SIMONA VYNIUTAITĖ

Lietuvių kalbos institutas

Research areas: geolinguistics, dialectology, sociolinguistics.

THE 9TH INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF DIALECTOLOGY AND GEOLINGUISTICS

The 9th International Congress of Dialectology and Geolinguistics took place in Vilnius on July 23–27, 2018. The scientific event attracted scholars and guests in the fields of dialectology and geolinguistics from 28 countries around the world. The congress was organized by the Institute of the Lithuanian Language, with Vilnius University, Šiauliai University, and the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences as its partners.

The congress was initiated by the International Society for Dialectology and Geolinguistics (English: International Society for Dialectology and Geolinguistics (SID); for more details, see http://www.geo-linguistics.org/index.html). The first such congress was held in 1993 in Budapest (Hungary). The 1997 congress took place in Amsterdam (the Netherlands), in 2000 in Lublin (Poland), in 2003 in Riga (Latvia), in 2006 in Braga (Portugal), in 2009 in Maribor (Slovenia), in 2012 in Vienna (Austria), and in 2015 in Famagusta (Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus). The aim of congresses held every three years in a different country participating in the activities of the International Society for Dialectology and Geolinguistics is to foster cooperation among institutions and scholars advancing the fields of international dialectology and geolinguistics, and to share theoretical and methodological approaches and engage in scholarly discussion.

At the five-day congress, papers were presented at the plenary session (July 23) and in ten sections (July 24, 25, and 27), and a closing session devoted to concluding discussions was held (July 27). On one day of the scientific event (July 26), participants took part in a cultural excursion, which is also part of the congresses organized by the International Society for Dialectology and Geolinguistics.

At the opening of the congress at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language, participants and guests were welcomed by Dr. Albina Auksoriūtė, director of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language, Audronius Ažubalis, a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, and the Lithuanian

Apžvalgos / Surveys

255

SIMONA VYNIAUTĖ

The First Deputy Chancellor of the Government of the Republic, Deividas Matulionis; Astrid van Nahl, editor of the journal published by the International Association of Dialectology and Geolinguistics; and Prof. Dr. Meilutė Ramonienė, Dean of the Faculty of Philology at Vilnius University, as well as Academician Zenonas Dabkevičius, Vice-President of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences, also attended. A congratulatory letter from Maria-Pilar Pea, President of the International Association of Dialectology and Geolinguistics, was read aloud, and a video recording of greetings from Prof. Dr. Ingrida Šaulienė, Vice-Rector for Research and Arts at Šiauliai University, was shown.

Invited speakers delivered papers at the plenary session. Prof. Dr. Frans Hinskens of the Meertens Institute and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (the Netherlands) presented “Dialectology and the study of language variation. Quo vadis?” (English: Dialectology and the study of language variation. Quo vadis?), discussing several aspects of the development of dialectology. He emphasized that dialectology is no longer a discipline strictly separated from modern linguistics. The social dimension, the incorporation of quantitative methods, and the cognitive approach are among the elements enriching dialectology. Changes in the objects and methods of research may affect traditional dialect landscapes and lead to the emergence of new territorial formations or dialect continua. The speaker considered how language variation and its newly emerging types might be studied, and what challenges lie ahead for particular areas of research.

The paper by Dr. Chris Montgomery of the University of Sheffield (Great Britain), “Perception: Why we need to understand it, and why it is difficult to do so” (English: Perception: Why we need to understand it, and the difficulties in doing so), focused on perception in dialectology. Highlighting the place of perceptual research in the history of studies of language variation, the speaker emphasized that understanding perception is important for understanding language models as well as dialect change. In the author’s view, a holistic understanding of language variation and change requires taking the role of perception into account and finding ways to better integrate research into language itself with research into its perception.

In his paper, “Dialectology goes digital. Tapping regional variation in anonymous social media communication” (English: Dialectology goes digital. Tapping regional variation in anonymous social media communication), invited speaker Dr. Christoph Pursche of the University of Luxembourg sought to open a discussion on computational sociolinguistics and contribute to the development of this emerging field. According to the speaker, most studies of linguistic variation are based on a traditional approach: data are analyzed using an established, widely accepted methodology, while computational linguistics pays little attention to the social conditioning of language variation. Thus, perspectives from both sociolinguistics and computational linguistics could be incorporated into research on language variation.

256

Acta Linguistica Lituanica LXXIX

9-asis tarptautinis dialektologijos ir geolingvistikos kongresas

Representing Lithuanian dialectologists, Prof. Dr. Danguolė Mikulėnienė introduced the multimodal sociolinguistic model developed at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language, which in recent years has begun to be applied in Lithuania in studies of regional language variation. In her paper, “A multimodal sociolinguistic model for studies of regional language variation: the case of Lithuanian at the beginning of the 21st century” (English: Multidimensional sociolinguistic model for regional language variation studies: Lithuanian case at the beginning of the 21^st century), the author identified three main levels of research: 1) selective analysis of traditional dialect data; 2) studies of the linguistic environment and sociocultural networks; 3) research into language users’ attitudes and public opinion. Dialectometric methods are used here, and quantitative analysis helps avoid potential researcher subjectivity and a dialectophile perspective.

Another invited speaker, Prof. Dr. Juan-Andrés Villena-Ponsoda of the University of Málaga in Spain, gave a paper entitled “The dilemma of the reliability of geolinguistic and dialectological data for sociolinguistic research. The case of the /θ/ merger in Andalusian Spanish” (English: The dilemma of the reliability of geolinguistic and dialectological data for sociolinguistic research. The case of the Andalusian merger of /θ/), which was read by Dr. Jurga Jaroslavienė. The paper examined the relationship between geolinguistic, dialectological, and sociolinguistic data on the basis of the linguistic and cultural situation of language users in Andalusia. The researcher emphasized that sociolinguistic data are based on the sociological assumption of sampling and variation, which is incompatible with fundamental geolinguistic and dialectological data. The author considered the extent to which geolinguistic and dialectological data can be reliable for retrospectively tracing the history of variation and particular linguistic changes.

After the plenary session, the congress continued its work in thematic sections. One of them was “Perceptual dialectology: quantitative and qualitative perspectives.” In this section, M. Schmalz (Switzerland) presented a new methodological approach; G. Múcsová (Slovakia) discussed folk dialectology as a branch supporting perceptual dialectology; and D. Aliūkaitė (Lithuania) analyzed the relationship between objective and subjective variation in Lithuania.

In the section “Intermediate dialectology: multilingual and multicultural variation,” L. Balode (Latvia), T. Jakop (Slovenia), M. Nevai (Romania), N. Saramandu (Romania), I. Metsmägi (Estonia), V. Oja (Estonia), and Ch. Schneider (Switzerland) presented papers on language influence and dialect convergence. R. Kvašytė (Lithuania) presented the Lithuanian linguistic situation and sociocultural networks in Latvia; H. Suzuki (Norway) introduced geolinguistic studies of Tibetan dialects; and Y. Asahi (Japan) discussed studies of linguistic variants in Japanese diasporas. E. Zologa (Spain) spoke about the risks of geographical criteria in interpreting the past (renta…

Apžvalgos / Surveys

257

SIMONA VYNIUTAITĖ

in the case of Basque). M. Bouzouta (Belgium) and V. Casanova (Belgium) examined the postessives, while V. Lara Bermejo (Switzerland) examined the comitative.

The section “Sources of Terms: Texts, Dictionaries, Atlases, Corpora” explored the history and current situation of Lithuanian, Estonian, Japanese, and Dutch dialect dictionaries and atlases. Insights were shared by J. Švambarytė-Valužienė (Lithuania), M. L. Kalvik (Estonia), M. Kendla (Estonia), K. Tomosada (Japan), H. Iwaki (Japan), M. Matsuda (Japan), N. Siokawa (Japan), C. I. Floarea (Romania), and J. Corbera Pou (Spain). J. Van Keymeulen (Belgium), V. De Tier (Belgium), and D. Brozović (Croatia) discussed the possibilities and challenges of digitizing dictionaries and atlases, as well as the challenges of digital cartography; M. P. Pereos (Spain) also presented a paper on this topic.

“Dialects in Space and Time” was another section in which Dutch, Austrian, Spanish, Italian, Japanese, Chinese, Basque, Slovak, Latvian, and Lithuanian dialects were discussed. The dialects were considered from a historical perspective, and the situation that has emerged in the 21st century was also discussed from various viewpoints. Attention was directed to dialect change influenced by time and language contact, and to the linguistic self-awareness of dialect speakers. The method for calculating the average of words in dialect texts was explained. Papers in this section were delivered by A. Daina (Latvia), L. Markus-Narvila (Latvia), W. Heeringa (Netherlands), F. Hinskens (Netherlands), Ch. Schrödl (Hungary), H. Ueda (Japan), Y. Ebata (Japan), U. Goiriena Lorea (Spain), G. Kačiukienė (Lithuania), M. Cerruti (Italy), M. Endo (Japan), J. Pabrėža (Lithuania), and M. Padilla-Moyano (France).

The congress also featured the sharing of insights in the section “Dialect Creativity and Literacy in the 21st Century: Need, Opportunity, Necessity.” K. Geyer (Denmark) discussed dictionaries of dialect expressions as a direct source for research in folk dialectology, while A. Mlekodaj (Poland) discussed the study of dialect literature as a component that enriches and complements dialectology. J. Zarskaitė (Lithuania) presented a concept of themes that could serve as elements of creativity.

At the session of “Theoretical Dialectology: (De)construction and (De)conceptualization of Dialects,” dialects were examined from various theoretical perspectives. Speakers from Spain, G. Aurrekoetxea and A. E. Erenza, discussed problems surrounding the concept of dialect, while E. Valls (Spain), drawing on examples from Catalan dialects, analyzed the boundary effect. V. Meiliūnaitė (Lithuania) examined when and why informants choose to use distinctive dialect features rather than give in to the prevailing tendency to abandon them. The paper by K. Kozhanov (Russia) and B. Wiener (Germany) focused on the study of morphosyntactic variation in Lithuanian dialects.

In the section “The Linguistic (Scientific and Laboratory) Value and Self-Value of Dialects,” D. Pakalnienė (Lithuania) and J. Lubienė (Lithuania) analyzed somatonym patterns and motivation, while F. Cugno (Italy) and F. Cusan (Italy) examined lexicalization

258

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica XXIX

9-asis tarptautinis dialektologijos ir geolingvistikos kongresas

and metaphorization. J. Škof (Slovenia) discussed thermal microtoponyms, while J. N. Fodoros (Hungary) explored thermal onomastics; G. Blažienė (Lithuania) introduced proper nouns in Prussian dialects. Japanese scholars Sh. Ogawa, F. Inoue, and Y. Hanzawa discussed historical and geographical variation in dictionaries and changes in dialect dictionaries. A. Stafecka (Latvia) shared insights on surnames as a source for research into dialectology and language contact, while M. Koletnik (Slovenia) and N. Šabec (Slovenia) analyzed contact between Slovenian and English and dialect maintenance in immigrant communities. The papers by S. Jē­rane (Latvia) and M. Hopej (Poland) focused on linguistic landscape research. Papers illustrating changes in and applications of various methodologies were presented during sessions of the section “Cumulative and Interpretive Methodologies in Dialectology.” Research using dialectometric and other quantitative dialectology methods, as well as the specific features of map preparation, was discussed. Phonetics and phonology, morphology, contact between dialects and the standard language were analyzed, and the possibilities and challenges of applying transcription were considered. Papers were delivered by D. Markus (Latvia), Y. Yamazaki (Sweden), L. Thöny (Switzerland), G. Tillinger (Sweden), Sh. K. Kayoko (Japan), Y. Nakajima (Japan), S. Matayoshi (Japan), K. Shinsuke (Japan), S. Yukako (Japan), R. K. Faquire (Bangladesh), A. Leskauskaitė (Lithuania), Ch. Fukushima (Japan), T. Onishi (Japan), Y. Kumagai (Japan), M. Bouzouté (Belgium), M. Castilo (Switzerland), E. Pato (Canada), L. Geržotaitė (Lithuania), H. Huang (China), Y. Zhu (China), H. Ramischus (Germany), T. Legese Feleke (Italy), V. Kardelis (Lithuania), Ch. Schneider (Switzerland), R. Bakšienė (Lithuania), A. Čepaitienė (Lithuania), J. Jaroslavienė (Lithuania), J. Urbanavičienė (Lithuania), A. Ivanickaja (Lithuania), D. Kiseliūnaitė (Lithuania), and D. Jakulytė (Lithuania).

At the closing session, whose topic was proposed by scholars M. Sawaki, Ch. Fukushima, F. Inoue, and T. Onishi (Japan), and W. Heeringa and F. Hinskens (Netherlands), the audience was introduced to the Japanese and Dutch-Flemish schools of dialectology and the connections between them.

During the final session of the International Congress of Dialectology and Geolinguistics, the five-day academic event was reviewed. Participants expressed appreciation for the broad range of topics and issues addressed in the papers and the large number of attendees. More than 80 academic papers were presented in total (their abstracts can be found on the event website http://sidg2018.lt).). Guests thanked the organizers for an excellent congress. The congress’s cultural and educational program also received excellent reviews and feedback: trips to Rumšiškės, Trakai, and Kernavė, and tours of the Palace of the Grand Dukes of Lithuania and Vilnius University.

The 9th International Congress of Dialectology and Geolinguistics gave scholars from countries around the world an opportunity to share insights and new perspectives, discuss the application of methodologies, present their research, and draw attention to prevailing

Apžvalgos / Surveys

259

SIMONA VYNIUAITĖ

trends. Sharing scientific experience and having an opportunity to discuss and engage in dialogue, both through active participation in the sections and in non-academic settings, will likely inspire new ideas and the beginning and continuation of joint work.

In 2021, the 10th International Congress of Dialectology and Geolinguistics will be held in Bucharest, Romania.

Received on November 5, 2018.

SIMONA VYNIUAITĖ

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

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

[email protected]

260

Acta Linguistica Lituanica LXIX