Rusas „Lietuvių kalbos žodyno“ pasaulėvaizdyje

AURELIJA GRITĖNIENĖ Institute of the Lithuanian Language ORCID id: orcid.org/0000-0001-8510-9037 Research areas: semantics, lexicology, lexicography. DOI: doi.org/10.35321/all84-06 THE RUSSIAN LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE DICTIONARY WORLDVIEW¹ Russian in the Worldview of The Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language ABSTRACT The article analyzes which fragment of the RUSSIAN concept emerges from the illustrative sentences of the “Lithuanian Language Dictionary” that mention the nationality rusas. Illustrations are particularly important for the formation of the concept, because they record the attitudes of representatives of all Lithuanian dialects toward this nationality, as well as the worldview of the Russian formed in various written sources (most often works of scholarship, journalism, and fiction from the 19th and 20th centuries). The empirical material of the dictionary is analyzed in the article using semantic analysis and descriptive, interpretive, and cognitive-linguistic methods. An analysis of approximately 300 illustrative sentences mentioning the ethnonym rusas shows that, in the context of the dictionary, the following are presented in relation to this nationality: 1) objective, concrete historical and other facts (most often in illustrations from various written sources); 2) individual people’s experiences of relations with persons of this nationality, conveyed through concrete images (in illustrative sentences from Lithuanian dialects). A tendency emerges to avoid direct, explicit categorization in the dictionary context (only certain actions of Russian soldiers and the Russian rule imposed on Lithuanians are evaluated negatively in the dictionary illustrations). This relatively cautious approach was determined by the historical and political circumstances in which the dictionary was written. KEYWORDS: dictionary, semantics, illustrative example, concept, Russian. ¹ The author sincerely thanks the reviewers for their valuable comments, which helped improve the text. 122 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIV Rusas Lietuvių kalbos žodyno pasaulėvaizdyje ANNOTATION The article analyses what fragment of the concept of RUSSIAN comes to the fore in the illustrative sentences with the nationality rusas ‘Russian’, which are present in The Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language. The illustrations are especially important for the formation of the concept, as they record the attitude of the representatives of dialects from the whole of Lithuania towards this nationality and the worldview of the Russian shaped in various written sources (predominantly in scientific, publicist and fictional works of the 19th–20th centuries). The empirical material from the Dictionary is analysed using the semantic analysis, descriptive, interpretive and cognitive linguistics methods. The analysis of 300 illustrative sentences, which mention the ethnonym Russian, shows that in the context of the Dictionary this nationality is described in the following ways: 1) objective, specific historical and other facts (usually in the form of illustrations from various written sources); 2) experience of the relationship between individual persons and the persons of this nationality through specific images (in the form of illustrative sentences from Lithuanian dialects). A tendency of avoiding straight and clear categorization in the context of the Dictionary comes to light (only certain actions of Russian soldiers and the Russian rule imposed on Lithuanians are evaluated negatively in the illustrations of the Dictionary). Such a comparatively cautious approach was driven by the historical and political circumstances, which shaped the dictionary-making process. KEYWORDS: dictionary, semantics, illustrative example, concept, Russian. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Throughout the course of history, relations between Lithuanians and Russians have developed in ambiguous ways. Representatives of these two nations have been neighbors since ancient times2. From the end of the 15th century onward, the eastern neighbor—the Grand Duchy of Moscow, later tsarist Russia, and from the 20th century the Soviet Union—exerted considerable influence on Lithuania’s political and cultural life and the development of its statehood (Burinskaitė 2005: 9); therefore, relations between Lithuanians and Russians have long interested researchers in various fields of scholarship: historians, ethnologists, sociologists, literary scholars, and others. Sociologists have conducted the greatest amount of research on Lithuanians’ attitudes toward persons of Russian nationality. At the Institute for Ethnic Studies of the Lithuanian Social Research Centre, a considerable number of studies of the Russian ethnic group were carried out at the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century3. The aforementioned centre has extensively investigated Lithuanians’ attitudes in the 21st century; for example, it was established that the residents of Lithuania view Russians favorably as potential neighbors and would like to ² The state border of the Republic of Lithuania with the Russian Federation extends for 297 km. ³ This article mentions only those studies that focus primarily on assessments and representations of Russians living in Lithuania. Straipsniai / Articles 123 AURELIJA GRITĖNIENĖ live next door to them (Petrušauskaitė 2013: 181). The attitudes of the Lithuanian press toward the Russian ethnic group have also been thoroughly analyzed and described; ethnic intolerance in online media and its comments has been discussed (for more, see Auškalnienė 2006: 55–56; Beresnevičiūtė, Frėjutė-Rakauskienė 2006: 28; Frėjutė-Rakauskienė 2009: 103–110; Frėjutė-Rakauskienė 2012: 89; Madsen 2006: 61). Historical narratives show that the Russian ethnic group was viewed differently in different periods, a situation determined by objective historical circumstances. For example, memoirs about the Great War published in Germany in 1914–1939 feature an essentially negative representation of Russians, although alternative assessments also existed, creating the conditions for viewing Russians from the perspective of value attitudes that foregrounded humanity (Vitkus 2017: 61). The Soviet historical narrative presents the opposite representation of Russians: here, “of all the ethnic groups in Lithuania, after the Lithuanians, it is the Russians who are spoken about. The presentation of the relations between the latter ethnic group and Lithuanians is particularly romanticized; Russians are spoken of only as heroes of the Lithuanian nation” (Naudžiūnienė 2019: 25). However, in the consciousness of ordinary Lithuanian rural residents, a predominantly negative image of Russians formed from the years of the first Soviet occupation: “The symbol of the Russian became a petty purchaser of food products with a sack in his hands or an inebriated Red Army soldier, but by no means a qualified engineer” (Marcinkevičius 2013: 208). In the postwar years, the attitude of local residents in eastern and southeastern Lithuania toward incoming Russians (and Russian-speakers in general) was likewise not positive: they regarded the newcomers as “foreigners” and first and foremost perceived their negative traits (rude, uneducated, immoral, and so on) (Stravinskienė 2014: 174–175). Lithuanians’ attitudes toward persons of Russian nationality also interest ethnologists and anthropologists. Laima Anglickienė, a researcher of ethnology and folklore, observes that Lithuanian folklore mentions neighboring nations less often than the ethnic groups widespread throughout Lithuania—Jews and Roma (Anglickienė 2007: 449). In folklore generally, it is difficult to understand which Slavic nation is being discussed, because the ethnonyms rusas, lenkas, baltarúsis, ukrainietis are very rare—instead, gudas is used, and it clearly has a pronounced pejorative connotation. In everyday tales, anecdotes, legends, songs, proverbs, and sayings, rusai / gudai have a bad reputation: they are thieves, hot-tempered and prone to fighting, of low and contemptible origin, highly changeable, have evil eyes, and their different appearance, inactivity, stupidity, and other traits are mocked (Anglickienė 2006: 198–209). Similar results were obtained in an ethnopsycholinguistic study: a survey of 200 Lithuanian and Russian upper-secondary students in Vilnius established that the image of the Russian in the Lithuanian imagination is stereotypical: the Russian is ugly, bloated from drinking, poor or a millionaire, short, stocky, bearded, with long drooping mustaches, dark-complexioned, gloomy, with a dissatisfied, frowning face, dressed 124 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIV Rusas Lietuvių kalbos žodyno pasaulėvaizdyje with a tracksuit, a bottle of vodka, etc. (Ryžakova, Zavjalova 2004: 20; Р ы ж а к о в а, Завьялова 2008: 39–40). In the discourse of belles-lettres, Dalia Cidzikaitė’s monograph on other Lithuanian prose is mentioned. Alongside other nationalities, the author also discusses the image of the Russian in Lithuanian literature and concludes that Lithuanian prose contains a fairly pronounced negatively connoted image of the Russian, which “directly reflects the relationship between the colonizer and the colonized and is a kind of response to Russian imperialism. In Lithuanian prose, the image of the Russian as a savage, barbarian, uncultured, brutal, poorly educated person of low culture and an alcoholic becomes entrenched” (Cidzikaitė 2007: 110)4. Grigorijus Potašenko analyzed the image of the Old Believer Russian in Lithuanian culture. According to the author, in mid-twentieth-century Lithuanian literature, Old Believers were portrayed as foreigners (because of their exoticism), and their otherness was rarely reinforced by positive connotations (Potašenko 1989: 49–56). Various images and worldviews have already been studied on the basis of material from the academic “Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language” (hereinafter LKŽe)5. Lithuania’s neighbors have also begun to be studied: the concepts of the German and Russia have been examined (see Liutkevičienė 2020: 1–39; Gritėnienė 2020: 41–61). Somewhat earlier, on the basis of examples from LKŽe and dialect dictionaries, an analysis was made of how the ethnonym rusas, maskolius functions in the language: what meanings of derivatives are reflected in dictionaries, and what Lithuanian surnames, nicknames, and toponyms were formed using the base words rusas and maskolius (Švambarytė 2007: 391–401; also cf. Butkus 1995: 223–228; Anglickienė 2005: 7–17). On the basis of data from the Corpus of the Modern Lithuanian Language (i.e., by analyzing combinations of the forms baltarusiškas, latviškas, lenkiškas, rusiškas, vokiškas with words naming character traits), the character traits attributed to neighboring nations in the Lithuanian worldview were described (Papaurelytė–Klovienė 2010). However, until now, there has been no detailed analysis of what the illustrations in the great dictionary say about persons of Russian nationality, how and in what contexts they are discussed, or what image of the Russian emerges from illustrations recorded from various sources and dialects. It should be emphasized that previous ethnological and linguistic studies were generally based only on the material provided in entries for headwords such as rusai, rusas, rusiškas and the like, whereas this study analyzes illustrations found throughout the dictionary discourse, that is, the headword of the sentences under investigation may be any word. According to data from the official statistics portal6, at the beginning of 2020, persons of Russian nationality accounted for 4.5% of Lithuania’s population, that is, approximately 4 For more on the stereotype of the Russian and Russia in Polish literature, see Мачеевский 2000: 6–22. 5 For more on these studies and, in general, on the importance of dictionary material for the analysis of concepts, see Gritėnienė 2020: 41. 6 See https://osp.stat.gov.lt/lietuvos-gyventojai-2020/salies-gyventojai/gyventoju-skaicius-ir-sudetis. for more details. Straipsniai / Articles 125 AURELIJA GRITĖNIENĖ 300,000 permanent residents of Lithuania. Thus, studying the image of the Russian could be of interest not only to Lithuanians but also to persons of Russian nationality. Research material. The LKŽe material also testifies that Lithuanians have had to encounter Russians since ancient times and that these contacts were long-lasting and multifaceted. More than 50 derivative words related to the ethnonym rusas are presented here (more than 40 nouns, 7 verbs, and 3 adverbs). Persons of Russian nationality are most often called by the neutral word rusai⁷ in spoken and written language. In everyday speech, some journalistic texts, and belles-lettres, the hybrid-formation word ruskis is used quite widely. The LKŽe contains quite a few synonyms of the ethnonym rusas. Written sources record now-obsolete names for a Russian: the compound word didžiarusis and the suffixal derivative maskvytis. In the LKŽe, we also find the old variant rusijõnis, used by Simonas Stanevičius, as a synonym of ruso. The suffixal derivative rūsiškis is also rarely used (in the LKŽe, it is recorded only in connection with Zietela and in the newspaper “Aušra”). The LKŽe provides information that ancient Russian Varangians were called Germans: Latvian songs, together with other facts, lead us to suppose that in ancient times Swedes and ancient Russian Varangians were called by the name German K. Būga⁸ (see 1 vokietis). In various contexts (most often in belles-lettres and dialects), popular proper names commonly given to representatives of that nationality are used to refer to a Russian, for example, Ivan, Vanka, and so on; e.g.: Vanka also raised his legs (the Russians) when they began to smaltyti (to shoot) (šaudyti) Skdt (see pakelti). Loanwords are used as synonyms of ruso: krievas, borrowed from Latvian, and maskõlius, maskõlis, borrowed from Belarusian. The LKŽe shows that Russians were also called gudai in dialects and various written sources. However, it is important to note that gùdas, krievas, maskõlis, maskõlius⁹ are used not only in the meaning “Russian”¹⁰. Gudai also refers to Belarusians (much more often than to Russians) and Poles; krievas may also mean “Belarusian,” while maskõlis, maskõlius also denotes a soldier in the tsarist army, whose nationality may not necessarily be Russian. The dictionary contains quite a few sentences whose content, without a broader context, makes it difficult to say what the informant or a particular author meant when using the aforementioned synonyms for Russian, ⁷ Several names of other nationalities are also associated with the ethnonym rusas: in his writings, K. Būga used the phrase baltieji rusai to refer to Belarusians, while in various written sources western Ukrainians are called rusėnai or rusinai. ⁸ The article uses abbreviations for places and sources from the LKŽe. The word from whose lexicographic entry the example was taken is indicated in parentheses. ⁹ Of these names, maskolis, maskolius is the most widely used—the LKŽe contains 87 sentences with this designation. ¹⁰ Cf. also the headwords burlõkas, burlõkas recorded in the LKŽe, which have more than one meaning: 1. in ancient times—a Russian laborer who pulled boats upstream with ropes; 2. during the period of tsarism—a Russian Old Believer in Lithuania. These words, in the meaning “Old Believer Russian,” are still used in dialects today, as demonstrated by the LKŽ Supplement and Dialect Card Index. 126 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIV Rusas Lietuvių kalbos žodyno pasaulėvaizdyje for example: Maskoliai …keikia trilaįpsniniais keiksmais TS1899,6 (see trilaįpsnis). Maskoliai ėmė žiováuti, akis blandyti, galvus kelti Žem (see blandyti). In Standard Lithuanian and its various varieties, rusas (and rusai) is used most widely; in dialects and some functional styles (colloquial, literary, and journalistic styles of an earlier period), rūskis is also frequently used. The LKŽe provides the following meanings of these words: 1 rū́sas, –ė, a person of the Russian nation. 2 rū́sas Russian government; Russian army¹¹. rū́sai a people speaking one of the Eastern Slavic languages, living mainly in Russia. 1 rū́skis see 1 rusas. 2 rū́skis see 2 rusas. rū́skiai see 2 rusas. Since the previously mentioned synonyms of rusas—didžiarusis, maskvytis, rusijonis, rusiškis are used relatively rarely, while gudas, kvietas and maskolis do not always refer only to persons of Russian nationality, this article, in examining a fragment of the RUSO concept, analyzes only those illustrative sentences in which the two lexemes—rusas, ruskis—and their phonetic, grammatical, and derivational variants are used: rū́sas, rusáitė, rusiukas, ruśkas, ruskelis, rusiukštis, ruskutis, ruskus, ruskutis, rusūtis¹². The research material was collected from the electronic version of the dictionary updated in 2018 (see www.lkz.lt). A detailed search of the entire LKŽe hypertext (that is, the dictionary entries for all the words in the dictionary) found more than 270 illustrative sentences containing these designations for Russians. In the LKŽe, 137 illustrations were recorded from Lithuanian dialects¹³, while 135 illustrations entered the dictionary from various written sources of the 19th–20th centuries: periodical press (“Aušra,” “Keleivis,” “Tėvynės Sargas,” and other newspapers), fiction (works by G. Petkevičaitė-Bitė, B. Sruoga, M. Katiliškis, and other writers), scholarly and journalistic ¹¹ In LKŽe illustrations, it is not always easy to distinguish when the ethnonym rusas is used in the sense of nationality and when in the sense of government or army, for example: Rusas atejo, aš jau senas buvau Užv (see 2 rusas). Žaliukaut iñt miškus sulinda, iššaudė rusas tuos žaliukus Nmj (see žaliukauti). Thus, this article examines all examples containing the ethnonym rusas, without strictly distinguishing whether rusas means nationality, army, or government, because in this case “in their lexical meaning, collective nouns denote a group of homogeneous persons as a certain indivisible unit and grammatically do not differ from ordinary common nouns” (LKG I: 164). ¹² Some of them (rusaitė, rusiukas, ruskelis, rusiukštis, ruskutis, ruskūtis, rusūtis) refer to a small or young Russian, or a Russian child. ¹³ It should be emphasized that the illustrations selected for the study represent all Lithuanian dialects. Illustrative sentences with the lexemes rusas, ruskis and their variants were recorded from all the subdialects of Western, Northern, and Southern Samogitian (Erž, Krš, Rsn; Akm, Dr, End, Kal, Kl, Lk, Lž, Pp, and other speech varieties) and all the subdialects of Western, Southern, and Eastern Aukštaitian (Brš, Grš, Gs, Jon, Žvr; Krok, Lp, Pls; Ad, Ant, Dbg, Ėr, Km, Kp, Krkn, Kur, Mlt, Sb, Šmn, Švnč, and other speech varieties). Straipsniai / Articles 127 AURELIJA GRITĖNIENĖ texts (by S. Daukantas, A. Salys, A. Smetona, and other writings), encyclopedias, and dictionaries (A. Juška’s, J. Šlapelis’s, and other dictionaries). Thus, it can be stated that in LKŽe both the perspective of living language and that of written sources on the Russian are reflected in this specific case. Aim, objectives, and methodology. It should be emphasized that this article does not analyze the RUSO concept as it has generally developed in the Lithuanian language—this would be too broad a topic. The aim of the article is to investigate what fragment of this concept emerges from the illustrative sentences in LKŽe in which the ethnicity rusas is mentioned. Since very few illustrations mentioning Lithuania’s local Russians (Old Believers) were found14, the article analyzes the Lithuanian attitude toward people of Russian ethnicity in general, focusing primarily on sentences discussing Russians as newcomers, that is, concentrating on one of the most important binary oppositions in postcolonial anthropology, the other vs one’s own, members—the other. To achieve the main aim, the following objectives are set: 1) to select from LKŽe illustrative sentences containing the lexemes rusas, ruskis and their variants; 2) to conduct a semantic analysis of these sentences by combining a structural approach to meaning15 with a cognitive one (i.e., proceeding from the meaning of a specific word to the meaning of the entire sentence); 3) to highlight what fragment of the image of the Russian, primarily as the other, the stranger, emerges from the material selected for analysis. Illustrations are especially important for the formation of the concept16, because they record the attitude of representatives of all Lithuanian dialects toward this ethnicity and the worldview of the Russian as reflected in various written sources (from the earliest writings to twentieth-century scholarly, journalistic, and literary works). The empirical material of LKŽe is analyzed in the article using semantic analysis and descriptive 14 The differentiated Lithuanian attitude toward the Russian nation is also emphasized by the historian Grigorijus Potašenko. According to him, a distinction is made between Russian Old Believers, who were brought to Lithuania in the nineteenth century, mostly after the 1863 uprising, and Russians who arrived in Lithuania much later. It is important to emphasize this scholar’s view that reconstructing the image of the Old Believer in Lithuanian culture is rather difficult because there is a lack of texts for such an analysis (Potašenko 1989: 50). A similar conclusion emerges when examining the illustrations in LKŽe. From the examples selected for the study, it is sometimes impossible to determine whether they refer to local Russian Old Believers or to later newcomers. In general, Old Believers are mentioned very rarely in the context of LKŽe. After a detailed search throughout the dictionary discourse, only 2 illustrations mentioning Old Believers were found: Podievėčiai žmonys buvo tie sentikiai Kltn (see podievotis). In seventeenth-century Lithuania, adherents of another branch of Christianity—the Old Believers—also appeared. They moved from Russia because they were severely persecuted there at that time MЛЕТІІО (see sentikis). 15 For a long time, a structural approach to meaning prevailed in Lithuania, in which the syntagmatic and paradigmatic relationships between words and the meaning conveyed by them are analyzed; recently, however, there has been a shift toward a cognitive approach to meaning, in which the meaning of a word is studied through the relationship between language and thought (see Maumevičienė 2010: 11–12 for more details). 16 A concept is understood as an essential cognitive unit of knowledge belonging to the human conceptual system and arising from experience—that is, all information about something present in the consciousness of people who speak a particular language (see Papaurėlytė-Klovienė 2007: 17; Gudavičius 2011: 109–117; Smetonienė 2019: 131 for more details). 128 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIV Rusas Lietuvių kalbos žodyno pasaulėvaizdyje analytical, and interpretive methods. It should be emphasized that the article analyzes neither the relationships between words in a phrase nor individual word combinations; rather, it examines what important conceptual information is conveyed by the sentence as a whole, when, through the semantics of a specific word and its relationships with other words, meanings, connotations, and the semantic mechanisms of associations, the highest level of language comprehension—meaning—is created, together with the ideological implication that influences the evaluation of a particular object (cf. Zabarskaitė 2019: 76). The study also draws on methods for analyzing concepts in Lublin ethnolinguistics. The aim of cognitive linguistics researchers is to show what is activated in a speaker’s consciousness when a person utters or hears a word in a particular context (Smetona 2018: 179), and to determine how speakers understand an object and how the features and evaluations of that object are categorized. A cognitive definition reflects all features of meaning—central and peripheral, denotative and connotative. Strictly following this methodology, concept analysis should be conducted on the basis of three types of data: the language system (i.e., dictionary data), questionnaires, and texts (for more on the methodology of cognitive ethnolinguistics, see Rutkovska et al. 2017: 29–35). Since a great deal of material for studying the RUSO concept has been accumulated, it is analyzed in stages: first, individual fragments of the concept in different discourses are examined, and later they will be summarized and combined into one overall RUSO concept. THE IMAGE OF THE RUSSIAN IN THE “DICTIONARY OF THE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE” 1. Russians—a nation of a large state alongside other nations Several sentences in LKŽe mention that Russians are a nation of a large state; it is therefore natural that this ethnonym is often mentioned alongside the words state, land, country, and so on (see sentences 1–3): (1) The Russian state stretches along many states Į Jon (see traukti). (2) On September 8, 1380, on the Kulikovo Field, by the Don River, the armies of Moscow and the other Russian lands met Mamai’s hordes rš (see orda). (3) Because of the weakening of the Duchy of Polotsk, Lithuanians could also withdraw unhindered from the Vilnius land into the Russian lands A. Sal (see žemė). Various Russian cities are mentioned in the illustrations (Kaliningrad (Königsberg), Petersburg, and others) (see sentences 4–6): (4) There in the vicinity is Kaliningrad; Russian soldiers are swarming everywhere Žvr (see viskėti). Straipsniai / Articles 129 AURELIJA GRITĖNIENĖ (5) Maironis, who studied at the University of Kyiv and in Saint Petersburg and was thoroughly familiar with Russian poetry, was the first to break the old poetic tradition A. Vencl (see sulaužyti). (6) The Russians were carrying [them] off to other lands, they [the others] were dragging [them] to Königsberg, lived through Krš (see žernė). This ethnonym is also frequently mentioned in the context of other nations. The Russians encounter the Poles in various wars (see sentences 7–8): (7) The newspapers report... the Poles having won, but the Russians having lost Kell1863,71 (see pražaisti). (8) The Polish army is being withdrawn to the Russian border rš (see traukti). The Russians’ relations with the Jews are ambiguous. There are sentences testifying to the Jews’ and Russians’ benevolence toward one another (see sentence 9), yet the illustrations do not conceal the painful history in which Jews suffered at the hands of the Russians (see sentence 10): (9) Those little Jews were the ones who attacked the Russians more with flowers [in 1940] Erž (see žydūkas). (10) First of all, the Poles and Russians, treating the Jews inhumanely, drove them into the cities, like gathering embers onto their own heads Vaižg (see sužerti). History and the examples in LKŽE show that the Russians had brought many nations (Latvians, Slovenes, and others) under their rule (see sentences 11–12); they sought to assimilate the smaller occupied nations and regarded them as inferior (see sentence 13): (11) We see that Russian supremacy in the land of the Latvians also follows from the fact that Bishop Albert, in 1209, making an agreement with the Russians through Arnold the priest, promised to pay an ordinary tribute and solemnly acknowledged the authority of the Grand Duke of the Russians A1883,228 (see zokoninkas). (12) From the east, the Russians, who had subjugated the Slovenes, began to force their way into their land A1883,223 (see nuvaldyti). (13) The tsarist government accustomed the Russian inhabitants to regard the inhabitants of the national regions who were of local origin as an inferior race; officially, it called them “of another origin” rš (see kitakilmis). During the Soviet period, the sentences recorded from various writings convey a demonstrative narrative of the friendship of nations. Such illustrations reveal the former empire’s effort to level out different nations by creating a new homo sovieticus personality type (cf. Venclauskienė 2016: 146; Зиновьев 1981) (see sentences 14–15): (14) Russians, Latvians, Lithuanians, and Georgians march in a single formation E. Miež (see rikiuotė). (15) The spectators admired the harmony of the fraternal nations, formed by the dances of Latvians, Estonians, Belarusians, and Russians rš (see suita). After Lithuania restored its independence, we find sentences recorded from dialects in which informants openly express their opinion of how the Russians occupied many nations (see sentence 16): (16) The Russians had stolen all the nations away Gs (see suvogti). 130 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIV Rusas Lietuvių kalbos žodyno pasaulėvaizdyje 2. The Russian in the context of wars Over the course of history, in various periods, the Russians had to wage war against many nations. The LKŽe mentions Russian clashes with the Prussians, Swedes, Japanese, Turks, and others (see sentences 17–21): (17) Perhaps the Russian will drive out the Prussians Gs (see atvyti). (18) The Russian and Polish armies beat the Swedes badly LTR(Ant) (see spirti). (19) The Russian captured the Japanese man Pls (see ruskas). (20) The Russians fought the Turks in those marshy shores S. Dauk (see turkas). Since most illustrative sentences for the academic dictionary were collected from spoken language and written sources before the mid-twentieth century (Zabarskaitė 2012: 247), it is self-evident that the sentences in the context of war mostly discuss the First and Second World Wars. Only a few sentences found in the LKŽe explicitly state which world war is being discussed (see sentences 21–22): (21) And then, toward autumn, before winter, Russian soldiers appeared (during the First World War) Ktč (see paskun). (22) They left as volunteers [the Russians in 1941] Akm (see zovedais). Very often, it is impossible in the illustrations to determine which specific war is being mentioned17. Informants in the dialects also refer to the wars in general (see sentences 23–24): (23) Here are the wars, here the Prussian, here the Russian—Lord knows what is happening here Grš (see velnias). (24) There used to be wars: the Russian came, the German came Kp (see vokietis). In the LKŽe context, the great wars of the twentieth century become, as it were, one great world war that moved across Europe and Lithuania along with it (see sentences 25–26), in which Lithuanians also had to participate: (25) When the German and the Russian were at war Dbg (see vokietis). (26) Russian, our little Russian, you started a great war against us LTR(Grš) (see užvesti). In war, the Russians not only fight their enemies but also undertake other active measures: they blow up bridges, build fortresses, fortifications, and so on (see sentences 27–28): (27) Asked about those terrible shots that were not shots, about that terrible knocking and banging, he explained that the Russians were blowing up railway bridges Pt (see ne). (28) The Russians were already entrenching themselves in the station district M. Katil (see tvirtinti). The LKŽe illustrations that discuss Russian participation in the world wars mention all the attributes characteristic of war: scouts (see sentence 29), hiding in trenches (see sentence 30), prisoners of war (see sentence 31), and the dead (see sentence 32): (29) The lamps flicker in the forests—the Russians are watching for someone LK (see žybailiuoti). (30) The Russians crawled toward the trenches Erž (see šliaužti). 17Lithuania was affected by both of the previously mentioned world wars in the twentieth century. They lasted for many years, brought great losses and casualties, and therefore informants from the dialects to this day, when speaking about the war years, often use plural forms, which seem to create the impression that there were more than two wars in Lithuania. Straipsniai / Articles 131 AURELIJA GRITĖNIENĖ (31) We laid the Russian prisoner down, and the Germans punished him Dr (see pergulindinti). (32) There was a great war with the Russians and the Prussians, and your young man perished in that war LTR(Krok) (see pražūti). In the war, the Russians used various weapons and other military means and devices—machine guns, bayonets, shells, and so on (see sentences 33–35): (33) And those Russians, you see, are dragging those machine guns along the ground Akm (see traukti). (34) The Russians and the Germans met at bayonet point three times Sb (see sutikti). (35) The Russians fired and then began sending shells Graž (see nuosti). The heroism of the Russian soldiers and their refusal to surrender to the enemy are mentioned (see sentence 36). Folk songs also testify that it was difficult to defeat the Russians in war (see sentence 37): (36) The Russians drove forward in regiments, into death, into bullets Aps (see varyti). (37) Even if we all go, we will not overcome the Russian BsO264 (see parveikti). The illustrative sentences tell us that the Russian army both attacks and retreats (see sentences 38–39): (38) We retreated into such bushes, and the Russians came in K1k (see traukti). (39) When the Russians retreated that first time, we did not see it here Nv (see traukti). From the sentences recorded in the dialects, we see that people grew tired of the Russians’ presence in Lithuania and therefore awaited their withdrawal: (40) The Russians stayed for a long time Ad (see ruskasai)18. (41) That army’s Russian leads them along the roads (a little at a time), and there will be no end Krš (see vadžioti). The sentences in the war context first of all highlight the Russians’ relations with two nations: the Lithuanians and the Germans. 2.1. Relations between Russians and Lithuanians in wars During the world wars, when the Russian and German armies fought, Lithuanians found themselves in the zone of military operations. Sometimes this situation of the Lithuanians is described very vividly in the LKŽe sentences (see sentences 42–43): (42) We jump around like a frog between wheels (about Lithuanians between the Germans and Russians) Krkn (see varlė). (43) We stood in the very fire: the Germans on one side, the Russians on the other Mlt (see ugnė). It is often mentioned that some natural feature (a river or the like) separates the two armies (see sentence 44), while the armies of different countries begin military operations at different times of day (see sentence 45): (44) The Germans are here, the Russians beyond the river Č (see vokiečiai). (45) There was a battle around us: the Russians at night, the Germans by day Kur (see trynimas). 18 Without a broader context, it is unclear from sentences 40–41 what the informants had in mind—whether the presence of the Russian authorities or of the army in Lithuania, and later their withdrawal. 132 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIV Rusas Lietuvių kalbos žodyno pasaulėvaizdyje The LKŽe mentions quite a few specific locations in Lithuania through which the Russian army marched—cities, towns, and villages (see sentences 46–47): (46) During the war, the Russians built a žirgės in the Gerdãšiai forest (an observation tower) Lp (see žirgės). (47) The Russians marched back from Rietavas, while about a hundred Germans came from Kvėdarna Kl (see paržygiuoti). Several sentences mention the arrival of the Russian army in Lithuania. They emphasize that there were many Russians (see sentences 48–49); ordinary Russian soldiers looked very exhausted and therefore aroused people’s pity (see sentence 50). Some of them were kind-hearted and taught the locals Russian (see sentence 51), but people still remember the looting and thefts committed by Russian soldiers (see sentences 52–53): (48) They keep pouring and pouring in from Vadokliai [the Russian army] Ėr (see versti). (49) From the east, the Russians began coming in waves Šmn (see vilnis). (50) The Russian soldiers were so wretched, pitifully poor [in 1940] Graž (see uargičnas). (51) They went to the Russian soldiers to learn the language Šts (see pragusti). (52) When it grew quite dark, two Russian soldiers went into the woodshed and began looking at what we had with us Ktč (see žiūrėti). (53) The Russians [soldiers] are the worst! They look around and steal Šts (see nužvalgyti). 2.2. Relations between Russians and Germans in wars As mentioned earlier, the Russians had to confront the Germans during the First World War, 1914–1918, when Russia fought in the Atlantic Coalition and Germany in the Triple Alliance19, and during the Second World War, 1939–1945, when Russia, as part of the Soviet Union, fought in the Allied bloc and Germany in the Axis bloc20. Most often, the sentences recorded from spoken language describe how the Russians pressured (see sentence 54), surrounded (see sentence 55), chased (see sentence 56), and ultimately defeated (see sentence 57) the Germans21: (54) The Russian drove the Germans hard (began to pressure, beat, and chase them) Ėr (see užkaitinti). (55) The Russians surrounded them, and the Germans could not escape Pgg (see užsupti). 19For more on the repercussions, experience, and impact of this war on Lithuanian society and culture, see Gimžauskas 2006; Vareikis, Safronovas, Jokubauskas, Vitkus 2018. 20For Lithuania’s situation during the Second World War, see Anušauskas, Laurinavičius 2007. 21For the Russians, this victory continues to inspire pride to this day. A 2007 survey conducted by the Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences showed that as many as 67 percent of respondents said they were proud of the victory in the Great Patriotic War (Malinova 2015: 274). Straipsniai / Articles 133 AURELIJA GRITĖNIENĖ (56) The Russians attacked, the German fired back, then attacked again—misery Brš (see ižūyti). (57) The Russians finally overcame those Germans (defeated, vanquished) Erž (see nuvalioti). However, more than one sentence was found emphasizing the Germans’ refusal to surrender and their strength (see sentences 58–59): (58) The German was on top, but the Russians were struggling too Šts (see 1 viršuo). (59) The Russian drove him into hunger and surrendered to the German Šts (see privaryti). Sentences were found in which informants from spoken language or authors of various writings compare the Russians with the Germans, often preferring the Germans (their order, trust in people, and so on) and condemning the Russians for their thefts, disorder, and the like (see sentences 60–61): (60) You will not get money, but he (the German) took it from you properly, while the Russians steal LŽ (see vogtinai). (61) They told the German—good; but if you show a Russian even a little of your soul—he does not believe you Švnč (see 1 vokietis). Other testimonies were also found in the dictionary: (62) The Germans were crueler; we did not see so much of those Russians Erž (see žiaurus). Representatives of the dialects often acknowledge that both armies had become tiresome and that, for an ordinary person, foreign rule or an army—whether Russian or German—was equally bad (see sentences 63–64): (63) Blow away both that Russian and that German like a storm! Šts (see vėtra). (64) The Russian (the tsar) and the German (the kaiser) were relatives Sb (see 2 rusas). 3. Russian rule and representatives of the authorities Rusas, ruskis in the LKŽe means not only an ethnicity. As a collective noun, it is also used in the sense of the Russian authorities and army (see sentences 65–66): (65) They lived under the Germans, while we lived under the Russians Krš (see 1 po). (66) I worked for the Russian Km (see ruskiai). The dictionary’s illustrative sentences often mention various representatives of the Russian authorities (the tsar, emperor, empress, referred to in dialect speech as care, “queen,” and so on) (see sentences 67–69): (67) The Russian tsar had eaten everyone’s heart away Šts (see ėsti). (68) The Russian emperor KB147 (see rusai). (69) This Russian queen is German Ant (see vokietūtis). The illustrations mention various actions and decisions adopted by the Russian authorities (see sentences 70–71): (70) The Russian authorities closed the taverns and imposed their own vodka monopoly Plt (see monopolįs). 134 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIV Rusas Lietuvių kalbos žodyno pasaulėvaizdyje (71) The Russians deported the bishop for his courageous defense of Catholics TS1903,1 (see išveždinti). Russian officials and their decisions are usually evaluated unfavorably: they are inflexible, suspiciously monitor those who disagree with them, support their compatriots, and are primarily concerned with their welfare (see sentences 72–74). (72) The officialdom was the most lifeless Russian estate Vaizg (see valdininkija). (73) The red-braided Russian gendarmes followed our book smugglers rs (see raudonsiūlis). (74) Determined at all costs to Russify our region, the Russian authorities gave estates almost for free to their officials and other newcomers, had Orthodox churches built, and installed their priests even in places where there were no Orthodox believers A. Sm (see tupdyti). The dictionary’s illustrations merely confirm historians’ opinion that throughout the entire period of Russia’s annexation, there was “not even a sign of bureaucratic or official authority” in our society (Aleksandravičius 2000: 33). In the final volumes of the dictionary, sentences recorded from dialects begin to speak even more openly about the Russians and Russian rule, without concealing disappointment; sentences permeated with irony also appear, and the ills of Russian rule are enumerated, while at the same time emphasizing that Lithuania’s economy is often dependent on decisions made by the Russian authorities (see sentences 75–78): (75) The Russian has betrayed us! Where he has betrayed us, there is neither bread nor meat Vžn (see išduoti). (76) The Russian has gone downhill (become impoverished); everything is emptiness Krš (see nuvažiuoti). (77) There was terrible thievery (fierce) among the Russians back then [there was] Sd (see vogsena). (78) If the Russian turns off the oil (oil) we will all perish Krš (see žiubalas). It is emphasized that under Russian rule Lithuanians experienced the collapse of all their values: what is precious to Lithuanians (Lithuanian money, freedom of speech, land) is not valued at all and is despised by the Russians (see sentences 79–81): (79) The litas was strong, but it perished under the Russian Rdn (see žūti). (80) The land was wealth, but under the Russian it turned into nothing Rdn (see virsti). (81) Under the Russian everyone was silent; now whoever opens their mouth, opens it wide! Krš (see pražioti). In sentences from various Lithuanian dialects, informants recall money that lost its value under Russian rule: (82) When the first Russians [in 1940] marched into Lithuania, everything was expensive again Brb (see įžygiuoti). (83) How that Russian money goes to the devil’s devils Rnv (see velnias). The LKŽe contains quite a few illustrative sentences from written sources and spoken language that testify to the historical truth of how Russians were brought to Lithuania and how the Lithuanian nation was gradually Russified (as were the other small nations of the Soviet empire), with the aim of creating a single faceless nation lacking both its own faith and language. The LKŽe illustrations (see sentences 84–85) confirm historians’ claims that one of the main aims of the Soviet authorities was the formation of a Soviet identity and mentality: in the system of that time, cultural, educational, and scientific policy was meant to suppress civic, Straipsniai / Articles 135 AURELIJA GRITĖNIENĖ religious consciousness among people, and to form a new homo sovieticus, “characterized by ‘internationalist’ thinking and a communist and atheistic worldview” (Pocius 2018: 15). (84) The authorities encouraged the use of the Russian language in every way rš (see visaip). (85) The Russian youth used to sing countless such revolutionary songs, and our Russified youth sang them with them K. Kors (see surusėti). Testimonies about the imposition of the Russian language and the Russification of the Lithuanian nation are especially frequent in sentences with the adjectives and adverbs rusiškas, rusiškai, rusas, ruskai and the like: (86) Now they also babble in Russian over that radio (speak incomprehensibly, unclearly)—you cannot understand anything Gs (see vatlioti). (87) When I was growing up, there was only a Russian school Krtn (see rusiškas). (88) When we were in Vilnius, it was written in Lithuanian [the streets] and in Russian Mlk (see parašyti). Soviet censorship, which operated actively for several decades, also played a considerable role in Russifying Lithuania: it controlled culture and national identity and adapted them to Soviet requirements (Sėdaitytė 2017: 86). The efforts of the Russian authorities and censorship produced obvious results—a larger part of Lithuania’s population knew Russian and became Russified22. This is also attested by the abundant LKŽe illustrations: (89) Lithuanians [there] turned into Russians and Belarusians Pst (see išvirsti). (90) She is neither Russian nor Lithuanian Dglš (see 1 ruskis). However, the later volumes of the dictionary speak increasingly boldly about the desire for independence, the wish to free oneself from Russian rule; they do not shy away from discussing the Russians’ deportation of Lithuanians to Siberia, or the fate of the Russians themselves in postwar Lithuania: (91) Little Lithuania was tightly bound; the Russian strangled it completely—what will become of it? T1 (see suveržti). (92) Look what kind of freedom the Russians brought: when they transported people away, little rivers of tears flowed Šmn (see atvežti). (93) We built a house; the Russian drove us out and forced us into a wagon (exiled us) Pr1 (see išvyti). (94) Many Russians, strib, were killed, and many forest brothers were shot Krs (see 2 skrebas). The dictionary contains a single sentence praising the laws of the Russian authorities: (95) The Russians brought good laws J (see rusai). ²² As part of the research project “Sociolinguistic Map of Lithuania: Cities and Towns,” a survey of urban residents was conducted in 2010 to determine how much and in which languages they could speak. The survey data showed that nearly all surveyed residents of Lithuanian cities knew Russian, which is unsurprising because Lithuania was under Russia’s direct influence for many years. In addition, a considerable proportion of respondents (especially older people) identified Russian as one of the most beautiful, necessary, and prestigious languages (Krupickaitė, Baranauskienė 2013: 29, 32–35). 136 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIV Rusas Lietuvių kalbos žodyno pasaulėvaizdyje 4. The Russian in everyday life From the LKŽe illustrations, we learn something about the Russians’ appearance and everyday life. In sentences recorded from dialects, informants draw attention to Russian men’s beards (see sentences 96–97): (96) There was such a bearded Russian Grg (see barzdainis). (97) The Russian’s beard was bristly, large Prng (see virbaluotas). Representatives of the dialects immediately notice attractive people of Russian nationality as well (see sentences 98–99): (98) During the war, Russian reconnaissance came; two handsome little Russians Kln (see žvalgyba). (99) The Russian girls walk like lilies, with bare little heads Mžk (see 1 ruskis). Among character traits, the Russians’ cheerfulness and liveliness are mentioned—in illustrations recorded in the dialects, informants note that Russians like to sing and dance (see sentences 100–102): (100) The Russians began singing while riding Šts (see pradainuoti). (101) The little Russian is cheerful, with legs like little votagiukai (wants to dance) Šv (see ruskūtis). The dictionary’s illustrations mention that Russians are hardworking and do not shy away from ordinary work either (see sentences 102–104): (102) Such a little Russian tended cows during the war Jdr (see rusūtis). (103) Such a little Russian worked for him for a couple of years B. Sruog (see 1 ruskis). (104) Little Russians from Klaipėda worked for a Russian Jdr (see ruskutis). In general, Russians perform all kinds of work; various occupations and positions they hold are mentioned (see illustrations 105–106): (105) That Russian woman doctor diagnosed the illness very accurately DünŽ (see 1 rusas). (106) That is nothing for us; among the Russians, the bell ringer rings it out Š (see iškambinti). Their women are strong and enterprising: (107) For us peasant women it was unfamiliar; above all, the great boldness of Russian women caught our eye Žem (see akis). Russian women often become wives of men of other nationalities (see sentences 108–109): (108) She is a little Russian woman, but she married a Turk Rsn (see vesti). (109) This Jew’s son married a Russian woman, and his daughter, perhaps, a Pole Akn (see vesti). Lithuanians, too, often form mixed families with people of Russian nationality (see sentences 110–111), and their children also learn some Lithuanian (see sentence 112): (110) My son is married to a Russian woman Grv (see ruskas). (111) She married a Russian man Mšg (see ruskus). (112) Those little Russians also know Lithuanian Lkv (see rusūtis). Mixed families with Russian women were formed from ancient times (see sentences 113–114): (113) Algirdas married two wives, one after another, and both were Russian women rš (see 1 rusas). Straipsniai / Articles 137 AURELIJA GRITĖNIENĖ (114) Jonas [Glinskis] married Anastasia, the daughter of Prince Daniel of Ostrog, and entered the ranks of the Russian princes EnciX161 (see įtelkti). However, informants from spoken language sometimes admit that they would not want to form a family with a person of Russian nationality: (115) Lithuanian women did not take them (did not marry them), but I did not want a Russian woman Lz (see rinkti). Several sentences were found discussing the Russians’ everyday domestic life (their foods, drinks, and work are mentioned): (116) The Russians cook and eat nothing else, only stewed potatoes Grnk (see tušinti). (117) The Russians make terribly tasty kvass Skdt (see smagus). (118) The Russians make bast shoes from linden bark DūnŽ (see vyžena). 5. Russian science, culture, and religion The LKŽe illustrations mention plant and animal breeds developed by Russians, various Russian objects, products, and the like (see sentences 119–121): (119) Anise-flavored is an old Russian folk-selection [apple] variety rš (see anyžinis). (120) The most widespread are the Russian black-pied, brown-pied, and gray tumblers [pigeons] sp (see rusvakeršis). (121) Musical instruments of some other nations resemble the lumzdelis (the Russian svirelė, the Latvian stab ulė, the Belarusian dudka, the German schnabelflute) MLTEII480 (see stab ulė). Several sentences discuss Russian science: various fields of science (aviation, philosophy, linguistics, and others), the names of famous Russian scholars, and their contributions to science are mentioned (see sentences 122–123); it is emphasized that Russians undertake research into Lithuanian history and Lithuanian studies (see sentences 124–125). (122) The idea of underground liquefaction was first proposed as early as 1888 by the eminent Russian scientist D. Mendeleev sp. (see sudūjinimas). (123) The great Russian scientists are the founders of the science of world aviation sp (see pagrindėjas). (124) Research into Lithuanian history passed into Russian and Polish hands rš (see tyrinėjimas). (125) Lithuanian studies are growing in Russian and Polish scholarship rš (see lietuvotyra). Sentences excerpted from various writings emphasize the contribution of Russian chroniclers to the science of history: (126) Russian chroniclers call the southern part of the Šūduviai land as far as beyond the Narvė the Yotvingians rš (see kronikininkas). (127) Russian scribes wrote the chronicles of Lithuania rš (see raštininkas). Various sources of written and oral culture are mentioned (Russian chronicles, tales, songs, and the like) (see sentences 128–130): 138 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIV Rusas Lietuvių kalbos žodyno pasaulėvaizdyje (128) [K. Būga] explained the laws of transcribing Lithuanian speech sounds in old Russian chronicles and certain features of the formation of proper names MLTEI277 (see transkribavimas). (129) Russian tales have remained... in their oldest study LTII480(Bs) (see tyrimas). (130) Russian songs are lively, while ours are sad Grg (see šankinti). The illustrations from the Soviet period devote considerable attention to Russian literature: they analyze what it condemns and extols and what influence it has on other nations (see sentences 131–133): (131) Russian literature condemns everything that is backward and egoistic (Soviet) rš (see atžangus). (132) [The best representatives of Russian literature] proclaimed humanist principles of mutual understanding and cultural interaction among nations K. Kors (see samprotis). (133) Russian and German literature were the most important mediators through which the voices of distant civilizations reached Lithuania rš (see tarpininkas). Sentences excerpted from written sources mention the names of literary creators23 and critics (Alexander Pushkin, Anton Chekhov, Ivan Krylov, Vissarion Belinsky, and others): (134) Through his contribution, Pushkin placed Russian literature on the world stage sp (see įnašas). (135) Perhaps no Russian writer felt such hatred toward the bourgeoisified and bureaucratized intelligentsia as Chekhov K. Kors (see sumieščionėti). (136) Krylov was one of the most nationally distinctive Russian writers rš (see nacionališkas). (137) Belinsky expressed the deepest hopes and highest aspirations of the Russian nation with extraordinary force and vividness K. Kors (see jėga). 6. Russians—friends of Lithuania? Lithuanians have been in contact with Russians for more than one century—from the thirteenth century, when the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was established, right up to the present day. As the analysis shows, in the LKŽe discourse about Russians, the following are most often found: 1) sentences excerpted from written sources from the nineteenth and twentieth centuries; 2) sentences recorded in various Lithuanian dialects in the twentieth century. After analyzing the illustrations selected for the study, it is clear that the most prominent image of the Russian emerges from those recorded over the past century 23 The poets and writers of their nation are very important to Russians themselves. A survey conducted in 2007 by the Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences showed that the number of personalities who inspire pride in the majority of Russian citizens is very limited. However, it is interesting that, from the list of suggested options, 56 percent of respondents answered that [they considered them] the greatest Russian poets and writers (Malinova 2015: 274). Straipsniai / Articles 139 AURELIJA GRITĖNIENĖ illustrative sentences. Although Russian rule and its decisions are usually negatively connoted in the dictionary’s illustrations, we could not generally claim that LKŽe presents only a negative image of a Russian. Illustrative sentences excerpted from written sources testify that, since ancient times, Lithuanians and Russians have had common enemies (see sentence 138): (138) He (Jogaila) simply made an agreement with the Golden Horde, acting together with these common enemies of the Russians and Lithuanians against the Grand Duke of Moscow rš (see veikti). More than one sentence considers what might have prevented closer cultural ties between the two nations in the 19th–20th centuries; it is recalled that these ties must be preserved, although the question is also raised as to whether the countries’ friendly relations will not break down (see sentences 139–141): (139) The spread of cultural ties between Lithuanians and Russians and the rise of Lithuanian culture were hindered by the Russification policy of the tsarist authorities, which was continually intensified after the 1831 uprising rš (see rusifikacinis). (140) We had to go together with the Russians Pt (see rusai). (141) Can the bond of friendship between Lithuanians and Russians really be strained under such circumstances? TS1894,10 (Vaižg) (see užtraukti). Of course, the illustrations from the Soviet period particularly emphasize the friendship between the two nations: (142) Historians point to more than one example of friendship between the Russian and Lithuanian nations in ancient times A. Vencl (see nurodyti). (143) The Russians and Lithuanians rose up—all together—shoulder to shoulder E. Miež (see pakilti). After Lithuania regained its freedom, Lithuanians’ adaptability and fellowship with the occupiers were no longer spared ridicule: (144) As soon as they broke through, the Lithuanians were around their necks: with the white-armbands, the Germans; with the Russians, the stribokai Krš (see išveržti). However, overall, we find no great hostility toward the Russian nation either in written sources or in sentences recorded from dialects. Russians are different from Lithuanians, with their own language, customs, and character, but to Lithuanians they are neither the greatest enemies nor the best friends: (145) Russians and we are children of the same God Ūd (see vaikas). (146) If a Russian comes, I will not drive him away; if a Lithuanian comes, I will not drive him away Rdm (see išvyti). Thus, while drawing boundaries between the own / foreign opposition, distinctive features of national identity also emerge: caution, a certain adaptability, tolerance, and others. CONCLUSIONS An analysis of approximately 300 LKŽe illustrative sentences in which the ethnonym Russian is mentioned shows that, in the dictionary context, the following are presented concerning this nationality: 1) objective, 140 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIV Rusas Lietuvių kalbos žodyno pasaulėvaizdyje concrete historical and other facts (most often in illustrations from various written sources of the 19th–20th centuries), 2) individual people’s experiences of relations with persons of this nationality through concrete images (in illustrative sentences recorded from Lithuanian dialects in the 20th century). It is obvious that, in the LKŽe context and in our collective memory, the own / foreign opposition is quite pronounced: local Russians of Lithuania are hardly mentioned in the illustrative sentences, while persons of this nationality are primarily viewed as others, with their distinctive language, customs, character, and values. Analysis of the illustrations selected for the study shows that the most pronounced image of a Russian is formed from illustrative sentences recorded over the past century. The following principal features of Russians emerge in the LKŽe illustrations. They are a nation of a large state, and their relations with other nations are ambiguous. At various times, Russians had brought some nations under their rule; they sought to assimilate the smaller conquered nations and regarded them as inferior. In sentences from various written sources dating to the Soviet period, one hears the narrative of harmony and rapprochement among nations that was particularly actively promoted at that time. Throughout history, Russians have had to wage war against many nations at various times. The dictionary’s illustrations mention the heroism of Russian soldiers and their refusal to surrender to the enemy. In sentences set in a wartime context, the relations of Russian soldiers with two nations stand out above all: Lithuanians and Germans. During the world wars, when Russian and German armies fought, Lithuanians found themselves in the zone of military operations. Sentences recorded from dialects tell us about the arrival of the Russian army in Lithuania and its actions there. The illustrations show that, during the wars with the Germans, Russian soldiers acted particularly actively: they pressed, surrounded, pursued, and crushed their enemies. In more than one sentence, informants of the spoken language or authors of various written works compare Russians with Germans, often giving preference to the Germans (their orderliness, trust in people, and so on) and condemning Russians for their thefts, disorder, and so on. From the LKŽe illustrations we also learn something about Russians’ appearance and character, their everyday life and domestic affairs (their food, drinks, work, marriages to persons of other nationalities, and so on are mentioned). A dozen or so sentences were found that discuss Russian science (various fields of science and the surnames of famous Russian scientists are mentioned). The illustrations from the Soviet period devote considerable attention to Russian literature. The LKŽe illustrations reveal that Lithuanians feel neither great hostility nor exceptional friendliness toward the Russian nation. We find no such attitude either in sentences recorded from dialects or in those recorded from written sources. A tendency emerges for the LKŽe context to avoid direct, clear categorization. As a nation, Russians are neither strongly condemned or reproached nor excessively praised. Perhaps this cautious attitude took shape because of historical and political circumstances: Lithuania, as a small state, was dependent on Russia and Russians for many years, and most LKŽe illustrative examples were collected precisely during the Soviet occupation, when strict (self-)censorship operated; consequently, Russians as a nation were assessed rather cautiously, even neutrally, at that time. Although Straipsniai / Articles 141 AURELIJA GRITĖNIENĖ Russianness and the Russian mentality weighed very painfully, the LKŽe illustrations, in their portrayal of Russians, reveal neither marked hostility nor particular friendliness (only in written sources from the Soviet period are the friendly, close relations between the Lithuanian and Russian nations emphasized more strongly). A stronger pejorative evaluation emerges in illustrations discussing the Russian army and authorities, because a Russian as a foreigner, an outsider is primarily associated by Lithuanians with foreign rule and the army. The illustrations selected for the study show that, in the LKŽe context, certain actions of Russian soldiers during wartime (theft and looting) and the tsarist and Soviet Russian rule imposed on Lithuanians by force are evaluated negatively. This negative attitude toward the rule of Russian outsiders is particularly evident in illustrations found in the final volumes of the dictionary: they show clear dissatisfaction with Russian officials and their decisions, list various ills, allude to a desire for independence and a wish to free oneself from foreign rule, and do not shy away from speaking about the Russians’ conduct when deporting Lithuanians to Siberia, the fate of the Russians themselves in postwar Lithuania, and so on. SOURCE LKŽe₂ – Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language I–XX (1941–2002), electronic version, editorial board G. Naktinienė, J. Paulauskas, R. Petrokienė, V. Vitkauskas, J. Zabarskaitė, editor-in-chief G. Naktinienė, Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language, 2005 (updated version, 2008 and 2018). Available online: www.lkz.lt. LITERATŪRA Aleksandravičius Egidijus 2000: Praeitis, istorija ir istorikai, Vilnius: Vaga. Anglickienė Laima 2005: Etnonimų vartojimo lietuvių kalboje ir folklore ypatumai. – Vārds un tā pētīšanas aspekti 9, 7–17. Prieiga internete: https://etalpykla.lituanistikadb.lt/fedora/objects/LT-LDB-0001:J.04~2005~1367157789738/datastreams/DS.002.0.01.ARTIC/content. Anglickienė Laima 2006: Kitataučių įvaizdis lietuvių folklore, Vilnius: Versus aureus. Prieiga internete: https://etalpykla.lituanistikadb.lt/fedora/objects/LT-LDB-0001:B.03~2006~1367163255725/datastreams/DS.001.0.01.BOOK/content. Anglickienė Laima 2007: Tautosaka apie kitataučius: etnostereotipų ir siužetų migracija. – Rytų Europos kultūra migracijos kontekste: tarp dalykiniai tyrimai, Vilnius: Versus 142 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIV Rusas Lietuvių kalbos žodyno pasaulėvaizdyje aureus, 445–454. Prieiga internete: https://etalpykla.lituanistikadb.lt/fedora/objects/LT-LDB-0001:J.04~2007~1367160559891/datastreams/DS.002.0.01.ARTIC/content. Anušauskas Arvydas, Laurinavičius Česlovas (eds.) 2007: Lietuva Antrajame pasauliniame kare: straipsnių rinkinys, Vilnius: Lietuvos istorijos institutas, 2007. Auškalnienė Lina 2006: Etninis nepakantumas Lietuvos internetinėje žiniasklaidoje: komentarai internete. – Etn iškumo studijos 1, 45–58. Prieiga internete: http://www.ces.lt/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/EtSt_Auskalniene_2006.pdf. Beresnevičiūtė Vida, Frėjutė-Rakauskienė Monika 2006: Etninė tematika ir nepakantumas Lietuvos žiniasklaidoje: dienraščių analizė. – Etn iškumo studijos 1, 19–44. Prieiga internete: http://www.ces.lt/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/EtSt_Beresneviciute_Frejute-Rakauskiene_2006.pdf. Burinskaitė Kristina 2005: Lietuvos ir Rusijos santykiai XV–XX a., Vilnius: Alma littera. Butkus Alvydas 1995: The Lithuanian Nicknames of Ethnonimic Origin. – Indogermanische Forschungen: Zeitschrift für Indogermanistik und allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Berlin, New–York, 223–228. Cidzikaitė Dalia 2007: „Kitas“ lietuvių prozoje, Vilnius: Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas. Frėjutė-Rakauskienė Monika 2009: Etninis nepakantumas Lietuvos spaudoje. – Etn iškumo studijos 1, 1–207. Prieiga internete: http://www.ces.lt/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/EtnSt_Frejute-Rakauskiene_2009.pdf. Frėjutė-Rakauskienė Monika 2012: Lietuvos spauda ir visuomenės nuostatos apie rusų, ukrainiečių bei baltarusių etnines grupes ir naujausius imigrantus. – Etn iškumo studijos 1–2, 71–102. Prieiga internete: http://www.ces.lt/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/EtSt_Fr%C4%97jut%C4%97-Rakauskien%C4%97_2012.pdf. Gimžauskas Edmundas (ed.) 2006: Lietuva vokiečių okupacijoje Pirmojo pasaulinio karo metais, 1915–1918: Lietuvos nepriklausomos valstybės genezė: dokumentų rinkinys, Vilnius: Lietuvos istorijos institutas. Gritėnienė Aurelijа 2020: Rusija „Lietuvių kalbos žodyno“ iliustraciniuose sakiniuose ir reikšmių apibrėžtyse. – Baltu filologija XXIX (1), 41–61. Prieiga internete: https://doi.org/10.22364/bf.29.1.03. Gudavičius Aloyzas 2011: Reikšmė – sąvoka – konceptas ir prasmė. – Res humanitariae 10, 108–119. Straipsniai / Articles 143 AURELIJA GRITĖNIENĖ Krupickaitė Dovilė, Baranauskienė Viktorija 2013: Regioniniai kalbų vartojimo Lietuvos miestuose ypatumai. – Miestai ir kalbos II. Sociolingvistinis Lietuvos žemėlapis, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla, 23–53. Liutkevičienė Danutė 2020: Vokietis „Lietuvių kalbos žodyno“ pasaulėvaizdyje. – Bendrinė kalba 93, 1–39. Prieiga internete: http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba/article/view/2060/2172. Madsen Gunnar 2006: Kaip lietuviai komentuoja straipsnius tautine tematika? Įžvalgos iš interneto komentarų. – Etn iškumo studijos 1, 59–66. Prieiga internete: http://www.ces.lt/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/EtSt_Madsen_2006.pdf. Malinova Olga 2015: Kolektyvinės praeities idėja posovietinėje Rusijoje: savivaizdis ir imperijos palikimas. – Atminties kultūrų dialogai Ukrainos, Lietuvos, Baltarusijos (ULB) erdvėje, sud. A. Nikžentaitis, M. Kopczyński, Vilnius: Lietuvos istorijos institutas, 257–275. Marcinkevičius Andrius 2013: Rusų tapatumo sovietmečiu Lietuvoje konstravimas: politika, gyventojų surašymai ir istorinė atmintis. – Lietuvos rusai XX–XXI a. pradžioje: istorija, tapatybė, atmintis, sud. G. Potašenko, P. Lavrines, A. Marcinkevius, ats. red. G. Potašenko, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla, 183–231. Maumevičienė Dainora 2010: Prototipų teorija ir semantika. – Kalbų studijos 17, 11–18. Prieiga internete: https://www.kalbos.lt/zurnalas/17_numeris/02.pdf LKG – Lietuvių kalbos gramatika 1, vyr. red. K. Ulvydas, Vilnius: Mintis, 1965. Naudžiūnienė Akvilė 2019: Ethnic minorities in Lithuanian historical narrative at school education (1918–2018) = Tautinės mažumos Lietuvos istorijos mokykliniame naratyve (1918–2018): summary of doctoral dissertation, Vilnius: Vilnius university, Lithuanian historical institute, 2019. Papaurėlytė-Klovienė Silvija 2007: Lingvistinės kultūrologijos bruožai, Šiauliai: VšĮ Šiaulių universiteto leidykla, 2007. Papaurėlytė-Klovienė Silvija 2010: Kaimyninių tautų atstovai ir jų nacionalinio charakterio specifika lietuvių kalbos pasaulėvaizdyje. – Lietuvių kalba 4, 1–8. Prieiga internete: http://www.lietuviukalba.lt/index.php/lietuviu-kalba/article/view/27/90#. Petrušauskaitė Vita 2013: Etninės ir socialinės grupės Lietuvoje: visuomenės nuostatos ir jų kaita 2013 metais. – Etn iškumo studijos 1–2, 180–191. Prieiga internete: http://www.ces.lt/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/2013_2-Etniskumo-studijos.180-191.pdf. Pocius Mindaugas (ed.) 2018: Lietuvos sovietizavimas 1947–1953 m.: VKP(b) CK dokumentai. Dokumentų rinkinys, Vilnius: Lietuvos istorijos institutas. 144 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIV Rūšas Lietuvių kalbos žodyno pasaulėvaizdyje Potašenko Grigorijus 1989: Sentikio įvaizdžiai lietuvių kultūroje. – Kultūros barai 10(406), 49–56. Ryžakova Svetlana, Zavjalova Marija 2004: Lietuvių ir rusų požiūris vienų į kitus: kai kurie etnopsicholingvistinio tyrinėjimo rezultatai. – Liaudies kultūra 2(95), 17–27. Prieiga internete: http://tautosmenta.lt/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Zavjalova_Marija/Zavjalova_Ryžakova_LK_2004_2.pdf. Rutkovska Kristina, Smetona Marius, Smetonienė Irena 2017: Vertybės lietuvio pasaulėvaizdyje, Vilnius: Akademinė leidyba, 2017. Šėdaitytė Edita 2017: Sovietinės cenzūros istoriografija: pagrindinės tyrimų kryptys ir cenzūros sampratos. – Knygotyra 69, 84–102. Prieiga internete: file:///C:/Users/Dell/Downloads/24603698.pdf. Smetona Marius 2018: Sąvokų „kalba“, „tauta“, „valstybė“ plėtiniai jaunimo sąmonėje. – Logos 95, 177–184. Prieiga internete: http://litlogos.eu/L95/Logos_95_177_184_Smetona.pdf. Smetonienė Irena 2019: Išmintis lietuvio pasaulėvaizdyje. – Problemos 95, 130–143. Stravinskienė Vitalija 2014: Tarp sugyvenimo ir priešiškumo: tarpetniniai santykiai Rytų ir Pietryčių Lietuvoje (1944–1953 m.). – Savas ir kitas šiuolaikiniais požiūriais, sud. V. Savoniakaitė, Vilnius: Lietuvos istorijos institutas, 163–181. Švambarytė-Valužienė Janina 2007: Tautovardžiai ir jų vediniai lietuvių kalbos žodynuose. Rusas, maskolius. – Valoda dažādu kultūru kontekstā. XVII Zinātnisko rakstu krājums, Daugavpils: Daugavpils universitātes akadēmiskais apgāds “Saule”, 391–401. Vareikis Vygantas, Safronovas Vasilijus, Jokubauskas Vytautas, Vitkus Hektoras 2018: Didysis karas visuomenėje ir kultūroje: Lietuva ir Rytų Prūsija: kolektyvinė monografija, Klaipėda: Klaipėdos universiteto Baltijos regiono istorijos ir archeologijos institutas. Venclauskienė Laima 2016: Homo sovieticus: pilko ir pliko žmogaus portreto bruožai laisvėjančios Lietuvos spaudoje. – Darbai ir dienos 65, 143–162. Prieiga internete: https://www.vdu.lt/cris/bitstream/20.500.12259/31395/1/ISSN2335-8769_2016_N_65.PG_143–162.pdf. Vitkus Hektoras 2017: Die Russen in Osterpreussen: Rusijos ir rusų įvaizdžiai 1914–1939 m. Vokietijoje publikuotuose atsiminimuose apie Didįjį karą Rytų Prūsijoje. – Darbai ir dienos 67, 31–67. Prieiga internete: https://www.vdu.lt/cris/bitstream/20.500.12259/34424/1/ISSN2335-8769_2017_N_67.PG_31–67.pdf. Zabarskaitė Jolanta 2012: Kitoks didžiojo „Lietuvių kalbos žodyno“ skaitymas: Adalbertas Bezzenbergeris, marios, pamarys, pamariškis. – Mažoji Lietuva: paribio Straipsniai / Articles 145 AURELIJA GRITĖNIENĖ kultūros tyrimai, sud. G. Blažienė, N. Morozova, J. Zabarskaitė, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 239–271. Zabarskaitė Jolanta 2019: Rusijos Federacijos prezidento V. Putino naratyvų ideologiniai mechanizmai Lietuvos internetinėje žiniasklaidoje. – Parlamento studijos 27, 76–118. Prieiga internete: http://www.parlamentostudijos.lt/Nr27/files/76–118.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2ekg4Lp–3uEvZfi86ph0rIiBBM2IMQOzuiks1bYDHk3UoGY7EhbYxKeyI. Зиновьев Александр А. 1981: Гомо советикус. Prieiga internete: http://www.zinoviev.ru/ru/zinoviev/zinoviev-homo-sovieticus.pdf. Мачееевский Януш 2000: Стереотип России и русских в польской литературе и общественном сознании. – Поляки и русские в глазах друг друга, Москва: Индрик, 6–2. Рыжакова Светлана И., Завьялова Мария В. 2008: Этнические образы и стереотипы по результатам сравнительного исследования среди молодежи Латвии и Литвы (1999–2003 гг.), Москва: Институт этнологии и антропологии РАН. Russian in the Worldview of The Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language SUMMARY The aim of the article is to study what fragment of the concept of RUSSIAN comes to the fore in the illustrative sentences mentioning the nationality rusas ‘Russian’, which are present in The Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language. The illustrations are especially important for the formation of the concept, as they record the attitude of the representatives of dialects from the whole of Lithuania towards this nationality and the worldview of the Russian reflected in various written sources. The empirical material is studied using the semantic analysis, descriptive, interpretive and cognitive ethnolinguistics methods. The analysis of 300 illustrative sentences from the Dictionary, which mention the ethnonym Russian, shows that in the context of the Dictionary this nationality is described in the following ways: 1) objective, specific historical and other facts (usually in the form of illustrations from various written sources of the 19th–20th centuries); 2) experience of the relationship between individual persons and the persons of this nationality through specific images (in the form of illustrative sentences from Lithuanian dialects recorded in the 20th century). It is obvious that in the context of the Dictionary the local/foreign opposition 146 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIV Rusas Lietuvių kalbos žodyno pasaulėvaizdyje is very clearly expressed: local Lithuanian Russians are rarely mentioned in illustrative sentences. Instead, the people of this nationality are primarily viewed as others having their own peculiar language, customs, manners and values. The analysis of the illustrations selected for the research reveals that the illustrative sentences recorded during the previous century enable us to form the most vivid image of Russians. The following major Russian features come to light in the illustrations of the Dictionary. It is a nation of a big country whose relations with other nations are rather ambivalent. At different times in history, Russians imposed their rule on some nations; they tried to assimilate smaller subjugated nations and considered them inferior. The sentences coming from various texts from the Soviet period often express the narrative of the friendship of nations. In the course of history Russians were at war with a number of nations. The illustrations of the Dictionary mention the heroism of Russian soldiers and refusal to surrender to the enemy. The sentences coming from the military context first of all reveal the relations between Russian soldiers and Lithuanian Germans. The fights of Russian and German troops, which took place during world wars, also drew Lithuanians into the front zone. We learn from the sentences collected from dialects about the entry of the Russian army into Lithuania and its actions in the country. The illustrations show that in the midst of the wars with Germans Russian soldiers were especially active. There are quite a few sentences where the informants of the colloquial language or the authors of various texts compare Russians and Germans by often giving priority to Germans and condemning Russians for their looting, disorder, etc. The illustrations from the Dictionary also provide certain information about the appearance and manners of Russians, their daily life and routine. The illustrations of the Dictionary make it clear that Lithuanians are not particularly hostile towards the Russian nation. Neither the sentences from dialects nor from texts provide such information. A tendency of avoiding straight and clear categorization in the context of the Dictionary is observed. As a nation, Russians are not severely condemned or reprimanded and they are not overly praised as well. Perhaps such a cautious approach was driven by historical and political circumstances: for long years, Lithuania, as a small state, was dependent on Russia and Russians, and most of the illustrative examples were collected during the period of the Soviet occupation, which demonstrated strict (self)censorship. Therefore, Russians, as a nation, were regarded rather cautiously, even neutrally at that time by avoiding both excessive hostility and particular friendliness. Only the written sources from the Soviet period place a greater emphasis on the friendly and close relations between the Lithuanian and Russian nations. A stronger emotional evaluation reveals through those illustrations which speak about the Russian army and government, because Lithuanians tend to associate the Russian, as a foreign invader, with the foreign government and army. The illustrations selected for the study show that in the context of The Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language the actions of certain Russian soldiers during the war years and the tsarist and Soviet rule imposed on Straipsniai / Articles 147 AURELIJA GRITĖNIENĖ Lithuanians are viewed negatively. Such a negative approach towards the government of Russian invaders is especially apparent in the illustrations found in the final volumes of the Dictionary. Įteikta 2021 m. kovo 4 d. AURELIJA GRITĖNIENĖ Lietuvių kalbos institutas Petro Vileišio g. 5, Vilnius LT–10308, Lietuva [email protected] 148 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIV