SIMONA VYNIAUTAITĖ

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

ORCID id: orcid.org/0000-0002-9164-8026

Research areas: geolinguistics, dialectology, sociolinguistics.

DOI: doi.org/10.35321/all87-14

REGRESSIVE VOWEL ASSIMILATION: NOMENCLATURAL CHANGE OF THE FEATURE FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF PLUNGĖ RESIDENTS

Regressive Vowel Assimilation: Nomenclatural Change of Feature from the Point of View of Plunge Residents

ABSTRACT

The article examines the nomenclatural change of the principal distinctive feature of the Northern Samogitian Telšiai and Kretinga subdialects—regressive vowel assimilation. It aims to establish the extent to which the residents of Plungė perceive regressive vowel assimilation as a distinctive feature of the Northern Samogitian dialect and to assess changes in this feature. The study draws on methods of dynamic and perceptual dialectology.

Analysis of Plungė informants’ comments on regressive vowel assimilation and other dialectal features of the Northern Samogitian subdialects established that vowel assimilation is rarely identified as a distinctive feature of the Northern Samogitian subdialects. Most often, this feature is noticed, but it is assigned little differential significance. Other phonetic, morphological, and lexical differences are considered more important and significant. Regressive vowel assimilation is also associated with the influence of non-dialectal speech.

KEYWORDS: Northern Samogitian subdialects, regressive vowel assimilation, nomenclature of dialectal features, change in dialectal features, linguistic attitudes.

ANNOTATION

The article addresses the nomenclatural change of regressive vowel assimilation as the main distinguishing feature of the subdialects of the Northern Samogitian of Telšiai and

292

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVII

Regresyvinė balsių asimiliacija: nomenklatūrinė požymio kaita plungiškių požiūriu

Kretinga. It attempts to determine to what extent the residents of Plungė are aware of regressive vowel assimilation as the distinguishing feature of Northern Samogitian and to evaluate the change of this feature. The article draws upon the methods of dynamic dialectology and perceptual dialectology.

After analysing the comments provided by the informants from Plungė on regressive vowel assimilation and other dialectal features of Northern Samogitian subdialects, it was established that vowel assimilation is rarely considered a distinguishing feature of Northern Samogitian subdialects. This feature is usually observed but it is assigned a marginal differential value. Other phonetic, morphological and lexical differences are considered more important and significant. Regressive vowel assimilation is also associated with the influence of non-dialectal speaking.

KEYWORDS: Northern Samogitian subdialects, regressive vowel assimilation, nomenclature of dialectal features, change of dialectal features, linguistic attitudes.

INTRODUCTION

In 21st-century studies of linguistic variation, not only the realization of dialectal features of a particular variety, but also users’ linguistic attitudes and linguistic self-identification have become significant. They influence both the actual use of one or another variety and possible (non-)integration, provide additional data for understanding and evaluating linguistic variation, and help create a prognostic model (cf. Aliūkaitė, Bakšienė et al. 2014: 130; Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė, Čepaitienė, Geržotaitė 2017: 19). For this reason, in multimodal dialectology, perception is regarded as one component of the research model applied (Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė, Čepaitienė, Geržotaitė 2017: 31–51; Mikulėnienė, Meiliūnaitė 2017: 169–195; Mikulėnienė 2020: 11–33, et al.). Increasingly more studies of the geolinguistic competence of users of a particular linguistic variety (or several varieties) are conducted using various methods of perceptual dialectology—for example, studies of images of dialectal and standard language, linguistic homeland, and evaluations of dialectal speech (Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė 2016: 89–120; Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė, Čepaitienė, Geržotaitė 2017; Bakšienė 2019: 1–17; Geržotaitė 2019: 1–25; Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė, Čepaitienė, Brazaitienė 2020, et al.).

Studies devoted to linguistic variation and its evaluation from the perspective of perceptual dialectology, which also analyzed the attitudes of members of the Plungė community, show that young residents of Plungė regard the Plungė area, that is, their linguistic homeland, as the zone with the highest degree of dialectal character, while 94.67 percent of young people claim to use the dialect (Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė, Čepaitienė, Geržotaitė 2017: 94, 127, 129; Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė 2019: 11). It is likely that there is no

Straipsniai / Articles

293

SIMONA VYNIAUTAITĖ

conflict between conscious and unconscious attitudes. It should be emphasized that, from the perspective of young people from other localities as well, Plungė is more often regarded as the most dialectally marked zone than other areas located in Samogitia (Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė, Čepaitienė, Geržotaitė 2017: 280). Among the towns of the Samogitia region, the dialectal code is used most actively precisely in Plungė; here, community members are most inclined to encourage children and young people to speak dialectally (Kliukienė 2014: 3, 11). The optimistic tendencies are also reflected in Plungė residents’ declared links with the dialectal code and with a dialect speaker. From the perspective of Plungė secondary-school students, respect occupies an important place, more significant than it is for young people in the other localities studied (Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė, Čepaitienė, Geržotaitė 2017: 97). Associations of respect, patriotism, and language as a natural, innate code likewise predominate among Plungė residents of various generations, who indicated this during the implementation of the project Contemporary Geolinguistic Research in Lithuania: Optimization of the Point Network and Interactive Dissemination of Dialectal Information^¹

A developing geole bound around Plungė has been recorded, one of those forming the Samogitian regiolect (for more on the newest dialectal formations, see Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė 2014: 39–40; Berruto 2010: 235–236; Auer 2005: 7–42) (see Fig. 1).

It should be emphasized that this geole is stable. From an ethnocultural perspective, Plungė is perceived neither as a transitional zone nor as the periphery of the region. In the spatial structure of the present-day region of Samogitian ethnic identity proposed by Valdas Petrulis, Plungė belongs to the core of the region (Petrulis 2005: 168). Plungė is likewise assigned to the ethnocultural core of Samogitia in a newer comprehensive structure of ethnocultural regions (Ragauskaitė 2016: 176–179)^². Thus, the area around Plungė could be evaluated as having a fairly strong ethnocultural and dialectal foundation, enabling community members to readily perceive themselves as Samogitians and identify with this land.

Nevertheless, it is unclear to what extent Plungė residents are able, from a dialectal perspective, to identify themselves with the Kretinga subdialect and, conversely, to distinguish themselves from the Telšiai subdialect through the principal feature differentiating these subdialects—regressive vowel assimilation. This dialectal feature and its realization have been analyzed in the dialectal varieties used by the residents of Plungė (LKA 156), but the informants’ own attitude toward assimilation and its nomenclatural value has not yet been studied (Vyniautaitė 2020: 1–19; 2021). Thus, the subject of this article is the nomenclatural change of regressive vowel assimilation.

^¹ In general, all Kretinga and Telšiai speakers perceive the dialect more as a sign of dignified identity, an ethnic value (Aliūkaitė, Bakšienė et al. 2014: 136–137, 140).

^² Although it has a strong ethnocultural and regional identity, this locality has never been a more significant center than, for example, Vaŕniai, Raseiniai, or Kražiai (Kalnius 2012: 163–164).

294

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVII

Regresyvinė balsių asimiliacija: nomenklatūrinė požymio kaita plungiškių požiūriu

FIG. 1. The Samogitian regiolect and geolecs (map fragment from Geržotaitė, Mikulėnienė 2014: Map XIII and commentary)

FIG. 2. A dialectometric cross-section of the Samogitian subdialects (map fragment from Mikulėnienė, Čepaitienė et al. 2019: 240)

FIG. 3. The Samogitian subdialects in Antanas Salys’s classification of dialects (map fragment from Salys 1933)

FIG. 4. The Samogitian subdialects in the dialect classifications of Zigmas Zinkevičius and Aleksas Girdenis (map fragment from Girdenis, Zinkevičius 1966)

Straipsniai / Articles

295

SIMONA VYNÍAUTAITĖ

A considerable number of dialectal phonetic features have been recorded in Plungė that are common to both the traditional Northern Samogitian Kretinga and Telšiai subdialects:

• the diphthongs ie, uo are realized as [e͡ɪ], [o͡ʊ], e.g.: [ˈkʲeɪtʲɪs] ~ kietis, [ˈjʊ̯odʲɪs] ~ juodis;

• the long vowels ē, ō in the word stem and stressed ending are diphthongized, e.g.: [ˈpɛːlʲɛ] ~ pelė, [ˈrʊːvɛ̯] ~ rovė;

• the ending vowels i, u, originating from the ancient long vowels i, u, are not broadened, e.g.: [ˈvʲe̯nʲɪs] ~ vinis (pl. acc.), cf. [ˈvʲe̯nʲe̯s] ~ vinis (sg. nom.), [ˈtʰo̯rʲɡʊs] ~ turgus (pl. acc.), cf. [ˈtʰo̯rʲɡo̯s] ~ turgus (sg. nom.);

• the diphthongs ai, ei are monophthongized, e.g.: [dɑːrɑɪ̯] ~ darai, [sɑˈkʲeɪ̯] ~ sakei;

• the stressed vowels a, e are pronounced short before a long syllable, e.g.: [ˈrɑtɑɪ̯] ~ ratai, [ˈmɛtɑɪ̯] ~ metai;

• the affricates č, dž are not used (except where there is no alternation with t, d, and in loanwords and onomatopoeic words), e.g.: [ˈjɑu̯tʲʊs] ~ jaučius, [ˈɡɑu̯dʲʊs] ~ gaidžius;

• ending reduction is characteristic, e.g.: [ˈdɛdɐ] ~ dėda, [ˈʃʲe̯nɐ] ~ šieną;

• universal stress retraction is characteristic, e.g.: [ˈvɑrʲɪ̯ɛ] ~ varlė, [ˈʒʲe̯mɐ] ~ žiema.

The principal distinctive feature of the Northern Samogitian Telšiai and Kretinga subdialects is the regressive assimilation of non-final short vowels i, u (see Rokaitė 1961: 149–153; Girdenis 1962: 141–150; LKTCh 2004: 235–237; Zinkevičius 2006: 239–241 et al.; see also Vyniautaitė 2021: 15–25). In the area of the Northern Samogitian Kretinga subdialect, the vowels i, u are broadened in all cases (e.g.: [ˈlʲe̯pʲɪ] ~ lipi, [ˈʃo̯nʲɪ] ~ šuni), whereas speakers of the Telšiai subdialect retain these vowels as narrow before high and mid-high vowels (e.g.: [ˈlʲɪpʲɪ] ~ lipi, [ˈʃʊnʲɪ] ~ šuni). Regressive vowel assimilation may occur in the following cases:

1. Non-final short i, u (the assimilation of the vowel i occurs only before a soft consonant), e.g.: [ˈɡʊlʲɪ] ~ guli, [ˈɡʲɪlʲɪ] ~ gili;

2. When the vowels i, u form part of the diphthongs il, ir, ul, ur or the diphthong ui, e.g.: [ˈsmʲɪlʲɪtʲʊs] ~ smilčių, [ˈɡʲɪrʲɪ dʲɪ] ~ girdi, [ˈdʊlkʲʊs] ~ dulkių, [ˈɡʊrʲkʲɪnʲʊs] ~ gurkšnius, [ˈpʊkʲɪ] ~ puikį;

3. When the vowels i, u are of another origin (in the diphthongs [ɔn], [ʊm], [ɛn], [ɛm] from an, am, en, em, e.g.: [ˈlɑŋɡʊs] ~ langus, [sʊmʲˈdʲɪs] ~ samdys, [ˈpʲɪŋkʲɪs] ~ penkis, [ˈɪʃtʲɪmʲsʲɪ] ~ ištempti; the long [oː], [eː] from ą, ę, e.g.: [ˈkʊ̯ɑsʲɪ] ~ įkąsi, [ˈɪʃˈsprʲeɪ̯ʃʲɪ] ~ išspręsi; in the diphthongs [e͡ɪ], [o͡ʊ] from ie, uo, e.g.: [ˈlʲe̯pʲɪnɐs] ~ liepynas, [ˈpʊo̯dɐs] ~ puodas).

In Plungė (LKA 156), as throughout the Kretinga subdialect area, the vowels i, u should not be broadened before high vowels. Nevertheless, regressive vowel assimilation has been recorded in the area around Plungė: it has been noted that non-final vowels i, u, as well as i, u forming the first elements of the diphthongs il, ir, ul, ur, are affected by assimilation (Zinkevičius 1966: map no. 19, 464; map no. 70,

296

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVII

Regresyvinė balsių asimiliacija: nomenklatūrinė požymio kaita plungiškių požiūriu

515; map no. 71, 516); the diphthongs [ɛɪ], [ɔʊ] from ie, uo could be affected by regressive vowel assimilation (Zinkevičius 1966: map no. 58, 503, map no. 59, 504, map no. 61, 506); sporadically stressed half-long narrow i, u could also be retained (Grinaveckienė 1982: 38). Relics of regressive vowel assimilation emerged in texts in the central Northern Samogitian Kretinga dialect, to which Plungė belongs (Babickienė, Jasiūnaitė, Pečeliūnaitė, Bagužytė 2007: 11). In the Kulių and Budriai varieties of the same dialectal area, and in the Darbėnai variety, which does not belong to this central area, the result of the operation of a certain vowel i, u assimilation was described not as a new phoneme (as in the Telšiai case), but as variants of the same phoneme (narrower [ɛ], [ɔ] allophones) (Babickienė 1991: 15). It should be added that in the Kretinga area, in certain cases, non-final narrow short i, u are reflected, but this narrowness does not depend on regressive vowel assimilation (Grinaveckis 1978: 126). The operation of assimilation is also confirmed by analysis of handwritten dialectal material from the second half of the 20th century—before high vowels, the vowels i, u are often not broadened (Vyniautaitė 2018: 151, 156–158).

Nevertheless, quantitative studies based on dialectometric methods show that this feature has little influence on the differentiation of the Northern Samogitian Kretinga and Telšiai subdialects (Mikulėnienė, Čepaitienė et al. 2019: 229–270, 312) (see Fig. 2). In the dialectal varieties used by residents of 21st-century Plungė (LKA 156), there are cases in which regressive vowel assimilation operates, and the realization of short vowels i, u not forming part of diphthongs varies somewhat more (Vyniautaitė 2020: 1–19; 2021: 103–119). Thus, regressive vowel assimilation should be regarded as a fairly variable dialectal feature.

The aim of this article is to establish the extent to which the residents of Plungė (LKA 156) perceive regressive vowel assimilation as a distinctive feature of the Northern Samogitian dialect and to assess the nomenclatural change of this feature. The study draws on methods of dynamic and perceptual dialectology. One component of Dennis R. Preston’s perceptual research model is applied—the conceptual evaluation task (Preston 1999: xxxiv–xxxv; Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė 2016: 95–96; Cramer 2016: 5–14). During conversations in a free dialectal code, informants were asked about dialectal differences between the Northern Samogitian Telšiai and Kretinga subdialects, as well as questions related to the principal distinctive dialectal feature—regressive vowel assimilation.

Tasks: 1) to select material from interviews with informants; 2) to analyze the linguistic attitudes of residents of Plungė (LKA 156) related to the (non-)recognizability of regressive vowel assimilation; 3) to assess the nomenclatural change of regressive vowel assimilation.

The research material consists of data collected in the area around Plungė in 2019: approximately 9 hours of audio recordings. Three informants from each of three different generations were recorded: the younger generation (up to 30 years), the middle generation (31–49 years), the older generation (50 years and

Straipsniai / Articles

297

SIMONA VYNIUTAITĖ

older). This division is based on the methodology of the project Contemporary Geolinguistic Research in Lithuania: Optimization of the Point Network and Interactive Dissemination of Dialectal Information (No. VP1-3.1-ŠMM-07-K-01-028) (Kalėdienė, Mikulėnienė 2014: 375). Informants are encoded by abbreviations: the first letters indicate the LKA point (PLN—Plungė), the second abbreviation denotes the informants’ age group (JAUN—younger generation, VID—middle generation, VYR—older generation), the third indicates sex (M—female, V—male), and the number identifies different respondents from the same generation.

1. DIALECTAL (NON-)DISTINCTIVENESS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF PLUNGĖ RESIDENTS

1.1. Vowel assimilation as a differential dialectal feature

In earlier dialect classifications, regressive vowel assimilation was not assigned greater significance—in the classifications of Antanas Baranauskas and Antanas Salys, who refined Kazimieras Jaunius’s division of dialects, the Northern Samogitians were not distinguished into subdialects at all (see Salys 1933: map insert; Salys 1992: 30–36; Geržotaitė 2014: Map II and commentary; Geržotaitė 2018: 177–179; Mikulėnienė 2018: 142–152) (see Fig. 3). This dialectal feature began to be regarded as the principal feature distinguishing the Northern Samogitians in the classification of Lithuanian dialects by Zigmas Zinkevičius and Aleksas Girdenis (Girdenis, Zinkevičius 1966: 139–147) (see Fig. 4). It was claimed that the Northern Samogitians themselves have an intuitive characterization of the Kretinga and Telšiai varieties: Kretinga speakers usually notice regressive vowel assimilation in the areas around Sėda, Telšiai, Mosėdis, and elsewhere, while speakers of the Telšiai subdialect draw attention to the broadening of the vowels i, u before high vowels (Girdenis 1981: 23).

Although few in number, cases have been recorded in which assimilation in Plungė (LKA 156) was identified as a prominent dialectal feature distinguishing it from localities of the neighboring subdialect, e.g.: “they say ‘šunį’ here in Telšiai, a Telšiai speaker. In Plungė they say ‘šoni’, whereas here ‘šunį’, here and in Telšiai. Jesus, no, this woman here was, for example, and we also had a woman working here, but now she has left, and she went to Germany yesterday, meaning she is also a Telšiai speaker, but she lives here and has changed that speech of hers in such a way: ‘well, I am now truly a Plungė speaker here.’ Well, I say, from the ending, what do you say—‘šunį’, from the ending—and she says ‘šuni’, but I say, here in Plungė they say ‘šoni’. That is very clear, oh, it is very big. It is very big (PLN_VID_M3); In Telšiai they would say ‘bolviu’, here in Plungė they say ‘bolviu’. Plateliai, Plungė say it more clearly ‘bolviu’, more clearly ‘bolviu’, more clearly

298

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVII

Regressive vowel assimilation: nomenclatural change of the feature from the perspective of Plungė residents

(PLN_VID_M3)^³. The noticeable assimilation of the vowel u and of the same vowel when it forms part of a diphthong in stressed positions, in which this feature is also more consistent according to data from the varieties used by Plungė residents (cf. Vyniautaitė 2021: 103–119). The informant undoubtedly identifies this feature as a very prominent dialectal feature distinguishing Plungė residents from speakers of the Telšiai subdialect.

The recognizability of regressive vowel assimilation may also be associated (perhaps in part) with linguistic knowledge, e.g.: this here is what distinguishes the Kretinga and Telšiai varieties, certainly I know that, for example, ‘nomeni’ we truly say with ‘ė’, whereas a Telšiai speaker says ‘numinī’ (PLN_VYR_V3)^⁴.

Confidence in noticing differences in the realization of the vowel i before a high vowel in the Northern Samogitian subdialects would, on the one hand, indicate the differential power of regressive vowel assimilation and its recognizability from the informant’s perspective; on the other hand, it is worth considering whether assimilation would likewise be perceived as a distinctive feature without theoretical linguistic knowledge.

As can be seen, informants’ attitudes range from treating assimilation entirely as an easily recognizable dialectal feature distinguishing the Northern Samogitians to a certain degree of knowledge. It cannot be ruled out that the ability of both informants to recognize assimilation is related to their specific knowledge of Samogitian dialectal features.

1.2. Vowel assimilation as a faint dialectal feature

Cases in which regressive vowel assimilation was not noticed and was not identified as a prominent dialectal feature were recorded much more frequently.

The broadening or non-broadening of a vowel in the relevant position is essentially regarded as insignificant, e.g.: well, ‘šoni’, we say ‘zuiki’, ‘zuiki’, ‘zoiki’, well, here perhaps some kind of evolution is taking place all the time, perhaps these two languages are becoming more and more alike, well, how should one say it. Well, ‘zuiki’, ‘zoiki’, I don’t even know, I myself did not notice it, did not notice, ‘zuiki’, ‘zoiki’—for me there is really little difference here, ‘zuiki’, ‘zoiki’; for me it is all in the intonation and Samogitian character, so how can one put it, everything is normal (PLN_JAUN_V3). In the informant’s opinion, the more important feature is intonation, which is generally noticed fairly often, especially by people who do not speak Samogitian.

The significance of assimilation is also not discerned when hearing a speaker of the Telšiai subdialect and comparing the features of localities belonging to both Northern Samogitian subdialects

^³ The informant has a philological education and has taken a course in dialectology.

^⁴ The informant is interested in matters related to Samogitia, Samogitian spelling, and its features, and sometimes writes texts in Samogitian himself.

Straipsniai / Articles

299

SIMONA VYNI A UT AITĖ

(of Plùngė and Skuõdas), e.g.: your speech sounds to me as though you were born somewhere not far from Plungė. [...]. There is not much difference (PLN_VYR_V3). Skuodas has differences, but Skuodas speaks similarly (PLN_VID_V2). Not like Telšiai, but we are Kretinga speakers, but those differences, clearly, you cannot just say that there are such special differences there; you have to listen specially, to notice some other sound there, how it differs, speaking ordinarily like that, so... The Dūnininkai are already another matter there (PLN_VYR_V3).

Thus, it can be said that the value of distinctive features is reduced; recognizing these features essentially requires considerable attentiveness and careful listening, while the Northern Samogitians as a whole are understood as a linguistically rather homogeneous area. It should be added that the linguistic homogeneity of the Northern Samogitian Telšiai and Kretinga speakers was also confirmed by a study conducted using quantitative methods (Mikulėnienė, Čepaitienė et al., 2019: 229–270, 312).

Another informant’s thought also confirms the importance of attentiveness and perceptiveness in hearing phonetic differences, e.g.: I don’t know how you have now drawn my attention to those sounds here; I probably did not listen to those sounds closely enough (PLN_IAUN_V2). In this case, distinguishing certain phonetic differences proved fairly difficult; lexical differences were much easier to notice, for example, the use of the words knuisis, kiocis by residents originating from Kretinga and Mósėdis.

Even more often, regressive vowel assimilation emerged as a feature unnoticed by listeners. The realization of the word taip and the formation of surname suffixes were mentioned as more prominent differences between Plungė and Telšiai speakers, e.g.: somehow, I remember, a Telšiai speaker would say to me that we say Bernuotale—kalė, whereas she says—kātė (PLN_VID_M1); somehow I remember, I used to say to the Telšiai speaker that we say Bernuotale—kalė, whereas she says—kātė (PLN_VID_M2). Jego says Bernuotale, she says Bernuotātė (PLN_VYR_M2).

When listening, some differences may perhaps be heard between the speech of the Telšiai-subdialect speaker and that of Skuõdas, although the latter is brief; a different use of affricates was mentioned, e.g.: I didn’t hear well; I only noticed that instead of ‘č’ there was more of a ‘t’ (PLN_VID_M1). It should be emphasized that Plùngė (LKA 156) falls within the same area of affricate realization (in all forms, except for certain exceptions, t, d are pronounced), so theoretically there should be no differences (LKT 1970: 19; Vanagienė 1982: 95, map no. 80; Salys 1992: 23–25; LKTCh 2004: 240, 257–258).

Nevertheless, when evaluating present-day variation, possible changes should be taken into account, but it is obvious that the affricates of speakers of various Samogitian subdialects are much more noticeable than assimilation^⁵.

⁵ This is confirmed by Samogitians’ own observations; for example, the author of the article happened to hear a woman from Telšiai express concern, even indignation, about the form žemaičių used on the Great Samogitian Wall in that city, because, according to her, people whose homeland is Telšiai do not say it that way; they pronounce žemaičių; a woman from Rietavas held the opinion that Plungė and Telšiai differ from Rietavas and Tvėrai in their realization of affricates, while Varnių

300

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVII

Regresyvinė balsių asimiliacija: nomenklatūrinė požymio kaita plungiškių požiūriu

There are cases in which the features distinguishing the Northern Samogitian subdialects are not specifically identified, and only the slight linguistic difference of the Northern Samogitian subdialects is emphasized, e.g.: it is Samogitian speech; it does not grate on the ear at all (PLN_VYR_V3); Telšiai differs; you cannot say that it is a clearly distinctive language, but the accents differ (PLN_VID_V2).

According to another informant, regressive vowel assimilation is not a Samogitian dialectal feature at all, e.g.: how should one say it, ‘zoikis’, and ‘zuikis’ here is already more Aukštaitian, or rather, it would be some kind of contribution from literary language here, or rather, into that (PLN_JAUN_V3). The retention of the narrowness of the vowel u forming part of the diphthong ui is associated with the Aukštaitian dialect or with the influence of non-dialectal speech. The same informant from the younger generation mentioned an ongoing “evolution” of languages; thus, assimilation would be a newly emerged phenomenon, the result of change, rather than an authentic feature of the Northern Samogitian Telšiai variety.

It is likely that, from the informants’ perspective, the coincidence of regressive vowel assimilation in certain cases with the realization of the standard language makes this feature less recognizable and authentic than, for example, the aforementioned (non-)use of affricates.

2. NOMENCLATURAL CHANGE OF REGRESSIVE VOWEL ASSIMILATION

Based on Plungė informants’ comments on regressive vowel assimilation and other dialectal features of the Northern Samogitian subdialects, an heterogeneous attitude toward assimilation emerges. A changing nomenclatural value of the feature can be recorded^⁶.

In Lithuanian dialectology, primary dialectal features (most easily noticed in users’ speech), secondary features (fairly easily noticed), and tertiary features (difficult to notice and difficult to level out) correlate with distinctive, characteristic, and faint features (Taeldeman 2005: 233–248; Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė 2014: 46–47; Mikulėnienė 2019: 56–57; Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė et al. 2020: 40). It is emphasized that, in general, the division of dialectal features into distinctive, characteristic, and faint is rather conditional, because the value of the same features may vary; for example, a faint dialectal feature may become characteristic or distinctive, while a distinctive feature may become characteristic or faint (Geržotaitė, Mikulėnienė 2014: I

a resident claimed to be slightly “spoiled” because, when communicating with Plungė, Telšiai, and Mažeikiai residents, he had become accustomed to saying žemaitė, although Varnių speakers would always say žemaitė.

^⁶ For example, it was established that the values of the dialectal features of the Southern Samogitian Raseiniai subdialect have changed (Dambrauskienė 2021: 126).

Straipsniai / Articles

301

SIMONA VYNIAUTAITĖ

map and commentary; Mikulėnienė 2018: 119–121). Accordingly, the elimination of the terms skiriamasis and būdingasis, and the emergence of terminological differences through weak terminological features that acquire an additional—distinctive—function, influence the reduction of differentiation between traditional dialects and subdialects and the formation of new terminological formations (Mikulėnienė 2019: 56–57).

The data from the Plungė respondents reveal several kinds of nomenclatural evaluation of vowel assimilation (see Fig. 5).

FIG. 5. The nomenclatural value of regressive vowel assimilation from the perspective of the people of Plungė

Informants tend to assign regressive vowel assimilation the value of a distinctive and weak feature, but assimilation is not considered a characteristic feature.

It should be emphasized that another category of value emerges when assimilation is understood as a feature of non-dialectal language—in this case, vowel narrowness is associated with the expression of the standard language (e.g.: [dɔ̄ˈrʲis] ~ duris, [ˈpʲiːrʲkʲsʲi] ~ pirksi, cf. Northern Samogitian Telšiai [ˈdɔ̄rʲis] ~ duris, [ˈpʲiːrʲkʲsʲi] ~ pirksi). There is a fairly large gap between the values attributed to regressive vowel assimilation: this feature is perceived either as a very salient characteristic or as difficult to notice, or not noticeable at all. Although views differ, there is a stronger tendency not to attach undue importance to regressive vowel assimilation or to regard it as the principal distinctive feature of the Northern Samogitian subdialects; that is, from the perspective of most respondents, this feature is essentially weak. Since linguistic attitudes associated with regressive vowel assimilation have not previously been studied, it is unclear whether the tendency to perceive assimilation more often as

302

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVII

Regresyvinė balsių asimiliacija: nomenklatūrinė požymio kaita plungiškių požiūriu

a weak feature is more characteristic of twenty-first-century Samogitians (and whether such an evaluation of assimilation may be or is the result of new dialect formations or local variants), or whether nomenclatural change would also have been recorded in earlier periods.

It cannot be ruled out that in some cases the regressive vowel assimilation observed in the vicinity of Plungė, or another type of vowel i, u narrowness independent of assimilation (see the Introduction), may also cause confusion and possibly diminish the value of assimilation as a distinctive feature.

It is also noteworthy that when evaluating dialectal features and differences between local variants, informants sometimes contradict themselves, claiming that there are rather salient dialectal features while simultaneously downplaying the differences (cf. the opinion of informant PLN_VYR_V3, see pp. 299, 300).

Thus, an image of a fairly homogeneous dialect area is essentially created, in which Northern Samogitians are more similar than different in their speech. In this regard, A. Salys should also be recalled: he did not divide the dounininkai, that is, Northern Samogitians, into two subdialects, and even when stating that in the classification of Z. Zinkevičius and A. Girdenis Northern Samogitians could essentially be further divided into Telšiai and Kretinga speakers (although the latter designation is unintelligible to other Samogitians because of the different development of nasal ą, ę), he did not highlight assimilation as the principal feature supporting the appropriateness of this division of Northern Samogitians (Salys 1968: 576).

In other words, not regressive vowel assimilation but other dialectal features, such as the reflexes of nasal vowels, should be considered more important.

CONCLUSIONS

The analysis of the linguistic attitudes of the people of Plungė revealed differing views of the principal dialectal feature distinguishing Northern Samogitian Telšiai and Kretinga speakers—regressive vowel assimilation.

This feature is rarely identified as a distinctive feature of the Northern Samogitian subdialects. It cannot be ruled out that, in cases where assimilation is clearly perceived as a salient feature, specific linguistic knowledge may have an influence. Most often, regressive vowel assimilation is noticed, but it is assigned little differential significance. Other phonetic, morphological, and lexical differences are considered more important and significant. Regressive vowel assimilation is also associated with the influence of non-dialectal language. Thus, informants tend to perceive assimilation as a characteristic dialectal feature or even as entirely non-dialectal. This feature is assigned an inconsistent nomenclatural value.

The complexity of assimilation (variation in distribution, variation, and certain exceptions), the occurrence of another type of vowel i, u narrowness independent of

Straipsniai / Articles

303

SIMONA VYNI A U TAITĖ

assimilation, and the coincidence of certain forms with the expression of the standard language may also influence the unrecognizability and nomenclatural change of this feature.

The results of the study essentially indicate considerable dialectal homogeneity of Northern Samogitian from the informants’ perspective and suggest that, as linguistic variability increases, regressive vowel assimilation will become no easier for community members to recognize as a dialectal feature with substantial differential significance.

LITERATŪRA

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 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: leidykla „Briedis“, 129–196.

Aliūkaitė Daiva, Mikulėnienė Danguolė 2014: Geolingvistika: ideologija, teorija ir metodai. Pagrindinės sąvokos. – XXI a. pradžios lietuvių tarmės: geolingvistinis ir sociolingvistinis tyrimas: žemėlapiai ir jų komentarai, sud. D. Mikulėnienė, V. Meiliūnaitė, Vilnius: leidykla „Briedis“, 29–47.

Aliūkaitė Daiva, Mikulėnienė Danguolė 2016: Perceptyviosios dialektologijos instrumentai ir tyrimų kryptys: variantų arealai mentaliniuose žemėlapiuose (Biržų atvejis). – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 74, 89–120.

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/22481/21746.

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: tyrėjo ir paprastojo kalbos bendruomenės nario perspektyvos, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla.

Auer Peter 2005: Europe’s sociolinguistic unity, or: A typology of European dialect standard constellations. – Perspectives on Variation, eds. N. Delbecque, J. van der Auwera, D. Geeraerts, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 7–42.

304

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVII

Regresyvinė balsių asimiliacija: nomenklatūrinė požymio kaita plungiškių požiūriu

Babickienė Zofija 1991: Regresyvinė balsių asimiliacija kretingiškių šnektose. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 29, 15–25.

Babickienė Zofija, Jasiūnaitė Birutė, Pečeliūnaitė Angelė, Bagužytė Rūta 2007: Centrinė šiaurės žemaičių kretingiškių tarmė: tarmės tekstai su komentarais ir žodynėliu, Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas.

Baksienė Rima 2019: Terminio kalbėjimo vertinimas paprūsėje: XXI a. pradžios Vištyčio arealo tyrimas. – Lietuvių kalba 13, 1–17. Prieiga internete: https://www.zurnalai.vu.lt/lietuviu-kalba/article/view/22487/21751.

Berruto Gaetano 2010: Identifying dimensions of linguistic variation in a language space. – Language and Space, Vol. 1, eds. P. Auer, J. E. Schmidt, Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter, 226–241.

Cramer Jennifer 2016: Perceptual Dialectology. Oxford Handbooks Online. Linguistics, New York: Oxford University Press, 1–29. Prieiga internete: https://english.okstate.edu/images/Documents/Preston/Perceptual_Dialectology/Perceptual_Dialectology_Cramer_2018.pdf.

Dambrauskienė Diana 2021: Pietų žemaičių raseiniškių kalbinis pereigiškumas: horizontalusis ir vertikalusis variantiškumas: daktaro disertacija, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

Geržotaitė Laura 2014: Antano Baranausko tarmių klasifikacija (rekonstrukcija): žemėlapis ir komentaras. – XXI a. pradžios lietuvių tarmės: geolingvistinis ir sociolingvistinis tyrimas: žemėlapiai ir jų komentarai, sud. D. Mikulėnienė, V. Meiliūnaitė, Vilnius: leidykla „Briedis“, II žemėlapis ir komentaras.

Geržotaitė Laura 2018: Naujі duomenys Antano Baranausko lietuvių tarmių skirstymo rekonstrukcijai. – Linguistica Lettica 26, 174–190.

Geržotaitė Laura 2019: Bendrinės lietuvių kalbos vaizdinių kalbinio standarto plote tyrimas: vienos Kauno rajono gimnazijos atvejis. – Lietuvių kalba 13, 1–25. Prieiga internete: https://www.zurnalai.vu.lt/lietuviu-kalba/article/view/22483/21748.

Geržotaitė Laura, Mikulėnienė Danguolė 2014: Dabartinė lietuvių tarmių klasifikacija ir Lietuvių kalbos atlaso punktai: žemėlapis ir komentarai. – XXI a. pradžios lietuvių tarmės: geolingvistinis ir sociolingvistinis tyrimas: žemėlapiai ir jų komentarai, sud. D. Mikulėnienė, V. Meiliūnaitė, Vilnius: leidykla „Briedis“, I žemėlapis ir komentaras.

Girdenis Aleksas 1962: Balsių asimiliacijos reiškiniai Tirkšlių tarmėje. – Kalbotyra 4, 141–150.

Girdenis Aleksas 1981: Šiaurės žemaičių fonemų dažnumai. – Kalbotyra 32(1), 15–37.

Straipsniai / Articles

305

SIMONA VYNÍAUTAITĖ

Girdenis Aleksas, Zinkevičius Zigmas 1966: Dėl lietuvių kalbos tarmių klasifikacijos. – Kalbotyra 14, 139–147.

Grinaveckienė Elena 1982: Kamieno kirčiuoti i, u. – Lietuvių kalbos atlasas II. Fonetika, ats. red. K. Morkūnas, Vilnius: Mokslas, 37–38.

Grinaveckis Vladas 1978: Vakarų dounininkų žodžio kamieno siaurėji u, i ir jų kilmė. – Baltistica 14(2), 123–126.

Kalėdienė Laima, Mikulėnienė Danguolė 2014: Lietuvių kalbos atlaso punkto tyrimo metodika. – XXI a. pradžios lietuvių tarmės: geolingvistinis ir sociolingvistinis tyrimas: žemėlapiai ir jų komentarai, sud. D. Mikulėnienė, V. Meiliūnaitė, Vilnius: leidykla „Briedis“, 374–377.

Kalnius Petras 2012: Žemaičiai: XX a. – XXI a. pradžia, Vilnius: Mintis.

Kliukienė Regina 2014: Kalbėjimas su tevais tarmiškai ir gyventojų požiūris į tarmes Žemaitijos miestuose (kiekybinė analizė). – Taikomoji kalbotyra 5, 1–15. Prieiga internete: https://www.zurnalai.vu.lt/taikomoji kalbotyra/article/view/17458/16618.

LKT 1970: Lietuvių kalbos tarmės. Chrestomatija, ats. red. K. Morkūnas, Vilnius: Mintis.

LKTCh 2004: Lietuvių kalbos tarmių chrestomatija, sud. R. Bacevičiūtė, A. Ivanauskienė, A. Leskauskaitė, E. Trumpa, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

Mikulėnienė Danguolė 2018: Lietuvių tarmėtyra: genezė, raida ir paradigminiai lūžiai. D. 1: Iktar­metyrinis laikotarpis. Lietuvių tarmėtyros pradžia: tarmių skyrimas, tyrimų perspektyvų užuomazgos ir jų tipai, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos centras.

Mikulėnienė Danguolė 2019: Tarmiškumo bruožų nomenklatūra: nuo tarminių požymių prie tarmiškumo žymenų. – Respectus philologicus, 35(40), 51–62. Prieiga internete: https://www.zurnalai.vu.lt/respectus-philologicus/article/view/12716/11395.

Mikulėnienė Danguolė 2020: New Trends in Lithuanian Dialectology: Multimodal Research Model. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 82, 11–33.

Mikulėnienė Danguolė, Čepaitienė Agnė, Bakšienė Rima, Geržotaitė Laura, Kardelytė-Grinevičienė Daiva, Leskauskaitė Asta, Meiliūnaitė Violeta, Vyniautaitė Simona 2019: Dialektometrinis lietuvių tradicinių tarmių klasifikacijos pjūvis: žvalgomaisis tyrimas, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

Mikulėnienė Danguolė, Meiliūnaitė Violeta 2017: Tarmiškumo matmuo Lietuvos etnografinių regionų struktūroje. – Naujos tradicinės regionų tapatybės konstravimas: integralumas, sudėtingumas, konkurencingumas, sud. A. Augustinaitis, D. Mikulėnienė, J. Zabarskaitė, V. Meiliūnaitė, L. Labanauskas, A. Kiškienė, R. Venckus, K. Rudokas, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 169–195.

306

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVII

Regresyvinė balsių asimiliacija: nomenklatūrinė požymio kaita plungiškių požiūriu

Petrulis Valdas 2005: Žemaitijos etninės savimonės regiono erdvinė struktūra. – Geografijos metraštis 38(1), 163–175.

Preston Dennis R. 1999: Introduction. – Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology 1, ed. by Dennis R. Preston, Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, xxiii–xl.

Ragauskaitė Alma 2016: Lietuvos etnokultūrinis regionavimas: daktaro disertacija, Vilnius: Lietuvos muzikos ir teatro akademija.

Rokaitė Birutė 1961: Kai kurie nauji žemaičių dounininkų tarmių fonetikos dalykai. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 4, 141–155.

Salys Antanas 1933: Kelios pastabos tarmių istorijai. – Archivum Philologicum 4, 21–34.

Salys Antanas 1968: Lietuvių kalbos tarmės. – Lietuvių enciklopedija 15, South Boston (Mass.): Lietuvių enciklopedijos leidykla, 571–589.

Salys Antanas 1992: Raštai 4: Lietuvių kalbos tarmės, Roma: Lietuvių katalikų mokslo akademija.

Taeldeman Johan 2005: Polarisation Revisited. – Language Variation – European Perspectives: Selected Papers from the Third International Conference on Language Variation in Europe (ICLaVE 3), eds. F. Hinskens, Amsterdam: Benjamins, 233–248.

Vanagienė Birutė 1982: Afrikatų č, dž atliepimas prieš galūnę. – Lietuvių kalbos atlasas II. Fonetika, ats. red. K. Morkūnas, Vilnius: Mokslas, 93–96.

Vyniautaitė Simona 2018: Regresyvinė balsių asimiliacija šiaurės žemaičių patarmių paribio šnektose XX a. 6–9 dešimtmečių rankraštinių šaltinių duomenimis. – Kalbos istorijos ir dialektologijos problemos 5, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 140–166.

Vyniautaitė Simona 2020: Plungės geolektas regresyvinės balsių i, u asimiliacijos požiūriu. – Lietuvių kalba 14, 1–19. Prieiga internete: https://www.zurnalai.vu.lt/lietuviu-kalba/article/view/22465/21727.

Vyniautaitė Simona 2021: Terminio požymio statika ir dinamika: žemaičių regresyvinės balsių asimiliacijos atvejis: daktaro disertacija, Vilnius: Lietuvos kalbos institutas.

Zinkevičius Zigmas 1966: Lietuvių dialektologija: lyginamoji tarmių fonetika ir morfologija, Vilnius: Mintis.

Zinkevičius Zigmas 2006: Lietuvių tarmių kilmė, Vilnius: Lietuvos kalbos institutas.

Straipsniai / Articles

307

SIMONA VYNIAUTAITĖ

Regressive Vowel Assimilation: Nomenclatural Change of Feature from the Point of View of Plunge Residents

SUMMARY

The article addresses the nomenclatural change of regressive vowel assimilation as the main distinguishing feature of the subdialects of the Northern Samogitian of Telšiai and Kretinga. It attempts to determine to what extent the residents of Plungė are aware of regressive vowel assimilation as the distinguishing feature of Northern Samogitian and to evaluate the change of this feature. The article draws upon the methods of dynamic dialectology and perceptual dialectology.

After analysing the comments provided by the informants from Plungė on regressive vowel assimilation and other dialectal features of Northern Samogitian subdialects, it was established that vowel assimilation is rarely considered a distinguishing feature of Northern Samogitian subdialects. The informants tend to consider regressive vowel assimilation a distinguishing and weak dialectal feature, but it is not regarded a characteristic feature. Other phonetic, morphological and lexical differences are considered more significant. It is noteworthy that another value category comes into play when assimilation is understood as a feature of non-dialectal speaking; in this case, vowel narrowness is associated with the expression of standard language.

The research findings reveal rather high dialectal homogeneity of Northern Samogitian from the point of view of the informants and imply that as linguistic variation increases, regressive vowel assimilation will not be perceived by community members as a more easily recognizable dialectal feature with a high differential power.

Įteikta 2022 m. rugpjūčio 5 d.

SIMONA VYNIAUTAITĖ

Lietuvių kalbos institutas

Petro Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius, Lietuva

[email protected]

308

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVII