VILIA RAGAIŠIENĖ

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

Research areas: accentology, dialectology, ethnolinguistics, lexicography.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.35321/al81-14

Asta Leskauskaitė (editor)

TEXTS FROM THE LEIPALINGIS AREA

Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2018, 230 p. + 1 garso diskas (CD) ISBN 978-609-411-223-2

In 2018, the Institute of the Lithuanian Language published another book by Asta Leskauskaitė, senior researcher at the Centre for Geolinguistics—Texts from the Leipalingis Area—accompanied by an audio CD. This is the fourth source of dialect texts prepared by the experienced dialectologist. A. Leskauskaitė first published a source on her native dialect, Texts from the Kučiūnai Region (2006; 428 pp.). Three years later, a publication distinguished by its scholarly maturity appeared, devoted to the southern dialects of the Southern Aukštaitian subdialect group: Texts from the Marcinkonys Dialect (2009; 384 pp.). A few years later, her attention again turned to the southwestern area of Southern Aukštaitian: Texts from the Seirijai Dialect (2016; 296 pp.) were published, as well as the volume reviewed here, Texts from the Leipalingis Area (2018; 230 pp.).

The preparation and publication of the book and CD were supported by the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language through funds from the coordinated research programmes on the functioning and change of Standard Lithuanian, dialects and other language varieties, and on the use, standardization and dissemination of the state language. The publication was reviewed by distinguished dialectologists and editors of dialect-text collections, Prof. Vytautas Kardelis and Assoc. Prof. Rūta Kazlauskaitė.

Texts from the Leipalingis Area is the first volume in the Dialect Text Corpus series devoted to Southern Aukštaitian, representing point 435 of the Atlas of European Languages (Atlas linguarum Europae) and point 686 of the Atlas of the Lithuanian Language. The structure of this book

Recenzijos / Reviews

269

VILIJA RAGAIŠIENĖ

In essence, its structure does not differ from that of any other volume in the aforementioned series published to date¹. As usual, the book consists of a preface (pp. 7–8), an introduction (pp. 9–60), and dialect texts (pp. 61–194). At the end of the book there is also a list of abbreviations for place names (p. 195). This is followed by a list of sources (p. 196), a fairly extensive bibliography (pp. 196–204), and a substantial summary in English (pp. 205–230). The book is accompanied by a CD programmed by Evaldas Ožeraitis, containing high-quality audio recordings of the narratives published in the book.

The preface briefly surveys research conducted on the Leipalingis dialect and the written sources available. There are very few of the latter—several short, handwritten descriptions of dialect features with transcribed texts, non-transcribed narratives published in service publications, and so on. As the survey shows, the Leipalingis dialect has attracted relatively little attention from researchers to date (one could say that it has been studied mostly by young scholars and students of Lithuanian). The author thus rightly states that the forthcoming “collection of texts presents the Leipalingis dialect in a broad way” (p. 8), and notes that there are not only written but also audio sources, which are kept in the Dialect Archive of the Center for Geolinguistics at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language. One would like somewhat more detailed information about these sources—how many audio recordings there are in total, when they were recorded, whether they were made by individual dialect researchers or collected during an organized dialectological expedition, and so on.

The introduction, which may also be regarded as a short study, consists of several major and minor sections. The first section, A survey of the history of Leipalingis and its surroundings (pp. 9–14), provides a fairly detailed account, based on historical sources, of the history of Leipalingis and neighboring localities from ancient times to the present day. A short subsection, The population in the late nineteenth and early twenty-first centuries, presents research-relevant statistical data on the inhabitants of Leipalingis and nearby villages and their ethnic composition.

From a scholarly perspective, the sections on the linguistic features of the Leipalingis dialect are especially valuable: The dialect area and its distinguishing features (pp. 16–20), Sound system (pp. 20–25), Stress and pitch accent (pp. 25–28), Morphology and word formation (pp. 28–39), Syntax (pp. 39–40), Lexicon (pp. 40–44), and Features of dialect change (pp. 44–46). In the section The dialect area and its distinguishing features, the discussion of the distinguishing features of the Leipalingis dialect draws on the most important scholarly literature, and its claims are supported by audio and written source material. In collections of dialect texts, it is also important to indicate the boundaries of the area under study. The map provided, Leipalingis and its surroundings, does not make clear which settlements belong to the Leipalingis dialect area. The section Sound system discusses in considerable detail the system of vowel phonemes in the dialect, the use of voiced consonants, and the use of hard and soft consonants. I would not agree

¹ This series does not include a separate explanatory glossary. Information about loanwords, rarely used words, and their meanings is provided in footnotes.

270

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXI

Texts from the Leipalingis Area

with the author’s claim that speakers of Leipalingis place stress on the vowels [a], [e] in the vocative singular of nouns with retracted stress, e.g., mergėlė ~ mergelė (p. 21). In this dialect, as throughout the Southern Aukštaitian area, diminutives with the suffixes -ėlis, -ėlė are stressed in two different ways—with circumflex or acute accent, e.g.: dukrėlė / dukrelė, su.nėlis / su.nėlis (cf. Leskaitė 2006: 30; 2009: 47; 2016: 47)². The texts in the book show that speakers of the dialect under study, particularly older informants, most often pronounce stressed vowels [a], [e] as short, e.g.: su.nėlis, su.nėlė, su.nėlį, dukrėlė, dukrelai, dukrelės, vaikėlei, br.lali and so on (pp. 79, 84–86, 99). Clearly, this is not a matter of isolated forms and stress retraction, but of the existence of reversible accentual paradigms that may have been inherited from an earlier stage.

The section Stress and pitch accent discusses the dialect’s stress system, which, according to A. Leskaitė, “differs little from that of other western Southern Aukštaitian dialects” (p. 25). This section focuses chiefly on two accentological phenomena: 1) variation in nouns and their forms, and a tendency toward oxytone stress; 2) cases of primary and secondary stress in polysyllabic words. One claim singled out for fuller discussion concerns feminine adjectives with the suffix -oka, which in the dialect under study are stressed according to the first and third accentual paradigms, e.g.: tuštoka / tuštokà, aukštoka / aukštokà (p. 27)³. Only in the dialects of Puńsk and Sejny are these derivatives stressed in two ways more often than elsewhere, e.g.: gerókas, -à (3) / gerokas, -a (1), smarkókas, -à (3) / smarkokas, -a (1) and so on (Ragaišienė 2015: 290; 2016: 167). In other Southern Aukštaitian dialects, there is a tendency to stress the adjectives in question according to a single accentual paradigm: first-paradigm forms are more widespread in the southern area, while mobile-stress forms occur in the southwestern part of the area (Leskaitė 2006: 54; 2009: 57; Ragaišienė 2015: 291). The examples of the Leipalingis dialect provided by A. Leskaitė confirm two points. First, adjectives with the suffix -okas, -a have different accentuation tendencies in Southern Aukštaitian dialects (cf. Ragaišienė 2015: 290–291). Second, the Leipalingis dialect is rightly assigned to the area considered a center of the greatest accentual variation (Ragaišienė 2010: 139; see Fig. 7, insert between pp. 140–141).

Perhaps the most detailed section of the introduction, Morphology and word formation, is divided into still smaller subsections according to parts of speech. Most attention is devoted to nouns and verbs; the discussion of other parts of speech—pronouns,

² Numerous examples of this type of stress can be found in the two-volume Dictionary of the Southern Southern Aukštaitian Dialects (Leskaitė, Ragaišienė 2016, 2019).

³ It is unclear which accentual paradigm—the first and/or the third—governs stress in the masculine forms of these derivatives in the dialect. The compilers of the texts probably could not establish their stress tendencies because of a lack of material.

Recenzijos / Reviews

271

VILIJA RAGAIŠIENĖ

Fewer data are provided for prepositions and conjunctions. The author’s decision was probably prompted by the fact that “the grammatical system of the Leipalingis dialect is similar in many respects to that of the neighboring Southern Aukštaitian dialects” (p. 28). It is unclear why no data at all are provided on adjectives⁴. Having stated in a single sentence that “the declension of adjectives in the Leipalingis dialect does not differ in any way from the Southern Aukštaitian system and is therefore not discussed here” (p. 35), the author should at least have cited the most important linguistic literature. The system of adjective declension among Southern Aukštaitians, its operation, and various aspects of usage have been discussed not only by A. Leskauskaitė herself, but also by other linguists (see: Zinkevičius 1966: 268, 272–273; Grumadienė 1994: 97–106; Mikulėnienė 1996: 150–151; Markevičienė 1999: 33; Lazauskaitė-Ragaišienė 2008: 94–104; Leskauskaitė 2006: 53; 2008: 31–43; 2009: 55–57; 2016: 69; Ragaišienė 2015: 274–308; 2016: 120–199, etc.). Attention should be drawn to the title of this chapter—Morphology and Word Formation. Clearly, it should address not only features and the more prominent morphological characteristics, but also word-formation features. However, no data are provided here on derivational tendencies or exceptional cases (for example, the categories of number and gender in nouns are described in detail and the declension system is discussed appropriately, but word formation is not mentioned at all). The author’s observation that the Leipalingis dialect rarely uses the form visada is valuable. Only a few masculine two-stem accusative forms were found in the texts, e.g.: dù lū.dini.ku, litù, mẽ.nes, šìmt, rɔ.žù, etc. (pp. 90, 91–92, 105, 123, 170). They are most often used to express the lexical meaning of a noun and when it has the feature first mention + Pp (p. 29).

In the chapter Syntax, old prepositional constructions used in Leipalingis and its environs are discussed, with numerous examples of usage illustrating the points presented. The syntactic constructions described in this publication are also mentioned in Texts of the Kuciūnai Region Dialect and Texts of the Seirijai Dialect (Leskauskaitė 2006: 63–65; 2016: 77–79). This shows that old syntactic constructions have been fairly well preserved in the southwestern part of the Southern Aukštaitian area.

Readers will find a wealth of valuable and interesting material in the chapter Lexicon. It presents words used by speakers of the dialect under study, along with their lexical meanings, gathered from a variety of sources—audio recordings, manuscripts, and dictionaries. Of the fairly long list of these words, in the Rudamina dialect (Lazdijai District) I have heard only speakers of the oldest generation use the verb matašóti ‘to tangle’, e.g.: nematašk-k šūlu. | sumažėsi; vai.kas ka(p) pasūtis mataškėjes pɔ.kɔm, and the noun nedalnga ‘loser’, e.g.: ir būk tu ma.n tɔ.kis nedal.ga. Some words or their lexical meanings add new data to Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language, e.g.:

⁴Adjectives are also described concisely in Texts of the Seirijai Dialect (Leskauskaitė 2016: 69; cf. also Ragaišienė 2017: 290).

272

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXI

Leipalingio apylinkių tekstai

gūdūmėnia ‘gloom’, krakamūlis ‘dumpling’, nedaląga ‘loser’, and so on. In addition to these cases, many lexical examples are provided that are used not only in the dialect under study, but also in other Southern Aukštaitian and Western Aukštaitian Kaunas-area settlements. Some are recorded across a wider area, while others are attested in only two or three dialects. Some of the words cited by the author are undoubtedly disappearing from active use, e.g.: núogos ‘what remains in the oven’, maišė ‘a mixture of summer crops (barley, oats, and vetches)’, etc.⁶ Most Dzūkians living in the southwestern and southern parts of the Southern Aukštaitian area have not heard some of the words recorded by the author or do not know their meanings, e.g.: gaĩgalas ‘a horse’s intestinal gurgling or rumbling while running’, maištrūs ‘confusion’, pauplys ‘pimple’, telemės ‘undersized animal’, and so on. Thus, the words and meanings presented by A. Leskauskaitė will draw readers’ attention to words and meanings that are rarely used or have fallen into forgetfulness.

The chapter Features of Dialect Change discusses changes in the Leipalingis dialect and their causes, the linguistic features and changes found in the speech of speakers from different generations, and attitudes toward dialect. The study shows that a semi-dialectal form of speech is spoken around Leipalingis. Traditional phonetic features characteristic of Southern Aukštaitian are no longer used systematically. Other levels of language—morphology, word formation, and syntax—are changing as well. However, these changes are relatively few and less noticeable than the avoidance of prominent phonetic features, such as dzūkavimas or the narrowing of the vowels [aˑ], [eˑ].

A more detailed discussion is devoted to the book’s largest section, which demanded most of the author’s work and scholarly expertise—Texts (pp. 61–194). In terms of subject matter and linguistic features, the texts published in this volume, as in other dialect sources compiled by A. Leskauskaitė, have been aptly selected and impeccably transcribed. The accounts by speakers from three generations and different localities—the villages of Neliubonys, Mikalina, Taunėnai, Veršiai, and Ricieliai, and the town of Leipalingis—provide an excellent representation of the Leipalingis dialect in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. They “reflect the history, everyday life, worldview, customs and traditions of this interesting corner of Dzūkija, daily work, holidays, family, kinship, relations with neighbors and bees, memories of various stages of life, and the actual synchronic situation of the dialect” (p. 8). The texts’ contributor is perceptive and wise, views the world philosophically and optimistically, and faces any adversity with courage, e.g.: laim̃ga(s) žmɔ.gùs | katrį gã.li dìrpt; viška(s) sutvarkėt ir | gi.vė.n(t) tai.ne.rà taip lèj.gva; gi.vã.m duobės nėra | turi gi.vã.nč; bẽn.dras

⁵The noun krakamūliai ‘treat, delicacy’ (LKŽe) is recorded in the Rudamina dialect. I have not heard the word used in its literal sense. The phrase užimanti krakamūlių most often means ‘you want something, you want something special’.

⁶These words most often refer to vanished or disappearing realia.

Recenzijos / Reviews

273

VILĖ RAGAIŠIENĖ

arklīs visada lēsas and so on (pp. 66, 109, 107, 118)⁷. Thus, the accounts of representatives of different generations on various topics are a true treasure not only for researchers of lexis, morphology, or syntax, but also for researchers of dialects, the standard language, and language interaction. Professionally selected and appropriately presented material enables scholars to assess the development and changes of various levels of language.

First, the dialect texts address the question that prompted much discussion in the second half of the 20th century: the distinction of the tones of long vowels [i, [u], [e], [o] and diphthongs [ie], [uo] in the southwestern South Aukštaitian dialect⁸. They show that in many cases speakers clearly pronounce the falling and rising tones. As the editor of the texts notes, it is most difficult to identify a tone when “because of the falling intonation, especially at the end of a word, the aforementioned sounds are pronounced shorter” (p. 28). In these cases, the middle tone is marked, e.g.: pil̃ṅs, vɔ.ket.i and so on (pp. 67, 104). The middle tone is also reasonably indicated in forms of words with mobile stress, which have generalized stress on the stem, where its emergence is associated with the formation of two stress types—fixed and mobile—e.g.: añkus, mãšīṅės, mɔ.kīklas(s), plī.taz, kɔ.pūs, vãrkla, kni.ga and so on (pp. 67, 75, 111, 143, 174, 181, 193). Thus, A. Leskauskaitė’s published texts from the southwestern part of the area—the Kūčiai, Seirijai, and Leipalingis dialects—should help put an end to the discussion about whether tones are distinguished.

The texts confirm that southwestern South Aukštaitian dialects tend toward accentual variation. In the Leipalingis area, there are many inflected words and forms with varying stress, e.g.: drɔ.bu. / drɔ.bes, lā.īkas / lā.šku., laiškas, mɔ.kitɔjo / mɔ.kitɔ.jei, nauda / nãuda, raudūni / raudū.nū, du sū.nus / tri(s)_sūnūs, šīm.tai / šimtai and so on (pp. 64, 72, 84, 97, 99, 105, 115, 119, 129, 141, 147, 166, 174, 176, 180). Here, as in other southwestern South Aukštaitian dialects, speakers may primarily use forms with two possible stress patterns, e.g.: lā.nkai / lenkai, lā.nku. / lenkū., mɔ.kīkla / mɔ.kīkla, pribu-vė.jė / pribuvė.je, val.dini.ka(s), val.dini.ku., val.dini.kais / valdinīkais, vɔ.kecē. / vɔ.kecēi and so on (pp. 67, 106, 115, 127, 177, 184; cf. Leskauskaitė 2006). However, such cases are not frequent; that is, words tend to be stressed according to a single accentual paradigm. For example, derivatives with the suffix -ėjas, -a tend to generalize mobile stress, e.g.: ãdejė, sɔ.ke.jė, pardavėjas, pribuvė.jė, verpe.jė, verpe.jės and so on (pp. 73, 127, 163, 175). Among nouns with the suffix -ykla, forms with fixed stress are more widespread, e.g.: gamĩkla, mɔ.kīkla, vãrikla and so on (pp. 67, 110–111)⁹.

⁷ The character and temperament traits of speakers of the Leipalingis dialect do not differ from the traits of the inner world of people living in the southern South Aukštaitian area (Ragaišienė 2019: 51–67).

⁸ Plačiau žr.: Leskauskaitė 2004: 180–194; Ragaišienė 2010: 20–23 ir ten min. lit.

⁹ The variants with the suffixes -ėjas, -a and -ykla are used less frequently by speakers, e.g.: kepė.je, lē.udiez gi.nē.jēi, būv. sūvė.ji, ganikla and so on (pp. 114, 130, 142, 171).

274

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXI

Texts from the Leipalingis area

The stress system of the Leipalingis dialect is quite complex. It is not always clear whether the stress of only individual forms varies, or whether a complete parallel accentual paradigm has developed; a rarely occurring case may be inherited from earlier times or may have arisen recently by analogy. In many cases, A. Leskaitė not only identified the tone of forms, but also appropriately commented in footnotes on rare cases of accentuation. The texts contain only a few questionable instances of indicating a tone—acute or circumflex—in a word stem, e.g.: ṁksl (cf.: ṁkslas, ṁkslais), rīk̇ote.n, ṡki. (alongside ṡki.), vienuole.s (alongside vienuole.s), pūrv̇nu. (alongside pūrv̇nu.), ž̇dai (alongside ž̇das, ž̇dai, ž̇du.) and so on (pp. 62, 68, 108, 109, 113, 116, 122, 123, 193).

When reading the texts, another feature catches the eye: the speakers’ language is highly figurative and expressive. The texts are rich in diminutives, comparisons, idioms, vivid verbs, and so on. Figurative lexis not only lends the accounts liveliness and resonance, but also reveals the worldview of the community that uses it and how that worldview is expressed (for more, see Ragaišienė 2017a: 129). This lexical stratum is characterized by expressive, emotional, dynamic, and evaluative aspects (admiration, pride, contempt, disparagement, and the like).

Diminutives—words formed with suffixes and having an affectionate or diminutive meaning—are especially frequent in the Leipalingis dialect. Noun diminutives predominate in the texts, most commonly formed with the suffixes -elis, -elė, -(i)ukas, -(i)ukė, -ulis, -ulė (cf. Leskaitė 2006: 51), e.g.: dukrėlė., tę.velės, upėl̇s, upėl̇e., vargėlis, senėlė.; arkliukai, kamarukė, kamarukān, kelniukės, paršukai, pečiukas, telūkas, tṙḃke, viedrukan; ṁtl̇e., sasūlė., tetulė., te.vūlis, te.vūl̇, and so on (pp. 63, 66, 70–72, 76, 79, 82, 85, 149, 151, 157)¹⁰. Among the less frequent affectionate/diminutive noun suffixes are -aitis, -aitė, -ėlis, -ėlė, -ytis, -ytė, and -utis, -utė, e.g.: mergaitė, kamaraitė.; bež.nėl̇, vakarėl̇, varfėl̇; gėlė.m, mamitė.; ḃ.būtė, pubžukui, saulutė, snukutį and so on (pp. 63, 73, 76, 79, 85, 89, 91, 95, 103, 151). In the Leipalingis dialect, as throughout the southwestern South Aukštaitian area, nouns formed with the suffixes -ukas, -ukė stand out for their abundance (cf. Ragaišienė 2017a: 130). Derivatives with these suffixes make up more than half of the diminutives found in the texts. The noun-formation system may include two (more rarely, several) diminutives with the same lexical and semantic meaning but different suffixes, e.g.: sesutė. / sasūlė., te.vūlis / te.vūkas / te.vėl̇s, vartukės / vārtėl̇s and so on (pp. 71–73, 95, 122–124).

¹⁰ Diminutive adjectives are also formed with this suffix, e.g.: ku.duke., menkute., mažukai, mažulis and so on (pp. 69, 100, 155).

Recenzijos / Reviews

275

VILIJA RAGAIŠIENĖ

The texts from the Leipalingis area stand out for their abundance of phraseological expressions¹¹. Their meaning most often coincides with that of a single word, and they vividly convey the meaning of that word, show the intensity of emotions and actions, e.g.: ã·k_ų žã·me·z gũr·be (a clod of earth ‘a very small eye’); vis·kɔ·(m) radã·m ‘completely’; subĩ·mba pɔ·nɔ̄su (under one’s nose) ‘quietly, indistinctly’; jãu·čik akis išverči ‘you behave insolently, brazenly’; zlã·cin invarã ‘you make (someone) angry’; bã·ktas krũtis ‘and that’s that’; baisũs dã·iktas, baisũ dã·kte ‘very, very much; very large’; ũž galvɔs ti_susẽmi ‘distressed, worried’, etc. (pp. 66, 80, 81, 86, 173, 174). The author explains the meanings of phraseological expressions in footnotes inconsistently. It seems that less frequently used expressions and those with borrowed meanings tend to be noted.

Attitudes toward the subject being discussed and its evaluation in narratives may be expressed through comparisons. This stylistic device is used to juxtapose or compare one object or phenomenon with another in order to distinguish, emphasize, highlight, or specify some characteristic, feature, action, or state, e.g.: as a hare’s tail lying in a field; wider than a dog’s paw; cheeks glow like fire, etc. (pp. 101, 165, 167). Some comparisons are situational, created by narrators in the flow of speech; others are fixed, traditional expressions used as established, conventional linguistic devices (Ragaišienė 2017a: 140).

Figurative verbs contribute to the liveliness and persuasiveness of narratives no less than phraseological expressions or comparisons do. They are directly related to the evaluation of the external world and/or to the narrator’s efforts to describe an ongoing action vividly and expressively, or to convey their thoughts, e.g.: nugrabžta ‘scraped off, dug off the surface’, plã·ka ‘sounds loudly, echoes’, ĩ·n·šeica ‘beats, thrashes’, priplã·škinu ‘talks too much’, sũlupa ‘get into a fight’, etc. (pp. 65, 75, 80, 93, 146). Interjections are used to convey the suddenness and intensity of an action, e.g.: brūkšt, plã·ukšt, pã·ukšt, pūkšt, ū·š, etc. (pp. 67, 83, 93, 100)¹².

The texts also contain a few swearwords. They express negative emotions and dissatisfaction with events or actions, or convey ill or angry wishes, e.g.: kat jūs abudu ir perkunas šventas uždã·štu; ẽ·ju·(s) sakã·k·ler·s; ãi·na, jei kibinã·t, etc. (pp. 83, 173, 177).

Attention should also be drawn to the commentary on the dialectal texts. The footnotes discuss less common phonetic, morphological, and other features, irregular language phenomena, and loanwords, explain less common word meanings, and so on. Most matters are commented on with scholarly precision—that is, very clearly, accurately, and concisely.

¹¹ If we were to compare figurative vocabulary to a bouquet of flowers or a blooming meadow, the most ornate and beautiful flowers would be phraseological expressions (Lipskienė 2008: 5).

¹² Relatively few of them were found in the reviewed texts. Interjections and exclamations are used considerably more often in the Kūčiūnai, Rudamina, Punsk, and other southwestern Southern Aukštaitian dialects.

276

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXI

Texts from the Leipalingis area

In concluding this review, I would like to commend the artistic design of the publication—the work of designer Rokas Gelžius, layout designer Rasa Labutienė, and Asta Leskauskaitė. The archival photographs and photographs by the compiler of the texts, which present the Leipalingis area, are especially valuable.

The inaccuracies or inconsistencies noted in the review in no way diminish the scholarly value of A. Leskauskaitė’s professionally executed work and the publication Texts from the Leipalingis Area. A careful reading of the book and discussion of it simply show that dialectal sources prepared by experienced dialectologists are needed and important not only for the present but also for the dialect of the future.

Although dialectal sources are not considered valuable scholarly output, dear colleague, I wish you success in preparing texts from many more dialects, because you have atlit val̄din.ka(s) sąv. pā.reigas | ʒmɔgų(s) sąv. pā.reigas (p. 106).

L I T E R A T U R E

Grumadienė Laima 1994: Keletas naujesnių Punsko šnektos linksniavimo ir kirčiavimo ypatybių. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 34, 97–106.

Lazauskaitė-Ragaišienė Vilija 2008: Priesagos -inis, -ė būdvardžiai pietinių pietų aukštaičių šnektose. – Žmogus ir žodis 10(1), 94–104.

Leskauskaitė Asta 2004: Pietų aukštaičių vokalizmo ir prozodijos bruožai. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

Leskauskaitė Asta 2006: Kučūnų krašto šnektos tekstai. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

Leskauskaitė Asta 2008: Daugiskemenių būdvardžių darbas pietinėje pietų aukštaičių šnektose. – Lituanistica 54 4(76), 31–43.

Leskauskaitė Asta 2009: Šnektos plotas ir svarbiausios ypatybės. – Marcinkonių šnektos tekstai. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 29–76.

Leskauskaitė Asta 2016: Šnektos plotas ir svarbiausios ypatybės. – Seirijų šnektos tekstai. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 45–88.

Leskauskaitė Asta, Ragaišienė Vilija 2016: Pietinių pietų aukštaičių šnektų žodynas (A–M) I. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

Leskauskaitė Asta, Ragaišienė Vilija 2019: Pietinių pietų aukštaičių šnektų žodynas (N–Ž) II. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

Lipskienė Jonina 2008: Vaizdingieji lietuvių kalbos posakiai. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

Recenzijos / Reviews

277

VILija RAGAŠIENĖ

LKŽe – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas I–XX, 1941–2002, elektroninis variantas: red. kolegija: Gertrūda Naktinienė (vyr. redaktorė), Jonas Paulauskas, Rūta Petrokienė, Vytautas Vitkauskas, Jolanta Zabarskaitė. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2005; atnaujinta versija, 2008. Prieiga internete: www.lkz.lt.

Markevičienė Žaneta 1999: Aukštaičių tarmių tekstai 1. Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla.

Mikulėnienė Danguolė 1996: Dėl linksniuojamųjų žodžių kirčiavimo variantų pietinėse aukštaičių tarmėse. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 36, 148–155.

Ragaišienė Vilija 2010: Linksniuojamųjų žodžių kirčiavimo variantai pietų aukštaičių ir rytų aukštaičių vilniškių tarmėse. Daktaro disertacija. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

Ragaišienė Vilija 2015: Budvardžių kirčiavimo polinkiai Punsko šnektoje. – Leksikografija ir leksikologija 5. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 274–308.

Ragaišienė Vilija 2016: Akcentuacijos sistema ir jos pokyčiai. – Lietuvių tarmių kaita XXI a. pradžioje: Lenkijos lietuvių šnektos. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 120–204.

Ragaišienė Vilija 2017: Seirijų šnektos tekstai. Sud. Asta Leskauskaitė. Recenz. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 66, 288–295.

Ragaišienė Vilija 2017a: Vaizdingi Punsko ir Seinų šnektų leksika. – Terra Jatwezenorum 9, 128–143.

Ragaišienė Vilija 2019: Žmogaus paveikslas „Pietinių pietų aukštaičių šnektų žodyne“. – Terra Jatwezenorum 10, 51–67.

Zinkevičius Zigmas 1966: Lietuvių kalbos dialektologija. Vilnius: Mintis.

Received on November 26, 2019.

VILija RAGAŠIENĖ

Lietuvių kalbos institutas

5 Petro Vileišio Street, LT–10308 Vilnius, Lithuania

[email protected]

278

A c t a L i n g u i s t i c a L i t h u a n i c a XXI