half of the 20th century. 4. CONCLUSIONS The results of the study show that dialectality, as an expression of the realization of dialectal features, already characterized the northern part of the southern Samogitian Raseiniai area in the second half of the 20th century. From the second half of the 20th century to the second decade of the 21st century, the use of almost all dialectal features changed. Of the distinctive features, only the use of the diphthongs an, am, en, em with a falling second component did not change; the realization of uo, ie as monophthongs [i], [u̯] or diphthongoids [iʌ̯], [u̯ʌ] decreased. Changes in characteristic features: the realization of the long tense ē, o as diphthongs [ɪɛ], [ʊɔ] decreased minimally and remained fairly frequent; the old clusters *tj, *dj are almost always realized as affricates. Changes in blank features: the realization of unstressed stem and ending ē, o as [a], [ɪ], [ɛ], shortening of endings, except between s, š, z, ž and l, r, m, n, and the retraction of stress decreased slightly; monophthongization of the diphthongs ai, ei, pronunciation of the prefix per and the preposition per as [pɛr], and the construction of the preposition pas with the genitive of a nominal have almost disappeared; shortening of unstressed y, ū in the stem and closed ending, and widening of the first components of i, u (and of the diphthongs il, ir, ul, ur and the diphthong ui) occur more frequently. Both the means of the dialectality estimates and the diagrams of the generalized dialectality indices confirmed that local Raseiniai subdialect varieties (dialectal language) have been used in the Kelmė zone from the second half of the 20th century to the second decade of the 21st century. Straipsniai / Articles 285 DIANA DAMBRAUSKIENĖ The established differences between the minimum and maximum dialectality indicators and the fluctuations of the prevailing indicators prove that dialectal heterogeneity has characterized this zone since the second half of the 20th century. However, greater fluctuations in dialectality estimates in sound recordings than in text fragments allow us to assert more rapid change in the subdialect in the 21st century as a result of convergence processes. REFERENCES AND SOURCES Aliūkaitė Daiva, Mikulėnienė Danguolė 2014: Geolections and regional dialects: features of their formation in Lithuania. – Lithuanian Dialects at the Beginning of the 21st Century: A Geolinguistic and Sociolinguistic Study (Maps and Their Commentaries), ed. D. Mikulėnienė, V. Meiliūnaitė, Vilnius: Briedis, 257–262. Bakšienė Rima, Čepaitienė Agnė 2017: Possibilities of applying the International Phonetic Alphabet to the sounds of Lithuanian dialects. – Baltistica 52(1), 105–135. Bakšienė Rima, Čepaitienė Agnė 2017a: Transcription of Lithuanian dialects: tradition and IPA. – Linguistica Lettica 25, 203–229. Burt Ronald S. 1992: Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Burt Ronald S. 2000: The Network Structure of Social Capital. – Research in Organizational Behavior 22, ed. by B. M. Staw, R. I. Sutton, 345–423. Burt Ronald S. 2004: Structural Holes and Good Ideas. – American Journal of Sociology 110(2), 349–399. Dambrauskienė Diana 2021: Linguistic transitivity of the southern Samogitian Raseiniai speakers: horizontal and vertical variability: doctoral dissertation, Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language. Dambrauskienė Diana 2021a: Correlation between dialectality indicators and objective extralinguistic factors in localities with closed sociocultural networks of the southern Samogitian Raseiniai speakers. – Profiles of Lithuanian Dialectology: Regional Varieties at the Beginning of the 21st Century, Their Relations and Prospects, ed. V. Meiliūnaitė, Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language. Available online: http://lki.lt/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Lietuviu-dialektologijos-profiliai-1.pdf. Gečienė Ingrida 2009: Analysis of social networks in migration studies. – Sociology. Thought and Action 2(25), 130–143. Inoue Fumio 2012: Improvements in the sociolinguistic status of dialects as observed through linguistic landscapes – utilization of google maps and google insights. – Dialectologia 8, 85–132. 286 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVII Changes in the dialectality of the northern part of the southern Samogitian Raseiniai speakers (second half of the 20th century – second decade of the 21st century) Lapinskas Remigijus 2010: The Shortest Possible Course in Applied Statistics with R, Vilnius: Vilnius University. Available online: http://web.vu.lt/mif/a.reklaite/files/2013/02/2010.01-Pats-trumpiausias-su-R.pdf. LKA I – 1977: Atlas of the Lithuanian Language I. Lexicon, responsible editor K. Morkūnas, Vilnius: Mokslas. LKA II – 1982: Atlas of the Lithuanian Language II. Phonetics, responsible editor K. Morkūnas, Vilnius: Mokslas. LKA III – 1991: Atlas of the Lithuanian Language III. Morphology, responsible editor K. Morkūnas, Vilnius: Mokslas. LKT 1970: Lithuanian Dialects (Chrestomathy), ed. E. Grinaveckienė, A. Jonaitytė, K. Morkūnas, B. Vanagienė, A. Vidugiris, Vilnius: Mintis. LKTCH 2004: Chrestomathy of Lithuanian Dialects, ed. R. Bacevičiūtė, A. Ivanauskienė, A. Leskauskaitė, E. Trumpa, Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language. LKŽ: Electronic Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language. Available online: http://www.lkz.lt/?zodis=kristi&id=17217250000. Mikulėnienė Danguolė 2018: A Multimodal Model of Dialectology: Possibilities for Researching the Variability of Local Polish in Lithuania. Available online: http://www.lenkutarmes.flf.vu.lt/files/mikuleniene_%20tarmetyros_modelis.pdf. Mikulėnienė Danguolė 2019: Nomenclature of dialectality features: from dialectal features to dialectality markers. – Respectus philologicus 35(40). Available online: https://www.zurnalai.vu.lt/respectus-philologicus/article/view/12716/11395. Mikulėnienė Danguolė 2020: Dialectality as a measurable quantity. – Lithuanian Language 15. Available online: https://www.zurnalai.vu.lt/lietuviu-kalba/article/view/22434/21701. Mikulėnienė Danguolė, Čepaitienė Agnė, Bakšienė Rima, Geržotaitė Laura, Kardelytė-Grinevičienė Daiva, Leskauskaitė Asta, Meiliūnaitė Violeta, Vyniautaitė Simona 2019: A Dialectometric Cross-Section of the Classification of Traditional Lithuanian Dialects: An Exploratory Study, ed. D. Mikulėnienė, A. Čepaitienė, Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language. Nerbonne John, Kleiweg Peter 2007: Toward a Dialectological Yardstick. – Journal of Quantitative Linguistics 14(2–3), 148–166. Salys Antanas 1992: Writings. Lithuanian Dialects IV, Rome: Lithuanian Catholic Academy of Sciences. Szmrecsanyi Benedikt 2011: Corpus-based dialectometry: a methodological sketch. – Corpora 6(1), 45–76. Straipsniai / Articles 287 DIANA DAMBRAUSKIENĖ Zinkevičius Zigmas 1966: Lithuanian Dialectology, Vilnius: Mintis. Zinkevičius Zigmas 1994: Dialectology of the Lithuanian Language, Vilnius: Science and Encyclopaedia Publishing House. Dialectal Changes in the Northern Part of the Southern Samogitian of Raseiniai (2nd Half of the 20th Century – 2nd Decade of the 21st Century) SUMMARY A thorough study addressing the area of the Southern Samogitian subdialect of Raseiniai revealed that the area of Kelmė situated in the northern part of the subdialect demonstrates active intercommunity communication links. Thirteen points from Lithuanian Language Atlas (hereinafter – the LLA) fall to this area: Gudmoniškė (LLA 162), Šaukėnai (LLA 194), Kurtuvėnai (LLA 195), Vaiguva (LLA 224), Kušlėikiai (LLA 225), Padubysys (LLA 226), Kiaunoriai (LLA 227), Kražiai (LLA 257), Kelmė (LLA 258), Kubiliai (LLA 259), Tytuvėnai (LLA 260) Adomaičiai (LLA 292), and Pakražantis (LLA 293). The links of Samogitian communities (direct or through “structural holes”) and Aukštaitians (speakers of the subdialect of Western Šiauliai and the subdialect of Kaunas) and/or the speakers of the Samogitian subdialect of Varniai prove that the geolect of Kelmė developing on the basis of the traditional features of the subdialect is transitional. Meanwhile, the investigation of dialectal indicators confirms the dialectal heterogeneity of Kelmė area. Based on the analysis of the isophones of distinctive and characteristic features established in the 2nd half of the 20th century, the blending of Samogitian and Aukštaitian dialectal features is only possible in the area where the subdialect borders the Western Aukštaitian of Šiauliai. However, several years ago, the “overlapping” of dialectal features was found in the dialectal data collected in the 2nd half of the 20th century in the point of Kelmė (LLA 258), which is situated at a greater distance from the border. We can guess that the dialectal features were also not consistently maintained in other LLA points, which best represent the subdialect of Raseiniai, in the 20th century already. The article compares the realization of dialectal features in the dialectal texts of the 2nd half of the 20th century and the audio recordings of the 2nd decade of the 21st century from seven LLA points falling to the area of Kelmė (Kurtuvėnai (LLA 195), Kušlėikiai (LLA 225), Padubysys (LLA 226), Kražiai (LLA 257), Kelmė (LKA 258), Adomaičiai (LLA 292), and Pakražantis (LLA 293). 288 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVII Pietų žemaičių raseiniškių šiaurinės dalies tarmiškumo pokyčiai (XX a. 2-oji pusė – XXI a. 2-asis dešimtmetis) The dialectal matrix based on the dialectal data of the two periods demonstrates that the realization of dialectal features in the 2nd half of the 20th century and in the 2nd decade of the 21st century does not only differ in nearly all the LLA points but also every informant used them with a different frequency. Dialectal indicators were calculated on the basis of the dialectal speech (dialecticism) change scale. In order to evaluate dialecticism objectively, the mean values of the dialectal indicators of textual fragments and audio recordings and their differences were calculated. The above data showed the general tendencies in the use of dialectal features, i.e., the preserved local varieties of the subdialect of Raseiniai, which formed on the basis of the traditional subdialect. To reveal dialectal level and language change, the limits of minimum and maximum dialecticism were established. After the generalized dialectal indices were illustrated by a diagram, it was proven that the traditional subdialect of Raseiniai has not undergone particularly strong processes of convergence in the area of Kelmė over the past six decades: dialectal speech is used in both the fragments of the texts of the 2nd half of the 20th century and the audio recordings of dialectal speech of the 2nd decade of the 21st century. The differences between minimum and maximum dialectal indicators and the variations in the dominant indicators identified in the research lead to a conclusion that the area of Kelmė has demonstrated dialectal heterogeneity since the 2nd half of the 20th century. However, more pronounced variations in the dialectal values of audio recordings compared to textual fragments show more rapid dialectal changes driven by the processes of convergence in the 21st century. Straipsniai / Articles 289 DIANA DAMBRAUSKIENĖ APPENDIX 1 Register of dialectal text fragments LKA point Notebook registration no. Dialect recorder(s) Dialect informants Date material was recorded Kūrtuvėnai (LKA 195) 629 (1) / 195 (1) VVU fourth-year student Albertas Rosinas M. D., born in 1883. J. M., about 60 years old. K., about 70 years old. 1960 Kušleikiai (LKA 225) 543 (1) / 225 (5) Third-year students Žana Urbonavičiūtė, Elena Tamošaitytė, and Janina Keliotytė of the Faculty of Lithuanian Language and Literature at VVPI N., 96 years old. V. S., born in 1888. R. B., 60 years old. S. V., 54 years old. B. V., 53 years old. S. V., born in 1942. Not indicated Padubysys (LKA 226) 696 (1) / 226 (1) Not indicated J. M. L. P. M. P. J. M. P. I. M. Not indicated Kražiai (LKA 257) 558 (2) / 257 (2) G. Narauskaitė D. Jonikaitė G. Čičelytė L., 69 years old. S., 78 years old. G., 63 years old. E. B., born in 1942. K., 97 years old. K.’s daughter, 56 years old. Not indicated Kelmė (LKA 258) 406 (3) / 258 (3) Third-year student Ona Lukošiūtė of the Faculty of Lithuanian Language and Literature at the Šiauliai Pedagogical Institute A. L., 56 years old. O. L., 55 years old. May 5, 1957 Adomaičiai (LKA 292) 672 (1) / 292 a (1) Strodomskytė M. Š., born in 1900. K. J. R. S., born in 1894. Not indicated Pākražantis (LKA 293) 721 (1) / 293 b (1) Third-year Lithuanian studies student Juozas Levickas at Vilnius State University named after V. Kapsukas J. L., born around 1903. J. G., born in 1898. K. N., born in 1895. S. V., born in 1888. A. P., born in 1928. 1960–1961 290 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVII Pietų žemaičių raseiniškių šiaurinės dalies tarmiškumo pokyčiai (XX a. 2-oji pusė – XXI a. 2-asis dešimtmetis) APPENDIX 2 Register of sound recordings LKA point | Informant | Place of residence | Recording duration Kūrtuvėnai (LKA 195) | LKA 195_2 (47 years old) | Kūrtuvėnai town | 30 min. 47 sec. | LKA 195_3 (79 years old) | Kūrtuvėnai town | 225 Kušleikiai (LKA 225) | LKA 225_3_1 (62 years old) | Kušleikių village | 13 min. 14 sec. | LKA 225_3_2 (75 years old) | Šaltenių village (1 km from Kušleikių village) | 16 min. 36 sec. Padubysys (LKA 226) | LKA 226_2 (56 years old) | Kaniūkų village (formerly Pādubysio village) | 23 min. 49 sec. | LKA 226_3_1 (78 years old) | Kaniūkų village (formerly Pādubysio village) | | LKA 226_3_2 (80 years old) | Kaniūkų village (formerly Pādubysio village) | 12 min. 55 sec. Kražiai (LKA 257) | LKA 257_3_1 (61 years old) | Kražiai town | 9 min. 27 sec. | LKA 257_3_2 (70 years old) | Piliakalnio village (1 km from Kražiai) | 13 min. 51 sec. Kelmė (LKA 258) | LKA 258_2 (60 years old) | Kelmė city | 12 min. 26 sec. | LKA 258_3 (85 years old) | Kelmė city | 8 min. 40 sec. Adomaičiai (LKA 292) | LKA 292_2 (43 years old) | Ląplėgių village (1 km from Adomaičiai) | 13 min. 54 sec. Pąkražantis (LKA 293) | LKA 293_2 (51 years old) | Pąkražančio village | 38 min. 58 sec. | LKA 293_2 (72 years old) | Pąkražančio village | 4 min. 26 sec. Total recordings: | 3 hr. 29 min. 3 sec. Submitted on June 30, 2022 DIANA DAMBRAUSKIENĖ Institute of the Lithuanian Language, 5 Petro Vileišio St., LT-10308 Vilnius, Lithuania [email protected] Straipsniai / Articles 291