VILJA RAGAŠIENĖ

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

Research fields: accentology, dialectology, ethnolinguistics, lexicography.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.35321/all81-13

Laima Kalėdienė (compiler)

VALERIJUS ČEKONAS: LANGUAGE CONTACTS AND SOCIOLINGUISTICS

Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2017, 1100 p. ISBN 978-609-411-201-0

In 2017, the Institute of the Lithuanian Language published a book compiled by the experienced sociolinguist Laima Kalėdienė, Valerijus Čekmonas: Language Contacts and Sociolinguistics. The volume presents the most significant works by the erudite linguist Professor Valerijus Čekmonas (1937–2004) on the interaction between Baltic and Slavic languages and the sociolinguistic situation in Lithuania’s multilingual areas.

The preparation and publication of the book were supported by the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language with funds from the Research Programme on the Functioning and Change of Standard Lithuanian, Dialects and Other Varieties of Language. Considerable work on preparing the collection of articles was done not only by the project leader (the book’s compiler and responsible editor), Prof. Dr. Laima Kalėdienė, but also by the editorial board she headed—Assoc. Prof. Dr. Irena Adomavičiūtė-Čekmonienė, Dr. Nijolė Tuomienė, and Rita Urnėžiūtė. The volume was reviewed by expert researchers of dialects and language contacts, Prof. Habil. Dr. Bonifacas Stundžia and Assoc. Prof. Dr. Edmundas Trumpa.

This review aims to draw the linguistic community’s attention to the substantial collection of V. Čekmonas’s works, discuss the articles that, in the author’s opinion, are most relevant and the volume’s structure, and consider its editorial principles.

The book consists of a preface (pp. 13–20), an introduction (pp. 21–58), and two major parts: scholarly articles by Valerijus Čekmonas (many co-authored) on contacts among Lithuanian, Belarusian, and Polish (pp. 59–584), and works in this field of research by his students, colleagues, and associates (pp. 585–788).

Recenzijos / Reviews

261

VILIJA RAGAIŠIENĖ

The publication includes a bibliography of Valerijus Čekmonas compiled by Nadėžda Morozova (supplemented by I. Adomavičiūtė-Čekmonienė), relevant to researchers of language contact (pp. 826–845). At the end of the book are summaries of the articles in Lithuanian and English (pp. 847–1056) and three indexes—of terms, locations studied, and authors (pp. 1057–1110).

In the book’s preface, published in Lithuanian and English, the nature of the collection is briefly discussed and the purpose of its compilation is presented: to reveal the methodology developed by V. Čekmonas for studying the interaction between Baltic and Slavic languages. The preface not only presents the methodology but also draws attention to the distinctive features of the scholar’s work. The collection’s editor still considers unique the researcher’s conviction that the actual situation can be ascertained only by communicating with an informant in every language they speak, without showing greater preference for any one of them (p. 15). The research material collected according to this methodology would have formed the basis of V. Čekmonas’s ambition to prepare a multivolume encyclopedia. It would have included not only authentic sound recordings but also various kinds of facts about the spread, use, history, attitudes, and culture of Lithuanian, Belarusian, and Polish.

The introduction to the book prepared by L. Kalėdienė, also published in Lithuanian and English, discusses two matters important for a publication of this kind: the book’s context and its contents. It explains the terms used in the articles, describes the recordings of spoken language studied (in Belarusian, Lithuanian, Polish, and Russian) and the informants who provided them, and outlines the rather complex historical and social situation of the 20th century. The articles published in the book are presented very concretely, and the hypotheses they advance and relevant methodological issues are discussed.

The first part of the book, which is certainly very interesting, is devoted to a separate title. It consists of four sections: I – Sociolinguistics: Methodology, II – Areality, III – Grammar and Phonology, IV – Old Believers. This part contains twenty-five articles by V. Čekmonas, many of which, as noted, were prepared with co-authors. The articles cover a fairly broad range of topics: interaction between Lithuanian, Belarusian, and Polish; the spread of these languages in Lithuania; the sociolinguistic situation in multilingual border areas of Lithuania and Belarus, including former or still-existing Lithuanian-speaking enclaves in Belarus; and discussion of the national identities and ethnic origins of inhabitants who use Lithuanian and Slavic languages and their varieties, among other topics (see Nijolė Tuomienė. Valerijus Čekmonas: Language Contact and Sociolinguistics, ed. Laima Kalėdienė. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2017, 110 p.; Gimtoji kalba 9, 2019, 24–25).

The first section consists of twenty-two articles that remain relevant today, three of which are particularly noteworthy and discussed in greater detail. First, attention should be drawn to the article by V. Čekmonas that L. Kalėdienė proposes treating as programmatic: “Once Again on the Fate of the Manuscripts, or the Preface to the Introductory Article” (the book’s contents overview gives a different title—“On the Origin of Polish-Speaking Areas in the Vilnius Region,” p. 25).

62

Acta Linguistica Lituanica LXXI

Valerijus Čekmonas: kalbų kontaktai ir sociolingvistika

It sets out the main ideas concerning the spread of Polish in Lithuania. This is V. Čekmonas’s preface to Halina Turska’s book, which had disappeared in 1939 and was republished in Vilnius in 1995. Assessing H. Turska’s work in light of current research, V. Čekmonas considers her contributions undeniable. Three scholarly insights are regarded as especially valuable and discussed at length (ideas that other researchers had expressed before her): 1) the basis of the Vilnius dialect is a variant of standard Polish that took shape in Vilnius in the 17th–19th centuries; 2) the regional branches of the Vilnius dialect originated from the Vilnius variant of standard Polish; 3) the features of both the Vilnius variant of standard Polish and the Vilnius Polish dialect arose under the influence of Belarusian and Lithuanian dialects (p. 93).

The essence of V. Čekmonas’s theory of interaction between Baltic and Slavic languages is set out in full in the article “A Sociolinguistic Characterization of Polish Dialects Functioning on the Belarusian-Lithuanian Border” (К социолингвистической характеристике польских говоров белорусско-литовского пограничья). V. Čekmonas acknowledged that linguistics commonly records the results of language contact—loanwords—but argued that only a sociolinguistic interpretation of language interference explains the mechanism of borrowing, and that the characteristics of this process depend on the similarity of the languages in contact and their social prestige.

The final contribution in this section is the very important two-part Program for Studying Lithuanian Dialects and Their Interaction. Sociolinguistics, prepared by V. Čekmonas and L. Grumadienė. The first part of the program is a sociolinguistic questionnaire consisting of five forms—Sociolinguistic Profile of the Informant, Sociolinguistic Profile of the Situation, Sociolinguistic Profile of the Location, Inventory of Spoken Language, Excerpts from Documents and Monuments (107 questions in all). The second part of the program is considered especially important: the Sociolinguistic Scheme of Dialect and Language Interaction, comprising Synchronic Sociolinguistic Profile of the Settlement, Diachronic Sociolinguistic Profile of the Settlement, and Development of the Sociolinguistic Situation (41 questions in all). As the book’s editor notes, this last part is the quintessence of V. Čekmonas’s conception of sociolinguistic research, which has yet to be put to sufficient use (p. 29). To date, N. Tuomienė has probably implemented V. Čekmonas’s conception most consistently in her study of the sociolinguistic situation in the village of Ramaškoniai, Belarus (see Nijolė Tuomienė. The Ramaškoniai Variety: A Sociolinguistic Study. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2010, 232 p.; cf. also the article by Nijolė Tuomienė published in the book under review, “The Lithuanian Enclave of Ramaškoniai in Belarus—a Transitional Language Zone,” pp. 788–825). The program enshrines the most important scholarly principles: to collect not isolated facts about a language known by one or another local resident, but to document the data as a whole; to establish the linguistic situation in the surrounding area; and to collect data on the native languages of the informant, their parents, family, and village, as well as the language used when communicating with outsiders. In fact, scholars

Recenzijos / Reviews

263

VILIJA RAGAIŠIENĖ

The sociolinguistic programme thus devised remains relevant today. The collective monograph published by the Institute of the Lithuanian Language in 2014, Lithuanian Dialects at the Beginning of the 21st Century: A Geolinguistic and Sociolinguistic Study (Maps and Their Comments), includes the sociolinguistic questions for LKA sites and informants developed by Daiva Aliūkaitė and L. Kalėdienė (see pp. 378–384), demonstrating the connection between research methodologies and revealing sociolinguistic perspectives on Lithuanian dialects.

The second chapter, Areal Studies, consists of 9 articles examining sociolinguistic situations in particular localities in Belarus (Vydžiai, Ažerka, Pelosė, Ramaškonys) and Lithuania (Kalesninkai, Šalčininkai District, the areas around Molėtai and Nemenčinė, and the Anykščiai and Jonava districts). Two of the works published in this chapter stand out for their exceptionally detailed analysis of extensive data. The article “On Lithuanian–Belarusian Phonetic Interference in Pelosė” (К проблеме литовско-белорусской фонетической интерференции в Пелясе) argues that all the possible stages in the transition from Lithuanian to Belarusian are reflected in the Pelosė–Rodūnė–Nočia region. The article “Language Functioning and Bilingualism (Based on the Ramaškonys Dialects)” (Функционирование языков и билингвизм (На материале рамащанских говоров)), drawing on data collected over many years, reveals the mechanisms of language change. A meticulous analysis of numerous conversations with local residents enabled the scholar to construct a model of the decline in the functional load of Lithuanian, the growing dominance of Belarusian, and the use of Polish in certain situations. The collection’s editor, L. Kalėdienė, rightly calls this article a cornerstone (p. 31).

The third chapter of the book’s first part, Grammar and Phonology, consists of four articles written by V. Čekmonas with co-authors. The first three articles, written with I. Adomavičiūtė—“Grammatical Lithuanianisms in Peripheral Polish Dialects” (Грамматические лтуанизмы в польских периферийных говорах белорусско-литовского пограничья), “The Origin and Morphological Status of Forms with -(f)sy in the Polish of the Vilnius Region” (Образование и морфологический статус форм на -(f)sy в «польщине виленской»), and “The Paradigm of Forms with -(f)sy in the Polish of the Vilnius Region” (Парадигма казиперфектных форм на -(f)sy в «польщине виленской»)—are devoted to the analysis of grammatical forms in Polish dialects. The fourth article, “Ramaškonys Phonology. 1984,” written with L. Grumadienė-Kalėdienė, is phonological. It discusses the causes of change in the principal consonant characteristics—tone, intensity, and duration.

The fourth chapter, Old Believers, features two review articles introducing the context of Old Believers in Lithuania: “A Sociolinguistic Description of the Old Believer Dialects of Lithuania” (К социолингвистической характеристике старообрядческих говоров Литвы) and “On the Concept of a Sociolinguistic Areal” (О понятии социолингвистического ареала). There should be no doubt about including these articles in the collection. In keeping with V. Čekmonas’s principle of studying

264

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXI

Valerijus Čekmonas: kalbų kontaktai ir sociolingvistika

the full range of languages used in a particular locality and seeking manifestations of their interaction, it was necessary to include works on Russian and the Old Believers who speak it (especially since V. Čekmonas devoted a great deal of attention to research on Lithuania’s Old Believers). The only unclear point is why these works are presented in a separate chapter. Both works focus primarily on the residential areas of Old Believer communities and their sociolinguistic situation. Had the book consistently followed the principle of arranging the material by areal (as originally intended in the publishing application submitted to the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language), these works would have complemented the chapter Areal Studies and revealed even more fully the sociolinguistic situation in particular localities in Lithuania.

The book’s second part consists of articles by V. Čekmonas’s colleagues and students, presented in two chapters—Valerijus Čekmonas’s School and Articles by Valerijus Čekmonas’s Students and Colleagues. The chapter Valerijus Čekmonas’s School contains three articles intended to present V. Čekmonas as a scholar. I. Adomavičiūtė-Čekmonienė’s publication “The History of Language Contact Research” discusses V. Čekmonas’s scholarly biography and the methodology he developed for studying contacts between Baltic and Slavic languages in detail; it identifies and describes the key features of his scholarly school and provides information about the research material he amassed (audio recordings, respondent interviews, etc.). The article emphasizes the distinctive nature of V. Čekmonas’s research, shaped by his entry into the field of language contact studies not only as a dialectologist but also as a professional phonetician.

L. Kalėdienė and N. Tuomienė’s article “Valerijus Čekmonas’s School” merits closer discussion, as it offers a detailed account of the formation of V. Čekmonas’s school and the context in which it developed. The authors regard his scholarly work as exceptional and most of his claims, supported by extensive research material, as indisputable. His contribution to Baltic studies, and especially Lithuanian studies, is described in three parts: he developed a concept, devised a methodology, and collected a large body of data (pp. 616–617). The most important scholarly achievement is considered to be the refinement, substantiation, and renewed relevance of the concept of the relations between the Baltic and Slavic peoples, especially their languages. The creation of a methodology for studying and interpreting relations between Baltic and Slavic languages is recognized as V. Čekmonas’s greatest contribution to scholarship. An equally important aspect of his contribution is identified as the immense research work carried out by V. Čekmonas, his colleagues, and students over several decades: studying Baltic–Slavic relations and collecting, compiling, and processing linguistic and historical data. The article discusses V. Čekmonas’s ability to apply the most advanced research methods and use them to establish remarkable scholarly findings (for example, the transformation of a Lithuanian phonological system into a Belarusian one among the local residents of the same villages as they shifted from one language to another). The article also gives a fairly detailed account of V. Čekmonas’s working methods on field expeditions and explains why and how he was able to learn so many facts about local villagers. The authors emphasize the researcher’s exceptional integrity—his refusal to draw conclusions after hearing an informant just once.

Recenzijos / Reviews

265

VILIJA RAGAİŠIENĖ

You test your interpretation and hypotheses several times, questioning all possible informants even when sufficient research material is already available. V. Čekmonas adhered to the principle that there are no scientific authorities whose theories or hypotheses should be accepted without reservation.

The article by L. Kalėdienė and N. Tuomienė discussed above may be regarded as a work that summarizes V. Čekmonas’s scholarly research into interaction between Lithuanian and Slavic languages, presents the school of language-contact research he established, and describes its distinctive approach. Thus, this article, like the other two works published in the section Valerijaus Čekmono mokykla (the publication by I. Adomavičiūtė-Čekmonienė mentioned earlier, “The History of Language-Contact Research,” and Marija Krupovė’s article, prepared in interview form, “How Poles in Lithuania Can Preserve Their Polishness”), could have served as an introduction to the collection. To be sure, the forewords published at the beginning of the collection, although detailed, are not enough to assess V. Čekmonas’s scholarly work and introduce his personality. Readers should find the main highlights in the opening pages of the book.

The decision to create a separate second section, Valerijus Čekmonas mokinų ir bendrąjį straipsnį, comprising nine works arranged alphabetically by author, raises some questions. In fact, these articles could also have been published in the section Valerijaus Čekmono mokykla (especially since their authors are in one way or another connected with V. Čekmonas’s school). On the other hand, the articles by the scholar’s colleagues could also supplement the sections in the collection’s first part, following the principle of organizing works by research area (as noted more than once, these sections contain a considerable number of works by V. Čekmonas with colleagues). For example, Nikolajus Savičius’s article “On the Linguistic Situation in an Areal in the Southeastern Part of Vilnius District” (О языковой ситуации в одном из ареалов юго-восточной части Вильнюсского района), which describes in detail the relationship of Belarusian, the prevailing language in the Kalveliai areal in 1988, with Polish and Lithuanian, on the basis of V. Čekmonas’s sociolinguistic program, could be included in the section Sociolingvistika: metodologija. Marija Krupovė’s article “The Vocal Repertoire and Ethnic and Cultural Identification of Polish-Speaking Residents of Lithuania” (Repertuar wokalny a identyfikacja etniczna i kulturowa ludności polskojęzycznych terenów Litwy) would probably also be suitable for that section.

In the second section of the first part, Arealai, articles by I. Adomavičiūtė-Čekmonienė presenting research on the Central Lithuanian dialect area could be published: “Poles Living in Jonava District: A Description of Their Polish-Lithuanian Bilingualism” (К характеристике польско-литовского билингвизма поляков Яновского района Литвы) and “How an Ox Was Taught to Be a Forester (A Polish and Lithuanian Text with Commentary from Jonava District, Lithuania)” (Как вола учили нянеком (польский и литовский текст из Яновского района Литвы с комментариями)). N. Morozovs’s article “Compact…” would also be a good fit among the works presenting the final stage of V. Čekmonas’s scholarly career—research on Old Believers.

266

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXI

Valerijus Čekmonas: kalbų kontaktai ir sociolingvistika

“Old Believer Settlements in Lithuania in the Past and Present” (Староверы Литвы: тема контактного проживания в прошлом и настоящем). Drawing on extensive historical, demographic, and linguistic material, the article discusses the areas inhabited by Old Believers in Lithuania, which in places extend into Belarus and Latvia.

N. Tuomienė’s article “The Lithuanian Island of Ramaškoniai in Belarus: A Transitional Language Zone,” published in a reviewed collection for the first time, is discussed separately. In the project submitted by the editor for publication, it had been assigned to the section Arealai. The article grounds its account of the current sociolinguistic and ethnolinguistic situation in Ramaškoniai in the results of V. Čekmonas’s research on this micro-area, published in 1988. Considerable attention is devoted to code-switching, which is quite complex in the dialect under study: elements from three or four languages (Lithuanian, Belarusian, Russian, and Polish) are often used even within a single sentence. The article draws on a sufficient number of examples to reveal the most important aspects of change in the Lithuanian dialect over the past three decades and identifies more pronounced changes in phonetics and accentuation. The explanation of the causes of polyphony, uo monophthongization as a phenomenon is of scholarly value. The careful analysis records what is probably the most significant change in the dialect’s accentuation system: the establishment of a model with two accentual paradigms for nouns. The data presented in the article do not always make clear whether a complete secondary accentual paradigm has developed for particular words, or whether accentuation varies only in certain forms. The word forms grūdės, langūs, šiaudūs, tėvūs should not be attributed solely to morphological paradigm leveling. Some may be inherited from an earlier period, that is, derived from an oxytone paradigm. It is worth noting that the generalization of fixed or ending-stressed accentuation paradigms in nouns was probably determined not by any single cause, but by a combination of factors: the accentual and semantic model of the two plurals—ordinary and collective—the morpho(no)logical leveling of the paradigm, system realignment, accentual analogy, the soft stem-final consonant, Slavic languages, and other factors.

As noted, the end of the book contains detailed summaries of all the articles, specially prepared for this collection by L. Kalėdienė, in Lithuanian and English (except for the summaries N. Tuomienė and N. Morozova wrote for their own articles). Presenting the article contents in these languages makes it possible for readers who face a language barrier to become familiar with V. Čekmonas’s and his colleagues’ works, published in the book in Russian, Belarusian, Polish, and Lithuanian. There is no doubt that the professionally prepared summaries in Lithuanian and English will contribute to disseminating V. Čekmonas’s ideas and increasing awareness of his school.

Attention should also be drawn to the indexes of terms, places studied, and authors provided at the end of the book. They should certainly make the work easier for readers interested in language-contact research in a particular area or in the work of a particular scholar.

Recenzijos / Reviews

267

VILIJA RAGAIŠIENĖ

In concluding this review, I would like to commend the substantial work accomplished—a professionally prepared and beautifully presented collection of articles Valerijus Čekmonas: Language Contacts and Sociolinguistics. The book’s editor, L. Kalėdienė, has undoubtedly achieved her aim: the collection of articles aptly presents the dual methodology developed by V. Čekmonas for studying the interaction of Baltic and Slavic languages—typological reconstruction and sociolinguistics.

Received on 14 January 2020.

VILIJA RAGAIŠIENĖ

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

5 Petro Vileišio St., LT-10308 Vilnius, Lithuania

[email protected]

268

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXI