Žemaitiškos tapatybės raiška: dėlionė iš „Kretingos tarmės žodyno“ (2011) pavyzdžių

JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ Institute of the Lithuanian Language Research interests: the syntax, semantics, and pragmatics of Old and Modern Lithuanian; the history of Lithuanian culture and ecclesiastical texts. ŽEMAITIŠKOS TAPATYBĖS RAŠKA: DĖLIONĖ IŠ KRETINGOS TARMIĖS ŽODYNO (2011) PAVYZDŽIŲ naėšvėsk žemaiti ėš kontribė / vo būs kas nabŏvė tŏukārt // KTŽ, p. 459 Expression of Samogitian Identity: Putting Together the Examples from Kretinga Dialect Dictionary (2011) into a Single Picture It’s better not to make a Samogitian lose patience / or things will turn out in a way you’d never expect // KTŽ, p. 459 A B S T R A C T Samogitians are judged in all sorts of ways: stubborn, taciturn, inflexible, rude... Yet nothing reveals a person’s character as well as their own speech. Not only what they say about themselves and others, but also how they say it. What is meant is not just politeness, but the very wording. Speakers themselves may not even sense the distinctiveness of what they have said. It is somewhat easier to recognize when it has been preserved in writing. Many gems of colloquial Samogitian speech have been gathered in Juozas Aleksandravičius’s Kretingos tarmės žodyną. Drawing on the data provided by this dictionary, the article seeks to show how Samogitians’ speech reveals their attitudes toward themselves and others, different stages of life, the surrounding environment, the possibility of being alone and together with others, and attempts to find agreement and reach understanding. KEYWORDS: Samogitians, identity, authenticity, dialogicity, values, obligations, emotions. 64 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIX Žemaitiškos tapatybės raiška: dėlionė iš Kretingos tarmės žodyno (2011) pavyzdžių ANNOTATION Samogitians are viewed differently: as stubborn, silent, sluggish, even impolite... But there is nothing that can better show a person’s character than his/her language. Not only what a person says about him/herself and others but also how he/she says it. Not only from the perspective of politeness but also wording. The speaker may sometimes not even feel the exceptionality of his/her utterance. It is a bit easier to recognise it when it is frozen in writing. A number of gems of spoken Samogitian can be found in the Kretinga Dialect Dictionary by Juozas Aleksandravičius. Based on the data provided by this dictionary, the article attempts to show how the Samogitian attitude towards themselves and others, various stages of life, the surrounding environment and the possibility to be alone and to be together with others by trying to get along and to agree unfolds itself while speaking. KEYWORDS: Samogitians, identity, authenticity, dialogicity, ethics, commitments, emotions. INTRODUCTION For a person belonging to another ethnic group (Lithuanian or otherwise), recognizing someone’s Samogitian identity can serve as a warning sign. In other words, if the person before you is a Samogitian man or woman, you should not expect easy communication with him or her. Do Samogitians really stand out so clearly from representatives of Lithuania’s other ethnic groups? Why can they be recognized as Samogitians even when, despite having a Samogitian identity, they do not declare it outside Samogitia or among non-Samogitians? For example, what if they can speak standard Lithuanian perfectly1 and do not even regard their Samogitian identity as distinctive? Samogitian identity is most often imagined to be associated with different ways of thinking2 and rough speech, partly determined by the phonology of the Samogitian language3, as well as an abundance of strange words and, especially, loanwords (Slavicisms and Germanisms). It is easy to find online glossaries that try to illustrate this roughness and strangeness with loanwords (Kalnuvienė, n.d., 2007–2008; Skouds 2018) and collections of jokes (Žemaitė anekdota 2018). Of course, there are also more serious discussions warning 1 For the difficulties of developing such an ability and the influence of dialect that may become apparent when a Samogitian speaks standard Lithuanian, see Grinaveckis 1973: 31–35; Zinkevičius 1994: 126–131. 2 After Silvija Papaurėlė and Kazimieras Župerka examined corpus examples and conducted a free-association experiment, the following traits of Samogitian identity emerged most prominently: stubbornness, perseverance, and patience (Papaurėlė, Župerka 2010: 190–192, 195–196, 197–198). 3 Dėl žemaičių kalbos statuso žr. Pabrėža 2017: 43–48. Išsamų žemaičių kalbos tarmių ir patarmių fonologinės sistemos aprašą žr.: Girdenis 1967, 200; Atkočaitė 2002; Murinienė 2007. Straipsniai / Articles 65 JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ about the vanishing Samogitian identity and the need for both mature self-awareness and effort to preserve it (Žimkutė 2008; Kajenas 2013). Questions concerning the history and present state of Samogitian self-awareness and identity have recently received increasing serious attention (cf. Bliūmas 1997; Pakalniškis 2001; Papaurėlė, Župerka 2010; Petreikis 2012; Pabrėža 2017: 31–36), but much remains unexplored, even though the groundwork for research is now quite well prepared. As for published sources of Samogitian speech, one can celebrate the good fortune enjoyed by the Northern Samogitian Kretinga and Telšiai subdialect speakers4. Northern Samogitian has several published sources documenting the unique heritage of Samogitian speech in the second half of the twentieth century5: 1) The Kretinga Dialect Dictionary of Juozas Aleksandravičius, compiled by Danguolė Mikulėnienė and Daiva Vaišnienė (Aleksandravičius 2011), whose illustrative material features authentic, dialogic speech by Northern Samogitian Kretinga speakers, carefully recorded by the dictionary’s originator for about 60 years6; 2) Texts by Northern Samogitian Telšiai speakers, prepared by Aleksas Girdenis and published in the 1996 book This Is How the Tirkšliai People Speak: Northern Samogitian Telšiai Dialect Texts with Commentary, characterized by sustained dialogue, spontaneity, and authenticity7; 3) Birutė Vanagienė’s Dictionary of Northwestern Samogitian: The Speech Varieties of the Ylakiai, Lenkimai, Mosėdis, Skuodas, and Šatės Areas (Vol. I – 2014, Vol. II – 2015). The dictionary examples (the collection was compiled in 1957–1996; see Vanagienė 2014: XXII) represent discourse characteristic of both authentic dialogue and narrative. 4 For the boundaries of the Northern Samogitian Kretinga and Telšiai dialect areas, and examples of speech and transcription, see the Dialect Dictionary Database compiled by the Institute of the Lithuanian Language. 5 For the classification of the Samogitian dialect into Northern Samogitian, known as donininkai, and its linguistic features, see Zinkevičius 1994: 85–87, 112–120; for the fundamental difference between Northern Samogitian Telšiai and Kretinga, based on the alternation u, i// o, ę in non-final syllables, see ibid.: 114. 6 The period during which the dictionary’s citation collection was gathered and compiled ran from the mid-1940s to 2004 (cf. Mikulėnienė 2011: XII; Vaišnienė 2011: XX). 7 The dialect-text collection This Is How the Tirkšliai People Speak: Northern Samogitian Telšiai Dialect Texts with Commentary presents conversations recorded with a hidden microphone in 1968–1985 among Aleksas Girdenis’s family members and neighbors living in the Tirkšliai area of Mažeikiai District. Another source of recorded speech in this dialect is the collection of texts Northern Samogitian Telšiai Speakers (2013), compiled by Juozas Pabrėža, Vida Marcišauskaitė, and Asta Leskauskaitė. These texts are essentially from the same period, and a substantial portion of them also consists of recordings made by A. Girdenis. The level of authenticity of these conversations is, however, somewhat different, since the participants in the speech situations recorded here were specifically engaged in conversation and knew that they were being recorded. 66 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIX Žemaitiškos tapatybės raiška: dėlinė iš Kretingos tarmės žodyno (2011) pavyzdžių In the publications mentioned, authentic Samogitian speech was recorded and became part of the written record8. The aim of this article is to review the first of those sources, the source of illustrations of Samogitian speech covering the longest continuous period of documentation: Kretinga Dialect Dictionary (hereafter KDD), which presents the mentality of people who speak the Kretinga subdialect of Northern Samogitian. Particular attention will be paid to how the illustrative material in this dictionary1011 reflects the identity perceptions of speakers and those around them. The concept of identity expression is based on focusing on recurrent patterns of utterances, with greater attention paid not to the distinctiveness of individual lexical units (and so the second words are not important, but rather the illustrative examples), but to the semantic—and sometimes structural—distinctiveness of a phrase, sentence, or larger stretch of discourse, especially the use of phrase patterns that are not characteristic of Standard Lithuanian. Such a jigsaw assembled from distinctive, recurring stretches of discourse can reveal the scale of values attributed to Samogitians and the patterns of world perception characteristic of them; because of their distinctiveness and strangeness, these may appear to a member of another ethnic group to be associated with quite different traits and purposes from those they actually indicate. The structure of this publication is as follows: the introductory section briefly describes the network of value orientations that determined the principles for selecting the material chosen for the study and may help identify the most prominent features of Samogitian identity. The discourse features that reflect the distinctiveness of the Samogitian worldview are then grouped by semantics and, at times, semiotics; their meaning and certain aspects of their formulation are discussed, while attention is also drawn to the causes and motives behind distinctive utterances and, at times, to grammatical features of the structure and composition of particular phrases or sentences. The selection of material 8 Another publication of recordings of Samogitian speech was also mentioned: texts in the Kretinga subdialect of Northern Samogitian, with commentary, prepared by Zofija Babickienė and her colleagues (2007). 9 In Daiva Vaišnienė’s view, Kretinga Dialect Dictionary would be better called not a dictionary of the Kretinga dialect, but a “dictionary of the Kretinga subdialect (or the subdialects of the Kretinga area)” (cf. Vaišnienė 2001: XX). However, if the dictionary is assessed not in terms of the locations where the material was collected or the approximately 600 km² area and boundaries of this subdialect specified by the author in the introductory note, the title chosen by J. Aleksandravičius is entirely justified, since the dictionary’s material is well suited to illustrating the speech and ways of thinking of all Northern Samogitian Kretinga speakers. For more on the main features of the dialect, the dictionary’s structure, and the principles behind its chosen presentation, see Aleksandravičius 2011; Vaišnienė 2011: XIX–XXII. 10 The choice of a mixed dictionary type—varying between differential and inclusive—was probably determined by the author’s differing views and by the long period during which the words were recorded in different ways; cf. Vaišnienė 2011: XXI. 11 On the fact that this dictionary is valued primarily as a unique source of dialect material, see Mikulėnienė 2011: VII; Vaišnienė 2011: XXIV. In order to preserve this uniqueness, the dictionary also retains some word meanings that were not reconstructed entirely accurately (cf. Vaišnienė 2011). Straipsniai / Articles 67 JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ The method is selective and intuitive, oriented toward phrase patterns that are distinctive and/or frequently recurring in structural type. Since the study material is very extensive and an electronic version of the KDD has not yet been published, no statistical analysis is provided; however, numerous examples illustrate the variation in the attestations of more productive semantic or semiotic patterns. In selecting illustrations of Samogitian speech, the article seeks to reproduce as faithfully as possible the phonetic transcription used in the KDD¹². 1. THE EXPRESSION OF SAMOGITIAN BEHAVIOR IN THE KDD SPEAKER’S WORLDVIEW Before discussing the component of Samogitian identity, it is essential to emphasize that a substantial part of the material illustrated in the KDD consists not of monologic narrative but of stretches of active dialogic discourse, for example: 1) nò kąp ėt? // – gėr / ėt kąp par_svėista // 91 2) kąp tàu bèt? // – kąp kėlo kùoje / tēp er_ėt // 91 3) kąp_tò gīveni? // – tēp sàu / vẹdọtenė / nē gėrā / nē prastā // 484 4) vọ_kū tò fọrgaũosi / ka_ėtį_tõrgo? // – ėtò sàv parūodītė er_ėtėtūs pasėveizietė // 460 5) ar_ėsėu nòmėi / a_nòi? // – nòi nòt / tūjau ėsėu // 261 6) šėkėis smòkės / jọ_matau / tòrį // jė / vọ rasi nòn patė rėks // 335 7) kąp_às ėsọ / ka_līn? // gėrā / ka_līn / gėrā augsi // 217 8) nu_mamā gavāu nǫksa i_nǫgara òž_niekus // gavā nǫksa òž_naklūsima // 258 9) sò_anò nieka rìmta naešvēsi / òns tik plòskòu / e_vėskas // pākòl jāuns // e_plòskòu / vọ ka_apezānės / e_ṣorimės // 310 Indeed, most illustrative examples in the KTŽ are a phrase or sentence uttered by a single person, but their active dialogism is signaled by the particularly frequent choice of sentences with deontic modality, which abound in interrogative and/or imperative mood forms 12 For more on the principles and features of this phonetic transcription, see: Aleksandravičius 2011: 17–18; Vaišnienė 2011: XXII–XXIX. 68 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIX Žemaitiškos tapatybės raiška: dėjonė iš Kretingos tarmės žodyno (2011) pavyzdžių use of the imperative mood or other grammatical indicators of dialogism, for example, forms of address and markers of emotion—interjections, ideophones, swear words, and the like. For example: 10) pavažuk tūolau // 477 11) kās pri jūsa nāuji? // 319 12) a_nēsi pri_dārba natakšuojes13 // 438 13) vòi kū ānēi vārga vēsa nākti pri_tā snāpsē // 318 14) navartaluokēties ont_slāžūolē / vakā // 476 15) vakā / jūs dėdė sūntat / nurārinsēt kū_nuors nu_lentīnā // 335 16) vėžluok grētū / jō pavielōusē // 483 17) a_jūs žēnuot / kām ī_jūsa žōsis / mūsa āvėžos // 458 18) kēik dōusi radū / rādau tāva brokštēlē // 332 19) bēn_ēsi rōganūtis / ka_tēp ēsdīkāuji // 332 20) ēk_tō nu_mōna gālū sō_vēsās sava rakibālas14 // 334 This allows us to regard authentic dialogicality as the most salient feature of the dictionary’s illustrative entries: in terms of how phrases are constructed, presented, and arise, they show a form of discourse different from that characteristic of narrated narrative (avoiding the features of reminiscence-oriented narration15), and to treat this dictionary as a source of stretches of speech and examples characteristic of Samogitians in ordinary everyday situations. J. Aleksandravičius’s ability to choose, for most of the KTŽ illustrations, not discourse conveying a narrative style but stretches of everyday conversation makes the material in this dictionary livelier than one might expect, given that the KTŽ illustrations are a legacy from the second half of the twentieth century, a period when dialectological recordings focused primarily on the narratives of the oldest, most settled informants. What led to such a successful selection of illustrative material for the KTŽ can only be guessed at. One possible reason is that the compiler of the KTŽ collected and recorded the material alone, and most likely did so in an environment where he was able to become one of the community and almost invisible to the informants; perhaps he recorded the most interesting phrases in secret or from memory. The discourse stretches in the KTŽ very often show the speaker-informant as an active participant in the situation, rather than a passive one focused on reminiscence and narrating the past, whose speech is connected with realistic everyday situations and current tasks. Such a person was concerned with the present and the immediate future, and thus advice and values are revealed in short phrases. 13 taksōti, tākso, taksōja, ~ōjē – ‘to lounge about, lie stretched out, lie’ KTŽ 438 14 rakýbalas – ‘tool’ KTŽ 334 15 Apie prisiminimams būdingą naratyvą žr. Harré 2008: 702–703; apie pasakotojo, kaip įvykių liudininko, vaidmenį žr. Kurokawa-Buzan, Zamorski 2009: XII. Straipsniai / Articles 69 JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ The article is based on the assumption that the KTŽ illustrations convey a picture of a speaker16 representing the experiences and accounts of numerous individuals (whose identities are unspecified or undisclosed), a picture that emerges when we try to sort out particular patterns of utterance prompted by various everyday situations. Such utterances are certainly recognizable to anyone who grew up in a Samogitian environment, although each person evaluates them differently—as an acceptable or unacceptable way of speaking. No one’s identity is perfectly unified (Helm 2009: 13), but some traits of each of us nevertheless emerge more strongly. This suggests that people who regard phrases with similar structures and evaluations of a similar kind as the norm must have something in common. Simply because they were raised that way and are subject to expectations imposed on them, certain possibilities of such behavior may be unacceptable or unconventional, but at least they are familiar. Therefore, utterances recorded in the KTŽ that represent a particular behavioral pattern and reveal what matters most to speakers may help outline certain contours of identity that are inevitably characteristic of people of Samogitian origin simply because they see and speak in Samogitian, that is, in a particular way. 2. BASIS: CRITERIA FOR THE EXPRESSION OF PERSONAL IDENTITY When attempting to piece together into a single image a picture divided into many details, one needs a point of support. As a convenient framework for beginning to assemble the puzzle of Samogitian identity on the basis of the KTŽ, Florence Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck’s (1961) proposed networks of value orientations, comprising a three-part system focused primarily on interpersonal relations, conceptions of time and activity, and their expression (Dumont 2002 [1983]: 256; Hils 2002), offer such a framework. 2.1. Contours of the Network of Value Orientations To assemble the intended puzzle of Samogitianness, the KTŽ must be read like a novel17, whose characters (nūsmenti and išplėtini) reveal through short phrases 16 The terms “speaker” and “speaker” are used synonymously in the article. The masculine gender is chosen as generic, capable of representing speakers of both genders when the addressee’s gender is not evident from the passage. 17 A comparison with Julio Cortázar’s *Hopscotch* would be apt here, as the reader continually has to move back and forth between different parts of the book. 70 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIX Žemaitiškos tapatybės raiška: dėlionė iš Kretingos tarmės žodyno (2011) pavyzdžių the secrets of personalities and thus allows the reader to explain the significance of the values that shape their worldview. Understanding the system of values and the models through which evaluation is expressed in order to establish identity is very important, because when evaluating something, a person always describes themselves as well or reveals their essence (Helm 2009: 12). The reliability of evaluations can best be ensured by authentic speech, since a comprehensive understanding of another person is acquired only by talking with them. According to Martin Buber, only in dialogue does the other person emerge as they are, with every utterance, action, and point of view marked by a unique quality that makes recognition possible (Philips 2011: 30). Conversation is the most closely represented part of inevitable interaction, which encompasses communication both with people in our immediate surroundings and with members of the community around us. Values are considered part of a person's identity, and since the norms that most influence a person's decisions (and thus identity) are understood as behavioral maxims (Helm 2009: 12–15), it is important to identify the emotions that reveal a person most, such as honor and shame (Helm 2009: 11), as well as the principal criteria for expressing personal identity, which are determined by commitments. Bennet Helm (2009: 17) distinguishes three groups of commitments and the emotions associated with them. Modulating commitments (English: transitional commitments) are related to the range of deep emotions that determines the direction of one’s outlook (Helm 2009: 23–27). That range may be directed toward the past, through recollection (for example, concern or anxiety, considered a dead emotion, arising from apprehension about a loved one’s requirements on the scale of values, p. 27), or it may be positive, an anticipated emotion directed toward the future (associated with confidence (English: self assurance) as the ability to meet the norm of the scale of values, p. 25). Evaluative commitments (English: tonal commitments) determine the positive or negative tone of an emotion. When evaluating something, a person establishes and describes their relationship to the thing or person being evaluated—such identification is inseparable from the person themselves (p. 14). Values are embodied in an identity that is governed by the values constituting it (p. 14). A person's identity is inseparable from the way of life they consider valuable, and this is connected with the commitments that the chosen way of life requires (cf. p. 14). The expression of personal identity is layered. Thus, to determine the power of values, one must understand the scale of values that forms part of our identity. A person's importance to themselves is inseparable from the totality of evaluated things that shaped them; the person and their values presuppose one another, like a center of attention and its aspect (p. 31). Values embodied in a person's identity prompt them to choose a particular way of life—one they consider valuable (p. 28). The level of values understood intuitively determines a person's identity (p. 28). Focal commitments (English: focal commitments) are based on caring (pp. 15–19). This means that well-being is bestowed on someone and depends on how that well-being is understood and on how important that thing or person is to the one who cares for them Straipsniai / Articles 71 JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ (pp. 18–19). Caring for another always requires attention and actions, attention and actions? Žemaitiškos tapatybės raiška: dėlionė iš Kretingos tarmės žodyno (2011) pavyzdžių phrases revealing the surrounding environment. The following KTŽ phrases will be discussed as the speaker's utterances: 1) about oneself and others (with attention to the functionality of these phrases along the axis I–you–third person–any individual); 2) about time and space (discussing changes in the evaluation of oneself and the environment at various stages of life and of the cyclical passage of time); 3) about state and activity (focusing on various possibilities for independence and cooperation, and on the evaluation of such possibilities). 3.1. Attitudes toward oneself and others 3.1.1. Speaking to an interlocutor about oneself The material in the Kretinga Dialect Dictionary (KTŽ) allows us to see a speaker who is both self-confident and capable of empathizing with others, and who ironically describes their minimal needs or certain traits (sensitivity, sedentary habits, etc.), for example: 21) on stobērkāulo tōr gālvā / vò on gālvō kopē // 395 22) āš ēš tōki mēnkštuolē¹⁹ // vēš gāluos // 239 23) prī tā žemē ēš vēsa ōmžī prisērēšes // 318 The speaker likes to emphasize the distinctiveness of their acquired abilities, their physical strength and courage, universal abilities that emerge in certain situations, or their limited capacities, for example: 24) āš mūo pasēstuo on gālvā // 24 25) gvėnō sō cėgōnās er ēsnōkāu cėgōnēškā // 60 26) kās mòn bēs kiluomēteris / iš pārēto grēta vēn // 484 27) tōmsies iš nālō bējōte // 439 28) kūra pri̇ vēš dārbī dābā ēto // 159 29) āš gālō tikta prāngenē²⁰ ēgėrte // 318 The superiority of certain personal capacities (acquired or granted by fate) is often emphasized through comparison, for example: 30) tās mòn ir žōki vētō pakēlē // 442 A comparison may refer to a specific setting (e.g., the local adverb there), or be made absolute (cf. examples 33–34, with a prepositional construction using “for” that indirectly emphasizes one’s own success, or the phrase not a single person, which emphasizes one’s own uniqueness absolutely), for example: 31) āš būou tēn veso senū // 489 32) āš būou tēn veso stėprēs // 489 ¹⁹ minkštanėlis, ~ė – ‘someone sensitive, with a gentle disposition’ KTŽ 239 ²⁰ prāngināi – ‘not consecutively, skipping one’ KTŽ 318 Straipsniai / Articles 73 JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ 33) mōna tētis ož̇ves gēr̄us // 449 34) ni_vēns žmūgos tēik naēger ōndēns kāp_ās // 256 At times, the KTŽ speaker speaks openly about less or more serious health problems, e.g.: 35) eṧ sendēina dėdē nagalings / ni_pri_darba nėso // 248 36) bēški pabēgo e_tūjau dikstē21 // 77 37) mōna rōnkas e_klōjes dėle plēsē // 303 38) mōn vēdōre ožtoka // 458 Relying on the interlocutor, the speaker may consult them (sometimes creating a humorous effect through comparison; see example 40) about matters that, even when obvious, are not easy to put into words, e.g.: 39) šitas22 atskėlėu tūks sōr̄žes / navikas / ba_upa // 346 40) vārgtō kāp mōsēs pālavuos // 277 41) eṧ sōsegrāūs / nēka nabnōro / eṧ tēp kāp_kārte vēdāms // 482 42) ēk_tō / žālī žālī / kāp mōn nabsēnkas gīventē // 496 43) mōna abōdōms vākōms mēns protēlis // 22 44) sūnoks mōna gīvenēms / āli nēks napadēs / ko_pridēs e_bēdavuotēs // 74 In the KTŽ, it is difficult to find references to the speaker’s permanent (long-lasting) social roles, probably because these are obvious to both the speaker and the addressee, though a temporary official role performed together with other people may be mentioned23, e.g.: 45) mēs tū_kārt kėlē ojē24 medinčēms25 žōkus vāriem // 464 To emphasize personal independence, the KTŽ speaker may mention the fact that they have no value-based commitments, probably also temporarily, e.g.: 46) kās mōn / nā_patī / nā_vākā // 248 The KTŽ contains examples showing that the speaker is unsure whether the addressee has managed to recognize them, or admits having been mistaken when trying to identify another person; sometimes, in unfavorable circumstances, recognition of another person may be disavowed reproachfully, e.g.: 47) a_tō mōni matā? 31 21 dyk̄ti, ~sta, ~o – ‘to suffocate, to languish’ KTŽ 77 22 šitas adv. – ‘this way’ KTŽ 414 23 On I as the text’s addresser, including cases where the relationship with we is taken into account, see Rosinas 1996: 36. 24 ūjis – ‘herdsman’ KTŽ 64 25 medinčius – ‘forest guard, ranger’ KTŽ 232 74 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIX Žemaitiškos tapatybės raiška: dėlionė iš Kretingos tarmės žodyno (2011) pavyzdžių 48) I myself already saw / that really it was all overgrown²⁶ // 305 49) that person wasn’t there / I looked around // 478 50) [did he come to see them? //] – no / he didn’t come / I crossed myself // 497 In KTŽ, the speaker’s mode is directly related to understanding the significance of the environment and unfolding situations, or recognizing another person’s moods (determined by body language), e.g.: 51) standing far away, he winked at me // and I understood everything // 239 52) what are you doing here, boy? / I still couldn’t see // 23 53) that sister of ours, sitting with her head bowed, / I understood / that something had happened // 210 The reference to having seen something may be used to affirm understanding and/or the formation of concepts, e.g.: 54) I myself saw everything // 287 55) I know / that if you’re sinful / you’ll go to hell // 116 Understanding the importance of sight leads to complaints about visual impairments (note the absolutization of the meaning of the described action by a negation or adverb), e.g.: 56) when you bend down and go in / I can’t see at all // 439 57) I can barely keep my eyes open all day // 440 58) I’ve been staring for so long that my eyes have started seeing spots // 332 59) when I was lifting the hay, a spark flew out of my eyes // 502 The KDD contains many references of a similar kind, showing that the speaker jealously guards their personal space and, through prohibitions or remarks, tries to keep another person from coming too close—a powerful person who is attempting to violate the boundaries of that space not only with a gaze but also in other ways, for example: 60) that snot-nosed brat is now staring me right in the eyes // 378 61) don’t stare me so fixedly in the eyes // 23 62) what are you glaring at my backside for? 116 63) don’t spray spit at me // 327 64) don’t spit on me; go and spit somewhere else // 331 65) don’t swear at me, you blue-faced fellow // 238 66) don’t come near me // 242 67) don’t come near me in such ugly clothes // 445 68) don’t touch me with your ugly hands // 445 26 aplėstōi – ‘to thresh while flailing about’ KTŽ 305 27 žėžėpa – ‘spark’ KTŽ 502 28 apipurslōti – ‘to splash with saliva, to spray’ KTŽ 327 29 apitrōti – ‘to gape’ KTŽ 331 Straipsniai / Articles 75 JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ 69) kūo_tò tēp on sèk̇vemnė / môn pòti sāva dāsė? 201 70) naḋl̇ink cė sāva plā̇kū / apiplaukėniesi môn // 303 71) nannauk̇eniek mônā draḃūžu ṡo sāva tāuk̇enūms ṙonk̇oms // 442 The speaker also perceives another person’s reproaches or slander as a threat to their own identity, and therefore wants to explain the reasons for such behavior, demands an apology, or suggests, for example: 72) kūo_tò môn jēḋi kāuras dēnas? 95 73) kūo_cè kneṡi pri_mōnes vėsa laika? 178 74) ka_pradēje šauk̇ṫe on_mōnes / aṡ_šūoks / aṡ_ūṫoks / aṡ_anṅoks // 26 75) naduvenūso vėsa ōṁżo / jē naatsēprāisi // 79 76) ka_v̇eṡuokės žūdēs môn jēmė kērnōtė30 / aṡ er_ęṡėjau // 156 In certain temporary situations that interfere with things, the KTŽ speaker likes to describe their fading resemblance to their former self using vivid comparisons, for example: 77) parēdāms nušlaṗau kāp žōrkė // 93 78) ėšō kāp vėštā nušalōsi / nūčōkosi // 66 Changes in the body and well-being caused by illness are described as having restored one to a previous state or even changed one’s identity, cf.: 79) àṡ stabūklīngā ėsgėjāu // 387 80) àṡ tūos kōżis31 pasidārā po_lēgā // 167 It is clear that changes in appearance and bodily sensations can be caused by such emotions as fright or surprise, for example: 81) bīṡos raudūnis nōni tūjū ēšmūs / ka_ęṡgēsto // 337 82) tēp ėsgandēna tas_kēps / ka_ė_dabar būgolis tēbēm // 41 83) mōn e_pakaušis pranēžā / ka_ė_egerdā tūokē naujīna // 259 The KTŽ speaker rarely directly mentions things they are thinking about, unless these are tools, food, or weather conditions, for example: 84) mōn gerāusē ṡo savōjuō kaplō rāutė ṙoṗotės32 // 145 85) mōn klecknē33 e_būosi pabūk // 169 86) mōn šēkēle e_būosi pabūk // 58 87) darīkem e_viedaru š_karta / às jau pasēlgau34 // 477 88) mōn tink tūoki viēsoma / nē ṡsali/ nē pārkaisti // 483 30 kērnoti, ~oja, ~ojė 2. ‘to curse, to speak obscenely’ KTŽ 156 31 kūzis, ~ė – ‘a spoiled person’ KTŽ 167 32 ropote – ‘potato’ KTŽ 349 33 klecknė (hybrid) – ‘soup with grated-potato dumplings’ KTŽ 169 34 Attention is drawn to the double reflexive marker – pasilgaus. 76 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIX Žemaitiškos tapatybės raiška: dėlionė iš Kretingos tarmės žodyno (2011) pavyzdžių Much more often, the KTŽ speaker expresses their preferences and evaluations indirectly—by highlighting what they dislike through a process of elimination. Negative constructions readily allow one to express a nostalgic attachment to one’s homeland, e.g., 89) jō jėgo nābūt tūos žėmes / gimtėnes / ę.mōnes nābūt // 58, and to identify disliked people, their traits, and habits, e.g.: 90) tūoki navīkosi žmogaus nabōn ni_mātės35 // 253 91) nanōro ni_mātė tūokuos ēšspruogtās / vō_žantēs / ni_ēš_tiola // 129 92) namīlo sō_svetėmās drabūžēs darītės // 238 An unpleasant attitude toward the object being criticized is often conveyed by using one or another emphatic, hyperbolized, absolutizing negative verb, e.g.: 93) žōikėna mōn nātik / napsėvėžo36 ānuos vālģītė // 494 94) ni_vēžėtė napsėvėžo ānuos vērtā vālgī // 483 95) nāsarė patāisė vālgī šėrdā apklėlės tavdāu // 194 96) āba ās atskėisōs kūože so_pėina / āba čīstā navaļgīso // 21 97) vui kap ās nākėnto paveikslavėmōs // 288 98) baisāse nākėnto narnėklū / vō tūoki vīra gavāu // 251 99) tūoke jau aldabėjes37 ę_nākėnto // 24 100) mōn dėdlė nātik kēršās kāulės / nākėnto ānū // 157 Negative constructions are also used to pinpoint some missing quality in a targeted description, e.g.: 101) ās nābrō meiga / mēgto kāp žōikės kāuro mēgō // 494 102) tas_mōna vāks tāsė38 vėsa nākti / ās ni_akū nasomērkāu // 442 The Kretinga Dialect Dictionary (KTŽ) contains examples in which the speaker’s unwillingness to comply with the interlocutor’s request (most likely after being asked about their intentions) is conveyed by avoiding negation, e.g.: 103) tūokėi šāltė ās ēso tū i_mesta / ėk_tō šēktė // 450 The speaker in the KTŽ can describe momentary situations brought about by their own dexterity (or lack of it), or success (or failure), by avoiding the verb altogether, cf.: 104) ās tėisā i_ōpi sō_vės nėsnė // 256 105) dīngt mōn i_gāva nė sō_ans / ę_lēkāu gīvā // 77 35 But a sentence with a similar construction (if the object being accused has no negative epithet) can also express praise, for example: tūoki nērkala nabōn ni_kāstavojęs KTŽ 39. 36 apsivēžti – ‘to endure’ KTŽ 483 37 aldabė – ‘someone who makes a noise’ KTŽ 24 38 tašyti, tāšo, tāšė intr. – ‘to cough very badly’ KTŽ 442 Straipsniai / Articles 77 JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ The KDD contains stretches of discourse that record a speaker’s concern with future situations beyond their control. Such concern is expressed through the transfer of obligations (linking a desired outcome to making a promise to the addressee or trying to elicit such a promise from the addressee) or through a directive, for example: 106) atidūs jūms gyvenam39 / vọ_mōni torjeset nukārṣinte // 147 107) jė trūpītomės40 mō numē / a_pavėdī i *krėtinga palīdote // 457 108) ka_mōnes nabūs / mōna manumėlė tōriesi oževiėte41 // 49 Speakers are active in recognizing that arguments and conflict situations are associated with unpleasant feelings and self-expression, for example: 109) vò / tūks ànòos drōžėms tēse vėskū i_akis / mōn nāink // 81 110) tō gailėsis / pašō hāuks kāp šō / jė mōnes naklausi // 152 111) tėp_ās atšūrė ān atsakā / ka_paskū gailėjās // 33 There are examples in which, in conflict situations, a person with a different outlook is addressed very briefly and clearly, for example: 112) – āš nāteko i *dėva tēva // – that one’s / I myself am running // 447 Of course, this is not always the case. The KDD’s record of enumerating possible actions using quantitative adverbs expressing multiplicity42 up to three (instead of the usual indication of two alternatives43) suggests that the KDD speaker is persistent in various situations—for example, not only when trying to forget one’s worries and fall asleep, but also when attempting to carry out more serious plans, such as: 113) ver̃tās e_veinēp / e_ōnrep / e_etrėp44 / vės tas_pats // 54 114) jė_veinēp nāšēs / ōnrep darīso / vọ_jė_nē / trėp darīso // 54 3.1.2. Direct references to the addressee The KTŽ examples show that the identity of the direct addressee is usually perfectly well known, clear, and familiar to the speaker. The speaker’s attention is most often focused on someone close, with whom a considerable period of life is spent together; they are therefore bound by certain obligations determined not only by the desire to communicate but also by a particular social role (mother, father, spouse, etc.). 39 living – ‘homestead, land, farm’ KTŽ 109 40 trōpīti, ~ja, ~jė (Sl.) – ‘to aim, hit the target’ KTŽ 456 41 užvežti – ‘to look after’ KTŽ 49 42 Cf. Ulydas 1971: 435. 43 Cf. a description of a similar situation: e_veinēp metōs /e_kētēp metōs / nikāp naōmō // KTŽ 257; 484. Here mestis means ‘to make a living’; see KTŽ 257. 44 tretėp – ‘third’ KTŽ 454 78 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIX Žemaitiškos tapatybės raiška: dėlionė iš Kretingos tarmės žodyno (2011) pavyzdžių Responsibility is also associated with the person and the expectations placed on them. The belief that a person’s essence cannot be changed is acknowledged more than once (cf. examples 264–269, which illustrate this view), but statements by KTŽ speakers illustrating real-life situations clearly indicate the need to advise or teach the addressee by admonishing, commanding, or praising them. The way of speaking with an interlocutor recorded in most KTŽ illustrations reveals that the direct addressee is someone very close to the speaker (a child, spouse, mother, father, brother, sister, or the like), for whom the speaker cares and feels responsible. Thus, every act that falls short of what is customary is noticed, and the person is told so in one way or another, sometimes openly expressing one’s own emotions as well, e.g.: 115) ėk tō nòmė / jōg sōsāl / tāva e lūpas jau pamėlėnavoses // 233 116) apibėk kėlīs sikūs i rinki45 trūbos e sošėsi // 344 117) kōr tō brāžīs nākti / palāuk / ēšauš / e.parēsi // 50 118) ā tō stėprōsi vesā dēna pri_šēina kruovėma? 390 119) diel_kō to ėsi tuōki paplūrosi46 / a_nasergi? 309 120) paskōu / ka_nutikšen / rasi er_žmēgsi // 448 121) apsēkėl šėlōje blūska e_nasōlasi // 48 122) kām tō bovā / ka_monē tēp dėdlē šēdēs gēle? 142 123) ēš_šėrēs gēlomos nūro tō tik_gēra // 107 The mutual care of people sharing a common space is also reflected in their speech. The greatest responsibility for household affairs and shared well-being rests with the heads of the household; accordingly, it is most often they who voice expectations and/or instructions to children about how they should behave. Prohibitions, remarks, and directions most often concern standards of conduct at home or in other people’s surroundings, especially in public places, e.g.: 124) pri_valgi načiamuokis47 / pagēso navālgos // 496 125) nākūluokėtės pri_valgi! 159 126) kuo_žārgstuoties / a_ni_giedas natōrēt / nažarstīkis pri_vėsū // 497 127) vāka / būkēt nūmēi / navāluokētēs pō_keimūs // 160 128) vāka / tikta nāimatuokētēs48 bančīno / tēn rēks grāžē ēlgēis / mēlstēis // 22 The KTŽ speaker’s concern for the direct addressee’s improvement is evident in especially frequent remarks about an appearance that is not sufficiently attractive but can be improved without much effort, and about articulation and the content of speech. And, of course, about inappropriate 45 į rinkį – ‘in a circle, around’ KTŽ 344 46 paplūrti, ~sta, ~o – ‘to become ragged and worn-out’ KTŽ 309 47 žaimtės, ~ōjas, ~ōjės refl. – ‘to frolic, make a nuisance of oneself, clown around, talk nonsense’ KTŽ 496 48 aimaties, ~ojas, ~ojės refl. – ‘to act foolishly, frolic’ KTŽ 22 Straipsniai / Articles 79 JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ the chosen way and pace of carrying out the assigned tasks. The patterns of reproach of the latter kind are quite varied (an instruction with a comparison, imperative constructions, questions, an emphatically personal opinion inserted parenthetically) and may express not only the speaker’s doubts about the suitability of the way the work is being done, but also concern for the addressee’s physical and mental health, e.g.: 129) rėk dailė ėrte / na_kap_tọ ka_prieti / makalai makalai / e_vėskas // 224 130) dėrb na_diel_akū / vọ kap šo // 72 131) naškalōuk / apsemėlik pėrmọ / e_tik_tọukārt dėrb // 412 132) ōžšėmi sọ_tuokės nėkniekės // 254 133) kūo_tọ railenėji / a_darba natori? 333 134) natrāšō⁴⁹ vėsa dėina / īmks kū nuors rīnta // 452 135) natopėnōk⁵⁰ / īmks kap rėkėnt darba // 459 136) mōn ėšvėiz / ka_to_napdālenki ėtė // 478 137) kūo_to mørsa⁵¹ vėsa rīta? 245 138) nasielōutis ėp / vo_tūjau er_ėššėžōusis⁵² // 408 Remarks about appearance are usually made in the imperative mood; cf. the exemplary remark about the need to tidy oneself up, expressed in a phrase that has become a model: 139) *jūnō *jūnō / veizėk / kūokėi tava šōna // 478 This emphasizes the interlocutor’s responsibility for proper posture, hairstyle, clothing, and cleanliness; and, of course, a quick and appropriate response to a reproach is expected, for example: 140) nabūk tėp sǫkūprėnės / eššėik // 197 141) nabūk sǫkūprėnės / nasǫsėrūk į kopra / eššėik // 195 142) sǫsėkǫk / tava galva kap kėdelė⁵³ // 153 143) tava e_nūosės smetōna palėka / nusėištik // 377 Sometimes a person’s untidy appearance, resulting from an inadequate amount of grooming, is mocked humorously, for example: 144) dōuk ben_katėnōu zūbus nulāilite / vėse rėbalėnis // 342 Aiming to prompt the interlocutor to make greater efforts to tidy up (or to cultivate a new habit), comparisons are used (since a witty remark is more memorable), for example: 145) tō nusėpė sọ_tuoms pėšūoms / kap_vėls ėsvėizi // 478 49 trasōti, ~iōja, ~iōjė – ‘to run about, romp, idle’ KTŽ 452 50 tupinūoti, ~iōja, ~iāvo – ‘to dawdle, fail to get down to work properly, loaf around’ KTŽ 459 51 murksōti, mūrkso, ~ōjė – ‘to be sullen, to skulk, to be silent’ KTŽ 245 52 Here, išsižoti means ‘to become tired’; cf. KTŽ 408. 53 kėdelė – ‘something tangled, a mess’ KTŽ 153 80 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIX Žemaitiškos tapatybės raiška: dėlionė iš Kretingos tarmės žodyno (2011) pavyzdžių 146) a_so_ bogo meiguojė / ka_tėp so serabūoė drubė? 332 147) tō_plėmpi tū_ondeni kāp kārė? / 304 The desired change is sought through a question (often rhetorical), which draws attention or aims to slow the implementation of the interlocutor’s previous intention until a response has been made to the remark, e.g.: 148) kù_jūs tēn dērbùot / ka_vėsȯs alèn èsi // 24 149) tō vėsȯs apsėpùkenėję / kuoks švėžėi // 326 150) kuoks tō švėžėi / vėsȯs nusėplunksnėję // 311 151) èi vėsȯs pūkės / kōr_to èsi! 326 Sometimes a request to draw attention to another person’s appearance is phrased in the imperative mood. An utterance of this pattern may aim to focus the interlocutor’s attention on the person being discussed as an unsuitable partner, or to draw the addressee’s attention to their own appearance by negatively describing the other person, who is not participating in the conversation, cf.: 152) àli tō paveizė / kāp ōns èsvèiz / vėsȯs apėlėdes / plokūots / smōrgļs vùsèmèt èsīes // 478 A choice or selection of clothing suited to the circumstances or person is praised; unsuitable clothing prompts a remark, e.g.: 153) tū prītink tas_kelalōs // 447 154) apsėplūnē so_tūokė sotīosa slēbė / kūokī tatā èsvèiz? 308 Similarly, a critical remark may be made about the improper performance of a social role; for example, a mother’s responsibility for the aesthetic appearance of her children’s clothing may be invoked, e.g.: 155) tō_apsīūmpeni⁵⁴ tas_šava mèrās tēp nāgrāžē // 420 The many discourse excerpts of this pattern in KTŽ show that the speaker vigilantly protects their living space⁵⁵. An addressee who fails to observe the usual order is met with remarks and prohibitions that draw attention in various ways (for example, by posing a question or indicating the extent or degree of a trait), cf.: 156) a_namātē / jog_ēdams èsglēžuojē tū_vėštūdi // 110 157) tō è vėsȯs nusėpovenėjęs // 327 158) èi vėsȯs nusėtaukėnėjęs // 442 159) èi vėsȯs ōnglès / ēk nuseičik // 25 160) nusepōrink / èi vėsȯs smèlēns // 377 161) pėrmō nusepōrink ōž_ōngā / èi vėsȯs snēgēns // 379 162) nē / tuoks_snēgēns i_trūoba nèk // 379 163) nakabink po_pèlna šaukšta / jōg vāreni kuōse ont_stala // 137 54 apšliūmpinti, ~ina, ~ino – ‘to dress (someone) unattractively and untidily’ KTŽ 420 55 For an analysis of the HOME concept, which reveals the characteristically Lithuanian perception of a bright, cozy, beautiful, warm, and tidy home, as well as the necessity of effort, dedication, and work, see Rutkovska 2017: 8ff. Straipsniai / Articles 81 JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ For bearers of oral tradition, communicating with one another is the most important means of exchanging information; therefore, speakers in the KTŽ do not conceal their dissatisfaction with an interlocutor’s unclear or unsuitable articulation, excessive verbosity, faltering, or even failure to communicate, e.g.: 164) kū̄_tọ pərsḷuojį⁵⁶ / ka_pasakoji? 327 165) kū̄_tọ nâu̯gi / ro̯kūkis káp žmúogs // 256 166) tọ ėsi naramī̯bu naramḗ / jọ̀ / kòši / krọ̀ // 251 167) natrāškėnk tū_pūpieri / ėš_prūota ešvarisi // 452 168) a_nėlis ėsi / ka_narokūjis ẹ_nėka mọn nəsaką // 253 To the KTŽ speaker, the addressee’s empty and meaningless or inappropriate speech is unpleasant, e.g.: 169) kū̄_tọ čė úomaujį⁵⁷ tūokus niekus! 265 170) to_žėbėlioji tūokus niekus / pasakok ku_nūors rimta // 497 171) natrāškė nieku // 441 172) a_tāva smagėne pasėka / ka_tēp sakā // 375 The content of speech may also be associated with forms of address that express different ways of evaluating a person (both affectionate and threatening in nature) and/or descriptions of a person based on a reference to their resemblance to someone or something, cf.: 173) pūputė⁵⁸ / káp tọ bāgūni? 326 174) ė_tọ / žālti / káp bāgūni? 496 175) ė_tọ / prancūzeli⁵⁹ / kū̄_tọ čė padarisi 316 176) ėk_tọ / viegaudi vėns à viegaudi / kū̄_čė gaudā viejus // 479 177) ė_tọ / mėglā / kàm tọ tinkī 237 178) ė_tọ / plōrza⁶⁰ à_plōrza / kū̄_tọ žėna! 309 179) ė_tọ / mėmi à_mėmi / káp_tọ ėti? 233 The coined forms of address for oneself or close associates, when used as insults, are regarded by the speaker as inappropriate; the latter are perceived as threatening, but as potentially able to protect the addressee from inappropriate behavior, e.g.: 180) ọž_prāderevėnos / vākā / gāusėt nu_tėva // 317 181) nākėšk sava leižovi kọ narėk / būs gėrāsė // 339 182) kū̄_tọ plōrški / jė nažėna / gėrau nieka nesakīk // 309 183) apselėdinsi leižovės / jė tep darisi // 209 56 purslōti, ~ōja, ~ōjė – ‘to spray with saliva’ KTŽ 327 57 ōmauti, ~uja, ~avo – ‘to talk nonsense, to blabber’ KTŽ 265 58 puputėlis – ‘tiny’ KTŽ 326 59 prancūzėlis – ‘some obscure, not like everyone else’ KTŽ 316 60 plōrza – 2. ‘someone inept, unsuitable (esp. of a woman)’ KTŽ 309 82 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIX Žemaitiškos tapatybės raiška: dėlne iš Kretingos tarmės žodyno (2011) pavyzdžių Mentioning a specific personal name that identifies someone in situations unfavorable to the notion of honor sounds threatening, so the interlocutor may be reassured, e.g.: 184) nabėčiau / ten_tava pavardės narnaūjė // 238 The speaker may describe the interlocutor’s unjustified boasting as undeserved, e.g.: 185) ba_rēkala dedūjis / tūokum asabu pėlns šiets // 31 186) ėk_tą / bėpruotali / veizėk kap_tą gveni // 43 When the speaker has voiced complaints, they regard the interlocutor as tiresome and prefer non-confrontational discourse or try to silence them; alternatively, they ironically address ill wishes to an addressee incapable of carrying them out, e.g.: 187) nustūok tę katėtę / tas tava katėtėms mon lig_kaula ikirjė // 151 188) neiskūokis prėkabu / rokūkis kap_žmuogos // 319 189) kāulink61 nākaulėnes / āna vesteik nieka naveiz // 158 190) naūkis iš monės / iš tavės kėtėjuokies // 135 191) douk dėję iš_tava bōrnā į_kāules āusi // 127 On the other hand, having understood the interlocutor’s judgment, a KDD speaker may acknowledge it even if they do not entirely agree, of course without forgetting to emphasize that disagreement, e.g.: 192) kad_e_mōna neprietėlis / vesteik teisingā pasakė // 254 When the speaker fails to reach agreement with the addressee (or their group), the situation is left to fate, cf.: 193) jūs pasakēket / kāp nūorēt / tēp_e_darīkēt // 148 3.1.3. Speaking about a third person When speaking with an interlocutor about a third person, the need to use definiteness markers becomes apparent. For Samogitians, a first or last name is usually sufficient to identify a person successfully, e.g.: 194) *juonis nudėrb nūcācēi tō_lazda / e_pikēševēs // 59 195) *pēliksis būt ėjes / jē būt pavādne // 58 196) *stonkū prīnk ūstą // 447 197) *martinēne atē pūkas apkēbosi // 326 198) *žuobakienė dėle tink leižovi plakt62 // 302 Occasionally, to avoid any doubt about the definiteness of the person being discussed, the pronoun tas, ta ‘that’—which functions as a definite article—may be added to the personal name, e.g.: 61 kūalinti, ~ina, ~ino – ‘to insult, call someone a pig’ KTŽ 158 62 liežūvi plakti – ‘to gossip about someone, wag one’s tongue’ KTŽ 302 Straipsniai / Articles 83 JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ 199) ta_* kūotre nikõr nadėr / vo_tik_vālkiojes // 507 200) tas_* žaušelis par šau slinkavēma nēka ẹ_natr // 374 201) velnātis63 / nā_vaks / tas_jūsa *jonis // 480 After clarifying with the interlocutor the appearance of the person being discussed or interviewed, third-person pronouns ons, ana, anė, anuos. are generally used in the ensuing discourse. They are most often used as substitutes for personal names when discussing behavioral patterns of acquaintances associated with ethnic attitudes (polite interaction, expressions of decency, and the like), e.g.: 202) ka_ṣotėnkam / õns vèsumet paṣveikindams pakilė kepõre // 161 203) kad kūmet õns priẹo pri_mõnes ẹ_gerā žuodi pasakõ / fū nė /nikumet // 195 204) õns vèsumet palābẹn ēdams prọ_ṣālī / napramužēn // 247 205) ānā tēkrā tuopškē64 / vèsumet prašmēn prọ_ṣālī ni_lābas napasākosi // 450 206) pramūžena ānā prọ_ṣāli kāp kāule // 247 207) tėkros šaudusis65 / nė ons vuogte bėje / nė i_bāznīcē ēt // 410 For the KTŽ speaker, it is important to discuss the level of tidiness of the people interviewed, and how much attention they pay to their appearance or to their relationships with those for whom the person being discussed is responsible and whom they ought to care for, e.g.: 208) vo_apselēdėns ānū ī bašausis // 29 209) tėn pri_anū ir givā natārka / vėsas miēlojes vėsas pašālės // 253 210) kūks ons īr apselēdėnes apsėboves / kāp bazībos // 41 211) natinkontis anē pri_darba // 447 212) õns ī_tėkros telėzis / nikuokem rimtām darbū natink // 444 213) dėdė nažvėziejė anā sava žmoguos66 // 479 214) ānā gērā žovē sava vākus // 479 215) ānē tū_sava vaka āgerb / aptōmpa ēslėdamis i_muokīkla // 439 216) kāp giēn tēp / bītik ando ṣorokū67 // 27 KTŽ contains many examples showing that when talking about distant acquaintances or complete strangers, generalized personal references are usually used (a person, a woman, a girl, a child, and so on). In passages of KTŽ discourse, these are often accompanied by a pronoun performing the role of a definite article 63 velnātis – ‘a rascal’ (about a child) KTŽ 480 64 tōpškē – ‘a careless, inept, stupid woman’ KTŽ 450 65 šaudusis, ~e – ‘a shallow-minded, empty person’ KTŽ 410 66 here žmogus means ‘man’; cf. KTŽ 503. 67 suruokū – ‘to agree, to get along’ KTŽ 348 84 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIX Žemaitiškos tapatybės raiška: dėlonė iš Kretingos tarmės žodyno (2011) pavyzdžių (that, that [feminine]) or a qualitative demonstrative68 (that [dialectal], that [feminine, dialectal]). Less familiar people in the KTŽ speaker’s focus are usually singled out because of distinctive appearance, behavior, or origin, for example: 217) That person has such long eyelashes // 46 218) That person’s eyes keep blinking so horribly // 52 219) That person is so tall / well, just tall // 501 220) That girl’s eyes are like a mole’s // 489 221) That girl is so plump / so well-fed / so well-rounded // 302 222) That woman had such a coat on over her dress69 wore it // 138 223) That girl is dressed all in patterned fabric and has put it on like that // 147 224) That woman has a long tongue70 // 214 225) That person is a little odd / the father is from one place / but the mother is from somewhere else entirely // 224 For KTŽ speakers, the person being discussed’s self-confidence and ability to defend themselves are important: a high level of self-confidence is associated with others’ inability to accuse the person of being influential, while a low level is described as fostering aggressive behavior toward a person who cannot defend themselves; the speaker’s sympathy for the person being mistreated is conveyed through the description (for example, poor thing, little person71), for example: 226) He hasn’t stood up to that girl72 // 178 227) They’ve completely beaten that person down73 / they won’t let him defend himself // 178 228) That poor man suffers from everyone 248 229) They’ve completely tormented that poor woman74 like a cuckoo // 463 230) That poor little person is completely worn out; it’s been a terrible day // 301 The speaker assesses those who oppose the defenders of trust in the KTŽ as burdensome (cf. ‘puts it on the child’), emphasizes some people’s aggressive or submissive nature, and observes those who are able to avoid opposition in conflict situations, e.g.: 231) bāisõs ānõ ontsēidēms75 õn_tuo_vāka // 27 232) õns vãkšē kūozna vēna / ka_tik_as_lēdas // 472 68 Cf. Rosinas 1996: 85. 69 kailinuōčius – ‘fur-coat wearer, someone wearing a fur coat’ KTŽ 138 70 ilga lēžuvi turēti – ‘to enjoy gossiping’ KTŽ 214 71 Cf. žmogelis – ‘poor person’ KTŽ 503. 72 prisiknisti – ‘to pester’ (KTŽ 178), ‘to latch on’ 73 nukniti, ~oja, ~ojė – ‘to overcome, defeat’ KTŽ 178 74 ūdyti, ~ija, ~ijo – ‘to persecute, scold, berate’ KTŽ 463 75 antsisėdimas – ‘harassment, bullying’ KTŽ 27 Straipsniai / Articles 85 JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ 233) We had no one to help us when we fell ill76 / we were poor / still // 236 In the KTŽ speaker’s field of compassion are lonely, ill, fire-stricken people, and those unable to take proper care of themselves, for example: 234) poor thing / such a sickly woman all alone // 215 235) that poor woman burned down to nothing // 267 236) *what a wretched sight, all disheveled // 308 At times, the KTŽ speaker excuses a person’s obvious lack of self-care and neglect of their own well-being on the grounds of the willpower and stubbornness evident in certain aspects of that person’s behavior, for example: 237) there’s a whole tangle / the little thread came loose / but he’s a stubborn77 one // 416 Children are at the center of the KTŽ speaker’s attention, most often children whose appearance, behavior, and abilities draw attention, and, if these are found wanting, their future prospects as well, for example: 238) that child is just like a little lamb // 25 239) that child is as small as a little chick // 25 240) that child is such a rascal / little imp // 446 241) that boy is always loafing around // 415 242) that child is forever lying down // 450 243) that child is hardly fit for decent company // 257 244) there’s nothing to him; that little scamp won’t amount to anything, even when he grows up // 329 245) a scrawny child / he’ll grow into a sensible person // 400 3.1.4. The speaker opts for indefiniteness (neutralization of the individual meaning of tu, behavioral maxims, and generalizations) To describe their own patterns more universally, the speaker in the Kretinga Dialect Dictionary (KDD) may choose the second-person pronoun tu as a generic pronoun. In this case, tu, which in an ordinary context tends to refer to a distinctive individual, takes on the meaning of the noun žmogus ‘person’ and becomes a word offering the shelter of commonality⁷⁸. The indefinite-reference tu is used in sentences formed by means of universal (in many Indo-European languages 76 ‘to reproach’ KDD 236 77 ‘to walk unattractively’ KDD 416 78 Apie neapibrėžtos reikšmės referenciją žr. Haspelmath 2000: 11. Lietuvių kalboje tai apibūdinama kaip tu vartojimas apibendrinta reikšme (plg. Valeckienė 1965: 668), kaip individualios tu reikšmės neutralizavimas (plg. Rosinas 1996: 26) ar gramatinės metaforos atvejis (plg. Judžentis 2012: 114). 86 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIX Žemaitiškos tapatybės raiška: dėlionė iš Kretingos tarmės žodyno (2011) pavyzdžių characteristic) rules related to a somewhat specific expression of temporal relations that conveys a generic character: the personal pronoun acquires an indefinite meaning when recounting situations assigned to the category of irealis⁷⁹, which are described using negative polarity and/or free choice⁸⁰, e.g.: 246) nadėrsi / nėka natórėsi // 459 247) jė nūori / ka_kas_ęžūgo / rēk nāga prikēštė // 136 248) ka_sāves naveizi / er_apślōsti žmūogės / apsēldi // 421 249) ali_kāp tas_cīrolis⁸¹ pīkē gēd / klausikis ē_nuoriek // 62 To describe universal patterns of experience and convey behavioral maxims, the speaker often opts for impersonal constructions, e.g.: 250) rē gērte ẹ_mīlete sāva tēvus // 446 251) bīduo rēk žmūogo gēlbėte // 339 252) rēk pabīgētīs / jē kōr mūsas ẹ_veškas // 42 253) nārē gūdinte⁸² vaikū nu_māža pārsevalgīte // 119 254) napadūor senūms muotrēškūoms tāuzītē vėjus // 443 In the KDD, situations of experience are often generalized in sentences whose subject is expressed by the noun žmogus ‘person’ or by a nominal (e.g., vaikui, mergaitės), adjectival (e.g., bagotam), or pronominal substitute (e.g., kas, kitiej, kurie) indicating a situational role, e.g.: 255) a sensible person / everyone would sit down⁸³ and not bother to put it away // 49 256) a hardworking person always has something to do // 267 257) the girls are always dancing at home // 440 258) a rich devil has enough to eat, while a poor one has nothing // 44 259) children always like to do something // 141 260) girls really like little willows; they are like cats among the willows // 111 261) that kind of scoundrel can be beaten // 378 262) a cat sitting down is very good at purring // 165 263) the ears are drooping; it is frightening to see them coming from the side // 448 Indefinite constructions are also chosen to console oneself about the unchanging nature of a person, cf.: 264) what was born is what it will be // 147 265) if someone is born, that is what they will be // 401 79 See the connection between the irrealis meaning and the avoidance of factual implications or presuppositions in Holvoet, Pa- jėdienė 2004: 90. 80 Cf. Haspelmath 2000: 52, 64. 81 čiūlis – ‘skylark’ KTŽ 62 82 gūdinti, ~ina, ~ino – ‘to get used to’ KTŽ 119 83 pasižyčioti – ‘to quarrel’, cf. KTŽ 499 Straipsniai / Articles 87 JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ 266) kɔprūta tikta grabs baẽstais // 197 267) apskrẽtėli / kȧp ẹ̇kɔprūta / tikta kȧps baẽstais // 29 268) ẹ̇smūokisi to kārve i̇mėdi lẹ̇ple / nikumet // 257 269) būoba na ronkuove / naẽšērsi / kūoki nà ir / tūoki ẹ̇būs / napadērbsi // 481 The linguistic strategies of the KTŽ speaker discussed above, based on open self-disclosure (revealing the speaker’s self), direct descriptions intended to characterize any person and I (and, when together with someone, also we), that (and you, formed from several addressees), he, she, they, those, when referring to a direct addressee (you, you, we) or to universal rules and models of behavior (avoiding individual reference to a person), intertwine in speech. They have been distinguished here so that, from the vast number of discourse excerpts of various kinds, certain more prominent features of the KTŽ speaker—or, more precisely, the range of possible features—can be pieced together. To make the portrait of the Samogitian individual even more vivid, the more interesting observations recorded in the KTŽ about the individual’s existence as being at a particular time in a particular space will be considered by bringing together all the speaker strategies identified in the KTŽ (or by no longer attending to their distinctive features). 3.2. Attitudes toward time and space and mutual relations The actual reasons for the emergence of many of the KTŽ speaker’s utterances mentioned above, which at first glance may seem related solely to a habit of contradicting, can be understood with the help of KTŽ discourse excerpts that record a particular stage in the speaker’s life and reveal the close connection between their everyday activities and their obligations. 3.2.1. Caught in the wheel of time The KTŽ speaker’s sentences that reveal how time and its passage are evaluated help us understand why attention to order is sometimes given excessive importance (remarks to the interlocutor about adhering to everyday habits), while at other times external inattentiveness is manifested (avoiding interaction with acquaintances for fear of disrupting the usual rhythm of work). The patterns that reveal such things portray the KTŽ speaker as understanding everyday activity as a continuous, spiraling movement forward. The point of reference for this movement is usually the cycles of days and years, for example: 270) mes_nu_mėta / dėna nū_dėna / tēp ẹr_ėt ēmžos // 261 The KTŽ speaker’s daily recurring activity is associated with the family in particular, for example: 88 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIX Žemaitiškos tapatybės raiška: dėlionė iš Kretingos tarmės žodyno (2011) pavyzdžių 271) takûjo kṹožna dẽna tou kẽlė į pẽrmą // 438 272) kṹožna dẽna kã tãs / tẽp tãs / plûovėmios / šlavėmios / žiẽvėmios // 310–311 273) vẽn tas šlavėjemas kṹožna mĩla dẽina ẽik lãika ãtėn! 417 274) ka tṹo tep e paslẽnki⁸⁴ ožsẽmte so pẽitãs / vẽdi kṹožna dẽina e naĩkirst // 374 275) to kṹožna dẽina kū nũors vẽs plavẽnėj⁸⁵ // 303 276) parẽs skõben apvẽiz gĩvôlus e vẽl atgal lẽk // 371 Sometimes the very duration of life in the KTŽ is described through a cyclical conception—a return almost to the same point. Compare two nearly identical statements, differing only in how the speed of movement is characterized: 277) dõnt nabdẽso / ba dõnt abẽgâu / ba dõnt erẽšbė // 42 278) dõnt nabdẽso / ba dõnt atẽjau / ba dõnt erẽšė // 74 The KTŽ speaker emphasizes that successfully tackling everyday tasks requires keeping busy at a brisk pace, while at times life also includes a difficult period that lasts year after year, for example: 279) rīta mẽta toų atsẽkelos rẽk apsẽžiūot⁸⁷ / op pãskou sošėjelouji // 459 280) ãs dẽbdams navẽizo darbãdėini / ali vẽizo / ka dãrbs nagãisto // 478 281) so tūoka pǫlkǫ dõniedǫ vakū rẽk gẽrã šǫkẽis // 84 282) tẽik mẽtu ẽsgvẽnōm tūokẽm sǫspaudẽm⁸⁸ // 401 Compound words describing different conceptions of time record the importance of certain moments in the rhythm of spring and the year, for example: 283) to_barsẽbrãžė nǫmẽ vẽsumẽt pãuo nakūovẽdūo⁸⁹ // 250 284) gavâu kẽltės pǫsūnakti⁹⁰ // 328 285) šimta pẽrmžiemė⁹¹ našta bǫva // 300 286) pãr pãt darbẽlaikį⁹² ãn sosesoka // 69 287) sǫ tuokẽs niẽkãs nožẽmink darbẽlaikė // 254 288) jõg nãb mažẽs / jau žẽimmetes⁹³ kõulės / gal e šãltau pabūte // 500 ⁸⁴ paslinkti – ‘not to be lazy, to feel like doing something’ KTŽ 374 ⁸⁵ plavėnėti, ~ėja, ~ėjo – ‘to wash often’ KTŽ 303 ⁸⁶ Here, atbėgi (dial.) means ‘to be born’, and išbėgti means ‘to die’; cf. KTŽ 42. ⁸⁷ žygiuoties, ~iuojas, ~iavos – ‘to bustle about, get ready, go about the household chores’ KTŽ 500 ⁸⁸ supaudimas – ‘a hard life, hardship’ KTŽ 401 ⁸⁹ naktoida – ‘midnight’ KTŽ 250 ⁹⁰ pusūnakte – ‘midnight’ KTŽ 328 ⁹¹ pirmžiemis – ‘beginning of winter’ KTŽ 300 ⁹² darbelakis – ‘work period’ KTŽ 69 ⁹³ žiemtės, ~ė – ‘one-year-old’ KTŽ 500 Straipsniai / Articles 89 JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ Every action has a customary duration, and certain events require a particular level of personal maturity; therefore, strikingly implausible statements surprise the KTŽ speaker, for example: 289) naprãje ni_miena kȧp sosėṫka / vọsė tūkš er_apsėžene // 443 290) àna apsėkiȯre94 septinùolekas metu // 148 The speaker is accustomed to measuring time, and sometimes distance (see example 292), in segments. Such segments are specified by emphasizing the duration of a conventional unit of time, for instance, a whole / entire day, half a day, a whole day, a whole lifetime (as ‘a part of the life of a conscious person’), or by indicating a specific number of such conventional units, e.g.: 291) plūnkȧu95 vesa deina e_dèdle pavargau // 311 292) ėš *plungė i *krētina rēk vesa deina plūkte96 // 311 293) kù_tò_sò_tòu tȧnnuotė / òns par vesa deina napsėdėb // 440 294) ėš kãuras97 deinas apkrauts sò_darbãs // 159 295) pársėtrlõjė98 pòsi dėinos // 445 296) ànà èsòga èsbòva cėlà mèta ten // 58 297) par_vėsa ōmži vis pȧvēikė mȯni lig_giva kàula sò_tòu sava biesėško karaktùoro / 487 298) sò_tòu žãno ȧs_naatsėvȯžėjau vesa ōmži // 491 299) par_trėta metu pragivėnsėm / šėta e_vȧkà pràš99 / pagėlbies // 453 The KTŽ speaker perceives the passage of time as relative, bounded by a person’s busyness, e.g.: 300) ėlgė tuos_dėnios bùn / ka_nėka nadėrbi // 123 301) vėinãs jōkàs prie tȧ_dėinà // 134 302) kȧ_pȧugi / dėdlė grėta èsbėg mèta // 34 303) kȧ_tòri dàug dàrbù / nė laika ni_numėrė // 58 The KTŽ speaker refers to time as the substance in which a person changes (grows, matures, ages); one’s own or another person’s changes, especially those associated with aging, sometimes go entirely unnoticed up to a certain point, e.g.: 304) tas_làiks tas / vọ_mès sėnėm // 46 305) às_vėnkart100 pasėnau / e_ganà // 485 94 to age – refl. verb, ‘to grow old’ KTŽ 148 95 to toil ~a, ~ė – 1. ‘to do something with great effort’ KTŽ 311 96 to toil ~a, ~ė – 2. ‘to walk with great effort’ KTŽ 311 97 whole ~a – 2. ‘entire, whole’ KTŽ 159 98 to linger, ~ioja, ~iojo – ‘to waste time’ KTŽ 445 99 to grow up, to grow stronger, grew stronger – ‘to grow up [...] to become stronger’ KTŽ 199 100 all at once – ‘in one go, boldly, immediately’ KTŽ 485 90 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIX Žemaitiškos tapatybės raiška: dėlionė iš Kretingos tarmės žodyno (2011) pavyzdžių 306) ànà pasėna / sukrėta vėnkart // 485 As already mentioned, such changes are perceived by the speaker as things that should occur at a certain pace; therefore, when discussing an individual’s age stages and maturity (capacity), deviations from norms or marked changes are described with phrases indicating deficiency, for example, understands nothing; is no longer anything; to die before one’s time: 307) vaikėlis mėtū / àli nieka nė šprontos // 58 308) jau pàugosi pàugosi / jau ę_žjoka špront // 34 309) tas_senis tēkrā sovakēje / nabžena nė kū basākas / nė kū badàras // 471 310) jau ès_anu nieka nabier / kàrsates101 / nieka napadarisi // 147 311) i_senàve ta_mūotreška pràded klàikte102 // 167 312) ka_pasėnu / e_ļėgas išėmė // 136 313) ōns_mėre perm_ļaika // 299 314) ōns_mėre ba_ļaika // 204 Aware of the inexorable passage of time, the KTŽ speaker likes to emphasize that a particular moment is suitable. Their desire to socialize is constrained by the understanding that one must not disturb another person without good reason; accordingly, efforts are made to frame what might outwardly seem impolite as if it were simply a matter of culture, e.g.: 315) kàp šiks103 pri_pōsriė pārė // 361 316) dàbar pats darbėlàikis / natrodik mūsa // 69 317) sāka āt kūmēt nūorintàs pri_mōnes / bēt kūmēt às ėšėo ėš_nom / ka_nie_ļaika // 58 318) nuōrėčiau pasėrokūote / àli bejàu trūntė // 457 319) nanuorėjau jisa trōkintė / dėl tuo e_nagėjau // 457 The KTŽ speaker plans personally or advises another person to consider how best to act or behave, e.g.: 320) pėrnūasis dārs rīta mētā / giūolūs apsėrė // 300 321) prisėvėžiem šėna vesā žėmā // 483 322) mōn rūodūos / ka_vėsis škobėnāus dābus rėk atliktė permāusė // 371 323) pasėdėk vūobulū rītū e_pōrtū / vėsu nasovāgik on_karta // 314 He describes uniform thinking and the instability associated with changing moods as unsuitable, and the future amid the rushing flow of time as uncertainty and haze, e.g.: 324) ka_tik_tōr / ànà šōk kou_grētàu ėslėstė pėngūs / vėnuos dēnuos gaspadėnė // 210 101 kàrsātis – ‘extreme old age, senility’ KTŽ 147 102 klàikti, ~sta, ~o – ‘go crazy’ KTŽ 167 103 kàp šiks – ‘just as’ KTŽ 361 Straipsniai / Articles 91 JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ 325) ànà į káp vėjėj papotamà / vėina dėina tēp / vo_kēta kētep // 330 326) õns į valdūets104 / anõ nagãl pasērmtę // 472 327) nažẽnã žmõogos / kū_àtnès ridęina // 345 328) nažẽnã / kū ritūo_dęina gal pageidūotę // 346 3.2.2. In a specific space (permanently or temporarily, alone or with others, yesterday or now, after death...) Reading the KTŽ brings into focus the boundaries of the Samogitian worldview, within which the speaker vacillates between aspiring to be independent and wanting, and being able, to cooperate or be together with others105. The KTŽ contains statements showing that collectivity is sometimes highly desirable and voluntary (for example, in agricultural work requiring people to pull together or in leisure activities), while at other times it is described as compulsory and associated with a desire to be apart (for example, when one has to share the same space continuously). The KTŽ speaker most often describes space not merely as a place, but also as a process—living together with others (cf. sykiu, kupetoj). Given the poor living conditions of ordinary people in the second half of the twentieth century, as well as in earlier periods, it can be argued that this process involves a certain number (usually a considerable number) of people being constantly or frequently present in the confined space of a home (understood to include any kind of shelter) (cf. the verb talpintis, used to denote being in that space). This presence is perceived as tiring, e.g.: 329) ànè šì̀ gyvẽn // 361 330) pėrm bòvòm àtskẽr / vo_dàbar šūšę vėsi į kộpeta // 300 331) kộpetọ106 givėndamis vėsę isprėkłėl // 197 332) tálpinsimos kãp_nuors vėšę vėinūo trúbojo // 439 333) rási ànėi tėn ėšskẽrs / rási čė nabvėlsės // 148 The KTŽ emphasizes the lack of one’s own home; even temporary stays with other people and in a noisy space evoke unpleasant associations for the speaker, cf.: 334) pakirėj lig_kãla tas_įnamẽms107 // 126 335) pėlnà trúobà bòva žmõnū / traškėje // 452 104 hours, ~a – ‘constant, changing in opinion or mood’ KTŽ 472 105 For cultural models presented by anthropologists and historians, ranging from strong individualism to strong collectivism, see Hare 2008: 690–691. 106 kupeta – 3. ‘group, female friend’ KTŽ 197 107 įnamimas – ‘living in a rented room’ KTŽ 126 92 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIX Žemaitiškos tapatybės raiška: dėlionė iš Kretingos tarmės žodyno (2011) pavyzdžių However, the speaker describes the time spent alone with dissatisfaction, associating it with imprisonment (nusikalėti), reclusiveness (kaip bazylis), and repeating the same slow actions (tep į kieblenieju), for example: 36) I got weary spending the whole day alone at home // 141 37) You get weary being alone, where no one comes to visit // 141 38) lives alone like a basilisk108 // 41 39) just like a sluggard, all alone at home // 153 The KTŽ speaker views another person’s ability to be and live alone positively, for example: 40) it seems to him109 to live well / there’s plenty to eat / all by himself // 347 The KTŽ contains phrases that record a possible or actual consequence of a person’s behavior (related to freedom or restraint, for example, when a guest arrives) when left alone at home, for example: 41) at home / you’ll get fed up staying indoors110 / when left alone // 259 42) whatever / whatever, he’s left all alone // 153 43) sometimes the women go out / we’ll be home alone // 243 The KTŽ speaker is given to humor; therefore, a person who has traveled far away, and especially one who has moved far away to live, is described as having gone off (having drifted off) to the very depths of hell, for example: 44) he’s gone off to the very depths of hell // 101 45) tās žmõgõs kažėn_kor nusėkuorē i̇ patē pekla // 148 An unspecified space is also chosen to describe the place of the afterlife, e.g.: 46) ka_numērsēm / vėsė patēsem i̇ tõ raigalinē // 333 For a speaker of the Kretinga Dialect Dictionary, the privacy of the space occupied both by the speaker and by those with them is important; it may be violated by being too close, by noise, or by curious strangers’ eyes, e.g.: 47) par_tõnē šodēt sūdā // 440 48) nēk artē / tõrõ slōgas / prīkebiso // 374 49) tīes nagal pamēguote / ka_kas_i_rinki brēžuos // 50 50) ožėdēsem pirānkās / e_nabšėisous nākti pro_lõngus // 299 The need to protect the home space may be described as a norm of proper conduct, e.g.: 108 Palenimas as basil is used when speaking of a solitary person, a hermit (cf. KTŽ 41). 109 rōds – ‘certainly’ KTŽ 347 110 nõcīna (Slavic) – ‘tool’ KTŽ 259 Straipsniai / Articles 93 JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ 351) ožedarį dōris ę_sọ_kūobēno¹¹ ožękabink / napadūro / ka_ādaras dōris // 179 Sometimes spatial parameters are used to draw attention to the temporary lack of some property of an obstacle (e.g., length) or to describe a high degree of likelihood for an action that has not occurred or a low degree of likelihood for one that is about to occur; cf.: 352) dōns par_vēsa pēlva / dāugūs nieka // 85 353) šē gōdros kāp vēlk / vo_ka_prigēre / dōns par_vēsa pēlva // 119 354) par_vēna plāuka¹² tāves nanunēs vies nu_tēlta // 302 355) ōns ni_ę_stūola¹³ nātes // 256 Spatial parameters are also used when one has to indicate to another person the route they need to take; cf. sincere and ironic directions: 356) kōru atavēuot / tōru ę_grižket // 460 357) kōru iejē / tōru ēr_ēšek // 460 To praise the way the space of a home has been arranged, the speaker draws on a comparison that brings together two categories of spatial symbols occupying the highest hierarchical position, e.g.: 358) tvārkā kāp bāžnīcō / grāžē kāp dōngū // 41 3.2.3. Attitudes toward communication and activity (recognizing sincerity, evaluating industriousness, empathy and consolation) A person is always constrained by the necessity of being together with others. The KTŽ speaker primarily links the success of being together and of possible cooperation with a person’s sincerity. Interlocutors are most often warned about unreliable and two-faced people by pointing to the absence of descriptions based on the adjective tikras or its derivatives (tikrus, tēra, tēreny-bē), for example: 359) ōns_tūoks ēš_ękra nier / ōns_tik_ir_pasidēges¹⁴ // 73 360) ōns dēdas dēdēlis gōdrūos / dēl_ę_ēkra tūoks nier // 119 361) ōns dōug_kū dāra dēl_žmuonū dā // 72 362) tērenibēs ānū kalbō ni_ę_stūola nier // 47 363) ōns ī_tūoks davatka / kū_čē_ṣọ_ānū ožādesi // 71 364) anems ka_kū_rēk gāute / ę_āū ēšlop / vo_ka_rē dūte / trēnas ę_trē-nas // 55 For KTŽ speakers, a person’s good nature is important; they like to argue and are afraid of insults, for example: ¹¹ kobīns – ‘hook’ KTŽ 179 ¹² Per vien plauką – ‘almost, by a tiny bit’. ¹³ Nei iš tolo – ‘certainly’. ¹⁴ pasidērti refl. – ‘to pretend’ KTŽ 73 94 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIX Žemaitiškos tapatybės raška: dėlne iš Kretingos tarmės žodyno (2011) pavyzdžių 365) ni_žūdo vėtās nēr / ōns ī sōsedēks // 401 366) šėrdēs ōzdaoms / vōt kas ī surbābis dāiks // 467 When speaking with another KTŽ informant, the speaker pays attention to the encounter (avoiding eye contact is considered a shortcoming), the authenticity of the speech (speaking in a non-Samogitian way also seems suspicious, as do, at times, differences between the speech of Samogitians living in different localities), the person’s understanding and self-assessment, e.g.: 367) sō_anų rūodas nãšėsi / ānō nãirīmōs115 vėns // 249 368) ōns ī tūoks verstālbis / atslēpuos ėš kaž_ės_kōr // 481 369) gargždėkė bēški kētėp rōkūjes nāp krengškē // 100 370) ōns ī nasorokūjems116 žmōgs // 348 371) pasikėr vėrsēnoje / e_nabāl dō_ānū basērōkūte kāp so_žmōgō // 488 When trouble strikes, whether at work or during leisure activities, help and support are needed. All sorts of things happen in life, so people sometimes complain of being alone in hardship, and at other times take pride in solidarity and unity, e.g.: 372) nūorints šōni apkabėnės šūk / nieka naprīšaukēs / ka_i bieda // 259 373) mēs laikīmōs kāp vėns // 484 374) kāp līnksmā / kāp gerā būrie // 216 The KTŽ contains many examples of taking pride in working together (we, everyone)—in the scale and pace of the work and in the result achieved: 375) mēs kāp rēnt padarbējem / pāol pābengėjem // 77 376) ka_inēkōm vėšē / tūjau e_pābengėm tus gālus rāute // 257 It is often observed that one person alone on a farm cannot work efficiently, so people say, console themselves, or hope to have helpers, e.g.: 377) to_vēns tēn tapuojis vēsa dēina / ben_vākus pašaukis // 440 378) atvōžūs brōlis e_prikėbs117 / abōdo e_padėrbēsū // 160 379) trėju118 ka_kėbsēm / e_grētā vėn pabengsem // 455 380) šēt ontaug monē padiejēję // 267 The speaker in the KTŽ associates a person's success with industriousness and the ability to perform tasks nimbly and effectively; energetic people are therefore always talked about and praised, while those who have not succeeded are the subject of astonishment, e.g.: 381) darbēm žmōgū vėšr gēr // 70 382) mēklos žmōgōs ōns ī // 237 383) kās pār smarkē bēnos / lāksta kāp žābs // 376 115 nāirnoms – ‘fidgeting, looking around’ KTŽ 249 116 surokūti, ~uoja, ~avo – ‘to get along, live together’ KTŽ 348 117 prikti, prikimba, ~o – 2. ‘to sting, help’ KTŽ 160 118 trīju adv. ‘three times’ KTŽ 455 Straipsniai / Articles 95 JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ 384) patrákės ę̣_skọdrõms119 tuos_mérguos // 371 385) nà_žingsnò ēt / ọns biegtėnã bieg // 42 386) ĩ žmúonũ / ka_anę̇ms nikúoks dárbs naùrìkst // 486 387) poor people always end up idle // 248 The success of married life is measured by a spouse’s agility and industriousness, for example: 388) has a neat wife // 241 389) he’s a lively one, but she can’t get anything done // 251 A person looking for a helper or a partner is advised which kind of person, or which person, not to rely on, for example: 390) you can’t get anything out of a lazy person120 // 165 391) there’s nothing to sit on with that one; he’s a real softie // 239 392) you’d be better off not sitting on that one // 310121 393) a live iron; you won’t get anything out of that one // 444 394) you have to look carefully, once you marry a fool122, how will you live, child? // 454 Aspects of Samogitian community spirit and communication are revealed by sayings in the KTŽ that express humility and acceptance, for example: 395) you can’t blow against the wind, child // 330 396) what hardship you have, the world pays no heed // 24 397) nọ nièka napašėksi123 žmúogòs / tēp jau bọva žadieta124 // 495 When someone is saddened or troubled, the KTŽ speaker expresses sympathy and offers comfort by emphasizing the possibility of choosing a different interpretation of events, often drawing on vivid comparisons, for example: 398) diel nièku nàrėk kr̃uokte // 72 399) ọns joukôu / nàrėk ìmte i gãlva // 135 400) nabiedavùokis / kọl biedùos nátori // 41 401) laikìkis / ka_paškõu narėktọm tọmpìtė kãp_kùoki nagĩvėli // 249 402) blúogã blúogã / àli vės_gėrãu kãp_pasẹkùorošėm // 24 Sometimes the consolation may be ironic, for example: 403) nọ ẹr_eššėrińka ẹ̇s_vėsa blūda mėšuos vėrši ọudega // 48 The speaker himself likes to reject another person's attentiveness, and, when faced with unwelcome attention, vows not to give in, for example: skudrùmas – ‘resourcefulness, nimbleness’ KTŽ 371 užsìbišti, ~a, ~o – 2. ‘to rely on, to draw support from’ KTŽ 165 pliùškis, ~ė – ‘a frivolous person’ KTŽ 310 trìdalas – ‘a hothead’ KTŽ 454 negalėti pašìkti – ‘to be unable to do’ cf. KTŽ 495 žadėti, žãda, ~ėjė – 2. ‘to assign, to determine’ KTŽ 495 96 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIX Žemaitiškos tapatybės raiška: dėlionė iš Kretingos tarmės žodyno (2011) pavyzdžių 404) vo to našėrk na sāva lėgọ / narūpīnkis ọž monì // 31 405) kāp tọ môn / tēp ãš tāu / piràgs prīš piràga / vàkāli // 299 4. GENERALIZATION An attempt to group KTŽ speakers’ statements about themselves and others, which illustrate different forms of emotional expression, according to the functionality of the selected phrases along the axis I–you–third person–indeterminate individual expression: localization in time–localization in space–localization in the community / cooperation, brings into focus the potential for a full range of emotions at each point toward which attention is directed. Some patterns of expression recur more frequently throughout the KTŽ (this is also associated with the generally greater likelihood of using such utterances). The types of emotions expressed more frequently (identified by the distinctiveness of certain topics and phrases) are marked by darker-shaded cells in Table 1. To summarize the more salient features of the discourse described in this article, which reveals the emotional field of the KTŽ speaker, it is clear that each direction of attention (toward oneself, the addressee, a third person, or the surroundings) is differently associated with the likelihood of expressing particular emotions. As a record of natural everyday discourse, the KTŽ documents a close relationship between speakers and their addressees; accordingly, descriptions in which the dictionary’s speaker consciously reveals my self are not characterized by the specifications required for an official self-introduction. The speaker’s I am is most often associated with a particular predication that helps express the field of the most prominent emotions governing them, for example, compassion (èšọ tūoki menkštuonālę, see example 22), the need for stability or fear of surprises and novelties (pri tā žemėi èšọ priserėšęs, see example 23), and self-confidence, manifested in declarations of strength or superiority (see examples 30–31). Formulations of a similar structure are also chosen to describe a temporary change in physical condition and appearance (èšọ nušãlosi / nučōškosi, see example 78) or one’s physical or spiritual incapacity (èšọ nagalīngs, èšọ sọsegraušęs, see examples 35 and 41). The KTŽ speaker shows attentiveness to themself (often somewhat belatedly) by mentioning health problems (mōna rōnkas plēišie, mōn vėdorē ōžtōka, cf. examples 37 and 38). They may describe short-lived changes of state through comparisons (kāp žōrkė, kāp vėšta, èšọ tēp kāp kārtę vėdāms, cf. examples 77, 78, and 41), and emphasize their abilities or understanding with phrases such as ãš muōko, ãš gālō, tās môn ir, often with a clear reference to themself (ãš pats). The KTŽ speaker tends to express their preferences and evaluations indirectly, highlighting what they dislike by means of elimination. To reclaim the safe boundaries of their personal space (which may be violated by another person’s overly close presence, breathing, angry or intent gaze, or insulting speech), the speaker Straipsniai / Articles 97 JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ chooses prohibitions or instructions, most often based on negation and a reference to themself as the object: monės / mon / moni / mona (see examples 60–71). TABLE 1. Distribution of concentrations of emotional expression in phrases recorded in the KTŽ according to speaking strategy Commitments | Emotion emerging in speech | about oneself | instructions to the addressee | about a third person | with individual meaning neutralized | about time | about space | about activity and being together; Modulating | concern / anxiety | + | + | + | + | + | + | +; confidence | + | + | + | + | + | + | +; Evaluative | pride | + | + | + | + | + | + | +; shame | + | + | + | + | + | + | +; Fundamental | care, compassion | + | + | + | + | + | + | +; appreciation | + | + | + | + | + | + | +; love / self-attention | + | + | + | + | + | + | + Instructions by the KTŽ speaker of a different kind, no longer intended to protect personal space, clearly convey care. This may concern the addressee themself, their health, presence, posture, and conduct, as well as maintaining order in shared living spaces or complying with rules of decent behavior. The KTŽ contains many instructions from the speaker concerning the addressee’s inappropriate appearance. Such commands or questions advise the addressee not to leave the home until the remark has been heeded. By making a remark that may sound like a reproach, the KTŽ speaker seeks to protect the addressee from possible mockery and unwanted attention. In this way, the addressee’s confidence at an appropriate level beyond the home or yard is indirectly fostered. A considerable proportion of direct instructions to the addressee consists of comments on the quality of work being done or the pace of activity—the work must be done neither 98 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIX Žemaitiškos tapatybės raiška: dėlionė iš Kretingos tarmės žodyno (2011) pavyzdžių too slowly (then the addressee’s activity would become undesirable), nor too quickly (this would prevent the task from being carried out successfully and without becoming overstrained). When speaking about a third person—who is usually not participating in the conversation—the interlocutor’s attention is directed toward the person’s activities, abilities, and behavior, especially their ability to communicate, tidiness, and care for others. Such stretches of conversation often describe a person’s appearance; its distinctive features become an additional identifying (defining) marker. Evaluation is often also related to the level of confidence of the person being discussed. People who are less confident, scolded, mistreated, or unsuccessful are most often described with compassion, expressed through referring to the subject with a diminutive or a noun denoting poverty (cf. žmogielis, nabagas, nabagė, nabagėlis, nabagūtis KTŽ 248). Those characterized by sound judgment and determination are evaluated positively. In seeking to neutralize the individual significance of one’s own aš and the interlocutor’s tu, and wishing to convey behavioral maxims and generalizations, the speaker chooses speaking strategies characterized by indeterminacy. They are a safe way to express consolation (cf. example 248), make demands, state rules (see examples 250–254), or safely express joy or admiration (see example 249). The KTŽ speaker’s linguistic strategies discussed above, based on personal storytelling, direct descriptions and instructions, or universal behavioral rules and models, intertwine in conversation. Discourse passages in KTŽ that show the speaker’s actual situation at a particular stage of life and reveal the close connection between the speaker’s everyday activities and their obligations help us understand the true reasons behind many of the KTŽ speaker’s utterances. Utterance patterns indicating experiences and evaluations of being in time, space, and community make it possible to understand why attention to order is sometimes given excessive importance, while at other times a person outside one’s closest circle is treated with inattention. Utterance patterns associated with references to time show the KTŽ speaker conceiving everyday activity as a continuous, spiraling movement forward. To successfully tackle everyday tasks, one must keep moving at a brisk pace, while the living space has boundaries within which one can remain only by following rules that demand constant attention and order. A person is never alone in time and space. The boundaries of the Samogitian worldview that emerge in KTŽ show the speaker balancing between the aspiration to be independent and the desire and ability to cooperate and be together with others. The specific situation determines whether collectivity seems highly desirable or compulsory. When misfortune strikes, the KTŽ speaker urges the interlocutor to hold on and not give up, thereby placing them in circumstances that require concentration, endurance, and a strong character, e.g.: 406) numėrtėtẹ̇s vėsumėt soskõbsi / gìvėntė / vò // 240 Straipsniai / Articles 99 JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ CONCLUSIONS Drawing on the illustrative material in KTŽ, the article discusses the most prominent speech patterns through which a speaker of the Kretinga subdialect of Northern Samogitian reveals their attitude toward themselves and their surroundings. An attempt to group KTŽ examples illustrating the expression of different obligation-based emotions according to the functionality of the phrases selected along the axis I–you–third person–indeterminate expression of the individual: localization in time–localization in space–localization in the community / cooperation reveals the potential for a full range of emotions at any point at which the focus of attention is selected. Some speech patterns recur more frequently throughout KTŽ (which is related to the generally higher likelihood of such utterances being used). In summarizing the more prominent features of the discourse in KTŽ that reveal the speaker’s emotional field, it becomes evident that each direction of attention (toward oneself, the addressee, a third person, or the environment) is differently associated with the likelihood of particular emotions being expressed. When speaking about themselves, the KTŽ speaker most clearly reveals one of the essential obligations—self-love. Communication with the addressee based on direct instructions very clearly reveals the expression of caring emotions. Care and trust are also most evident when speaking about activity and being together. The speaker’s statements about a third person, as well as behavioral maxims and generalizations, are most often based on evaluation. The emotion of concern or anxiety becomes evident when the speaker discusses being in time and space. The article is based on the assumption that by sorting utterance patterns prompted by various everyday situations, it is possible to assemble from the whole of KTŽ a picture of a speaker conveying the experiences and utterances of numerous depersonalized individuals. The contours of the Samogitian emotional field thus assembled still need to be refined by comparison with the summary of psychological characteristics specific to Samogitians presented in the study of Psychic Phenomena Determined by Ethnic Affiliation125, but that is a task for another stage of the research. SOURCES AND LITERATURE Aleksandravičius Juozas 2011: Kretingos tarmės žodynas, sud.: Danguolė Mikulėnienė, Daiva Vaišnienė. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Atkočaitytė Daiva 2002: Pietų žemaičių raseiniškių prozodija ir vokalizmas. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla. 125 Šio tyrimo aprašymą žr. Bliumas 1997. 100 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIX Žemaitiškos tapatybės raiška: dėlionė iš Kretingos tarmės žodyno (2011) pavyzdžių Babickienė Zofija, Jasiūnaitė Birutė, Pečeliūnaitė Angelė, Bagužytė Rūta 2007: Centrinė šiaurės žemaičių kretingiškių tarmė: tarmės tekstai su komentarais ir žodynėliu. Vilnius: Baltos lankos. Bliumas Remigijus 1997: Aukštaičių ir žemaičių etnine priklausomybe determinuotų psichinių reiškinių savitumai. – Psichologija 17, 25–57. Dumont Louis 2002: Esė apie individualizmą. Vilnius: Baltos lankos. Girdenis Aleksas 1967: Mažeikių tarmės fonologinė sistema. Filologijos mokslų kandidato disertacija. – Kalbotyros darbai I, aut. Girdenis Aleksas. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 89–119, 120–160. Girdenis Aleksas, sud., 1996: Taip šneka tirkšliškiai: šiaurės žemaičių telšiškių tarmės tekstai su komentarais. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Grinaveckis Vladas 1973: Žemaičių tarmių istorija. Vilnius: Mintis. Harré Rom 2008: The Discursive Turn in Social Psychology. – The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, 688–706. Haspelmath Martin 2000: Indefinite Pronouns, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Helm Bennet W. 2009: Self-love and the structure of personal values. – Consciousness and Emotion Book Series 6, 11–32. Hills Michael D. 2002: Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck‘s Values Orientation Theory. – Online Readings in Psychology and Culture 4. Prieiga internetu: https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&context=orpc. Holvoet Axel, Pajėdienė Jūratė 2004: Laiko kategorija ir laiko formos. – Gramatinių kategorijų tyrimai (Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos darbai 2). Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 121–140, 169–170. Judžentis Artūras 2012: Lietuvių kalbos gramatinės kategorijos. Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. Kajėnas Gediminas 2013: Justinas Lingys. Tarp formos ir turinio. Prieiga internetu: http://www.bernardinai.lt/straipsnis/2013-05-15-justinas-lingys-tarp-formos-ir-turinio/99785. Kalniuvienė Laimutė, par., 2007–2008: Taip kalbėjo mūsų senoliai. Žemaitiški žodžiai, posakiai, išsireiškimai: Prieiga internetu: http://www.klavb.lt/EL_LEIDINIAI/KRASTOTYRA/kretinga. Kurkowska-Budzan Marta, Zamorski Krzysztof 2009: From the editors. – Oral history: The challenges of dialogue, 11–18. Straipsniai / Articles 101 JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ Kluckhohn Florence R., Strodtbeck Fred L. 1961: Variations in value orientations. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson. Mikulėnienė Danguolė 2011: Juozo Aleksandravičiaus lituanistinė ir pedagoginė veikla. – Kretingos tarmės žodynas, autorius Juozas Aleksandravičius, sud. Danguolė Mikulėnienė, Daiva Vaišnienė. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, VII–XII. Murinienė Lina 2007: Rytinių šiaurės žemaičių fonologija: vokalizmas ir prozodija. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Pabrėža Juozas 2017: Žemaičių kalba ir rašyba, Šiauliai: Šiaulių universiteto bibliotekos Leidybos skyrius. Pabrėža Juozas, Marčišauskaitė Vida, Leskauskaitė Asta, sud., 2013: Šiaurės žemaičiai telšiškiai. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Pakalniškis Vaidotas 2001: Žemaitiškumas globaliame pasaulyje. – Lietuvos etnologija. Socialinės antropologijos ir etnologijos studijos 1(10), 199–216. Papaurelytė Silvija, Župerka Kazimieras 2010: Lietuvos etninių sričių gyventojų charakterio bruožai kalbos pasaulėvaizdyje. – Kalbos kultūra 83, 185–201. Petreikis Tomas 2012: Žemaitijos regioninė knyga ir žemaičių tapatybė XX a. I pusėje. – Tautosakos darbai 43, 85–108. Phillips Louise 2011: The Promise of Dialogue. The dialogic turn in the production and communication of knowledge. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Rosinas Albertas 1996: Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos įvardžiai. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Rutkovska Kristina 2017: Namai. Šeima. – Vertybės lietuvio pasaulėvaizdyje, autoriai: Rutkovska Kristina, Smetona Marius, Smetonienė Irena. Vilnius: Akademinė leidyba, 87–148. Skouds 2018: Žemaičių žodynas, sudarė Kultūros ir turizmo skyrius. Prieiga internetu: http://www.skouds.lt/lt/zemaiciu-zodynas. Tarmių tekstyno duomenų bazė 2018: Sudarė Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Prieiga internetu: http://tarmiuarchyvas.lki.lt/pradinis.php?sutrum=p=bnd. Ulvydas Kazys 1971: Prieveiksmis. – Lietuvių kalbos gramatika. Vilnius: Mintis, 425–576. Vaišnienė Daiva 2011: „Kretingos tarmės žodynas“: pagrindiniai medžiagos pateikimo principai. – Kretingos tarmės žodynas, autorius Juozas Aleksandravičius, sudarė: Danguolė Mikulėnienė, Daiva Vaišnienė. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, XX–XXXVI. 102 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIX Žemaitiškos tapatybės raiška: dėlionė iš Kretingos tarmės žodyno (2011) pavyzdžių Valeckienė Adelė 2006: Įvardis. – Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika, red. Vytautas Ambrazas. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 251–282. Vanagienė Birutė 2014: Pratarmė. Įvadinės pastabos. – Šiaurės vakarų žemaičių žodynas: Ylakių, Lenkimų, Mosėdžio, Skuodo, Šačių apylinkių šnektos 1. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 23–28. Vanagienė Birutė 2014–2015: Šiaurės vakarų žemaičių žodynas: Ylakių, Lenkimų, Mosėdžio, Skuodo, Šačių apylinkių šnektos, 1–2. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Zinkevičius Zigmas 1994: Lietuvių kalbos dialektologija. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Žemaitiškė anekdotā 2018. Prieiga internetu: http://samogitia.mch.mii.lt. Žimkutė Simona 2008: R. Balsys: žemaičiai – narsūs, atkaklūs ir laisvi. Prieiga internetu: www.delfi.lt/news/daily/lithuania. Expression of Samogitian Identity: Putting Together the Examples from Kretinga Dialect Dictionary (2011) into a Single Picture SUMMARY Based on the illustrative material used in the Kretinga Dialect Dictionary (KDD), the article discusses the most prominent utterance models chosen by the speakers of the Northern Samogitian dialect of Kretinga by which the speaker reveals the attitude towards him/her and his/her environment. An attempt to group the KDD speaker’s utterances illustrating different realizations of commitment-based emotions by the functionality of the chosen phrases on the axis I – you – third person – individual’s indefinite expression: localization in time – localization in space – localization in community / cooperation raises the possibility of versatile emotions at any point of choosing the focus of attention. It is noteworthy that more frequent repetition is characteristic of certain utterance models in the whole KDD (it is also linked with a generally greater probability of using such utterances in real speaking situations). The summary of more prominent features of the discourse revealing the emotional field of the KDD speaker, which are described in the article, makes it clear that each focus of attention (directing attention towards oneself, towards the addressee, towards the third person, towards the environment) is linked with the probability of revealing certain emotions to a different intensity. When speaking about oneself, the KDD speaker reveals one of the major commitments – love for oneself – most clearly. The communication with Straipsniai / Articles 103 JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ the addressee based on direct instructions reveals the expression of caring emotions very clearly. Caring and trust are most vivid when speaking about activities and being together. The KDD speaker’s utterances about the third person and the maxims and generalizations of behaviour are usually based on evaluations. The emotion of anxiety/worrying comes to the fore when the KDD speaker discusses localization in time and space. The article is based on the assumption that an attempt to group certain utterance models provoked by some daily situations out of the entirety of illustrations presented in the KDD enables us to assemble a certain picture of the SPEAKER representing the experiences and utterances of the multitude of depersonalized individuals. The outline of the Samogitian’s emotional field shaped in this study should be further revised and highlighted by also referring to the Summary Table of the Psychic Characteristics of Samogitians established in the Research of Ethnically Determined Psychic Phenomena (cf. Bliumas 1997). But that is already another stage of the study. Submitted on December 10, 2018 JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ Institute of the Lithuanian Language Petro Vileišio St. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius, Lithuania [email protected] 104 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIX