Go to originalLocalized version was produced by AI. It may contain inaccuracies.
Preparing document pages…
Page 1
DAIVA ALIŪKAITĖ
Kaunas Faculty of Vilnius University
ORCID id: orcid.org/0000-0002-4275-9512
Research areas: perceptual dialectology, sociolinguistics, geolinguistics.
DOI: doi.org/10.35321/all85-14
THE AESTHETIC VALUE OF DIALECTALITY: IMAGES OF ORDINARY MEMBERS OF THE SPEECH COMMUNITY
The Aesthetic Value of Dialectality: Images of Ordinary Language Community Members
ABSTRACT
The article develops a dialectological discourse devoted to interpreting the aesthetic value of dialectality. The aim of the study presented is to assess the aesthetic value of dialectality, the autonomy of this value, and its links with other parameters of dialectality by analysing the narrative of the eric, that is, an ordinary member of the speech community. The empirical basis for considering the aesthetic value of dialectality consists of perception and evaluation data concerning 8 stimulus texts representing different regiolectal forms, collected at 21 regional points and in 3 major cities (Vilnius, Kaunas, and Klaipėda) in a perceptual dialectology study. The article first establishes a theoretical and methodological approach for evaluating perception data. It presents etic, that is, researcher-oriented hypotheses that conceptualize and substantiate the aesthetic quality of the codes of tradition. An analysis of the attractiveness ratings of the stimulus texts yields general insights into the dependence of attractiveness ratings on the standard-language factor in the formation of images of dialectality, as well as into the relationship between attractiveness ratings and the perception of the code of one’s linguistic homeland.
Tarmiškumo estetinė vertė: paprastųjų kalbos bendruomenės narių vaizdiniai
ANNOTATION
The article focuses on the discourse of dialectology aimed at the interpretation of the aesthetic value of dialectality. The aim of the research is to evaluate the aesthetic value of dialectality, the independence of the value and its connections with other parameters of dialectality through the analysis of the narrative of emic, i.e., an ordinary language community member. The perception and evaluation data of eight texts–stimuli representing different regiolectal expressions, which were collected in 21 regional points and three cities (Vilnius, Kaunas and Klaipėda) in the course of the study of perceptual dialectology, constitute the empirical basis for the consideration of the aesthetic value of dialectality. First of all, the article creates a theoretical and methodological approach for the evaluation of the perception data. It presents etic, i.e., the researcher’s, hypotheses conceptualizing and substantiating the aesthetics of the codes of tradition. After analysing the evaluations of attractiveness of the texts–stimuli, the generalizing insights are drawn concerning the dependence of the evaluations of attractiveness on the factor of the standard language in the formation of the images of dialectality as well as the connections between the evaluations of attractiveness and the perception of the code of linguistic homeland.
The object of the article is the aesthetic value of dialectality. Thus, the article seeks to examine the aesthetic dimensions of dialectality. The aim of examining the aesthetic dimensions of dialectality entails certain tasks: 1) first, a theoretical framework for the analysis to be undertaken is established—the hypotheses explaining the perception and evaluation of languages and variants developed in works within the paradigms of linguistic attitudes are discussed and critically assessed; 2) in the research section of the article, a systematic analysis of the empirical material—the perception data of the stimulus texts—is carried out. The research material was collected in 2017–2019 במסגרת the perceptual dialectology (PD) project “The Dissemination of Regional Variants and Alleged Standard Language (Quasi-standard) at the Beginning of the Twenty-first Century: A Perceptual Study”¹. It should be noted that the material of the PD project provides a basis for highly diverse narratives of dialectality and non-dialectality (the PD research instrument, a questionnaire containing 29 questions and tasks)
¹ The project was supported by the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language.
Straipsniai / Articles
263
Page 3
DAIVA ALIŪKAITĖ
see Fig. 1 for the subject structure²). This happens because the PD methodological paradigm ensures access to the perspective of an ordinary member of the speech community. The distinction between etic and emic, or objective and subjective perspectives, formulated by Kenneth Pike in 1954 (cf. Headland 1990: 15), is related to two ways of viewing the world and constructing meaning (Victor de Munck 2009: 35–37 – cited from: Butkus, Šeškus 2010: 79; for more, see Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė, Čepaitienė, Brazaitienė 2020: 27–29, 49–58); in the first case, the meaning of some object, phenomenon, environment, etc. is constructed from the outside by an external (expert) observer and evaluator; in the second, the role of meaning constructor is performed by an insider (an ordinary member of the speech community) (see also Iannàccaro, Dell’Aquila 2001: 265–280; Cramer 2018: 62–79; Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė, Čepaitienė, Brazaitienė 2020: 27–29, 49–58). Thus, the empirical foundation of the discourse on the aesthetic value of dialecticity developed in the article is an emic narrative reconstructed from the systematic perception and evaluation task data of the 8 text stimuli in the PD study, primarily the attractiveness of the text stimuli.
FIG. 1. The subject structure of the research instrument used in the project “The Spread of Regional Variants and the Supposed Standard Language (Quasi-standard) at the Beginning of the 21st Century: A Perceptual Study”
² For example, based on the project material, objective dialecticity was analyzed (Aliūkaitė 2019: 63–91); the sustainability of dialecticity in metropolitan areas and regions (Aliūkaitė 2020: 85–100; 2020a: [1–20]); the issue of the dialecticity and non-dialecticity of places was considered (Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė 2019: [1–22]); linguistic kinship images were assessed (Geržotaitė 2019: [1–25]); moreover, the project material also encouraged consideration of theoretical issues in dialectology, for example, the distinction between dialect features and markers of dialecticity was conceptualized (Mikulėnienė 2019: 52–62). The most extensive PD discourse based on the project material was developed in a collective monograph (Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė, Čepaitienė, Brazaitienė 2020); nevertheless, it too presents only part of the results of the PD study.
264
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXV
Page 4
Tarmiškumo estetinė vertė: paprastųjų kalbos bendruomenės narių vaizdiniai
The corpus of 8 text stimuli comprised fragments of spontaneous speech lasting 14–19 seconds, representing variants of regiolectal zones: text stimulus A³ – the Southern Aukštaitian regiolect; text stimulus B⁴ – the Samogitian regiolect; text stimulus C⁵ – the Northern Western Aukštaitian regiolect; text stimulus D⁶ – the Southern Aukštaitian regiolect; text stimulus E⁷ – the Samogitian regiolect; text stimulus F⁸ – the Western Eastern Aukštaitian regiolect; text stimulus G⁹ – the Southern Western Aukštaitian regiolect; text stimulus H¹⁰ – the Eastern Eastern Aukštaitian regiolect. It should be added that the dialectal differences of regiolects—regional language varieties spread across an area encompassing the territory of several geolects—usually emerge only through tertiary, faint features, which are generally characterized as very indistinct both in etic (i.e., linguists’) narratives and from the perspective of ordinary members of the speech community regarding dialecticity (cf. Taeldeman 2005: 233–248; Aliūkaitė 2009: 160–187; Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė
2014: 257–262; Mikulėnienė 2019: 51–62). Thus, such stimulus texts are particularly suitable for perception studies.
The study involved a total of 1,064 participants from a single age group (i.e., students in grades 1–4 of gymnasium) from localities with different dialectal foundations (see Fig. 2).
FIG. 2. Localities in the project “The Spread of Regional Varieties and the Putative Standard Language (Quasi-Standard) at the Beginning of the Twenty-First Century: A Perceptual Study”
In summary, theoretical and methodological considerations of the study presented in the article, it should be noted that, during the stage of collecting material, the experiment on language attitudes and the perception of varieties was guided by the theoretical and methodological premises of the PD paradigm; that is, the participants in the PD experiment are ordinary members of the speech community: the subject matter of the study (see Fig. 1) encompasses typical elements of PD research (cf. mental-map tasks, perception of stimulus texts, etc.—see Fig. 1); PD experiments were organized in localities with different dialectal foundations (see Fig. 2); and in the PD questionnaire, the research questions and tasks were constructed by including response options, semantic differential scales, and drawn maps. The inclusion of the questions was grounded in particular theoretical arguments; for example, the task of evaluating the similarity of stimulus texts to the standard language is primarily grounded in Daniel Long’s elaborated concept of the quasi-standard (Long 1996: 118–135). The most important task for considering the discussion question of this article—the evaluation of the attractiveness of stimulus texts—is grounded not only in the condition of fulfilling the typical PD research model, that is, the evaluation of the attractiveness of varieties is one of the five components of Dennis R. Preston’s prospective research model (Preston 1999: XXVI–XXIX; Preston 2018: 177–203), but also in at least several hypotheses explaining the perception and evaluation of varieties, and in a certain sense even
266
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXV
Page 6
Tarmiškumo estetinė vertė: paprastųjų kalbos bendruomenės narių vaizdiniai
naive models summarizing the conceptualizations of varieties (from the emic perspective), for example, the norm-driven hypothesis (the norm driven hypothesis) (Bezooijen 2002), the imposed norm hypothesis (the imposed norm hypothesis) (Giles, Bourhis, Lewis, Trudgill 1974), or the social connotations hypothesis (social connotations hypothesis) (Trudgill, Giles 1978), among others, whose more systematic exposition in the theoretical section, as well as in presenting the research results, becomes the critical approach of this article, combining the aesthetic interpretation of the scores of varieties from the etic perspective with an emic narrative.
1. THE MYTH OF THE AESTHETICS OF LANGUAGES AND ITS DECONSTRUCTION: EMIC AND ETIC NARRATIVES IN RELATION
The discourse on the aesthetic value of dialectalness cannot be separated from the discourse on the aesthetic value of languages. Critical reflection on the latter has also been developed within the etic paradigm. “Italian is beautiful, German is ugly”11—this is how, within the etic paradigm, one of the so-called myths about languages (or varieties) and their differences is verbalized, specifically, the myth about the aesthetic advantages or shortcomings of languages—in other words, the so-called myth of the hierarchization of languages according to aesthetics12. Howard Giles and Nancy Niedzielski, in an article with the same title, also attempt, through scholarly arguments, to refute this myth, or more precisely, to deconstruct the evaluation of a language or its varieties from within (emic perspective), demonstrating the connections between the aesthetic values of a language or its variety and other values of the language or its variety, which not only explain aesthetic value but also create the preconditions for conducting a comprehensive analysis of a language or its varieties.
Thus, H. Giles and N. Niedzielski deconstruct the myth of the aesthetic values of languages through a discussion of the concepts of the illustrative inherent value hypothesis (inherent value hypothesis)13 and the social connotations hypothesis (social connotations hypothesis) (for more, see Giles, Niedzielski 1998: 85–93). These hypotheses were formulated in the 1970s (see Giles, Bourhis, Lewis, Trudgill 1974; Giles, Bourhis, Davies 1979; Trudgill, Giles 1978),
11 Original verbalization of the myth “Italian is Beautiful, German is Ugly” (Giles, Niedzielski 1998: 85–93).
12 It should be added that the aesthetic differences between varieties are verbalized as a discriminatory feature by another myth about languages, which primarily draws attention to qualitative differences between language varieties—English is very bad in the South [the southern United States] and in New York City (the original verbalization of the myth: “They Speak Really Bad English Down South and in New York City.” This myth is precisely what the founder of the contemporary PD paradigm, D. R. Preston, deconstructs (1998: 139–149).
13 Regarding the inherent value hypothesis, see also Giles, Bourhis, Davies 1979: 589–596.
Straipsniai / Articles
267
Page 7
DAIVA ALIŪKAITĖ
in order to present a critical model of the perception and evaluation of language variation. The inherent-value hypothesis conceptualizes and substantiates the inherent aesthetic characteristic of language (its varieties or individual sounds). In other words, the inherent-value hypothesis states that the aesthetic qualification of language X or its variety is determined by the inherent (in this case, aesthetic) characteristics of language X or the variety. If the inherent aesthetic characteristics of language X (or its variety) are positive, then the aesthetic qualification of language X (or its variety) will also be positive (among other things, the variety will occupy the highest position in the hierarchy of language varieties—for example, it will become standard, public, and so on); if the inherent aesthetic characteristics of language X (or its variety) are negative, then the aesthetic qualification of language X (or its variety) will be negative. In this case, the categories ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ encompass the entire spectrum of possible aesthetic qualifications.
It should be added that some of the earliest studies to include evaluative reactions from ordinary members of language communities, also encompassing aesthetic content (i.e., how pleasant or unpleasant a particular accent sounds), were developed from 1970 onward by H. Giles, one of the “deconstructors of the myth” of language aesthetics. English varieties were studied (for example, Yorkshire, Birmingham, Scottish English, and others), or, more precisely, their different values from the perspective of ordinary community members (see Giles 1970: 211–227). In other words, by collecting emic perspective data, the basis for a critical narrative of the aesthetic value of languages (and their varieties) was formed. The critical analysis of data on the perception of language varieties and evaluative reactions (including reactions to the aesthetics of varieties) conducted by H. Giles and colleagues (Giles, Bourhis, Trudgill, Lewis 1974; Giles, Bourhis, Davies 1979; Trudgill, Giles 1978), obtained by integrating both the so-called “matched-guise” methodmatched-guise) and different techniques for rating scales of varieties14, revealed the limitations of the inherent-value hypothesis. That is, ordinary members of language communities who did not know the languages whose text stimuli were included in perception tasks did not devalue text stimuli representing different varieties of the same language—for example, when 46 British students evaluated two dialects of Greek (the prestigious Athenian and Cretan dialects) in a 1974 study, no statistically significant differences emerged between the evaluations of these dialects according to various parameters (including aesthetics) (Giles, Bourhis,
14 The essence of the “matched-guise” method is that the text stimuli are produced (read or recorded) by the same person (the so-called guise), about whom the participants are not informed; thus, the various (differentiated) evaluations of the text stimulus produced in different varieties by the guise become the basis for determining the place of the respective variety in some hierarchy of varieties, for example, its aesthetic value. It should be added that, according to the method developed in 1960 by Canadian social psychologist Wallace E. Lambert and his team, participants, while listening to verbal stimuli, evaluate the speakers’ personal, social, and other characteristics; thus, etic narrative concerning the particular evaluations of a variety is essentially reconstructive. On the other hand, as H. Giles notes (1970: 213), uncensored attitudes (angl. ‘uncensored’ attitudes) are thereby elicited.
268
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXV
Page 8
Tarmiškumo estetinė vertė: paprastųjų kalbos bendruomenės narių vaizdiniai
Lewis, Trudgill 1974: 407–408). Such tendencies prompted researchers to develop and consolidate the so-called the imposed norm hypothesis), conceptualizing and, in a certain sense, substantiating the characteristic of language (its varieties or individual sounds) as possessing added aesthetic value; in other words, the attractiveness or unattractiveness of language is “created” or “established” beyond language (its material substance). The imposed norm hypothesis explains that one variety (usually the standard) acquires supremacy over other varieties as the most pleasant because of cultural norms (Giles, Bourhis, Lewis, Trudgill 1974: 406); in other words, social status influences the entrenchment of the image of a pleasant variety in the community. The supremacy of one variety (including its aesthetic value) over other varieties arises not from inherent characteristics but from established and transmitted / inherited knowledge about the language (or variety); therefore, languages and their varieties can be hierarchized by language experts or, as Gladis Massini Cagliari would say, native-speaker polyglots (Massini-Cagliari 2004: 3–2315). Of course, in a multilingual world, the pressure of imposed norms is experienced not only because of varieties of one language but also because of different languages; for example, ordinary members of language communities know and have adopted different lingua franca images. A somewhat refined and elaborated version of the imposed norm hypothesis is the aforementioned social-connotations hypothesis, which became a critical perspective for deconstructing the myth of language aesthetics. In refining the imposed norm hypothesis, which established the view that the attractiveness or unattractiveness of a language (or variety) is “created” beyond language, Peter Trudgill and H. Giles emphasized that judgments about language aesthetics are the result of a complex of social connotations). The term ‘social’ in their theory encompasses more than status or social class. It is significant that the researchers point out that even members of the same community may perceive things differently, since particular varieties may have different social connotations for them (see Trudgill, Giles 1978: 180–190). In addition, the social-connotations hypothesis explains ordinary members of language communities’ non-dichotomous perception and evaluation of the standard language variety and nonstandard language varieties. For example, regional accents (angl. regional accents) are evaluated more positively than urban accents (angl. urban accents) (Bezooijen 2002: 14). This happens because speakers realizing regional accents are associated with a more attractive lifestyle and environment; thus, such social (contextual) information (or a complex of social connotations) “creates” value, and so on.
15 The insight formulated by Gladis Massini-Cagliari concerning native-language polyglots. A researcher who studied the linguistic situation in Brazil—analyzing the relationships between Portuguese and 200 other existing languages (including 170 indigenous languages-dialects)—states that every native speaker, having learned their own language, also learns to distinguish the varieties of their language; thus, every speaker is necessarily a “polyglot” of their native language.
Straipsniai / Articles
269
Page 9
DAIVA ALIŪKAITĖ
Returning to the myth of the attractiveness vs ugliness of languages, “Italian is beautiful, German is ugly,” it can be argued that from the perspective of the inherent value hypothesis, it may be summarized that Italian is assigned the qualification of a beautiful language because the inherent characteristics of this language are beautiful, attractive (for example, its sound, rhythm, and ultimately its sounds), whereas German is the opposite. From the perspective of the social connotations hypothesis, the value of beauty for Italian and the value of ugliness for German are created by a complex of social connotations. We will not examine the specific connotations in detail, especially since the myth of the beauty and ugliness of languages itself may be verbalized among members of different language communities by mentioning other languages as well—for example, French is beautiful, Chinese is ugly, and so on. As Susanne M. Reiterer, Vita Kogan, Annemarie Seither-Preisler, and Gašperis Pesekas (2020: 168) note in one of the most recent studies devoted to examining motivation for foreign-language learning, assessing the impact of the sound structure of languages and social stereotypes on foreign-language learning, many “unpleasant” (English unpleasant) languages are often perceived as such because of existing or former social and political stigmas.
Thus, the essential distinction between the hypotheses under discussion is this: the aesthetic value of a language is created by the language itself, or the aesthetic value of a language is created by that which is not the language itself, but what is about and around the language. Of course, researchers point out that it is difficult to distinguish, for example, the impact of phonetic features on perception and on one evaluation or another from the socio-cultural aura of a language (or variant) (English socio-cultural aura), that is, the impact of the history of speakers and of the language on the perception of the language (or variant). As V. V. Kogan and S. M. Reiterer (2021: 2) reason, for example, French may appear beautiful because of its high vocalic index (English vocalic index), that is, every second sound in French is a vowel; on the other hand, aesthetic evaluations may be determined by the socio-cultural aura of French, encompassing the Champs-Élysées, fragrant wine, and the novels of A. Dumas.
FIG. 3. Renée van Bezooijen’s model of hypotheses (created by the author—D. A.).
270
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXV
Page 10
Tarmiškumo estetinė vertė: paprastųjų kalbos bendruomenės narių vaizdiniai
Developing research within the PD paradigm, Renée van Bezooijen proposed more detailed hypotheses—models explaining and generalizing the aesthetic values of languages and variants (cf. Bezooijen 2002: 14–16). The empirical basis for formulating the insights encompassed not only several languages (American and British English, German, Dutch, Russian, Italian, Spanish, French), but also regional variants of Dutch, as well as historical variants of Dutch. It can be argued that her model of six hypotheses (see Fig. 3) summarizes both linguistic and non-linguistic conditions affecting the perception of variants.
According to R. van Bezooijen, the hypothesis of inherent value should more appropriately be called the sound-dispersion hypothesis (English: the sound driven hypothesis). The researcher somewhat utočifies H. Giles and colleagues’ assumptions concerning the universality of the aesthetics of sounds; in other words, in the etic narrative of the aesthetics of languages and varieties, R. van Bezooijen’s hypothesis legitimizes the separation of the most beautiful (most pleasant, etc.) languages or varieties from the status of languages or varieties, that is, the most beautiful, most pleasant, etc. code does not necessarily have to occupy the highest (or otherwise distinctive) position in the hierarchy of language varieties (cf. Bezooijen 2002: 14). The intelligibility hypothesis (English: the intelligibility driven hypothesis) may also be assigned to linguistic assumptions (see Fig. 3) (Bezooijen 2002: 15). In the Dutch researcher’s summary, a more favorable evaluative reaction from ordinary members of the speech community and, accordingly, higher aesthetic ratings may be determined by the intelligibility of the code. R. van Bezooijen distinguishes two further hypotheses conceptually related to knowledge of the code being evaluated (a language or its variety)—knowledge arising for some reason, for example, because the language being evaluated is known or is similar to a known language, the variety being evaluated is similar to the code of one’s linguistic homeland (or identical to the code of one’s linguistic homeland), or is similar to the standard language (or identical to the standard language). Thus, the so-called familiarity hypothesis (English: the familiarity driven hypothesis) can explain, on the rating scale biauri (-us) vs patraukli (-us), more favorable evaluations of a language or code similar to the code of one’s linguistic homeland; the similarity hypothesis (English: the similarity driven hypothesis) explains the respondents’ more favorable evaluations of codes similar to the standard (general) language (Bezooijen 2002: 15). It should be added that the latter two hypotheses are associated with both a linguistic and a non-linguistic basis. There is no doubt that knowledge of the code may also stimulate certain complexes, for example, that of linguistic homeland—respondents’ favorable evaluation may be determined by an effort to create added value for their own code.
R. van Bezooijen’s norm-diffusion hypothesis (English: the norm driven hypothesis) corresponds to the previously mentioned imposed-norms hypothesis, which conceptualizes and substantiates the characteristic of the added aesthetic value of a language (its varieties or individual sounds) (Bezooijen 2002: 14). For example, ratings of the standard (general) language are influenced by culturally imposed (English: culturally imposed) norms concerning the superiority of the standard (general) language. Evaluations of individual languages may also be culturally imposed.
Straipsniai / Articles
271
Page 11
DAIVA ALIŪKAITĖ
P. Trudgill and H. Giles’s (1978: 180–190) hypothesis of social connotations becomes the context hypothesis (English: the context driven hypothesis) in R. van Bezooijen’s typology of hypotheses (Bezooijen 2002: 14). The researcher states that contextual variables (English: context variables), which conceptually correspond to the complex of social connotations in P. Trudgill and H. Giles’s model, affect ratings of the attractiveness of languages and varieties. Consequently, if attitudes toward contextual variables are favorable, the evaluation of the language or its variety will also be favorable, and vice versa—context variables evaluated negatively presuppose an unfavorable image of the variety.
Traditional works of Lithuanian dialectology did not integrate the evaluation of the aesthetics of varieties. Works within the PD paradigm from the beginning of the twenty-first century, or works that in one way or another integrate elements of the PD approach, have focused attention on a priori attitudes and formulated individual insights concerning the linguistic homeland factor and the ratings of the beauty vs ugliness of the standard factor of the variety (cf. Aliūkaitė 2007, 2011; Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė 2016; Bakšienė 2015, 2019; Geržotaitė, Čepaitienė 2016; Geržotaitė 2019, 2019a; Dambrauskienė 2020, etc.). Materials on a priori attitudes have also more often been limited in works on the sociolinguistics of attitudes; for example, in presenting the results of the research projects “Language Use and National Identity in Lithuanian Cities” and “The Sociolinguistic Map of Lithuania: Cities and Towns,” researchers’ a priori attitudes toward ranking dialects by beauty are reported and issues of dialect stereotyping are considered (for example, Kliukienė 2010: 102–103; 2014: [1–15]; Baranauskienė, Krupickaitė 2012: [1–22]; Kalėdienė 2013: 139–140; Vaicekauskienė, Sausverde 2012: [1–27], etc.).
2. TARMIŠKUMO PATRAUKLUMO VERTĖ: SAVARANKIŠKUMAS IR NESAVARANKIŠKUMAS
Thus, in the subsections of this part of the article, presenting data from the perception and evaluation task involving 8 text-stimuli in the PD study, the aesthetic value of dialectality is analyzed, and the links between the attractiveness ratings of the text-stimuli and the ratings of other marked text-stimuli are assessed (see the ratings in Fig. 1).
2.1. Results of the Perception of Text-Stimuli: The Standard-Language Factor
In the PD study, young people from areas with different dialectal bases evaluated the attractiveness of 8 text-stimuli on a 7-point semantic-differential scale, marking the value of beauty or ugliness from 1 to 7 points, with 1 point evaluating the text-stimulus as
272
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXV
Page 12
Tarmiškumo estetinė vertė: paprastųjų kalbos bendruomenės narių vaizdiniai
a text in a very ugly language, and 7 points as a text in a very beautiful language. In addition, after rating the attractiveness of the expression of the text-stimuli they heard from 1 to 7 points, respondents could provide arguments for one rating or another. The sequence of attractiveness ratings of the text-stimuli reveals that, for ordinary members of the speech community, the most beautiful are the text-stimuli representing markers of the Eastern Eastern Aukštaitian regiolect and the Southern Aukštaitian regiolect: D→H→A. Next in the sequence of attractiveness and unattractiveness are the G text-stimulus representing markers of the Southern Western Aukštaitian regiolect, the F text-stimulus representing the Western Eastern Aukštaitian regiolect, and the C text-stimulus representing markers of the Northern Western Aukštaitian regiolect: G→F→C. The text-stimuli representing Samogitian regiolectal expression were evaluated by ordinary members of the speech community as texts in the ugliest language: E→B. The generalized sequence of the aesthetic ratings of all respondents is as follows: D→H→A→G→F→C→E→B. It can be stated that images of the most attractive and least attractive dialectality are universal. This insight is supported by the closely similar generalized sequences of text-stimulus attractiveness ratings among young Aukštaitians (690 respondents), Samogitians (220 respondents), and metropolitan youth (154 respondents). There is little variation in them; only young Samogitians prioritize, from an aesthetic point of view, the H text-stimulus representing the Eastern Eastern Aukštaitian regiolect: H→D→A→G→F→C→E→B (see Fig. 4).
FIG. 4. Difference in the Attractiveness Ratings of the Text-Stimuli
At first glance, such results of the attractiveness ratings of the text-stimuli would encourage an assumption concerning inherent aesthetic features of dialectality. As can be seen in Fig. 4, only the attractiveness ratings of text-stimulus D differ more significantly among young Aukštaitians, Samogitians, and metropolitan youth; the young people in all three groups evaluated the other text-stimuli, especially text-stimulus B, very similarly. In addition, it should be noted that among the arguments for the aesthetic ratings, young people also provide arguments that further reinforce the assumption that some regiolectal markers may have determined the young people’s favorable evaluative reaction simply because the sounds and pronunciation of some text-stimuli appeared more attractive to them than those of others (see examples in Table 1).
Straipsniai / Articles
273
Page 13
DAIVA ALIŪKAITĖ
TABLE 1. Examples of Arguments for Attractiveness Ratings
Text–stimulus
Respondent
Attractiveness rating
Argument for the rating
Text–stimulus A
An_V02 6 points because the language sounds gentle
Jrb_M12 7 points sounds beautiful
Klp_M22 7 points sounds beautiful
Mrj_M15 7 points the intonation is beautiful
Text–stimulus B
Al_M06 2 points I do not like the accent Pn_M19 3 points sounds harsh Mžk_V22 2 points because he spoke roughly Rk_M14 3 points a harsh accent
Text–stimulus C
Klp_M10 6 points beautiful sound Pn_M19 3 points because it sounds harsh Įnšk_M15 5 points a strange sound Vrn_V09 5 points this language sounds beautiful
Text–stimulus D
T1_M26 7 points beautiful sound Ps_M13 5 points has a distinctive sonority Įnš_V24 5 points pleasant enough to listen to Al_V23 7 points beautiful, pleasant to listen to
Text–stimulus E
Kn_M08 2 points the pronunciation grates, ugly Pn_V16 3 points sounds ugly An_M24 4 points too rough Kn_M08 2 points the pronunciation grates, ugly
Text–stimulus F
Mrj_M06 7 points I like the accent Pn_V18 5 points sonorous language Rk_V05 2 points sounds unpleasant Ut_V11 7 points expressive, beautiful language
An_V02 6 points beautiful, pleasant Rk_M15 7 points beautiful pronunciation Pln_V11 5 points not very beautiful Mžk_V06 5 points pleasant to the ear
274
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXV
Page 14
Tarmiškumo estetinė vertė: paprastųjų kalbos bendruomenės narių vaizdiniai
As can be seen, the same text-stimulus is evaluated as both attractive and unattractive (see examples of evaluations in Table 1). Precisely this dichotomous evaluation and the argumentation of evaluative attitudes would support the insight that aesthetic value is created by the code itself, rather than by what surrounds it—some sociocultural connotations or, as V. V. Kogan and S. M. Reiterer would say, a sociocultural aura (2021: 2). Nevertheless, the links between the similarity of the text-stimuli to the standard language and their attractiveness ratings eliminate such an assumption concerning inherent characteristics (here, the hypotheses of inherent value or sound dispersion should be recalled). It must be acknowledged that young people’s evaluative reaction to the beauty of the text-stimuli can be linked, and in some cases even equated, with evaluation of their similarity to the standard language. The main idea of the project “The Diffusion of Regional Varieties and the Alleged Standard Language (Quasi-Standard) at the Beginning of the Twenty-First Century: A Perceptual Study” was to identify what ordinary people consider to be the standard language and what they do not, that is, what is recognized as a marked dialectal code. In other words, the entrenchment of the so-called quasi-standard (or quasi-standards) among ordinary members of the speech community was evaluated. Young people evaluated the similarity of the text-stimuli they heard to the standard language, more precisely to their image of the standard language, just as they evaluated the aesthetics of the texts they heard, on a 7-point semantic-differential scale, marking the value of similarity or dissimilarity to the standard language from 1 to 7 points, with 1 point evaluating the text-stimulus as entirely unlike the standard language and 7 points as very similar to the standard language. Ratings from 1 to 7 enabled respondents to differentiate their perception of the text-stimuli. Thus, the link between the attractiveness ratings of the text-stimuli and the results of evaluating the text-stimuli according to their similarity to the standard language provides a basis for considering the independence of the aesthetic value of dialectality, or for evaluating the imposed-norms hypotheses of H. Giles, R. Y. Bourhis, P. Trudgill, and A. Lewis, or R. van Bezooijen’s norm-diffusion hypothesis, on the basis of data on the perception of dialectality in the Lithuanian language.
As can be seen (see Fig. 5), ordinary members of the speech community, on the conditional continuum dialect → standard language, evaluate most favorably, according to similarity to the standard language, the H text-stimulus containing markers of the Eastern Eastern Aukštaitian regiolect; the least similar for respondents is the B text-stimulus representing markers of the Samogitian regiolect.
Without evaluating the linguistic characteristics themselves, that is, which specific features of one or another text-stimulus determined such ratings of similarity or dissimilarity to the standard language (see Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė, Čepaitienė, Brazaitienė 2020: 151–176), the sequences of the ratings of greatest and least similarity to the standard language and the ratings of aesthetic perception should be compared (see Fig. 6).
Straipsniai / Articles
275
Page 15
DAIVA ALIŪKAITĖ
FIG. 5. (Dis)similarity of Text-Stimuli to the Standard Language
As can be seen (Fig. 6), the E and B text-stimuli representing markers of the Samogitian regiolect and the F text-stimulus representing the Western Eastern Aukštaitian regiolect are the most consistently evaluated according to the features of similarity and attractiveness. The ratings of the similarity to the standard language of the expression of the H text-stimulus representing markers of the Eastern Eastern Aukštaitian regiolect, the C text-stimulus representing markers of the Northern Western Aukštaitian regiolect, and the A text-stimulus representing the Southern Aukštaitian regiolect are somewhat higher than the ratings of the aesthetic quality of the expression of these text-stimuli. Nevertheless, although the sequence of similarity ratings—H→A→D→C→G→F→E→B—differs slightly from the sequence of attractiveness ratings of the text-stimuli—D→H→A→G→F→C→E→B—in general it can be stated that these two parameters are interdependent. In the intermediate positions in the sequences of attractiveness and similarity to the standard language, the attractiveness and similarity ratings of the texts representing markers of the Southern Western Aukštaitian regiolect and the Western Eastern Aukštaitian regiolect differ little from each other. The similarity of text-stimulus G to the standard language, according to respondents from all points
276
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXV
Page 16
Tarmiškumo estetinė vertė: paprastųjų kalbos bendruomenės narių vaizdiniai
is 4.26 points, while its attractiveness is 4.46 points. These rating averages are determined by the fact that respondents more often rated the beauty of this text-stimulus with 7 or 6 points: 12.36% of all respondents evaluated the text as a text in a very beautiful language and gave it 7 points, while 16.63% gave it 6 points. Similarity to the standard language was evaluated more critically—5.52% of all respondents gave it 7 points and 12.94% gave it 6 points. The same reasons account for the difference in the ratings of the F text-stimulus representing the Western Eastern Aukštaitian regiolect. The perception of the C text-stimulus representing markers of the Northern Western Aukštaitian regiolect is somewhat different. 6.46% of all young respondents rated the similarity of this text-stimulus to the standard language at 7 points, and as many as 21.18% at 6 points. The results of aesthetic perception are stricter: as a text in a very beautiful language, with 7 points, text-stimulus C was evaluated by 4.48% of young people. 12.68% of respondents marked their evaluation at 6 points on the semantic-differential scale; moreover, 16.59% of young people assigned the minimum attractiveness ratings of 1 or 2 points, expressing the attitude that the language of the text-stimulus was very ugly to them. That the text-stimulus representing markers of the Northern Western Aukštaitian regiolect was entirely unlike the standard language was revealed on the semantic-differential scale by 7.98% of respondents, who marked 1 or 2 points. Nevertheless, such a difference does not alter the primary assumption concerning the dependence of these two parameters (similarity to the standard language and attractiveness). In other words, the similarity of the text-stimulus to the standard language, more precisely to young people’s image of the standard language, affects or even determines the hierarchization of text-stimuli according to attractiveness. This insight is further reinforced by respondents’ comments: young people often substantiate one rating or another of a text-stimulus with arguments concerning similarity or dissimilarity to the standard language. Thus, one can examine how the attractiveness of these text-stimuli is conceptualized through their relationship with the standard language. One can compare the attractiveness or unattractiveness of the H text-stimulus representing Eastern Eastern Aukštaitian expression (evaluated as most similar to the standard language), the D text-stimulus representing markers of the Southern Aukštaitian regiolect (evaluated as most attractive), and the Samogitian B text-stimulus (evaluated as both least similar to the standard language and least attractive), as well as, for comparison, the similarity or dissimilarity to the standard language underlying emic fragments of the narrative reconstructed from young people’s open-ended comments (see Table 2).
Straipsniai / Articles
277
Page 17
DAIVA ALIŪKAITĖ
FIG. 6. Relationship between the Evaluation of (Dis)similarity of Text-Stimuli to the Standard Language and (Un)Attractiveness
278
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXV
Page 18
Tarmiškumo estetinė vertė: paprastųjų kalbos bendruomenės narių vaizdiniai
TABLE 2. Arguments for Ratings of Attractiveness and Similarity to the Standard Language (Examples)
Text-stimulus | Respondent | Similarity-to-standard-language rating | Argument for the rating | Attractiveness rating | Argument for the rating B text-stimulus | Al_V16 | 3 points | pronounced markedly differently | 3 points | not very beautiful because it is not similar to the standard language Klp_M07 | 4 points | word endings are “cut off” | 5 points | the language is not similar to the standard language Šl_M02 | 3 points | pronounces and stresses things very strangely | 3 points | dissimilar to the standard language, strange Tl_M21 | 3 points | shortens endings, does not stress words correctly | 3 points | only the standard language is beautiful D text-stimulus | An_M09 | 4 points | because pronunciation is correct | 5 points | because I find it beautiful, it is standard Klp_V04 | 7 points | because it is very correct | 7 points | because it is similar to the standard language Kn_M11 | 5 points | the words are the same | 6 points | similar to the standard language Ps_M22 | 6 points | pronunciation of endings differs slightly from the standard language | 6 points | little is missing for identity with the standard language H text-stimulus | Klp_M06 | 6 points | the o is stressed | 7 points | because it is similar to the standard language Mžk_V14 | 7 points | very beautiful | 7 points | similar to the standard language Vrn_V11 | 7 points | in my opinion, this is the standard language | 6 points | because it is the standard language Tl_M25 | 5 points | most words sounded similar to the standard language | 6 points | because it is fairly similar to the standard language
It should be added that such ratings of dialectality substantiate not only the imposed-norms (also norm-diffusion) or social-connotations (also context) hypotheses. As mentioned, within the PD paradigm R. van Bezooijen’s similarity hypothesis explains more favorable evaluations of a language or code similar to the standard (general) language (Bezooijen 2002: 15); thus, fragments of respondents’ emic narrative in which
Straipsniai / Articles
279
Page 19
DAIVA ALIŪKAITĖ
the content of the evaluative attitude becomes evident—beautiful because it is similar to the standard language, ugly because it is not similar to the standard language (see Table 2)—demonstrate the universality of the Dutch researcher’s similarity hypothesis. In addition, attention should be drawn to the fact that the aesthetic ratings of text-stimuli are often argued from the perspective of correctness and incorrectness. The dimension of correctness etic narratives is primarily associated with the standard language. The Emic narrative is characterized by the expression of non-independent but, in a certain respect, holistic attitudes, that is, attitudes integrating the fulfillment of several conditions. One of the more important conditions is correctness: beautiful because it is correct (see Table 3). This relationship (between beauty and correctness) in etic narratives, in which information from ordinary members of the speech community was operated with in one way or another, was mentioned even before attitude studies began to be developed. According to Samu Imre (1963)—a representative of traditional dialectology and compiler of the Hungarian language atlas—the concepts “correct language” and “beautiful language” are almost inseparable at the level of respondents’ metalinguistic comments (cited from Kontra 2002: 206).
3 LENTELĖ. Examples of Arguments for Attractiveness Ratings
Text-stimulus | Respondent | Attractiveness rating | Argument for the rating A text-stimulus | Al_V07 | 6 points | speaks correctly A text-stimulus | Jnš_V29 | 6 points | speaks correctly A text-stimulus | Jrb_V05 | 6 points | because [they] speak almost correctly A text-stimulus | Tl_M21 | 5 points | because [they] speak correctly enough B text-stimulus | An_V04 | 2 points | stresses incorrectly B text-stimulus | Krtn_M06 | 1 point | incorrect speech B text-stimulus | Mrj_M16 | 3 points | incorrect language B text-stimulus | Pn_M06 | 2 points | speaks very incorrectly C text-stimulus | Šk_M08 | 6 points | beautifully, correctly, but I did not like how the word “esu” was stressed C text-stimulus | Ukm_M22 | 2 points | incorrect C text-stimulus | Ut_V07 | 7 points | correct language C text-stimulus | Vrn_M24 | 5 points | sounds beautiful, sufficiently correctly D text-stimulus | Pn_V20 | 7 points | because [they] pronounce the words correctly D text-stimulus | Jnšk_M15 | 7 points | the words are pronounced correctly D text-stimulus | Klp_M14 | 6 points | speaks correctly D text-stimulus | Skd_M17 | 3 points | some words are pronounced incorrectly
280
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXV
Page 20
Tarmiškumo estetinė vertė: paprastųjų kalbos bendruomenės narių vaizdiniai
Text–stimulus Respondent Attractiveness rating Argument for the rating Text-stimulus E AI_V04 4 points the more incorrectly it speaks, the uglier it becomes sounds as if it is stressed incorrectly, an ending is cut off incorrect, endings are cut off, and for some words not incorrect pronunciation speaks incorrectly incorrect because it is stressed incorrectly not very incorrect stressed more correctly stressed incorrectly tries to speak correctly but cannot speaks quite correctly speaks correctly correct language too correctly correct, clear
As can be seen from fragments of the emic narrative, ordinary members of the speech community differ in how strict they are in setting requirements for correctness; however, for the research question—the aesthetic value of dialectality and its links with other values—the difference between strictness and leniency is not very important; what matters here is the fundamental dependence, in other words, the correspondence between the concepts “correct language” and “beautiful language.”
2.2. Results of the Perception of Text-Stimuli: The Linguistic-Homeland Factor
It can be stated that the linguistic-homeland factor affects respondents’ perception somewhat less than the standard-language factor. Or, based on R. van Bezooijen’s conception of the so-called familiarity hypothesis, it can explain, for example,
Straipsniai / Articles
281
Page 21
DAIVA ALIŪKAITĖ
the sequence of the most and least attractive texts–stimuli among young residents of Šiauliai: D→A→H→C→G→F→E→B. In the hierarchy of expressive attractiveness, the participants at the Šiauliai site assign the text–stimulus C, representing the markers of the northwestern Aukštaitian regiolect, a place immediately after the D, A, and H texts–stimuli that are most similar to the standard language and most beautiful. The factor of linguistic homeland should not be absolutized in the perception of young residents of Šiauliai; nevertheless, attention should be drawn to the fact that, when assessing the similarity of the expression of text–stimulus C to the code of their linguistic homeland, 7.89 percent of participants rated the expression of this text–stimulus as almost identical to the code of their linguistic homeland, assigning it 7 out of 7 points; 21.05 percent of participants at the site rated the similarity at 6 out of 7 points. In explaining their assessments of the similarity of the text–stimulus to the code of their linguistic homeland, the young people openly expressed the identity of the code of their linguistic homeland with text–stimulus C, representing the markers of the northwestern Aukštaitian regiolect, for example: participant Šl_M05 commented on her assessment—because that is really how people speak in our city (7 points); Šl_M11—people speak similarly in my city (5 points); Šl_V01—similarly, because we speak similarly (6 points); Šl_M06—I often speak that way myself (7 points); Šl_V04—I speak similarly, only with more slang (6 points). That knowledge of a code, and even more so its recognition as one’s own code, influences aesthetic evaluations of dialectal features is confirmed by the sequence of the most and least attractive texts–stimuli among young residents of Marijampolė: D→G→H→A→F→E→C→B. In the hierarchy of beauty, text–stimulus G, representing the markers of the southern West Aukštaitian regiolect, is moved into second place (5.54 points); only text–stimulus D, representing the markers of the southern Aukštaitian regiolect, is evaluated more favorably (5.82 points). Young residents of Marijampolė assessed the similarity of text–stimulus G to the code of their linguistic homeland at 6.34 points. Moreover, as many as 81 percent of young residents of Marijampolė localized text–stimulus G in Marijampolė. Thus, the data from the drawn-map task also reveal the recognition of the code as the code of one’s linguistic homeland. Consequently, it is justified to relate attractiveness assessments to the factor of linguistic homeland. This insight is supported by fragments of the participants’ emic narrative, for example: participant Mrj_M04 assesses the beauty of text–stimulus G at 6 points, because I like my dialect; Mrj_M09 assesses it at 7 points, because mine—the Suvalkian dialect—is the most beautiful; Mrj_M16 assesses it at 6 points, because I like our Suvalkian accent. The young man from Marijampolė, Mrj_V11, justifies his 7-point attractiveness assessment—it sounds the best of all, and explains his 7-point assessment of similarity to his linguistic homeland as follows—because it is my language. Precisely this fragment of emic narrative most clearly substantiates the connection between the aesthetic value of dialectal features and the linguistic identity of the participants. The fact that a native dialect is evaluated as sufficiently beautiful by ordinary members of the language community was also noted by the aforementioned representative of traditional dialectology, S. Imru (cited in Kontra 2002: 206). Nevertheless, it should be noted that, unlike recognized (even if only presumed!) similarity to the standard language, recognized similarity of the text–stimulus to the code of one’s linguistic homeland does not necessarily function as
282
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXV
Page 22
Tarmiškumo estetinė vertė: paprastųjų kalbos bendruomenės narių vaizdiniai
a condition of attractiveness. The results of the perception study at individual sites reveal a tendency whereby texts–stimuli recognized as the most dialectal, that is, the least similar to the standard language, are not assessed as more attractive. This applies, for example, to the assessments of texts–stimuli B and E, representing markers of the Samogitian regiolect, at those sites that objectively fall within the Samogitian regiolect area. The initial assumption, if we were to regard the linguistic homeland factor as unconditionally determining “linguistic taste,” would be as follows: texts–stimuli representing the Samogitian regiolect would be assessed as more attractive than unattractive. Yet this does not happen. For example, only 6.82 percent of participants at Samogitian sites awarded 7 points when assessing the attractiveness of text–stimulus B, while another 7.27 percent assessed the attractiveness of the text–stimulus at 6 points. Nearly 30 percent of participants assessed text–stimulus B as very unattractive, assigning it 1 or 2 points. The perception of text–stimulus E was somewhat more moderate, but nevertheless similar (see Fig. 7).
FIG. 7. The attractiveness of texts–stimuli B and E according to participants at Samogitian sites
Although the attractiveness sequences at individual Samogitian sites vary somewhat, one of the texts–stimuli representing markers of the Samogitian regiolect—text–stimulus B—is always assessed as the least attractive, whereas the second—text–stimulus E—is assessed at some sites as more attractive than text–stimulus F, representing markers of the western Eastern Aukštaitian regiolect, or text–stimulus G, representing markers of the southern West Aukštaitian regiolect (see Fig. 8).
Straipsniai / Articles
283
Page 23
DAIVA ALIŪKAITĖ
FIG. 8. The attractiveness of the stimulus texts according to the evaluations of the subjects from the Samogitian points
It is necessary to add that, when evaluating the similarity of the texts-stimuli representing both markers of the Samogitian regiolect to the code of their linguistic homeland during the PD study, the subjects from the three Samogitian points—Telšiai, Plungė, and Skuodas—assessed them as the most similar of all (see Fig. 9).
FIG. 9. Linking the stimulus texts with the linguistic homeland
Although the scores for similarity to the linguistic homeland are not high, their similarity to the code of the linguistic homeland was nevertheless acknowledged most frequently among all the regiolectal stimulus texts. It should be added that the E stimulus text was also assessed as the most similar to the code of the linguistic homeland by the young people from Kretinga (4.28 points) and Mažėliai (4.58 points). The subjects’ comments on the scores reinforce the view that the stimulus texts were recognized as codes of the linguistic homeland, for example: the subject Skd_M20, who assessed the similarity of the B stimulus text to the code of the linguistic homeland at 7 points, comments—very [similar], because it is the language of my region; The subject Tel_M21, who likewise assigned 7 points for similarity to the linguistic homeland, argues—because we also shorten endings,
284
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXV
Page 24
Tarmiškumo estetinė vertė: paprastųjų kalbos bendruomenės narių vaizdiniai
we stress words incorrectly; the subject Skd_V09 substantiates the score of 6 points—very similar. The young man from Plungė, Pln_V09, even attempts to write down the similarity to the linguistic homeland in an amateur dialectal grapholect—žemaitėje vara. Thus, summarizing the role of the linguistic homeland factor in the image of attractiveness, it can be said that, compared with the standard-language factor, the linguistic homeland factor is more conditional.
CONCLUSIONS
Following the study of the aesthetic value of dialectality, the following generalizing insights and premises for further discourse on the aesthetics of codes can be formulated on the basis of the PD approach:
1) The perception of the attractiveness of stimulus texts representing markers of different regiolects supports the generalizing insight that the aesthetic value of dialectality is determined only partly by the inherent characteristics of the variant. From the perspective of the tradition of research on the aesthetics of codes, this insight is neither original nor new, but, by supporting it with data on the perception of dialectality in the Lithuanian language, it is possible to engage in the general discourse on the aesthetics of languages (codes) etic, i.e. the critical discourse of the researcher. Thus, when assessing the general tendencies in the perception of the attractiveness of stimulus texts that emerge from the ernic, i.e. the ordinary community member’s, perspective, it can be stated that the hypotheses explaining the perception and evaluation of languages (codes) make it possible to systematically assess the data of the emic narrative of Lithuanian dialect aesthetics and to develop a coherent discourse in dialectology. The perception of the ordinary member of the language community is explained most convincingly by the hypotheses of imposed norms or the dissemination of norms, as well as of social connotations, which conceptualize and substantiate the characteristic of the added aesthetic value of codes.
2) The data from the study of the perception of stimulus texts, conducted at twenty-one regional points and in three major cities (Vilnius, Kaunas, and Klaipėda), make it possible to assert that universal images of the most and least attractive dialectality exist among ordinary members of the language community. It can be argued that, at the level of perception, those regiolects that are more similar to the standard language are evaluated as the most beautiful or more beautiful codes. This generalizing insight accords with the concept of the similarity hypothesis developed in theoretical discourse, which foregrounds the standard-language factor. It should be noted that in this case the standard language must be understood as the ordinary member of the language community’s image of the standard language, which, regardless of its accuracy or inaccuracy (i.e. the entrenchment of the quasi-standard must be taken into account), becomes the basis for measuring and evaluating attractiveness. It should not be forgotten that the ways of seeing the world and constructing meaning of the emic, i.e. the ordinary member of the language community, and the etic, i.e. primarily the researcher, must not be equated,
Straipsniai / Articles
285
Page 25
DAIVA ALIŪKAITĖ
the requirements of one of them cannot be transferred to the other, since this would essentially destroy one of the meanings, which, by virtue of being different, does not become less significant. In the case under study, the image of dialectality created by an ordinary member of the speech community is an important object of dialectology, whose deconstruction expands (may expand) the dialectological etic narrative. Thus, the generalizing insight concerning the hierarchy of the aesthetics of codes should be specified as follows: at the level of perception, the regiolects that are recognized and acknowledged as more similar to the standard language are evaluated as more beautiful, or as more beautiful codes. As emerged from the summary of the PD perception study data, the expression of the text-stimuli D, H, and A representing the markers of the South Aukštaitian regiolect and the East East Aukštaitian regiolect was evaluated as the most beautiful because it was the most similar to the standard language (i.e., to the image held); the expression of the text-stimuli B and E representing the markers of the Samogitian regiolect was evaluated as the least beautiful because it differed most from the standard language (i.e., from the image held). Such results, affirming the significance of the standard language, or more precisely, of the image of the standard language, for the aesthetics of dialectality, support the insight that, for an ordinary member of the speech community, the aesthetic value of dialectality is “created” by what lies beyond language.
3) The results of the PD study make it possible to assess how the factor of linguistic homeland determines evaluations of the aesthetics of dialectality. The article can formulate only preliminary insights: recognizing the variant heard as one’s own code may determine a more favorable evaluation of the aesthetics of dialectality; nevertheless, unlike recognized (even if only presumed!) similarity to the standard language, recognized similarity of the text-stimulus to the code of the linguistic homeland does not necessarily function as a condition of attractiveness. Compared with the factor of the standard language, the factor of linguistic homeland is more conditional in forming the image of dialectal attractiveness; it “takes effect” if the first condition is fulfilled—namely, if the dialectality represented by the text-stimulus, of course at the level of the ordinary member of the speech community’s attitudes and perception, is shifted along the conditional continuum dialect → standard language toward the standard language.
In summarizing the matters examined, it is necessary to emphasize that, first, the insights concerning the aesthetic value of dialectality in this article are based only on data from participants in one age group who took part in the PD study; second, during the study in question, only perception data were collected for developing the aesthetics narrative, that is, in evaluating the attractiveness or unattractiveness of dialectality, no material on a priori attitudes (verbalized or visualized) was used. Thus, it must be acknowledged that the insights developed in this article should be regarded as a fragment of the discourse on the aesthetics of dialectality within the PD paradigm, a fragment that must necessarily be refined and developed in various directions, for example, by examining the perception of text-stimuli representing dialectality
286
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXV
Page 26
Tarmiškumo estetinė vertė: paprastųjų kalbos bendruomenės narių vaizdiniai
by comparing it with data on a priori attitudes or by consistently incorporating material from drawn maps into the study of the aesthetics of dialectality.
LITERATŪRA
Aliūkaitė Daiva 2007: Tarminio kalbėjimo estetinė vertė: nuostatų tyrimas. – Tekstai ir kontekstai: transformacijų sklaida, red. J. Krūminienė, Kaunas: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla, 211–223.
Aliūkaitė Daiva 2009: Bendrinės kalbos vaizdiniai: kvazistandarto problema. – Respectus Philologicus 16(21) A, 160–187. Prieiga internete: https://etalpykla.lituanistikadb.lt/fedora/objects/LT-LDB-0001:J.04~2009~1519745401022/datastreams/DS.002.0.01.ARTIC/content.
Aliūkaitė Daiva 2011: Jaunųjų žemaičių raiškos idealai: sąmoningosios nuostatos. – Respectus Philologicus 20, 209–220. Prieiga internete: https://etalpykla.lituanistikadb.lt/fedora/objects/LT-LDB-0001:J.04~2011~1367175734827/datastreams/DS.002.0.01.ARTIC/content.
Aliūkaitė Daiva 2020a: Tarmiškumo tvarumas Lietuvos regionuose: emic naratyvo kūrėjo perspektyva. – Lietuvių kalba 15, [1–20]. Prieiga internete: https://www.zurnalai.vu.lt/lietuviu-kalba/article/view/22435/21702.
Aliūkaitė Daiva, Mikulėnienė Danguolė 2014: Geolektų ir regioninių dialektų formavimosi ypatumai. – XXI a. pradžios lietuvių tarmės: geolingvistinis ir sociolingvistinis tyrimas. Žemėlapiai ir jų komentarai, sud. D. Mikulėnienė, V. Meiliūnaitė, Vilnius: leidykla „Briedis“, 257–262.
Aliūkaitė Daiva, Mikulėnienė Danguolė 2019: Paprastosios kalbos bendruomenės nario naratyvas: kur ir kodėl (su)kuriamas vietos tarmiškumas. – Lietuvių
Straipsniai / Articles
287
Page 27
DAIVA ALIŪKAITĖ
kalba 13, [1–22]. Prieiga internete: https://www.zurnalai.vu.lt/lietuviu-kalba/article/view/22481.
Aliūkaitė Daiva, Mikulėnienė Danguolė, Čepaitienė Agnė, Brazaitienė Laura 2020: Lietuvių kalbos variantai: tyrėjo ir paprastojo kalbos bendruomenės nario perspektyvos, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla.
Bakšienė Rima 2015: Terminio kalbėjimo savivertė ir gyvybingumas: XXI a. pradžios Šakių ir Jurbarko šnektos. – Lietuvių kalba 9, [1–20]. Prieiga internete: https://www.journals.vu.lt/lietuviu-kalba/article/view/22631/21863.
Bakšienė Rima 2019: Terminio kalbėjimo vertinimas PAPRŪŠĖJE: XXI a. pradžios Vištуčio arealo tyrimas. – Lietuvių kalba 13, [1–17]. Prieiga internete: https://www.zurnalai.vu.lt/lietuviu-kalba/article/view/22487.
Baranauskienė Viktorija, Krupickaitė Dovilė 2012: Lietuvos miestų gyventojų tarminės regioninės savimonės ypatumai (sociolingvistinio tyrimo duomenimis). – Taikomoji kalbotyra 1, [1–22]. Prieiga internete: https://www.zurnalai.vu.lt/taikomoji-kalbotyra/article/view/17252/16418.
Bezooijen van Renée 2002: Aesthetic Evaluation of Dutch. – Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology 2, eds. by D. Long, D. R. Preston, Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 13–30.
Butkus Vigmantas, Šeškus Artūras 2010: Balio Sruogos „Dievų miškas“ kaip (savita) antropologinė studija. – Literatūra 52(1), 68–80. Prieiga internete: https://www.zurnalai.vu.lt/literatura/article/view/7717.
Cramer Jennifer 2018: The Emic and the Etic in Perceptual Dialectology. – Language Regard: Methods, Variation and Change, eds. by B. Evans, E. J. Benson, J. N. Stanford, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 62–79.
Dambrauskienė Diana 2020: Pietų žemaičių raseiniškių tarmių nominacijos ir įverčiai. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 83, 227–247. Prieiga internete: https://etalpykla.lituanistikadb.lt/fedora/objects/LT-LDB-0001:J.04~2020~1612722134975/datastreams/DS.002.0.01.ARTIC/content.
Geržotaitė Laura 2019: Jaunųjų vakarų aukštaičių kauniškių kalbinės gimtinės vaizdiniai: Kauno, Jurbarko, Šakių, Marijampolės kalbinis (ne)giminiškumas. – Bendrinė kalba 92, [1–25]. Prieiga internete: http://www.bendrinekalba.lt/?92.
Geržotaitė Laura 2019a: Jaunųjų rytų aukštaičių – kupiškėnų ir uteniškių – kalbinės gimtinės vaizdiniai. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 81, 175–198. Prieiga internete: https://etalpykla.lituanistikadb.lt/fedora/objects/LT-LDB-0001:J.04~2019~1585085715323/datastreams/DS.002.0.01.ARTIC/content.
288
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXV
Page 28
Tarmiškumo estetinė vertė: paprastųjų kalbos bendruomenės narių vaizdiniai
Geržotaitė Laura, Čepaitienė Agnė 2016: Vilkaviškio jaunuolių kalbinė gimtinė: ribos, taisyklingumo ir patrauklumo vertės. – Verbum 7, 84–100. Prieiga internete: https://www.journals.vu.lt/verbum/article/view/10288.
Giles Howard 1970: Evaluative Reactions to Accents. – Educational Review 22(3), 211–227.
Giles Howard, Bourhis Richard, Davies Ann 1979: Prestige Speech Styles: The Imposed Norm and Inherent Value Hypotheses. – Language and Society: Anthropological Issues, eds. by W. C. McCormack, S. A. Wurm, The Hague: Mouton, 589–596.
Giles Howard, Bourhis Richard, Lewis Alan, Trudgill Peter 1974: The Imposed Norm Hypothesis: A Validation. – Quarterly Journal of Speech 60(4), 405–410.
Giles Howard, Niedzielski Nancy 1998: Italian is Beautiful, German is Ugly. – Language Myths, eds. by L. Bauer, P. Trudgill, New York: Penguin Books, 85–93.
Headland Thomas N. 1990: Introduction: A Dialogue Between Kenneth Pike and Marvin Harris on Emics and Etics. – Emics and Etics: The Insider/Outsider Debate (Frontiers of Anthropology), eds. by T. N. Headland, K. Pike, M. Harris, T. Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc., 13–27.
Iannàccaro Gabriele, Dell’Aquila Vittorio 2001: Mapping Languages from Inside: Notes on Perceptual Dialectology. – Social & Cultural Geography 2, Issue 3, 265–280.
Kalėdienė Laima 2013: Požiūris į tarmes ir nuostatos dėl jų vartojimo trijose Dzūkijos etnografinio regiono dalyse. – Miestai ir kalbos II. Sociolingvistinis Lietuvos žemėlapis, kolektyvinė monografija, moksl. red. M. Ramonienė, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla, 125–151.
Kliukienė Regina 2010: Tarmės mieste: mokėjimas, vartojimas ir kalbinės nuostatos. – Miestai ir kalbos, red. M. Ramonienė, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla, 91–105.
Kliukienė Regina 2014: Kalbėjimas su tėvais tarmiškai ir gyventojų požiūris į tarmes Žemaitijos miestuose (kiekybinė analizė). – Taikomoji kalbotyra 5, [1–15]. https://www.zurnalai.vu.lt/taikomojikalbotyra/article/view/17458.
Kogan Vita V., Reiterer Susanne M. 2021: Eros, Beauty, and Phon-Aesthetic Judgements of Language Sound. We Like It Flat and Fast, but Not Melodious. Comparing Phonetic and Acoustic Features of 16 European Languages. – Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 15, 1–22.
Straipsniai / Articles
289
Page 29
DAIVA ALIŪKAITĖ
Kontra Miklós 2002: Where is the “Most Beautiful” and the “Ugliest” Hungarian spoken? – Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology 2, eds. by D. Long, D. R. Preston, Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 205–218.
Long Daniel 1996: Quasi-standard as a Linguistic Concept. – American Speech 71(2), 118–135.
Massini-Cagliari Gladis 2004: Language Policy in Brazil: Monolingualism and Linguistic Prejudice. – Language Policy 3, 3–23.
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.
Preston Dennis R. 1998: They Speak Really Bad English Down South and in New York City. – Language Myths, eds. by L. Bauer, P. Trudgill, London: Penguin Books, 139–149.
Preston Dennis R. 1999: Introduction. – Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology 1, ed. by D. R. Preston, Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, XXIII–XL.
Preston Dennis R. 2018: Perceptual Dialectology. – The Handbook of Dialectology (Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics), 1st Edition, eds. by Ch. Boberg, J. Nerbonne, D. Watt, Hoboken NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 177–203.
Reiterer Susanne M., Kogan Vita V., Seither-Preisler Annemarie, Pesek Gašper 2020: Foreign Language Learning Motivation: Phonetic Chill or Latin Lover Effect? Does Sound Structure or Social Stereotyping Drive FLL? – Psychology of Learning and Motivation 72, 165–205.
Taeldeman Johan 2005: Polarisation Revisited. – Language Variation – European Perspectives: Selected Papers from the Third International Conference on Language Variation in Europe (ICLaVE 3), ed. by F. Hinskens, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 233–248.
Trudgill Peter, Giles Howard 1978: Sociolinguistics and Linguistic Value Judgments: Correctness, Adequacy, and Aesthetics. – Functional Studies in Language and Literature, eds. by F. Coppieters, D. L. Goyvaerts, Ghent, Belgium: Story-Scientia, 167–190.
Vaicekauskienė Loreta, Sausverde Erika 2012: Lietuvos tarmių rezervatas: socialiniai ir geografiniai tarmės mobilumo ribojimai tiesioginių tyrimų duomenimis. – Taikomoji kalbotyra 1, [1–27]. Prieiga internete: https://www.zurnalai.vu.lt/taikomojikalbotyra/article/view/17250/16416.
290
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXV
Page 30
Tarmiškumo estetinė vertė: paprastųjų kalbos bendruomenės narių vaizdiniai
The Aesthetic Value of Dialectality: Images of Ordinary Language Community Members
SUMMARY
The object of the article is the aesthetic value of dialectality. The research data of perceptual dialectology constitute the empirical basis of the discourse concerning the aesthetic value of dialectality, which is covered in the article. The hypotheses explaining the perception and evaluation of variants and, in a sense, even generalizing the naïve models of the conceptualization of variants (for instance, the imposed norm hypothesis, the social connotations hypothesis, the familiarity driven hypothesis, etc.) become the theoretical basis of the analysis presented in the research part of the article.
The analysis of the data collected in the study of the perception of texts–stimuli, which involved 1,064 participants from 21 regional points and three cities (Vilnius, Kaunas and Klaipėda) representing the same age group (i.e., the 1st–4th grade gymnasium students) leads to the conclusion that the universal images of the most and least attractive dialectal speech exist among ordinary language community members. The evaluation scale of attractiveness of the texts–stimuli reveals that ordinary language community members find the expression of the east Eastern Aukštaitian regiolect and the Southern Aukštaitian regiolect most beautiful; the south Western Aukštaitian regiolect, the west Eastern Aukštaitian regiolect and the north Western Aukštaitian regiolect come second on the attractive–unattractive scale. The texts–stimuli representing the Samogitian (Žemaitian) regiolectal expression were evaluated by ordinary language community members as the texts of the language which is least beautiful.
The research makes it clear that those codes are evaluated as most or more beautiful on the level of perception, which are more similar to the standard language or, to be more precise, the existing image of the standard language, which, despite its accuracy or inaccuracy, constitutes the basis of the measurement and evaluation of attractiveness. The results establishing the importance of the image of the standard language for the aesthetics of dialectality substantiate the insight that to an ordinary member of a language community, the aesthetic value of dialectality “is created” by something, which is beyond the boundaries of language.
The study revealed that when compared with the factor of the standard language, the factor of linguistic homeland is more conditional in the formation of the image of attractiveness of dialectality and only “works” if the first condition is met: on the level of attitudes and perception of an ordinary language community member, the dialectality represented by the text–stimulus shifts towards the standard language in the conditional continuum dialect → standard language.
It should be noted that the insights presented in this article should be viewed as a fragment of the discourse of the aesthetics of dialectality in the paradigm of perceptual
Straipsniai / Articles
291
Page 31
DAIVA ALIŪKAITĖ
dialectology, which should be further revised and developed in different directions, for instance, by comparing the perception of the texts–stimuli representing dialectality with the data of a priori attitudes or by consistently including the data from the drawn maps in the research of the aesthetics of dialectality.
Įteikta 2021 m. lapkričio 23 d.
DAIVA ALIŪKAITĖ
Vilniaus universiteto Kauno fakultetas Muitinės g. 8, LT–44280 Kaunas, Lietuva [email protected]
