Go to originalLocalized version was produced by AI. It may contain inaccuracies.
Preparing document pages…
Page 1
DIANA DAMBRAUSKIENĖ
Institute of the Lithuanian Language
ORCID id: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0346-8421
Research areas: geolinguistics, sociolinguistics.
DOI: doi.org/10.35321/all83-11
NOMINATIONS AND EVALUATIONS OF THE SOUTHERN SAMOGITIAN RASEINIAI DIALECTS
Dialect Nominations and Evaluations in the Area of the Southern Samogitian of Raseiniai
ABSTRACT
Based on the methodologies of perceptual dialectology, this article examines the dialect nominations and evaluations of respondents from the area of the Southern Samogitian Raseiniai subdialect (the Kelmė, Raseiniai, and Tauragė zones). A clear opposition between the Samogitian and Aukštaitian dialects has become established in the consciousness of respondents from all three zones. The latter is identified with Standard Lithuanian.
In the respondents’ view, the Samogitian dialect is incomprehensible and easily recognizable. It is used in other cities (localities) whose inhabitants realize in their spoken language the representative features of the Samogitian dialect identified by the respondents. The Aukštaitian dialect, characterized by aesthetic appeal, comprehensibility, and correctness and corresponding to the concept of the standard language, is used in the nearest cities (localities) of the Aukštaitian ethnographic region and in the major cities of Lietuvos and Central Lithuania. The Aukštaitian varieties farther removed from the language variety used in the linguistic homeland and from the standard language are associated by the Raseiniai speakers with city names and referred to as dialects.
Evaluations of the Samogitian and Aukštaitian dialects make it possible to hypothesize about the rapid Aukštaitianization of the entire Southern Samogitian Raseiniai area (especially in the Kelmė zone, where the Samogitian dialect is most often evaluated as the most incomprehensible).
KEYWORDS: perceptual dialectology, linguistic homeland, Southern Samogitian Raseiniai subdialect, dialect, standard language.
Straipsniai / Articles
227
Page 2
DIANA DAMBRAUSKIENĖ
ANNOTATION
Based on the methodologies of perceptual dialectology, the article addresses dialect nominations and evaluations of the respondents from the area of the Southern Samogitian subdialect of Raseiniai (areas of Kelmė, Raseiniai and Tauragė). There is a clear opposition between Samogitian and Aukštaitian dialects established in the consciousness of the respondents from all three areas. The latter is associated with Standard Lithuanian.
According to the respondents, the Samogitian dialect is incomprehensible and easily recognizable. It is used in other towns (localities) whose residents realise the representative features of the Samogitian dialect specified by the respondents in their spoken language. The Aukštaitian dialect, which demonstrates aesthetics, understandability, correctness and meets the concept of the standard language, is spoken in the nearest towns of the ethnographic region of Aukštaitija and Lithuania’s largest cities (localities) and Central Lithuania. The speakers of the subdialect of Raseiniai associate the Aukštaitian local dialects (Lith. šnektos), which exhibit greater differences compared to the language variant spoken in their linguistic homeland and the standard language, with the names of towns and refer to them as dialects (Lith. tarmės)
The evaluations of Samogitian and Aukštaitian dialects lead to an assumption concerning the rapid shift of the whole area of Southern Samogitian of Raseiniai into Aukštaitian (in particular in the area of Kelmė where the Samogitian dialect is most commonly evaluated as most incomprehensible).
KEYWORDS: perceptive dialectology, linguistic homeland, Southern Samogitian subdialect of Raseiniai, dialect, standard language.
1. INTRODUCTION
Sociocultural and socioeconomic reasons that encourage migration to larger and structurally more convenient localities change language users’ linguistic behavior. Contacts with users of other language varieties and the image of a “more prestigious” variety adjust evaluations of language varieties and, at the same time, initiate a reconsideration of attitudes toward dialects.
Over the past decade, quite a few studies of geolinguistic competence based on the principles of perceptual dialectology have been conducted in Lietuvoje¹, but the area of the Southern Samogitian Raseiniai subdialect has been analyzed only fragmentarily in this respect, since the studies did not encompass all the points of the subdialect area indicated in the Atlas of the Lithuanian Language (LKA 1977, 1982, 1991; hereafter – LKA). Exploratory studies revealed the influence of extralinguistic
¹ For a more detailed discussion of studies of the geolinguistic competence of ordinary members of the language community, see: Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė 2016: 89–120; 2016a: 17–33; Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė, Čepaitienė, Geržotaitė 2017; Geržotaitė 2016: 121–142; 2016a: 321–339; 2018: 76–101, etc.
228
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIII
Page 3
Pietų žemaičių raseiniškių tarmių nominacijos ir įverčiai
factors on the horizontal and vertical variability of the Raseiniai language (Aliūkaitė, Bakšienė, Jaroslavienė et al. 2014: 146; Vaitmonienė 2014; 2017: 343–365). Due to convergence phenomena, three emerging geolects have been identified in the subdialect area: the transitional Kelmė and Raseiniai geolects and the somewhat more stable Tauragė geolect (Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė 2014a: 260; NLTA 2014: Map XIII and commentary, separate insert).
However, in order to assess the linguistic situation in apparent time² and to establish a prognostic scenario of subdialect change and its causation, comprehensive geolinguistic studies of all LKA points in the subdialect area are necessary; one of the most important components of such studies is the geolinguistic competence of language communities.
Thus, the aim of this article is to analyze the geolinguistic competence of members of the Southern Samogitian Raseiniai language community (their ability to recognize dialects), taking into account the geographical location of the Raseiniai LKA points (according to their affiliation with emerging geolects). The object is the dialect nominations, images, and evaluations of members of the Southern Samogitian Raseiniai language community.
The article is based on empirical material collected and recorded by the author on a tape recorder in the area of the Southern Samogitian Raseiniai subdialect from November 2014 to October 2017 and from June to September 2019, from the 34 LKA points that still exist³.
The analysis of geolinguistic competence in the article is presented according to the geographical location of the LKA points, that is:
1) The Kelmė (northern) zone is represented by respondents from 14 LKA points – Gūdmoniškės (LKA 162), Šaukėnai (LKA 194), Kūrtuvėnai (LKA 195), Vaiguva (LKA 224), Kušleikiai (LKA 225), Pădubysis (LKA 226), Kiaunoriai (LKA 227), Kražiai (LKA 257), Kelmė (LKA 258), Kubiliai (LKA 259), Tytuvėnai (LKA 260), Adomaičiai (LKA 292), Păkražantis (LKA 293), and Stulgiai (LKA 326);
² The apparent-time (Lith. apparent time) method is useful for studying the language of representatives of several generations living at the same time; for a more detailed discussion of the term, see: Labov 1972: 24; Sankoff 2006: 1–16; see also: Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė 2014b: 36; Kalėdienė 2015: 213–214, etc.
³ Thirty-seven LKA points have been distinguished in the Raseiniai area, but one point – Giniotičiai (LKA 328) – has completely disappeared; not a single inhabitant remains there, while the Jocius (LKA 391) and Rūgaliai (LKA 463) points should already be considered suburbs of Tauragė (people from nearby Tauragė are moving there).
Straipsniai / Articles
229
Page 4
DIANA DAMBRAUSKIENĖ
Stragūtė (LKA 392), Joniškė (LKA 393), Pašaltuonys (LKA 394), Eržvilkas (LKA 395), and Eičiai (LKA 464) (see Fig. 1).
FIG. 1. Boundaries of the Southern Samogitian Raseiniai subdialect and LKA points
(map fragment from Geržotaitė, Mikulėnienė 2014: Map 1; map author L. Geržotaitė)
The research material consists of metalinguistic comments about dialects by 99 informants. The most important data about the informants are presented in the table.
TABLE. Age characteristics of respondents from the Southern Samogitian Raseiniai dialect area
Higher education | Post-secondary education | Vocational education | Secondary education | Basic education | Primary education | Total Up to 35 years | 6 | – | 5 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 22 36–60 years | 6 | 12 | 10 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 35 Over 61 years | 4 | 12 | 3 | 8 | 4 | 11 | 42
The comments were coded according to place of residence, age, and sex (the first digits and four capital letters indicate the point number (according to the LKA) and the first letters of the point’s name; age is indicated by the digits “1” (up to 35 years), “2” (36–60 years), and “3” (over 61 years); women’s comments are marked “M” and men’s “V”; for example, the code of a comment by a female informant from the Žygaičiai (LKA 390) point belonging to the middle generation is 390ŽYGA2M). Hereafter in the article, the subjects’ comments are identified by respondent codes.
230
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIII
Page 5
Nominations and evaluations of the Southern Samogitian Raseiniai dialects
In the article, geolinguistic competence is assessed by the ability to recognize dialects and relate them to social and geographical areas; it is refined by examining heterostereotypical⁴ descriptions, based on the subjects’ perception of dialectality and highlighting the most characteristic generalizations associated with geographical, sociodemographic, and sociocultural data. The respondents’ age presupposes their linguistic experience and choice of linguistic behavior; cultural variables reveal the totality of norms formed by the education system and attitudes, values, and beliefs established in society.
Methods and methodological approaches. The material was collected by combining the methods of a semi-standardized survey and an in-depth interview (conversation)⁵. The author of this article formulated questions for the subjects so as to obtain as much information as possible for the study of geolinguistic competence. In scholarly discourse, geolinguistic competence is defined as the totality of an ordinary language user’s knowledge of language varieties and ability to relate them to geographical, social, and cultural areas (Diercks 2002: 52–53; Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė 2016: 92; Geržotaitė 2019: 1). Ordinary language users’ subjective attitudes can reveal an objective picture of linguistic variation and predict a prognostic model of changes in and development of variation (Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė 2016a: 17–33).
Studies of linguistic attitudes are important for clarifying the links between language varieties imagined by members of a language community and the cultural and social identity of their users, and for demonstrating that linguistic variation and change are decisively influenced both by ideologically constructed dialect images⁶ and by stereotypical characteristics of a language variety formed in the subconscious (cf. Chambers, Trudgill 2004: 28; see also: Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė 2016a: 17–30; Mikulėnienė 2019, etc.).
⁴ In the article, heterostereotypical descriptions refer to evaluations of the language varieties of ethnographic regions. For a more detailed discussion of the term, see Papaurėlytė, Župerka 2010: 185–202, etc.
⁵ Combining the methodologies of quantitative and qualitative research reveals an in-depth picture of the sample under study and establishes the tendencies and causation of the language community’s linguistic behavior and attitudes (Macaulay 2009; Coffin, Lillis, O’Halloran 2010; Heigham, Croker 2009). Studying attitudes toward language varieties by different methods brings out the language user’s social status, competence, and the values of language varieties (e.g., attractiveness, which is often associated with linguistic solidarity, speakers’ reliability, and so on), superiority, prestige, etc. (cf.: Edwards 2006: 324–331; Garret 2010: 66, etc.).
⁶ The Japanese linguist Fumio Inoue defines the term dialect image (Eng. dialect image) as a language user’s imagined (constructed) psychological social images of a regional or social dialect. For more on the theory of the dialect image and the meaning of the term, see: Inoue 1999a: 147; 1999b: 161, 174.
Straipsniai / Articles
231
Page 6
DIANA DAMBRAUSKIENĖ
2. LITHUANIAN DIALECTS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE SOUTHERN SAMOGITIAN RASEINIAI SPEAKERS
Within the scholarly paradigm, a tradition has become established in Lietuvoje of distinguishing Aukštaitian and Samogitian dialects. However, data from applied linguistics research show that in ordinary language users’ taxonomy the most usual classification is a four-member classification of dialects, in which dialects are nominated by the names of the four ethnographic regions of Lietuvos (Aukštaitija – Aukštaitian dialect, Žemaitija – Samogitian dialect, Dzūkija – Dzūkian dialect, and Suvalkija – Suvalkian (Suvalkų) dialect); less often, dialects are named after cities or dialectal zones representing prototypical dialectality (cf.: Aliūkaitė 2013: 13, 14–15; Bakšienė 2015: 2; Geržotaitė 2016: 121–142, etc.).
The answers of respondents representing the Southern Samogitian Raseiniai subdialect to the question of which Lithuanian dialects they know can be divided into five groups: 1) hyperonymic classification (Aukštaitian, Samogitian, Dzūkian, Suvalkian (Suvalkų), and Lithuania Minor)⁷; 2) binary, or scholarly, classification (Aukštaitian and Samogitian); 3) polynomial, or multinomial, classification (e.g.: Dzūkian, Samogitian, Plungė, and Kupiškis (194ŠAUK3M); Jurbarkas, Rokiškis, from Upyna, Dzūkians, Samogitians (398aGERV3M)); 4) according to cities representing dialectality (e.g.: Marijampolė, Jurbarkas (396PAUP1M)); and 5) a group that distances itself from dialectality (does not name dialects).
Data on dialect classifications differ somewhat by zone (see Fig. 2).
FIG. 2. Classification of the nominations of Southern Samogitian Raseiniai dialects⁸
For example, not a single designation from the scholarly classification was recorded in the Kelmė zone, while in the Raseiniai zone most respondents provided dialects named after cities or specific localities.
In the Tauragė zone, the scholarly classification is known to almost one-tenth of respondents. Nearly all informants adhering to this classification are (or were)
232
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIII
Page 7
Pietų žemaičių raseiniškių tarmių nominacijos ir įverčiai
connected with Lithuanian language studies at institutions of higher education; others said that they somewhat remembered the classification of Lithuanian dialects from Lithuanian language lessons at school.
However, in the Raseiniai speakers’ consciousness, dialect nominations are most often inseparable from the names of Lithuanian ethnographic regions: most subjects adhere to the four-member classification of dialects – Aukštaitian, Samogitian, Dzūkian, and Suvalkian – while other respondents name one, two, or three dialects corresponding to the names of ethnographic regions.
The Samogitian dialect is the most readily recognized by respondents; it was mentioned by more than nine-tenths of the subjects in the Kelmė and Tauragė zones and by more than two-thirds of those in the Raseiniai zone⁹ (see Fig. 3). The distribution by zone of other descriptors referred to as dialects varies: for subjects in the Kelmė zone, besides Samogitian, the Suvalkian (Suvalkų) dialect is well known; in Raseiniai, the Aukštaitian and Dzūkian dialects; and in Tauragė, the Aukštaitian dialect. In the Raseiniai and Tauragė zones, the Suvalkian (Suvalkų) dialect was named least often, while in Kelmė it was the Aukštaitian dialect (see Fig. 3).
FIG. 3. Explication of hyperonymic dialect names by zone
⁹ It should be noted that the calculation was not based on all subjects, but on those who provided dialect names. Those who knew nothing about dialects and provided no nominations were not included in the calculation.
Straipsniai / Articles
233
Page 8
DIANA DAMBRAUSKIENĖ
Thus, it can be claimed that the Raseiniai speakers, by identifying dialects with ethnographic regions, consistently confirm the conclusions of earlier studies in Lietuvos¹⁰.
The fact that the Samogitian dialect is named most often by the Raseiniai speakers is also not a new fact in Lithuanian dialect studies¹¹. On evaluating the subjects’ comments, it can be claimed that Raseiniai dialectality (the dialect) is generally identical to the Samogitian dialect; that is, Samogitian character is associated with prominent or at least somewhat differing dialectal features (especially accentual and phonetic features, except for the “dzūkavimas” known to many) or with different lexicon. It should be added that, when describing dialects, the subjects used most adjectives when indicating the distinctiveness of the Samogitian dialect: the most beautiful (358PAGR2M, 360BATA2M, 364RASE1M, 394PAŠA2M-A, 398AGERV1M), the oldest (364RASE1M), the most recognizable (226PADU2M, 258KELM1M, 259KUBI2M, 294LYDU2V, 329ALĖJ2M, 356VAIN3M-1, 364RASE3M), the most interesting (225KUŠL3M, 394PAŠA2M), funny (360BATA1M), and so on.
When analyzed by zone, no differences emerged in the evaluations of heteronymous dialects; only the positions of the evaluations were distributed unevenly. For example, respondents in the Kelmė zone most strongly emphasized the incomprehensibility of the Samogitian dialect (difficult to understand (162GUDM2M), you do not understand everything (225KUŠL3M), incomprehensible (ŠAUK3M, 257KRAŽ1M, 257KRAŽ3M)); those in Raseiniai and Tauragė emphasized recognizability (the easiest to recognize (327ŽVIN2M, 329ALĖJ2M), the most recognizable (294LYDU2V, 356VAIN3M-1, 364RASE3M, 395ERŽV3M), recognizable (390ŽYGA1M)). Such evaluations show that Southern Samogitian Raseiniai speakers distinguish best the language varieties with prominent Northern Samogitian features, while the fact that the Samogitian dialect is considered incomprehensible (for the inhabitants of the Raseiniai and Tauragė areas, incomprehensibility ranks second after recognizability) indicates not only the transitional character of all three zones (their proximity to the Aukštaitians), but also the rapid Aukštaitianization of the entire subdialect area (especially around Kelmė).
When evaluating data from speakers of different ages, it was established that the subjects in the youngest age group in Kelmė and Raseiniai demonstrate knowledge and ideological attitudes shaped by educational institutions. For example, young respondents in the Kelmė zone, having evaluated the Samogitian dialect as incomprehensible, also note phonetic
¹⁰ Cf.: Aliūkaitė 2013; Baranauskienė, Krupickaitė 2012; Ramonienė, Krupickaitė 2013, etc. From the perspective of an ordinary language evaluator, dialect identification is determined by several important aspects: 1) a different manner of speaking, 2) linguistic characteristics of dialectality, and 3) at least an approximate visual division of the Lithuanian dialectal map (cf. Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė, Čepaitienė, Geržotaitė 2017: 158–160).
¹¹ Cf.: Aliūkaitė 2013: 12; Župerka 2012: 297, etc. It should be said that an exploratory study of the geolinguistic competence of the Raseiniai language community in 2014 revealed similar results: most respondents (92 percent) claimed to know the Samogitian dialect, while 87 percent knew the Aukštaitian dialect. Only then did more Raseiniai speakers name the Suvalkian, Suvalkų, or Suvalkija dialect (65 percent); the Dzūkian dialect was mentioned least often (57 percent of respondents who provided dialect nominations). For more details about the study, see Vaitmonienė 2014; 2017.
234
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIII
Page 9
Pietų žemaičių raseiniškių tarmių nominacijos ir įverčiai
(cuts off the endings (259KUBI1M)), accentology (the accentuation is different (258KELM1M)) differences; those in Raseiniai emphasize aesthetic appeal (the most beautiful, but incomprehensible (298aGERV1M)), as well as accentological (the accentuation is different (364RASE1M)) differences. However, in the opinion of a young, highly educated subject from the Tauragė zone, this dialect is funny (the funny Samogitian dialect with its own words (360BATA1M)). Such an evaluation implies not only the subjective opinion of one person but also, in general, a lesser value attributed to the dialect (dialectality) (to avoid looking funny, one must speak so that everyone understands).
It should be emphasized that the descriptions of the Samogitian dialect by more highly educated subjects in the Tauragė zone are quite categorical: from those emphasizing historicity and aesthetic appeal (old-fashioned words, very beautiful (360BATA2M), the most beautiful (358PAGR3M, 394SPAŠA2M-1, 392STRA2V), pleasant little words (392STRA3M)) to subjectively negative ones (rough-sounding (362PETK3M), speaks incorrectly and unattractively (395ERŽV3M)). Respondents with higher and post-secondary education in the Kelmė zone evaluate the Samogitian dialect rather moderately, but more often emphasize its aesthetic appeal (the words are different, but it is beautiful (GUDM2M); different words (194ŠAUK3M); beautiful, but unusual (258KELM1M)); in the opinion of residents of the LKA points around Raseiniai, it is the most Lithuanian, oldest (364RASE1M) and most beautiful (327NE-MA2V) dialect. Subjects with lower levels of education in all three zones held similar evaluations and often perceived the distinctiveness or otherness of the Samogitian dialect (more interesting (225KUŠL3M), interesting (257KRAŽ1M), the most interesting (394PAŠA2M), speaks differently (329ALEJ2M-1, 363VIDU2M), pronounces sounds differently (398aGERV2M), different (363VIDU1V)).
Thus, the Samogitian dialect is familiar to many respondents, but its image is identical to that of the Northern Samogitian dialects, which differ considerably from the language varieties of the Southern Samogitian Raseiniai speakers themselves12.
The comments of respondents from all three zones about the Highland dialect were “more cautious” than the descriptions of the Samogitian dialect, while almost half of the respondents did not evaluate it at all, merely stating that they had theoretically heard the name of this dialect. Thus, such attitudes are determined not by the ability to recognize the Highland dialect, but by knowledge heard through the media, in public, or formed by educational institutions (or by the opposition Samogitians: Highlanders established in their consciousness). This is confirmed by comments from respondents of the middle and oldest generations that they would not identify the dialects if they had not watched the television programme “Duokim garo” (224VAIG2M, 257KRAŽ3M, 259KUBI3M, 393JONI3M), while one representative of the youngest age group stated that she had
¹² It should be noted that an analysis of the correlation between evaluations of autostereotypical language varieties (those used by the respondents themselves) and ethnic identity is not the object of this article and is therefore not examined in detail.
Straipsniai / Articles
235
Page 10
DIANA DAMBRAUSKIENĖ
because she participates in the activities of a folklore ensemble (I know a little about dialects when we perform with the folklore ensemble “Inkstiliuks” (361SKAU1M)).
Attitudes toward the Aukštaitian dialect differ by zone: for younger and oldest respondents living around Kelmė, the Aukštaitian dialect is correct and identical to the standard (literary) language (257KRAŽ1M, 257KRAŽ3M, 258KELM1M); for members of the middle generation, it is unmarked (I could not distinguish the Aukštaitians (258KELM2M)); for young residents of the Raseiniai zone, it is the most beautiful and comprehensible (327NEMA1M) (older respondents did not evaluate it); for subjects in the oldest age group in the Tauragė zone, it is known, comprehensible, and the most beautiful (356VAIN3M-1, 358PAGR2M, 392STRA3M). In the opinion of one oldest respondent from the Kelmė zone, those who are more sophisticated speak Aukštaitian; the Aukštaitians hold their heads high (224VAIG3M-1).
However, it should be noted that such comments were most often made by respondents with lower levels of education who had not interacted with representatives of the Aukštaitian dialect; therefore, these evaluations are probably associated with the image of the dialect opposed to the Samogitian dialect: if the Samogitian dialect heard differs from the standard language through prominent features or different lexicon, then the Aukštaitian dialect is close to the standard language or (and) to the language variety used by the respondents themselves. The attitude of the respondent who believes that the Aukštaitians hold their heads high probably implies a subjective opinion about representatives of the public sector (authorities) or persons seen (heard) on television (radio).
The Aukštaitian dialect is described differently by subjects from the Raseiniai and Tauragė zones who have interacted with representatives of Aukštaitian subdialects and have higher levels of education: accentual features are noted (the accentuation is different (364RASE1M)), as are phonetic features (I distinguish it by the endings, the lengthening of letters (ALĖJ2M-1)), identified in the language varieties of inhabitants of particular cities or localities (Aukštaitians – around Šiauliai and Radviliškis – I studied in Šeduva, so I know (364RASE1M); Aukštaitians – in Utena, I was born there (260YTU2V); I would recognize the Šiauliai variety – Aukštaitian – I have relatives there (395ERŽV2M)).
In general, when naming and commenting on the Aukštaitian and Samogitian dialects, respondents demonstrate geolinguistic sophistication and the ability to associate them with cities or settlements. It should be noted, however, that the Samogitian dialect is “sought” in prototypical cities distinguished by prominent dialectal features (Telšiai, Plungė, Skuodas), whereas the Aukštaitian dialect, more often identified with a non-dialectal language variety, is heard in the cities of the Aukštaitian ethnographic region nearest to the Raseiniai speakers, for example, Ariogala, Jurbarkas, and Šiauliai. The Aukštaitian varieties farther removed from the linguistic homeland¹³ and the standard language
¹³ The dialectal expression of the linguistic homeland (Eng. linguistic homeland) in perception is associated with linguistic differences in the language user’s environment and with geographical (spatial) distances. For the term, see Diercks 2002: 51.
236
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIII
Page 11
Pietų žemaičių raseiniškių tarmių nominacijos ir įverčiai
varieties are associated with city names and referred to as dialects, e.g.: Kupiškis (Kupiškis speakers), Pasvalys (225KUŠ1M), Zarasai (226PADU3M), Šeduva (259KUBI2M, 364RASE2V).
Thus, such evaluations show the Raseiniai speakers’ belief that their language variety is close to the image of the standard language, identified with the Aukštaitian dialect.
As the metalinguistic comments show, Suvalkian (Suvalkian) is best known to the older respondents in the Kelmė zone. The middle-generation participants with higher education discerned the phonetic features of Suvalkian (emphasizes “ė,” lengthens sounds (293PAKR2M); I would recognize Suvalkian by the utterance “jo jo”; they pronounce “o” for a long time (395ERŽV2M)) or, guided by theoretical knowledge about the history of the formation of the standard language, emphasized its aesthetic value (Suvalkian – prestigious (294GUDM2M); the most beautiful, the most Lithuanian (260TYTU2M); beautiful, difficult to confuse with another (292ADOM2M))¹⁴. The evaluations of the oldest respondents with lower education are more grounded in personal experiences and are emotional (distinctive language, jargon-like language (257KRAŽ3M)) or the dialect is associated with the stereotype widespread in society about Suvalkians’ stinginess (Suvalkians, they say, are stingy (226PADU3M)).
For young participants in the Kelmė zone and participants of all age groups in the Raseiniai and Tauragė zones, the Suvalkian language variety is little known: it was named by only one young respondent in each case, and only one informant with higher education from Raseiniai stated: in Suvalkian, the suffixes are different, for example, -uk- (364RASE1M). Other participants did not evaluate or comment on the Suvalkian dialect, or called it unfounded (327NEMA1V) or simply different (294LYDU3M, 358PAGR2M, 364RASE2V, 390ŽYGA1M).
It should be added that Suvalkian is not associated by any participant with a particular city or area. For example, the language varieties of Marijampolė, Šakiai, or Vilkaviškis, called dialects or languages, are not associated with the Suvalkian dialect (Šakiai is different from Marijampolė. I would recognize the Marijampolė dialect (224VAIG2M); we have residents from Marijampolė; they change that dialect (260TYTU2M); Marijampolė – I do not know what it is like (363VIDU1V); in Vilkaviškis they speak differently (464EIČI2M)).
The Southern Samogitian Raseiniškiai likewise do not geographically associate the Dzūkian dialect with particular cities or areas. In the opinion of most participants who named this dialect, it is difficult to understand, almost unfounded (difficult to understand – little heard (162GUDM2M); heard the least and would be difficult for me to understand (194ŠAUK3M–2); I would not understand Dzūkian (356VAIN3M–1)), unknown (I would not recognize it because I have no acquaintances (395ERŽV3M); I do not know whether I would recognize it; they show it on television (395ERŽV2M)) or is identified by a distinct feature of speech associated with the Dzūkija ethnographic region
¹⁴ Cf. Aliūkaitė 2013: 13. On the prestige of the Suvalkian dialect, see Baranauskienė, Krupickaitė 2012 and elsewhere.
Straipsniai / Articles
237
Page 12
DIANA DAMBRAUSKIENĖ
dzūkavimas feature (sounds pronounced differently (226 PADU2M); according to the sounds, their speech (257KRAŽ3M-2); pronounces the sounds differently (357ŽVIN2M); speaks differently (361SKAU2M); I would recognize a Dzūkian by “dz-” (398aGERV3M)).
However, those who have more often communicated with speakers of the dialects identified with the Dzūkija ethnographic region evaluate this language variety on the basis of various personal experiences (Dzūkians say “cik cik” – like chickens. I have relatives there, so I would recognize it. They pronounce the letters softly. Dzūkian is the most beautiful, the gentlest (257KRAŽ3M); Dzūkian is different, ugly, but diminutive words are beautiful (360BATA1M); I would distinguish it; I studied with Dzūkians (464IEČI3M)).
The analysis of knowledge and evaluations of the Suvalkian (Suvalkian) and Dzūkian dialects by zone revealed no significant differences. It is noteworthy that, in general, participants tend to regard the less familiar (heard) language varieties called Suvalkian and Dzūkian dialects as unattractive, which allows us to assume that the linguistic homeland factor is one of the most important when evaluating different language varieties that are more distant from the familiar one.
Thus, when calling language varieties dialects, the Raseiniškiai rely on theoretical knowledge about the ethnographic division of Lithuania, while they assign more salient dialect features, which have no distinctive force in the geolinguistic paradigm, to another dialect.
Almost one-tenth of the respondents in the Kelmė zone, less than one-third of those in Raseiniai, and one-fifth of the participants in Tauragė adhere to a polynomial classification of dialects (see Fig. 2). Thus, alongside dialect names corresponding to ethnographic region names, respondents list “dialects” nominated by city or locality names (e.g., Biržai (364RASE1M), Kelmė (294LYDU3M), Panevėžys, Skuodian (326STUL3M)), languages identified as systems (Russian (394PAŠA3V), Curonian (361SKAU2M), genuine Lithuanian grammar (363VIDU2M)), or language varieties historically established in society and called dialects (Zanavykian, Kapsian, Dzūnininkian, Dounininkian, Šiioniškian (358PAGR2M))¹⁵.
In the polynomial classification, designations of dialects corresponding to city or locality names predominate. No essential differences emerged between the zones in naming and evaluating such language varieties, while the reasons for recognizing them, which depend neither on education nor on age, can be divided into two groups: personal linguistic experience and images of a different language (dialect) formed by the public and/or social media.
15Since dialect units designated by systematic languages and other varieties are mentioned only once each, it is not expedient to examine them in greater detail; therefore, the article focuses more on designations corresponding to city or locality names and their evaluations. At the same time, it discusses the designations and attitudes concerning dialect units of those who adhered exclusively to the city/locality classification.
238
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIII
Page 13
Pietų žemaičių raseiniškių tarmių nominacijos ir įverčiai
The majority of Raseiniškiai most often assign dialectal units either the names of the cities Marijampolė (464EIČI1M, 224VAIG2M, 364RASE1M, 396PAUP2M), Plungė (194ŠAUK3M, 224VAIG2M, 396PAUP2M, 392STRA3M), and Telšiai (195KURT1V, 224VAIG2M, 257KRAŽ1M, 258KELM2M, 364RASE2V, 392STRA3M), regarded as dialectal16, or the names of the major cities Kaunas (162GUDM2M, 327NEMA3V, 258KELM1M, 363VIDU1V, 364RASE2V, 390ŽYGA2V), Klaipėda (225KUŠL1M, 258KELM1M, 327NEMA3V, 394PAŠA2M-1), and Vilnius (162GUDM2M, 258KELM1M, 258KELM3M, 327NEMA3V, 359LOMI1V, 363VIDU1V, 363VIDU3M, 364RASE2V, 390ŽYGA2V), associated with the standard language (see Fig. 4).
FIG. 4. Nominations of dialects corresponding to city (settlement) names by zone
16 On prototypical dialect zones, see Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė, Čepaitienė, Geržotaitė 2017: 126–146 and elsewhere.
Straipsniai / Articles
239
Page 14
DIANA DAMBRAUSKIENĖ
However, the evaluations of the dialects in these two groups differ: language varieties nominated by the names of major cities are, in the Raseiniškiai’s view, the most correct (correct) (162GUDM2M, 225KUŠL1M, 327NEMA3V), the most beautiful (359LOM1V, 390ŽYGA2V), and are usually regarded as standard (literary) language (258KELM1M, 258KELM3M, 327NEMA1M, 363VIDU1V, 363VIDU3M, 364RASE2V, 394PAŠA2M-1). Dialects referred to by the names of cities representing prototypical dialects are usually described stereotypically, e.g., those of Plungė and Telšiai are considered Samogitian (194ŠAUK3M, 258KELM2M, 364RASE2V, 392STRA3M and elsewhere), while Marijampolė is considered different (227KIAU3M), distinct (194ŠAUK3M)¹⁷.
Opinions both about the correct, most beautiful standard language used in the major cities of Lithuania and about the language varieties of Marijampolė, Plungė, and Telšiai, which respondents call dialects, can probably be explained by stereotypical attitudes established in society: social welfare created in urban areas implies the use of a prestigious language variety; in cities universally regarded as Samogitian, people speak the Samogitian dialect, while the distinctiveness of the Marijampolė language variety is best known through the media.
Language varieties designated by the names of those localities with whose inhabitants direct linguistic contact has been established¹⁸ are mentioned only once or several times (my parents-in-law speak the Platelių dialect (194ŠAUK2M-1); I know the Naujoji Akmenė dialect – relatives are from there (225KUŠL1M); in Zarasai they speak differently; the dialect is different there, I have been there (226PADU3M); a relative lives in Šiauliai; I evaluate that dialect positively (361SKAU3M) and elsewhere.)¹⁹
More detailed descriptions of such language varieties called dialects often depend on age and education: slightly more than one-tenth of the young and/or more highly educated respondents notice accentological features (in Šiauliai and Radviliškis, the stress is different (364RASE1M); in Rietavas and Telšiai, they stress words differently
¹⁷ It should be emphasized that, according to only one respondent, people in Marijampolė speak the most correct dialect (162GUDM2M). This opinion most likely expresses the identity of the language variety with the standard language (the same respondent also regards the Kaunas and Vilnius dialects as the most correct); such an evaluation should be regarded as a reflection of the history of language formation.
¹⁸ Exceptions are the Šiauliai dialect, more frequently named by respondents in the Kelmė zone, and the Jurbarkas dialect, named by respondents in the Raseiniai zone. This is understandable, since participants in these zones often maintain social ties with the inhabitants of the nearest cities.
¹⁹ It should be added that different speech is perceived even in localities within the area of the same subdialect, and settlement names often become names of dialects. For example, in the opinion of a female respondent from the Gervinė site (LKA398a), located 10 km from Raseiniai, the Raseiniškiai [dialect] is different (398aGERV1M); a resident of Tytuvėnai (LKA260) (approximately 18 km from Kelmė) is convinced that Kelmė is Samogitian, but not so Samogitian (260TYTU2M); in the opinion of a participant from Nemakščiai (LKA327) (approximately 26 km from Raseiniai), the Raseiniai language is correct, literary (327NEMA3V).
240
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIII
Page 15
Pietų žemaičių raseiniškių tarmių nominacijos ir įverčiai
(357ŽVIN2M)), phonetic (Šiauliai speakers cut off word endings (194ŠAUK2M-1); in Utena and Marijampolė, they pronounce endings differently (363VIDU1V)), and lexical differences (Šeduva says “va,” while we say “ve” (364RASE1M); Tauragė speakers say “ve” (464EIČI3M)), while for older and/or less educated participants (15 percent), aesthetics are more important (the Panevėžys variety is ugly, crude (194ŠAUK2M-1); the Šiauliai variety is blunt (226PADU2M); in Rietavas they speak crudely (392STRA2V)).
However, neither age nor education influences insights into lexical features (about 3 percent of respondents) or evaluations of dialects nominated by the names of cities (localities) distinguished by more salient features of the Samogitian dialect, Samogitian character (nearly one-third of participants) (the meanings of Skuodas words are different (326STUL3M); Kelmė words are strange (359LOMI2V); Kelmė – I do not know, perhaps it belongs to Samogitia, whereas Šaukėnai is already Samogitian (225KUŠL3V); Skuodas – genuinely Samogitian (257KRAŽ1M); Palanga and Kretinga – beautiful Samogitian (259KUBI3M); Perhaps the Šilalė dialect is genuinely Samogitian (327NEMA3V); Šilalė – correct Samogitian (329ALĖJ2M-1); Kvedarna – very Samogitian (398AGERV2M)).
Nevertheless, the largest number of informants (42 percent) believe that people in other localities simply speak differently, strangely, distinctively (Kelmė is already different, strange (294LYDU3M); in Zarasai they speak differently (226PADU3M); the Šiauliai variety is distinctive (258KELM2M); a classmate was from Šilalė; strange speech (359LOMI1V)) (see Fig. 5).
FIG. 5. Evaluations of dialects corresponding to city (settlement) names
Thus, associating dialects with particular localities implies the recognition of a heard different variety and foregrounds the distinctive features representative of the Raseiniškiai – either people speak differently in other settlements, or in a Samogitian manner.
Straipsniai / Articles
241
Page 16
DIANA DAMBRAUSKIENĖ
3. CONCLUSIONS
The geographical location and zoning of the LKA points have no significant influence on the geolinguistic competence of the Southern Samogitian Raseiniškiai. The abilities to recognize and evaluate dialects and to associate them with dialectal areas are similar in all zones studied; therefore, from this perspective, the entire area of the Raseiniškiai subdialect should be regarded as transitional.
Dialectal units are most often nominated by the Raseiniškiai on the basis of theoretical knowledge and specific linguistic experiences. Chrestomathic knowledge (formed through the education system) is demonstrated by listing hyperonymic terms as descriptors, while names of smaller language varieties are assigned on the basis of linguistic intuitions grounded both in personal experiences and in the stereotyping of language varieties heard in the public sphere.
Descriptions of dialects correlate most strongly with the Raseiniškiai’s education: participants with higher education highlight competencies for distinguishing language varieties acquired through the education system (grammatical features are indicated), whereas those with lower education more often foreground emotionally based evaluations. However, the analysis of dialect evaluations showed that in all three zones respondents tend to avoid descriptions of dialects (except for the Samogitian dialect).
The ability to associate the Samogitian dialect with particular cities (localities) and its (Samogitian dialect) evaluation as unintelligible and recognizable (the Aukštaitian dialect is “found” in the cities located in the nearest ethnographic region of Aukštaitija and is described as the most beautiful, comprehensible, and correct) makes it possible to claim not only the transitional character of all three zones but also the fairly rapid Aukštaitianization of the entire subdialect area, especially around Kelmė.
The analysis of the study shows that the Southern Samogitian Raseiniškiai possess fairly good theoretical knowledge about the dialects of Lithuania and dialectal orientation; however, summarizing the listed nominations and evaluations of dialects, it is impossible to state confidently that the representatives of this subdialect who were surveyed have good dialect competence and distinguish dialects well.
REFERENCES AND SOURCES
Aliūkaitė Daiva 2013: Horizontal and vertical fragmentation of the language continuum: speech varieties of the 21st century from the perspective of the ordinary language evaluator. – Taikomoji kalbotyra 2. Available online: www.taikomojikalbotyra.lt.
Pietų žemaičių rašeiniškių tarmių nominacijos ir įverčiai
from the perspective of the geolinguistic distinction Aukštaitians: Samogitians. – Lithuanian dialects at the beginning of the 21st century: a geolinguistic and sociolinguistic study (maps and their commentaries), ed. D. Mikulenienė, V. Meiliūnaitė, Vilnius: Briedis, 129–196.
Aliūkaitė Daiva, Mikulėnienė Danguolė 2014a: Features of the formation of geolects and regional dialects in Lithuania. – Lithuanian dialects at the beginning of the 21st century: a geolinguistic and sociolinguistic study (maps and their commentaries), ed. D. Mikulėnienė, V. Meiliūnaitė, Vilnius: Briedis, 257–262.
Aliūkaitė Daiva, Mikulėnienė Danguolė 2014b: Geolinguistics: ideology, theory, and methods. Basic concepts. – Lithuanian dialects at the beginning of the 21st century: a geolinguistic and sociolinguistic study (maps and their commentaries), ed. D. Mikulėnienė, V. Meiliūnaitė, Vilnius: Briedis, 29–47.
Aliūkaitė Daiva, Mikulėnienė Danguolė 2016: Instruments and research directions of perceptual dialectology: variety areas in mental maps (the Biržai case). – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIV, 89–120.
Aliūkaitė Daiva, Mikulėnienė Danguolė 2016a: The attitude of Lithuanian gymnasium students: education in the mental images of Lithuanian gymnasium students. – Verbum 7, 17–33. Available online: http://www.zurnalai.vu.lt/verbum/article/view/10283.
Aliūkaitė Daiva, Mikulėnienė Danguolė, Čepaitienė Agnė, Geržotaitė Laura 2017: Language variation and its evaluation from the perspective of perceptual dialectology: images of varieties and places: collective study, ed. D. Aliūkaitė, D. Mikulėnienė, Vilnius: Vilnius University.
Bakšienė Rima 2015: Self-evaluation and vitality of dialectal speech: the Šakiai and Jurbarkas speech varieties at the beginning of the 21st century. – Lietuvių kalba 9. Available online: http://www.lietuviukalba.lt/index.php/lietuviu-kalba/article/view/172.
Baranauskienė Viktorija, Krupickaitė Dovilė 2012: Features of the dialectal regional self-awareness of Lithuanian urban residents (based on sociolinguistic study data). – Taikomoji kalbotyra 1. Available online: www.taikomojikalbotyra.lt.
Chambers Jack K., Trudgill Peter 2004: Dialectology, 2nd edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Coffin Caroline, Lillis Theresa M., O’Halloran Kieran 2010: Applied Linguistics Methods, London and New York: Routledge.
Diercks Willy 2002: Mental maps. Linguistic-Geographic Concepts. – Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology 2, eds. D. Long, D. R. Preston, Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 51–70.
Straipsniai / Articles
243
Page 18
DIANA DAMBRAUSKIENĖ
Edwards John 2006: Language attitudes. – Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics 6, 2nd edition, ed. K. Brown, Oxford: Elsevier, 324–331.
Garret Peter 2010: Attitudes to Language, Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Geržotaitė Laura 2016: Dialectal self-awareness of young Šiauliai and Panevėžys speakers: boundaries in mental maps. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIV, 121–142.
Geržotaitė Laura 2016a: The user factor: the subjective image of the speech varieties of Lithuanian in Poland in mental maps. – Change in Lithuanian dialects at the beginning of the 21st century: Lithuanian speech varieties in Poland, ed. D. Mikulėnienė, A. Leskauskaitė, V. Ragaišienė, L. Geržotaitė, N. Birgėlienė, Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language, 321–339.
Geržotaitė Laura 2018: The linguistic homeland of young people from Šiauliai in mental maps. – Problems of the History of the Lithuanian Language and Dialectology 5, ed. R. Bakšienė, N. Morozova, Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language, 76–101.
Geržotaitė Laura 2019: A study of images of the standard Lithuanian language within the linguistic standard area: the case of one Kaunas district gymnasium. – Lietuvių kalba 13. Available online: http://www.lietuviukalba.lt/index.php/lietuviu-kalba/article/view/278.
Geržotaitė Laura, Mikulėnienė Danguolė 2014: The current classification of Lithuanian dialects and the points of the Atlas of the Lithuanian Language: map and commentary. – Lithuanian dialects at the beginning of the 21st century: a geolinguistic and sociolinguistic study (maps and their commentaries), ed. D. Mikulėnienė, V. Meiliūnaitė, Vilnius: Briedis, map and commentary (printed insert).
Heigham Juanita, Croker Robert A. 2009: Qualitative Research in Applied Linguistics, London: Palgrave.
Inoue Fumio 1999a: Classification of Dialects by Image: English and Japanese. – Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology 1, eds. D. R. Preston, Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 147–160.
Inoue Fumio 1999b: Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology 1, eds. D. R. Preston, Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 161–176.
Kalėdienė Laima 2015: The language of Vilnius: the apparent-time hypothesis. – Dialects – Cultural Heritage of European Nations / Tarmės – Europos tautų kultūros paveldas, Vilnius: MRU, 211–244.
Labov William 1972: Sociolinguistic Patterns, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
LKA – Atlas of the Lithuanian Language I. Lexis, responsible editor K. Morkūnas, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1977.
244
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIII
Page 19
Pietų žemaičių raseiniškių tarmių nominacijos ir įverčiai
LKA – Atlas of the Lithuanian Language II. Phonetics, responsible editor K. Morkūnas, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1982.
LKA – Atlas of the Lithuanian Language III. Morphology, responsible editor K. Morkūnas, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1991.
Macaulay Ronald 2009: Quantitative Methods in Sociolinguistics, London: Palgrave.
Mikulėnienė Danguolė 2019: Nomenclature of dialectal features: from dialectal characteristics to markers of dialectality. – Respectus philologicus 35(40). Available online: https://www.zurnalai.vu.lt/respectus-philologicus/article/view/12716/11395.
NLTA – Lithuanian dialects at the beginning of the 21st century: a geolinguistic and sociolinguistic study (maps and their commentaries), ed. D. Mikulėnienė, V. Meiliūnaitė, Vilnius: Briedis, 2014.
Papaurelytė Silvija, Župerka Kazimieras 2010: Character traits of the inhabitants of Lithuania’s ethnic regions in the linguistic worldview. – Kalbos kultūra 83, 185–202.
Ramonienė Meilutė, Krupickaitė Dovilė 2013: Regional features of language use in Lithuanian cities. – Cities and Languages II. A Sociolinguistic Map of Lithuania: collective monograph, ed. M. Ramonienė, Vilnius: Vilnius University, 23–53.
Sankoff Gillian 2006: Age: Apparent time and real time. – Elsevier Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edition. Prieiga internete: https://www.ling.upenn.edu/~gillian/PAPERS/Sankoff.Age,AT,RT.pdf.
Vaitmonienė Diana 2014: The geolinguistic competence of the Raseiniai linguistic community: master’s thesis, Vilnius: Vilnius University.
Vaitmonienė Diana 2017: Images of Lithuanian dialects in the mental map of the Southern Samogitian Raseiniškiai. – Perspectives of Baltic Philology III. The Apocalypses of the Baltic Worlds, Poznań: Wydawnictwo Rys, 343–365.
Župerka Kazimieras 2012: Metalinguistics. The linguistics of non-linguists, Šiauliai: Šiauliai University Press, public institution.
Straipsniai / Articles
245
Page 20
DIANA DAMBRAUSKIENĖ
Dialect Nominations and Evaluations in the Area of the Southern Samogitian of Raseiniai
SUMMARY
Sociocultural and socioeconomic reasons driving migration to larger and structurally more convenient localities change the linguistic behaviour of language users. Contacts with the users of other language variants and the image of a more “prestigious” variant correct the evaluations of language varieties and also initiate a review of the attitude towards dialects.
The research addressing the geolinguistic competence in the area of the Southern Samogitian subdialect of Raseiniai based on the principles of perceptive dialectology has been rather fragmentary; it revealed the impact of extralinguistic factors on the horizontal and vertical variation of the language of the subdialect of Raseiniai; meanwhile, due to the phenomena of convergence, three geolects, which are developing in the area of the subdialect – Kelmė, Raseiniai and Tauragė – were identified.
In order to evaluate the linguistic situation at the present moment and to anticipate the scenario of the further development of the Southern Samogitian subdialect of Raseiniai and its causality, the first study addressing the geolinguistic competence of the linguistic communities from all the points included in the Atlas of the Lithuanian Language, which are situated in the area of the subdialect, was carried out.
The research is based on the comparison of the commentaries of the respondents from the areas of Kelmė, Raseiniai and Tauragė about dialects and the ability to associate them with social and geographical areas. Geolinguistic competence was further revised by analysing heterostereotypical evaluations (of other language variants) and the respondents’ understanding of dialectal speech (dialectal properties) with regard to sociodemographic and sociocultural variables.
It was found that the Samogitian dialect, which is generally equalled to dialectal speech, is best known to (recognizable by) the respondents, i.e., the Samogitian dialect is linked with the language variant manifesting prominent dialectal features (except for the Dzūkian dialect known by many people) or distinct vocabulary. The respondents of the youngest age and more advanced educational background, demonstrating the knowledge and ideological attitudes formed by educational institutions, often consider phonetic, accentual and lexical differences the distinguishing features of dialects, whereas older respondents who are less advanced in education tend to highlight originality or peculiarity.
When nominating and commenting on the dialects of Aukštaitian and Samogitian, the respondents demonstrate their geolinguistic knowledge and can often associate them with towns or settlements. However, it should be noted that the respondents usually “look for” the Samogitian dialect in prototypical towns exhibiting prominent dialectal features (Telšiai, Plungė, Skuodas); meanwhile, Aukštaitian, which is more commonly associated with the non-dialectal linguistic variant, is “found” in the towns from the ethnographic region
246
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIII
Page 21
Nominations and evaluations of the Southern Samogitian Raseiniškiai dialects
of Aukštaitija, which are closest to the speakers of the subdialect of Raseiniai (Ariogala, Jurbarkas, Šiauliai). The Aukštaitian local dialects (Lith. šnektos), which are further from the linguistic homeland and the standard language, are associated with the names of towns and are referred to as dialects (Lith. dialects). Such evaluations obviously show the belief of the speakers of the subdialect of Raseiniai that their language variant is close to the image of the standard language, which is paralleled to the Aukštaitian dialect.
The speakers of the subdialect of Raseiniai associate the language variant which differs from the standard language to any degree with a dialect and view it as a separate dialectal unit. The association of “dialects” with specific localities shows that ordinary language users well distinguish between dialects, whereas language divisibility depends on the aspects of their specific linguistic experience.
When nominating dialectal units, the speakers of the subdialect of Raseiniai follow their theoretical knowledge and specific linguistic experience. Chrestomathic knowledge is demonstrated by specifying hyperonymic dialectal descriptors, whereas the names of smaller language varieties are usually attributed on the basis of their linguistic understanding resulting from personal experience and the stereotyping of the language variants heard on the media.
The research data make it clear that the dialectal orientation of the speakers of the Southern Samogitian of Raseiniai and their theoretical knowledge of Lithuanian dialects are rather good, but in summary of the nominations and evaluations of dialects expressed by the respondents, we cannot firmly state that the representatives of this subdialect interviewed in the study can be characterized by good dialectal competence and the ability to distinguish between dialects.
