Nevaldomas skolinimasis kaip kalbos nykimo požymis

NJOLĖ UOMENĖ Institute of the Lithuanian Language Research areas: dialectology, dialect morphology, lexicon, sociolinguistics, language interaction. UNCONTROLLED BORROWING AS A SIGN OF LANGUAGE LOSS Uncontrolled Borrowing as a Sign of Language Loss ABSTRACT Drawing on contemporary dialectological material—from the late twentieth to the early twenty-first century—from Lithuanian-speaking enclaves in Belarus belonging to the Southern Aukštaitian subdialect (Varanavo District, Grodno Region), this article analyzes the current state of the Lithuanian language and its change. The subject of the study is lexical borrowings from Belarusian, Polish, and Russian. It seeks to determine whether the abundance of Slavicisms is a consequence of natural language change or of language loss (death). Language processes are examined here through the apparent-time approach: the speech of informants from several generations is studied and compared. The study also describes factors that change a people’s language and culture. It identifies the main aspects that determined and accelerated the decline of the Lithuanian language. This study demonstrates the asymmetry of borrowing: words readily pass from one language to another, elements of one language are increasingly less adapted, and entire stretches of another language are used alternately within the same discourse. The article examines in detail the problem of the semantic adequacy of calques and borrowings in the speech of Lithuanian speakers living in an active contact zone, and seeks to discern the directions of semantic shifts. KEYWORDS: Southern Aukštaitians, Lithuanian language enclaves, apparent time, language death, language loss, uncontrolled borrowing, semantic expression. ANNOTATION Based on contemporary – late 20th century–early 21st century – dialectological material from the Lithuanian islands in Belarus attributed to the Southern Aukštaitian subdialect (Voranava district, Grodno region), the article analyses the current situation of the Lithuanian language and its change. The research centres on lexical loans from Belarusian, Polish and Russian languages. It attempts to determine whether the abundance of Slavic Straipsniai / Articles 113 NIOLĖ TUOMIENĖ loanwords is the outcome of natural language change or its loss (death). Apparent-time language processes are analysed in the study: the present-day language of informants of several generations is studied and compared. The study also describes the factors changing the nation’s language and culture. It points out the major aspects which determined and accelerated the decay of the Lithuanian language. The study shows the asymmetry of borrowing: words easily transition from one language to another; language elements are increasingly less adapted; an entire page of another language is used in the same discourse alternately. The article presents an in-depth study of the problem of adequacy of semantic expression of loan translations and loanwords used in the subdialects of Lithuanians residing in the active contact zone; it is aimed to grasp the directions of semantic changes. KEY WORDS: Souther Aukštaitian, Lithuanian islands, apparent time, language death, language loss, uncontrolled borrowing, semantic expression. 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. All languages change alongside societal life. The consequences of this change include the faster or slower spread of new words, grammatical forms, styles of speaking, and regional or social varieties, correlating with the more abrupt or gradual decline of older forms of expression. Which forms were present in the past also depends on changes in societal life: a society that is homogeneous in terms of language use tends to undergo more consistent language changes, whereas radical social changes can lead to major, even radical, language changes—for example, when speakers of other languages settle in the same social space, resulting in a bilingual (or even trilingual) population. Consequently, new and old forms inevitably coexist side by side in a language at the same time, but not entirely randomly or unpredictably, since they are distributed in society according to users’ age, gender, social status, and occupation. 1.2. The aim of this study is to analyze the current state and change of the Lithuanian language in peripheral enclaves where languages other than Lithuanian were or are still spoken. It seeks to determine whether the abundance of foreign-language elements—borrowings—is a natural consequence of language change or a consequence of language decline (death). The study draws on contemporary dialectological material from the late 20th and early 21st centuries, collected in several Lithuanian enclaves in Belarus belonging to the Southern Aukštaitian subdialect (SA): Varanavas – (Belarusian 1 The article uses the terms peripheral enclaves of the Southern Aukštaitian dialect and Varanavas enclaves, concepts that have not yet become established, but which, in the researchers’ view, are better suited to describing areas of the Lithuanian language that, for one reason or another, have ended up outside the borders of Lithuanian territory. In his article “Lithuanian Language Enclaves: Aspects of the Problem” (2014), Vytautas Kardelis formulated the definition of the term language enclave very precisely: “a geographically completely separated area from the main language territory, within specific geographical 114 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVII Nevardomas skolinimasis kaip kalbos nykimo požymis Bóbono, the district center); Ramaškoniai (Belarusian Рамашканы); Nevėžiai (Belarusian Нявежы), Ródūnia (Belarusian Радунь), Plikiai (Belarusian Плікі), Žirmūnai (Belarusian Жырмуны), Nočia (Belarusian Наца), Pāradnė (Belarusian Парадзна), Asavōs (Belarusian Асава)². According to the data of the Lithuanian Language Atlas, these are points VI (Varanavas, Nevėžiai), VII (Nočia), and VIII (Ródūnia, Plikiai). According to the new methodology for determining the degrees of vitality of points, they are classified as temporarily non-vital and partly or completely extinct points (for more detail, see Meiliūnaitė, Mikulėnienė 2014: 124–128). The study drew on audio recordings of varying lengths and content preserved in the Database of the Dialect Archive of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language, as well as recordings from the authors’ personal sound archives (mostly containing local varieties of Slavic languages), and published collections of dialect texts (see the bibliography). 1.3. “That there are certain distinctive features in the linguistic systems of enclaves that are not characteristic of the continental dialect area is understandable and, one might say, a geographically bounded linguistic community living in a much larger territory of another country and constituting a linguistic minority there, surrounded by a foreign linguistic community and physically, linguistically, and culturally isolated from its main area, assimilated linguistically and socioculturally, possessing a unique internal linguistic development and also dynamically connected through linguistic contact with a related language” (for more detail, see Kardelis 2014, 2015; Tuomienė 2014: 84–85). The criterion for classifying Lithuanian language enclaves—namely, the vitality of a dialectological unit—is clearly formulated in the most recent work in Lithuanian dialectology, Lithuanian Dialects at the Beginning of the 21st Century: A Geolinguistic and Sociolinguistic Study. Maps and Their Commentary (2014). It is applied there to the entire Lithuanian language area, but language enclaves—as a specific linguistic and territorial unit—can also be classified on the basis of the vitality criterion (see Meiliūnaitė, Mikulėnienė 2014: 124–128). The centers of the Varanavas dialect enclaves are considered to be larger settlements, small towns, or villages to which villages or isolated homesteads where Lithuanians lived in the late 20th and early 21st centuries would belong territorially. For example, the Ramaškoniai enclave would consist of the following villages: Biliūnai (Belarusian Білі), Bieliūnai (Belarusian Белюны), Dainava (Belarusian Дайнава), Lašekai (Belarusian Лашкай), Navasodai / Naujasodės (Belarusian Навасады), Parubiškės (Belarusian Парубішкі), Tūsonys (Belarusian Тусаманы), Stanišiai (Belarusian Станішы), Stalgūnai (Belarusian Стылгўны), Šeškai (Belarusian Шашкі); the Ródūnia enclave (more accurately, enclaves, since the remaining Lithuanian villages are far apart from one another): Asava (Belarusian Асава), Dubiniai (Belarusian Дубіны), Kargaudai (Belarusian Кароуды), Klausiai (Belarusian Клауші), Kemešiai (Belarusian Кемешы), Magūnai (Belarusian Магуны), Pīlakalnis (Belarusian Гарадзівіча), Plikiai (Belarusian Плікі), Sklodōnys (Belarusian Складоны), Smilginiai (Belarusian Смільні), Žirmūnai (Belarusian Жырмуны), Žasiai (Belarusian Жасыны). These place names have been written and accented in Lithuanian on the basis of the publication Traditional Lithuanian Place Names in Belarus, the Kardinacija Region, Latvia, and Poland (2002); the Belarusian forms are based on official lists of village names in the Varanavas district, published online. 2 From a geolinguistic perspective, it would be appropriate to combine these severely depleted dialects, which belong to the Southern Aukštaitian subdialect, into a single Varanavas dialect. This is also justified by the fact that, in terms of their characteristic features, especially lexical features, they are very similar, although their phonetic features differ somewhat. Moreover, the dialects have now contracted considerably in territorial extent—some survive in only one or two villages, where just two or three people, or even only one, speak Lithuanian fairly well. There is also a category of people who understand but do not speak the language; in various villages, they may number from three to eight among the oldest generation. Straipsniai / Articles 115 NIOLĖ TUOMIENĖ “almost an obligatory feature of a language island,” Vytautas Kardelis states in one of his scholarly works. The scholar regrets that “to obtain a comprehensive synchronic picture [of Lithuanian language islands in Belarus—clarification by N. T.], more detailed analysis is needed, based on current data” (Kardelis 2015). Thus, this study aims, by applying an appropriate method, to fill a gap in the study of the synchronic structures of Lithuanian language islands—in this case, the lexical structure—by comparing some cases with the dialects and speech varieties of the larger area. The language processes described in the article were examined in apparent time3; that is, the present-day language of informants from several generations is studied and compared: on the basis of their speech, a relatively older generation (aged 80 and over) and a middle generation (over 60) are distinguished (for more on the generations of speakers of the Varėna-area speech varieties, see Tuomienė 2008: 38–45; 2010: 17–20; cf. Meiliūnaitė, Mikulėnienė 2014: 125; Aliūkaitė, Bakienė, Jaroslavienė, Judžentytė, Leskauskaitė et al. 2014: 159–163; 168–173). Relatively younger local residents (around 50 years old) who speak Lithuanian at home or in public have recently disappeared from the area. The oldest local speakers of the native Lithuanian variety are most often prompted to speak by their children and grandchildren visiting from Lithuania. This kind of study makes it possible to observe language transformation and change—that is, language attrition and language death—here and now. When language is studied using this sociolinguistic method, consideration is also given to the setting in which interviews with informants take place, and other non-linguistic factors are assessed (for example, whether a speaker adapts to the researcher and tries to speak “correctly”). All the data collected are analyzed—all variants of linguistic diversity, including “exceptions” and facts “inconsistent with the system.” The analysis follows the sociolinguistic premise that the constant variation of language promotes language change, and therefore language continually changes its system (Kalėdienė 2015: 213–214). Changes first become apparent in the less stable parts of the language system—phonetics and lexicon. Moreover, the selected method of language analysis makes it possible to reveal and characterize the causes behind the results of language change over an extended period, and to anticipate the possible future course of these changes. 3 Pirmas stebimo laiko (an. apparent time) hipotezę suformulavo Williams Labovas (1963: 207–309; 1975: 199–228 ir kt.): kad kalbos kitimas būtų fiksuotas vyksmo metu, turi būti stebima kelių to pačių metu gyvenančių kartų kalba. Taikant stebimo laiko metodą jau yra atliktas ne vienas lietuvių kalbos tarmių tyrimas. Šiuo metodu nuo 2001 m. autores tiramos Varėnavo rajone esančios (dauguma iš jų – jau buvusios) lietuvių šnektos (plačiau dėl metodo žr. Kalėdienė 2015: 213–214; Tuomienė 2014: 84–85). 116 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVII Nevaldomas skolinimasis kaip kalbos nykimo požymis 2. FACTORS CHANGING THE LANGUAGE AND CULTURE OF THE ISLANDS 2.1. Language attrition and, ultimately, language death depend on many interrelated circumstances and conditions. The most important and decisive conditions concern its users: on an isolated island, a language dies when all the people who spoke it have died without passing it on to the next generation for one reason or another. Thus, the death of the language in the areas under study is directly connected with people and changes in their lives and behavior. The fate of the speakers themselves and of their language is determined by persistent adverse historical and cultural circumstances, on which the economic situation depends and which sometimes even entail the redrawing of political and geographical state borders; changed politics and ideology inevitably affect a language’s prestige. Living in small rural communities, Lithuanians in the Varanavas area were unable to withstand the immense and long-lasting pressure of the non-Lithuanian-speaking majority. The attrition of Lithuanian here was accelerated by the severing of ties with larger local communities—Pelės and Gervėčiai (Astravets District, Belarusian: Астравец)4. Ultimately, no one here takes an interest in or defends the concerns of small communities. In time, only a few individual enthusiasts remain. Scholarly literature describes many cases in which language attrition occurred fairly rapidly, even passing through all three recognized stages of language attrition (for more, see Dressler 1994: 84–90; Crystal 2005: 83–84). Such rapid attrition is characteristic both of the Lithuanian varieties of the Belarusian islands belonging to the South Aukštaitian dialect, examined in this study—Nočia, Asava, Nevašiai, Rodūnia, Plikiai, Armėniškės, Ramaškonys—and of other varieties, particularly those that are isolated and farthest from the main Lithuanian-speaking area: Apso, Breslauja, Lazūnai, and Zietela. Here 4 Pelės is the largest surviving borderland island of the South Aukštaitian dialect inhabited by Lithuanians in Belarus, in Varanavas District. A considerable number of families in the surrounding villages still communicate in Lithuanian at home today. Lithuanian is spoken most widely in Vėsi, in Pelės itself. A Lithuanian school has operated here since 1992. It is the first Lithuanian basic school in Belarus—the Pelės region’s cultural and educational center. The local Lithuanian community and the public association Giminė are supported and funded by the Lithuanian state. The development of the Lithuanian varieties around the village of Pelės differs markedly from that of other Lithuanian varieties, past and present, in Varanavas District and throughout the Lida (Belarusian: Ліда) region. This article focuses more on the smaller, declining or entirely extinct varieties located within the territory of present-day Varanavas District. Gervėčiai is a town in Belarus, in Astravets District (about 65 km east of Vilnius), where a considerable number of Lithuanians currently live; it is the most vibrant and largest borderland island of the Eastern Aukštaitian Vilnius dialect (see Kardelis 2015; Vaitkevičius 2011: 17–34). 5 The Lithuanian varieties of the Breslauja and Apso islands in Belarus were studied and described mainly by Kazimieras Garšva (2005: 171–180). The now-extinct varieties of Zietela (classified as Western Aukštaitian) and Lazūnai (the eastern Straipsniai / Articles 117 NIJOLĖ TUOMIENĖ The Lithuanian language and, more broadly, cultural distinctiveness—the character of a community conveyed through language—ceased relatively abruptly because those perspectives⁶ were naturally absent (for more, see Garšva 2005: 24–34; Tuomienė 2008: 25–41; Vidugiris 2004: 37–47; 2014: 40–47). Undoubtedly, significant heritage knowledge is lost at the same time: once their own names are no longer used in everyday speech, linguistic diversity declines and only one language style remains—the everyday one. Another factor accelerating language decline is that, in the localities in Belarus discussed in this article, Lithuanian was not used in any official record-keeping. 2.2. In small, isolated communities surrounded by three different environments, full-fledged Lithuanian-Belarusian bilingualism began to spread at the beginning of the 20th century and eventually became established; later, it gradually weakened. This was primarily because the reasons for and functions of the two languages were entirely different. The local Belarusian dialect or variety became the dominant everyday language of communication among people of all ages, while in certain cases several languages came into use: Belarusian in villages, Russian and partly Polish in cities and towns (the latter became the language of religious rites and the church). This facilitated movement and communication within the local community, at least within the boundaries of the parishes of Varanavas, Benekainys, Kauleliškės, Armoniškės, Rūdnia, Asavai, and Pāradnė. In general, it made life easier according to accepted standards, since the dominant Belarusian language (in this case, Belarusian and Polish and/or Russian) became a bridge for mutual communication and understanding. The role of the other, non-dominant language or dialect—Lithuanian—then became entirely different: very early on, it lost all the most important and vital functions necessary for its independent development and was therefore left to its fate; it simply began to deteriorate. Such a language even began to be unsuitable for certain speaking situations (more public and formal ones, since it was precisely in these circumstances that people first began to abandon it altogether). Because different languages were used in different situations and Lithuanian gradually retreated from public life, it could no longer serve some areas of social life and thus could no longer perform certain functions. As noted, in the territories concerned Lithuanian existed for many years only in spoken form; it had never held the status of an official written language. The Lithuanian dialect of Belarus (specifically, the Vilnius-borderland dialect mentioned above) was extensively documented and described by Aloyzas Vidugiris (2004; 2014). 6 These existing and former Lithuanian-speaking enclaves, located at varying distances from the main territory of Lithuania, were visited in 2011–2013. More detailed information on the absence of natural conditions, the non-viable and difficult points, their actual numbers and percentages is provided in the publication summarizing the initial studies, Lithuanian Dialects at the Beginning of the 21st Century: A Geolinguistic and Sociolinguistic Study (eds. Danguolė Mikulienė, Violeta Meiliūnaitė), 2014. 118 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVII Nevaldomas skolinimasis kaip kalbos nykimo požymis In the second half of the 20th century, Lithuanian served only to express the identity of local residents and was one of the means of maintaining kinship (among relatives living in various regions of both states) and family ties. To this day, Lithuanian has helped residents of the Lithuanian-speaking enclaves in Belarus preserve their historical ties with Lithuania, since it gave people a sense of their own “origins.” This is the psychological and social value of language, because a language is maintained for as long as it gives people a marker of identity (cf. Russel 192: 82; Dressler 1994: 86–87; Crystal 2005: 41–43). However, Lithuanians both in the three Varanavas-area communities and in other regions of Belarus have recently found it increasingly difficult to understand their identity, as they are losing their language. 2.3. Since the end of the 20th century, the Lithuanian-speaking enclaves in the Varanavas area have been characterized by the internally driven third stage of language decline. In the view of most researchers, this stage begins when the younger generation becomes much more proficient in the new language, while the youngest use it in virtually all domains and identify more strongly with it, even feeling that their first language meets their new needs less and less. For a substantial number of people from the enclaves studied, this occurred some 50–70 years ago. In addition, some residents assimilated through mixed marriages. Thus, although community members continued to live in their customary territory, the Lithuanian language of many of them—the language of their parents and grandparents—nonetheless declined and eventually disappeared. For example, this happened in Ramaškonys over the past 50 years. Moreover, both here and in the more distant Lithuanian-speaking villages around Ródūnia, many families experienced “unstable” bilingualism shifting within a single generation, and sometimes even within a decade, into conscious psiuakalbystę7, and then into monolingualism (V. Kardelis (2013) describes the situation in the eastern Aukštaitian (EA) Vilnius-borderland dialect). 2.4. Language change and decline are strongly associated with cultural assimilation, that is, one culture is influenced by another, more powerful culture, and the former consequently begins to lose its distinctive features as its members increasingly adapt to new behaviours and, as noted, shift from bilingualism—or, less often, even trilingualism—to monolingualism. In Ramaškonys and other enclaves, this occurred primarily “from above,” through pressure from the local authorities, education, and the church. During Soviet times, local Lithuanians here were entirely unable to send their children to Lithuanian schools (the last ones had been closed as early as 1936). It was no longer possible to reopen Lithuanian reading rooms and libraries or Saturday schools, where Lithuanians had previously organized various cultural events, commemorations, and meetings. Usually, the whole town would gather there (for example, in Varanavas or Ródūnia), along with people from one settlement, 7 This term describes a situation in which parents begin speaking their first (native) language with their children only at home, in the private family setting. There are also fewer and fewer people (families) in the neighbourhood and society at large with whom one can communicate publicly in that first language. Thus, use of their first language by the intermediate generation (the parents) becomes inward-facing and exceptional. Another term for a language-use pattern is also essentially suitable for describing this situation (cf. Crystal 2005: 80–85). Straipsniai / Articles 119 NIOLĖ TUOMIENĖ the village (or several neighboring villages) community. People who spoke other languages also attended Lithuanian events. In the Catholic churches in those places, services were held only in Polish, but most of them were closed in the postwar period as well. The process of closing churches continued later, though on a somewhat smaller scale in 1986. As a result of the so-called thaw policy, the church in Armėniškės was “reborn” for its parishioners in 1987; services were again held only in Polish, and are now held in rotation—but not with Lithuanian, rather with Belarusian. Nearly all residents have learned Polish, to a greater or lesser degree, as a confessional language (see Čekmonas 1988: 37–54; Tuomienė 2008: 26–35). Moreover, during the period of collectivization, the local administration, as well as later government structures more generally, denied that Lithuanians were present. In their accounts, some local elders asserted that because of their origin they had felt socially excluded, pressured, and even persecuted well into old age. From around 1976, in identity documents issued (Soviet Union passports), the majority of Lithuanians, especially rural residents, were recorded as being of Polish nationality (particularly those whose birth certificates contained no indication of their parents’ nationality—in order to avoid entering Lithuanian nationality, a dash was simply drawn in the relevant field). As the residents themselves report, they were simply registered, and no one asked about their nationality. State-wide, the Slavicization of the population was carried out in an organized and consistent manner (for more, see Čekmonas, Grumadienė 1993: 132–137; Gaučas 2004: 95–99; Zinkevičius 1993; cf. the situation in Zietela and Lazūnai: Vidugiris 2004: 37–38; 2014: 41–42). This study discusses the linguistic results of this process. 2.5. Thus, the spread of another language and the learning of the language that has become dominant also accelerate the process of assimilation enormously. In the case of the Varanavas area, this has been the spread and establishment of Russian (and, in part, Belarusian) from the Soviet era onward. What ultimately takes hold is the spoken variety of that language—the local Belarusian dialect—postu. Only these two Slavic languages become established. The official variety of Russian became the principal language and means of communication in the city, public institutions, local administration, television and radio, and all administrative paperwork. The Belarusian variety, called postu, became the unofficial language of the street, especially among rural residents. Their functions are partly distributed, and they complement or replace one another, so everyone understands them. The needs of the ever-diminishing Lithuanian community are disregarded, and almost three Slavic languages gradually infiltrate everywhere, even religious rites and worship (for example, prayer books and catechisms for children are printed in Polish but in Russian letters), as well as the home and family environment. Their position is undoubtedly growing stronger all the time. 120 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVII Nevaldomas skolinimasis kaip kalbos nykimo požymis 3. LINGUISTIC RESULTS OF LANGUAGE INTERACTION 3.1. In declining languages, such as the Lithuanian dialects of the Varėnavas islands in this case, change proceeded and continues to proceed more rapidly and in one direction, as an increasing number of features from languages influencing them spread and take root. The intensity of borrowing depends on the intensity of language contact, which in the Varanavas area was neither uniform nor equal across all the periods under discussion. When language contact is not intense, borrowing usually occurs only at the lexical level, and loanwords are necessarily adapted: the whole word or part of it is translated (cf. Birgelienė 2015: 28–32; DvŽ I 18–22). Jau nustatyta (plg. Tuomienė 2006: 427–438; 2014: 98–99), kad visose išvardytose Varėnavo šnektose kalbų kontaktams intensyvėjant, gausėjo leksikos skolinių, jie mažiau buvo adaptuojami, todėl buvo imta skolintis ir kitų kalbos lygmenų, dažniausiai žodžių darybos ir žodžių kaitos, elementų. Kai kurios morfologinės kategorijos, ypač archaiškos, tiesiog nunyko, pavyzdžiui, įvardžiavimas: buvo nustoti vartoti įvardžiuotiniai būdvardžiai ir įvardžiuotiniai įvardžiai. Visiškai sutriko kita archaiška sistema – skaitvardžių: ėmė nykti kuopiniai ir dauginiai skaitvardžiai. Dviskata beveik išnykusi visoje dabartinėje lietuvių kalboje, todėl nenuostabu, kad taip atsitiko ir Varėnavo šnektose. Vietoj dalyvinių ir padalyvinių konstrukcijų įsitvirtina šalutiniai sakiniai. Ypač pagausėja semantikos, frazeologijos skolinių. 3.2. Undoubtedly, changes in language structure are evident in the speech of people who are themselves affected by various changes. For example, speakers avoid using their first (native) language in public, fearing that they will not be understood or will be criticized, even condemned. A sense of insecurity encourages them consciously to abandon things that constrain and complicate their lives, and compels them to adapt. During the field expedition, we interviewed many local people of the older generation who, while speaking prostu, insert individual Lithuanian words, phrases, and quotations into their speech, and vice versa—insert Belarusian words into Lithuanian sentences, for example: bažnìčon giedam pa pálsku / pà.cerḃ tòža pa pálsku kàl.bam ‘we sing in Polish in church, and say our prayers in Polish too’; pàskėrdem kà.l.ḃ / ragi kokė slanina / na tṙḃ pà.lċḃ ‘we slaughtered a pig—look at those pieces of fatback, three fingers thick’ (Bieliūnai); nėmõku ani / milėnįju maj̇ə / j̇ə. v̇a.m l̇.ṗei paprostu raskaũ. / viskù. pazamirṡũ. ka(b) bù.s li.tù.viškai ‘I don’t know anything, my dears, I’ll tell you better in the ordinary language (Belarusian); I’ve forgotten everything—how to say it in Lithuanian’ (Ramškónys); su sá. mõ.cinu. cik li.tù.viškai v̇tarṙiau / ṫól̇i pa litóu.sku. / a su saṡdais ṫól̇i paprostu ‘I spoke only Lithuanian with my mother, only Lithuanian, but with the neighbors only in the ordinary language (Belarusian)’ (Navašādai); uṅka mà. nemõka / Straipsniai / Articles 121 Nijolė Tuomienė ų. čaca pa rūsku / a cɛ ka.imi / ti. tölki starbki. astā.lisə ‘my grandchildren don’t know (the language), they learn Russian, and here in the village only old people are left’ (Plikiai); kat pabūtu.t pas mūmi / papie.tū.t / gaspadb.l.nə nevarb.l.a usəgo ‘so that you could stay with us, have lunch, the hostess has prepared (boiled) everything’ (Kargaudai); užkalbė.c moku / a.le nęmožna ni.kòmu sakī / bọ nępama.čb.s ‘I know how to perform a healing charm, but one mustn’t tell anyone (how), because it won’t help’ (Klaišiai). The people interviewed said that they had almost completely forgotten their native Lithuanian, which they had known since childhood and had constantly spoken with their parents, relatives, and neighbors; moreover, they had managed to learn to read and write in Lithuanian at Lithuanian schools in the interwar period. This had happened over a relatively short time—approximately two decades. The sentences presented show that speakers are unable to adapt elements of one language, but instead alternate with an entire stretch of another language within the same discourse—a phenomenon known as code-switching (see Urnėžiu 1998: 131–140; Grumadienė 2005: 42–48; Tuomienė 2006a: 161–172 for further discussion). Such alternating use of two or more languages, dialects, or language registers—that is, codes—within the same stretch of speech is one outcome of bilingualism or multilingualism. Thus, the asymmetry of borrowing reflects the general social, psychological, economic, and political dependence of speakers of an endangered language on the dominant language and people, and reveals linguistic colonization (see Dressleris 1994: 84). 4. A CHARACTERISTIC OF THE FINAL STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT: UNCONTROLLED LEXICAL BORROWING 4.1. In identifying the layer of newer Slavic (Belarusian) elements that has become established in the Lithuanian dialects of the South Aukštaitian subdialect enclave in Belarus, it is necessary to reveal the mechanism by which borrowings and calques from local Slavic varieties enter and become established in Lithuanian. Therefore, in examining the vocabulary of recordings and dialect texts from the beginning of the 21st century, the aim is to analyze the adequacy of the semantic expression of calques and borrowings in Lithuanian dialects spoken by people living in an active contact zone, and to discern the directions of semantic shifts. Research on contacts between Lithuanian and Slavic languages in the present-day southeastern border area between Lithuanian and Belarusian has a long tradition; this could not, of course, fail to be reflected in the Lithuanian, Belarusian, and Polish dialects spoken here. 4.2. As the surrounding areas became Slavicized, the group of Lithuanian villages clustered around Varėna found itself surrounded by Slavic languages. Thus, from a linguistic perspective, a considerable number of archaic morphological, syntactic, and lexical features seem to have been preserved in the dialects of the Varėnavas district; on the other hand, however, isolation and intensive contact with Slavic languages led to the emergence here of new morphological features, especially 122 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVII Nevardomas skolinimasis kaip kalbos nykimo požymis forms, new syntactic constructions, and especially various lexical innovations (see Tuomienė 2006: 427–438; 2008: 75–80; 2014: 82–102 for further discussion; cf. Vidurinis 1972: 19–29; Romančiuk 1987: 140–144; Grinaveckienė 1997: 185–195, etc.). It should be emphasized that the dialects of Ramaškonys, Ródiōs, and the Plikiai area have preserved the principal features of their linguistic system remarkably well almost up to the present day. This is shown by the author’s systematic research over approximately the past fifteen years into the dialects of the Varėnavas district (see Tuomienė 2008, 2010 and the bibliography). 4.3. Basic vocabulary forms part of the core lexicon: these are words used in everyday speech and associated with concrete objects, agricultural work, and tools. When gathering material, it was expected that physical objects present in daily life would help preserve their old names as well. This layer of vocabulary is less susceptible to the influence of other languages or dialects. The results obtained only partly fulfilled expectations. In addition, informants from isolated Lithuanian dialect communities are easiest to question about everyday matters. And now there is no one else to choose from. And here is the result: all the words from the texts of the relatively younger generation were extracted from the collection of transcribed texts Texts of the Ramaškonys Dialect (Tuomienė 2008: 225–287): 976 words were found in 62 pages, of which 367 were borrowings. Thus, foreign vocabulary8 accounted for 37.6 percent of the short narratives, and household vocabulary made up the largest share of the foreign words. After ties with the main part of the South Aukštaitian subdialect and with Lithuania as a whole were severed, the influence of the local Belarusian dialect on the dialects of these areas increased considerably—even old, established, widely used words began to be replaced by Slavicisms. The new foreign words that entered the Lithuanian dialects gradually adapted to the rules of the new language and became established, displacing native words from use or restricting and narrowing their meanings. Studies by contemporary dialect researchers emphasize the fact that borrowings from Slavic languages (especially older ones) are disappearing from active use in Lithuanian dialects across a large area: the middle and younger generations hardly use them anymore, while the oldest generation still uses one or another. One reason for the decline of old borrowings is the use of Lithuanian equivalents, regarded as a more beautiful and prestigious manifestation of language (cf. Leskauskaitė 2016: 83). In dialects and in Lithuanian more generally, especially in urban speech, old Slavicisms from the Soviet era are being abandoned: the older and middle generations replace them with Standard Lithuanian equivalents, while the younger generation does not understand them at all and no longer includes them in its vocabulary. Young people, especially the generation that came of age during independence, expand their vocabulary with borrowings from English (cf. Rudaitienė 2011: 40–49). 8 Foreign lexical items here are understood to include old and new borrowings from Slavic languages (according to LKŽ), as well as Slavicisms that have been only partially adapted. Straipsniai / Articles 123 NIOLĖ TUOMĖNĖ A reverse process is still taking place in the Lithuanian borderland dialects: both older and more recent Slavicisms continue to be actively used, as nowhere else in Lithuania.⁹ Speakers find it too difficult to “translate” a word from Belarusian, Polish, or Russian. More educated middle-generation informants (able to read and write in Lithuanian) may use a Lithuanian equivalent alongside borrowings, whereas older speakers no longer do so. The situation is more complicated with names for new realities of life. When speaking about the present in the Ramšoniai dialect, speakers tend to insert entire phrases, sentences, and word combinations in various Slavic languages, quote extensively, or switch altogether to Belarusian and, much less often, to Russian or Polish. Conversations about contemporary life involve extremely intensive code-switching (cf. Tuomienė 2006: 163–169). It must be acknowledged that, for various reasons, speakers of the borderland Lithuanian dialects under study try to avoid topics concerning the present. The borrowings most frequently encountered in recorded narratives and in the collection of transcribed Ramšoniai texts: abrõžas – ‘a festive picture’ (Belarusian абраз); aži̇̀us / adi̇̀us – ‘clothes’ (Belarusian адзежа); apalõ.nikas – ‘ladle’ (Belarusian апалонік); api̇̀.ņks – ‘honey mushrooms’ (Belarusian апенькі); asnavȧ – ‘warp’ (Belarusian аснова); adiḃ̀i.nks – ‘selected (linen)’ (Belarusian адбіранкі); baḋl̇ei – ‘tires’ (Belarusian бадылі); bayūnas – ‘ends’ (Belarusian багун); bakõnas – ‘loaf (of bread)’ (Belarusian бахан(ка)); bõka – ‘wooden butter churn’; bõvi̇̀č – ‘to play, to entertain’ (Belarusian бавіцца); bu.ži̇̀s – ‘beetle’ (Belarusian жук); cūglei / cūgles – ‘bridle bits’ (Belarusian цуглі); čõrtas – ‘devil’; juškà / juškā – ‘stove-fireplace’ (Belarusian юшка); klė̇.mka – ‘door handle’ (Belarusian клямка); krãkvos – ‘woodpeckers’ (Belarusian крӧва); laknõ.nas – ‘old, worn-out garment’ (Belarusian лахман); meki̇̀.nos – ‘tow’ (Belarusian макіна); padkãva / padkȧ̀va – ‘horseshoe’ (Belarusian падкова); padãge – ‘floor’ (Belarusian падлога); padõkas – ‘tax’ (Belarusian падатак); padūška / padūškà – ‘pillow’ (Belarusian падушка, Polish poduszka); pbi̇̀.las – ‘dust’ (Belarusian пыл); prḃ̀.pečkas – ‘before’ (Belarusian прыперак); rubē̇.zus – ‘border, wall’ (Belarusian рубеж); sprī̇.kos – ‘spokes’ (Belarusian спіцы); švi̇̀.dras – ‘drill’ (Belarusian свідар); šlū̇.bas – ‘church pews’ (Belarusian шлюб, Polish ślub); švǫ̇.gur / švǫ̇.gərs – ‘brother-in-law’ (Belarusian швагер, Polish szwagier); zaslãnas / uslãnas – ‘bench with a backrest’ (Belarusian заслан, услан); (u)zbõ.nas – ‘jug’ (Belarusian (у)збан); zõvi̇̀.sai – ‘door hinges’ (Belarusian завесы); žã.ni.cs – ‘to marry’ (Belarusian жаніць, Polish żenić); žã.labas – ‘trough, manger’ (Belarusian жолаб, Polish żłób); žūka – ‘beetle’ (Belarusian жука, Polish żuka), etc. These and many other borrowings were actively used in the now-extinct, more distant Lazūnai and Zietela dialects, as well as in the severely diminished Apso and Breslauja dialects. Owing to longstanding contacts with Slavic languages, many Belarusianisms and Polonisms are also recorded in the South Aukštaitian dialects of the main Lithuanian-speaking area (cf. Leskauskaitė 2006: 66; 2009: 74–75; 2016: 82–84). 9 The primary meaning and the meaning more frequent in the dialects are given. 124 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVII Nevaldomas skolinimasis kaip kalbos nykimo požymis Most of the Slavicisms cited were borrowed directly from the local Belarusian dialect. Some, both older and more recent, are not included in dictionaries of the borderland dialects; for example, the following are absent from the dictionaries of the Zietela and Dieveniškės dialects: ačėpas – ‘a log hewn with an axe’ (Belarusian ачап); apal̃nikas – ‘ladle’ (Belarusian апалонік); abėr̃ṅkas – ‘selected (linen)’ (Belarusian адб́ернікі); cūglei / cūgles – ‘bridle bits’ (Belarusian цюглі); cėpas – ‘flail (upper part)’ (Belarusian цэп); čongas – ‘draft, a current of air’ (Belarusian цень); dadėkas – ‘addition, an added plot of land’ (Belarusian дадатак); nažakas – ‘(electric) tool sharpener’ (Belarusian наждак); tū.mbakas – ‘cabinet’ (Belarusian тумбочка); vi(γ)anas – ‘pasture, place where livestock is driven out’ (Belarusian выган); za(γ)onas – ‘garden bed’ (Belarusian загон), etc. As can be seen, the borrowings used in the Lithuanian dialects of Varanavas have undergone very little change, preserving, for example, the plural: Belarusian крохвы – Lithuanian krãkos; Belarusian спрэхі – Lithuanian sprãkos. Some have retained the soft consonant, or even hardness before the front vowel i, e.g.: prbl.pėkas, sprbl.kos, dblėi ‘thick boards’ (Belarusian дылі). Not only words but also individual linguistic elements and word-formation formats come from Belarusian. The dialects under study characteristically form verbs with the prefixes pa-, pad-, raz-, e.g.: pa(d)dãužė ‘painted over, knocked together’, pãkalė ‘nailed down’, raspìnė ‘unpinned’, razmẽtė ‘threw out’; razṙṅko ‘dismantled, sorted out’, razrìšo ‘untied’, ra(s)sãkė ‘told, recounted’. There are especially many formations with the prefix da-, e.g.: dadėc ‘add’, daėc ‘approach, go to’, dadarbìc ‘do (finish)’, dadùc ‘add, hand over’, daginẽc ‘finish (the work)’, dakãl̃c ‘nail down’, damuš ‘beat up, thrash’, dapìl ‘fill (to the top)’, dasakìc ‘say’, damanìc ‘intend, think up’, dasũtarbìc ‘reach an agreement’, dašpèc ‘ripen, (manage to) arrive in time’, davažùc ‘drive up, drive away’, davìr̃c ‘boil’, etc. 5. SECONDARY SEMANTIC CHANGES—SIGNS OF LANGUAGE DEATH 5.1. Every language, even if it shares more or fewer features with other languages, is different; to those who do not know it, it is wholly or partly incomprehensible. One of the most complex aspects of a foreign language is semantics. This is because people tend to equate directly the meanings of words in their own language with the meanings of corresponding words in another language. But those meanings are by no means always the same, and language users are usually not even aware of this; as a result, the semantic system of one language is artificially adjusted to that of another, blindly adopted or copied. Changes in word meaning are one of the most important features of the development of a language’s lexicon. Many words used in any language generally never semantically Straipsniai / Articles 125 NIOLĖ TUOMIENĖ rigid in this respect. The meanings of words sometimes broaden, sometimes narrow, sometimes shift from one conceptual sphere to another, and sometimes acquire different stylistic nuances. Dialects make extensive use of such Belarusianisms whose Slavic origin is quite difficult to prove. For example, in the so-called Lithuanian dialects, instead of the usual Lithuanian expressions a short / long day or night, following Belarusian dialect usage, one says a small / big day / night (cf. Belarusian нём ноч малая, а зимой великая), and instead of a cold winter – a strong winter (cf. Belarusian крэпкая зіма). Instead of a bird perches in a tree or a hen perches in a nest they say a bird sits in a tree ‘a bird sits in a tree’ (cf. Belarusian птушка садзіцца на дрэве), a hen sits in a nest ‘a hen sits in a nest’ (Belarusian курыца садзіцца ў гняздзе); instead of knitting – weaving (Belarusian вязанне), instead of the stomach is not digesting – the stomach is not turning ‘the stomach is not turning’ (Belarusian жалудак нявараць), instead of I spoke and got confused ‘I spoke and got confused’ I spoke and got confused (Belarusian гаварыла і спыталася), instead of they named him Jonas they say they drove him through Jonas (Belarusian яго празвалі Янам), instead of they robbed us they say they skinned us (Belarusian нас абабралі), and many other calques used in the so-called Lithuanian island. 5.2. Bilinguals (some multilinguals) The Lithuanians of the Varanavo dialects, who speak Lithuanian only among themselves, are officially exposed to the influence of the Belarusian language and its culture and are compelled to accept that influence. Gradually, the expressive resources of Belarusian, especially those lacking in the native dialect, begin to be identified as their own and are readily inserted into Lithuanian, without any awareness that this goes against the nature of the Lithuanian language. Bilingualism reshapes a person’s way of thinking, so that foreign words, phrases, various syntactic constructions, and idioms come to be understood as one’s own. A tendency is becoming apparent: Lithuanian words long used in the dialects are being given new, unusual meanings taken from the meanings of corresponding words in the local Belarusian language. The tradition of word usage is also being changed and distorted. No account is taken of the fact that the tradition of using a word is precisely what preserves its meaning. And when conditions are favorable, calques from Slavic languages constantly increase in the Lithuanian borderland dialects. These calques are Belarusian words translated mechanically into Lithuanian; they therefore first artificially impart to the corresponding Lithuanian word a meaning characteristic of Belarusian, previously unknown and essentially unnecessary in Lithuanian, a transferred meaning that does not coincide with its own. Thus, at first glance, they seem to broaden the meanings of some Lithuanian words. However, the meaning imposed on those words from outside deprives another corresponding Lithuanian word of its meaning, even though that word is not in fact the Belarusian word’s semantic equivalent. In this way, a Lithuanian word that has no equivalent with that Belarusian meaning becomes isolated in these dialects, is pushed out of use, and is eventually completely forgotten and disappears. As a result, the vocabulary of virtually all Lithuanian borderland dialects is impoverished, their semantics are disrupted, the Lithuanian language is denationalized, one-sided bilingualism takes hold, and the language 126 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVII Nevaldomas skolinimasis kaip kalbos nykimo požymis dies. This is clearly evident in recorded examples of living speech, such as gi.vã:nime mã.n nesėkė instead of gi.vã:nime mã.n nesivedė ‘things did not go well for me in life (I was unsuccessful)’ (cf. Belarusian у жыцці мне нівалося). Here the Lithuanian word nesivedė is artificially given the meaning of nesekė, while the word sekė itself, having lost its meaning, is isolated. Or in the sentence negaliu in dã.ktaru. dasitóč, labaĩ brã.ngu ‘I can’t get to the doctor; it is very expensive’, the verb patekti ‘to get to’ is replaced by a verb translated morpheme by morpheme from Belarusian: dacynúja – dasitóti. Most of the recorded loanwords and calques were prompted by the later influence of Belarusian dialects; it is therefore thought that they appeared in Lithuanian dialects only after one-sided Lithuanian–Belarusian bilingualism had formed and expanded, and are thus relatively recent. This is indicated by comparing the foreignisms in question with other Belarusianisms used in the dialects, as well as by their fairly narrow area of use: they are found only in individual peripheral and borderland Lithuanian dialects (see Grinaveckienė 1994; 1997: 185–195; Mikulėnienė, Morkūnas 1997; Petrukas, Vidugiris 1985; Vidugiris 1972: 19–29, 1998, etc.). 5.3. Many calques are analogous in meaning, and often in formation as well, to corresponding Belarusian words. Therefore, owing to the kinship of the Baltic and Slavic language systems and the similarity of their derivational bases and tendencies, it is quite difficult to determine which are calques and which are independently formed words. The calques in the Raškomiai, Kódinė, Žirmūnai, and Plikiai dialects are noticeably associated with the expressive resources of Lithuanian vocabulary. Some adjectives have also fallen out of use. For example, to describe the colors of plants, objects, clothing, and animals, speakers of these dialects no longer have adjectives widely known in Lithuanian and its dialects, such as: drìžotas (of objects); juodãr.gis, juodãr.ge (of cows, dogs); pìlkas, pìlka (of objects, birds), raĩ.bas, raĩba (of birds); raĩ.nas, rainà (of cats); šìr.mas, šìrmà ‘white with mixed dark hairs’ (of horses), etc. In their place, two color terms are recorded: ž̃balas, ž̃balà (when the color is even, darker) and mãrgas, margà (when the color is uneven, with spots). For example, ž̃balas arkli:s, ž̃balas gaĩžis, ž̃balas kã:cin as, ž̃balas šuõ, ž̃balas tã:les, ž̃balas vẽ:šis; ž̃balà kã.rve, ž̃balà katẽ, ž̃balà kumẽ.le, ž̃balà kalẽ; ž̃balà vištà; ž̃balas šienas, ž̃balas vil.kas, ž̃balas vã.nagas, ž̃balas žvirblis; ž̃balà dùna (moldy bread), ž̃balà vã.rna, ž̃balà žuvis; margà paklõ.tė, margà kã.rve, margà kumẽ.le, and so on. Thus, local Lithuanians have undoubtedly calqued from Belarusian: cibì (see CBI IV 422–423) – ž̃balas, and papì (CBI IV 234–235) – mãr.gas. These are the two color terms most commonly used in Belarusian, e.g.: cibì конь ‘ž̃balas horse’, cibì пямых ‘ž̃balas rooster’, cibì сабака ‘ž̃balas dog’, cibì кот ‘ž̃balas cat’; papà курыца ‘marga hen’, papà карова ‘marga cow’, papà кошка ‘marga Straipsniai / Articles 127 NIOLĖ TUOMIENĖ cat’, apparently derived from ‘margas (speckled) face’. Under the influence of local Belarusian, the generalizing calque priešti(s), from Belarusian міць, is used in Lithuanian dialects instead of the dialect verbs mažgti(s), plū.uti(s), skal.bti(s), which have been displaced from the dialect, e.g.: sæsuvā gã.lu. præ. sæ ‘I sit down and wash (clean) my head’ (cf. Belarusian памыла галаву); ėi.k rãnkās nuprã.sk ‘go wash (rinse) your hands’ (cf. Belarusian трэба памыць рукі); švarẽ. išprã.sāu pūdu ‘I washed (cleaned) the pot thoroughly’ (cf. Belarusian памый каструлю); vùpẽn skarās prãušu ‘I wash (rinse) scarves in the river’ (cf. Belarusian буду мыць адзенне). 5.4. In the Belarusian dialect, plaštaka and delnas are called by a single word—ладонь (СБ II 608) ‘palm’; therefore, in the Lithuanian dialect, plaštakai ‘palm of the hand’ is also expressed using del-nas ‘palm’, e.g.: lašnel par dė.nu. (cf. Belarusian слана на ладонь). The same applies to the conflation here of the verbs kandžioti(s) ‘to bite’ and kramtyti(s) ‘to chew’, as well as the adjectives tirštas, -a ‘thick’ and tankus, -i ‘dense’; for example, one may say: gilei mė.žu kram.tosi ‘the pike bites in the forest (stings)’ and piktas šuo kram.tosi ‘the angry dog chews (bites)’, cf. Belarusian рыц кусаецца ‘the pike bites (stings)’, сабака кусаецца ‘the dog bites’; густы туман ‘dense fog’, густы лес ‘dense forest’. Such and similar expressions clearly harm the vitality, precision, and correctness of the Lithuanian language. In these cases, the Lithuanian dialect loses the verb kandžioti(s) ‘to bite’ and the adjective tirštas ‘thick’. 5.5. The Varanavas dialect records numerous calques, each morpheme of which depends on its corresponding Belarusian one. These include many prefixed verbs whose lexical meaning is purely Belarusian. A typically Belarusian prefix, or a Lithuanian prefix shared with Belarusian, together with various suffixes, most often Lithuanian, is used to create such meanings, e.g.: apmùžnėc ‘to cover with moss’: nã.mu. lan.tėlɛm apmùžnėja (cf. Belarusian хату доўгімі аббіва); razgùdinec ‘to sprout’: bùbos grẽ.ta razgùzinėja (Belarusian бульба быстра растёт); razvėžnėc ‘to dilute’: pínu. vā. nēnu razvėžnėja (Belarusian малако вадой разводзяць); (pa)prubžnėc ‘to mow’: pamídōrus paprubžnėju (Belarusian памідоры папрываю). These calques undoubtedly show that, under Belarusian influence, Lithuanian morphology is relatively readily susceptible in its prefixes, less so in its suffixes, and least and most reluctantly in its roots, which often remain completely unchanged. 5.6. In the speech of Ramaškūni, Rōdūni, Žirmūni, and Pliki, a considerable number of calques have been recorded in which Lithuanian means of expression have been replaced by Belarusian ones. In this way, an ambiguous and wholly unclear idea is created, giving 128 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVII Nevaldomas skolinimasis kaip kalbos nykimo požymis the impression that a person using these words in this way does not know Lithuanian very well. Because they depart so considerably from Lithuanian modes of expression, such calques would probably be the easiest to recognize, e.g.: minkštai. ‘finely’ š malū mį.lus (Belarusian му́ки мя́ка́ змало́ў); žvirblėi. kãla ‘pecks’ grū.dus (Belarusian вера́б’і клю́юць зярно́), etc. Words used with a non-Lithuanian meaning in the speech varieties under study should also be considered calques. Most of the recorded verbs were used with a foreign meaning, e.g.: apstóti ‘to swarm around, surround’ mūsė manį apstójo (cf. Belarusian мухі ася́лі); uždė̃nkę ‘to close’ aždė̃nge lietuvišku. mokėklu. (Belarusian закры́лі літо́ўскую школу); i.siduo ‘to succeed’ bū.lkas grãžos i.sìdave (Belarusian бу́кi ладны ўдалі́ся); pr̥siduo ‘to seem, appear’ ten pr̥siduda (Belarusian там прыдаецца); razvė.c ‘to disperse’ a.ni.s grė.ta razvė.jo (Belarusian яны́ бы́стра разышліся); pǽrsimainė ‘to turn into’ a.nas pǽrsimainė in vǟ.lano (Belarusian ён ператварыўся ў чорта); dastó.c ‘to get, obtain’ dastó.jau gærus batùs (Belarusian даста́ў до́брыя бо́ты); vėstis ‘to fare, go’ jæ.m su givuolė.s ne.sivadė (Belarusian яму́ нява́лося з жыве́лай). It was observed that, to express the intended thought, speakers of these varieties, who are relatively predominant, sometimes also give two alternatives side by side—as before, using a Lithuanian word with its own meaning, and a calque from Belarusian with a foreign meaning, e.g.: bǐnas pridėge / pr̥sivìlo (cf. Belarusian быў прыпа́ліўшы), dastó.jau / gavãu. gærųs vilnas (Belarusian даста́ў до́брыя во́ўны), etc. This fact shows that the use of calques here is not yet widespread, though it is approaching the threshold of conventional usage. 6. SUMMARY 6.1. In the Lithuanian enclaves of Varanavo in Belarus, the Lithuanian language still exists, but it is not functioning. The boundaries between Lithuanian and Belarusian have become blurred, and words pass easily from one language into the other. Words from everyday vocabulary most often have Slavic equivalents alongside them. Modes of expressing thought are being strongly suppressed, and changes in the semantics of individual words are observable—raising the problem of the adequacy of semantic expression. 6.2. Many corresponding calques can be found in neighboring peripheral Lithuanian dialects, but they may also have arisen independently in these dialects as a result of similar conditions and contacts with Slavic languages. Some calques used in these varieties are difficult to recognize. The tendencies and pathways of their formation and emergence become fairly clear when comparing Straipsniai / Articles 129 NIJOLĖ TUOMIENĖ the systems of both languages—Lithuanian and Belarusian—and their different and identical means of expression. 6.3. Although, conditionally speaking, the oldest generation has retained and uses the greatest number of old Lithuanian words, it is obvious that their speech is no longer as expressive, since it has been affected by the Belarusian spoken in the surrounding area. A narrowing can be observed in the domains in which individual Lithuanian-language elements function. First to disappear are those phenomena that are absent from the Belarusian language with which it is in contact. 6.4. Quantitative analysis of everyday vocabulary shows that the influence of Belarusian on Lithuanian dialects is steadily increasing. The extensive material collected shows that calques from Belarusian are artificially cobbled-together words made up of two parts: the first is a Lithuanian form concealing Belarusian content—that is, a meaning characteristic of Belarusian. This is a constant source of Belarusian influence on Lithuanian dialects. Under present conditions, there is virtually no possibility of regulating and Lithuanizing the isolated Lithuanian dialects of Belarus. 6.5. Geolinguistic analysis confirms the conclusion of the phonetic and morphological analyses that the dialects in the Varanavas area are a continuation of the southern Aukštaitian periphery in Belarus. REFERENCES AND SOURCES Aliūkaitė Daiva, Mikulėnienė Danguolė 2014: Geolingvistika: ideologija, teorija ir metodika. Pagrindinės sąvokos. – XXI a. pradžios lietuvių tarmės: geolingvistinis ir sociolingvistinis tyrimas, 39–41. Aliūkaitė Daiva, Bakšienė Rima, Jaroslavienė Jurgita, Judžentytė Gintarė, Leskauskaitė Asta, Lubienė Jūratė, Meiliūnaitė Violeta, Pakalniškienė Dalia, Ragaišienė Vilija, Rinkauskienė Regina, Švambarytė-Valužienė Janina, Urbanavičienė Jolita, Vaišnienė Daiva 2014: Density of the network of survey points in the geolinguistic area Aukštaitian: Samogitian perspective. – Lithuanian Dialects at the Beginning of the 21st Century: A Geolinguistic and Sociolinguistic Study, 39, 159–163, 168–173. Birgelienė Nijolė 2015: Dabartinis lenkų kalbos poveikis punskiečių kalbai. – Kalbos istorijos ir dialektologijos problemos 3, 27–39. Čekmonas Valerijus [Чекмонас В.] 1988: Функционирование языков и билингвизм (На материале помацких говоров). – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 27, 37–54. Čekmonas Valerijus, Grumadienė Laima 1993: Kalbų paplitimas Rytų Lietuvoje. – Lietuvos rytai. Vilnius: Valstybinis leidybos centras, 132–137. 130 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVII Nevaldomas skolinimasis kaip kalbos nykimo požymis Crystal David 2005: Kalbos mirtis. Vilnius: Tyto alba (iš anglų k. vertė Edita Šidlauskaitė, Gabrielė Gailiūtė). Dresleris U. Wolfgangas 1994: Kalbos mirtis (vertė R. Marcinkevičienė). – Sociolingvistika ir kalbos kultūra. Vilnius: Gimtoji kalba, 84–90. DvŽ I–II – Dictionary of the Dainava Dialects 1. Authors Laima Grumadienė, Danguolė Mikulėnienė, Kazys Morkūnas, Aloyzas Vidugiris. Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language, 2005; 2. Authors Danguolė Mikulėnienė, Kazys Morkūnas, Aloyzas Vidugiris. Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language, 2010. Garšva Kazimieras 2005: Lietuvių kalbos paribio šnektos (fonologija). Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Gaučas Petras 2004: Etnolingvistinė Rytų Lietuvos gyventojų raida XVII a. antroji pusė – 1939 m. Vilnius: UAB „Inforas“. Grinaveckienė Elena 1994: Lietuvių tarmių tekstai 1. Balana (Varanavas). Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Grinaveckienė Elena 1997: Izoliotų lietuvių šnektų vietiniai etninėse Lietuvos žemės Baltarusijoje. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 37, 185–195. Grumadienė Laima 2005: Kodėl kaita lietuvių tarmėse. – Valoda–2006. Valoda dažādu kultūru kontekstā. Zinātnisko rakstu krājums XVI. Daugavpils: Saule, 42–48. Jaroslavienė Jurgita, Tuomienė Nijolė 2013: Lazūnų šnektos tekstai. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Kalėdienė Laima 2015: Vilniaus miesto kalba: stebimo laiko hipotezė. Tarmės – Europos tautų kultūros paveldas / Dialects – Cultural Heritage of European Nations. Vilnius: MRU, 211–244. Kardelis Vytautas 2013: Kalbų vartojimas rytų aukštaičių vilniškių paribiuose. – Lietuvių kalba 7. Interneto prieiga: www.lietuviukalba.lt. Kardelis Vytautas 2014: Lietuvių kalbos sala: probleminiai aspektai. – Lietuvių kalba 8. Interneto prieiga: www.lietuviukalba.lt. Kardelis Vytautas 2015: Lietuvių kalbos salos tyrimo perspektyvos. – Lietuvių kalba 9. Interneto prieiga: www.lietuviukalba.lt. Leskauskaitė Asta 2006: Kūčių krašto šnektos tekstai. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Leskauskaitė Asta 2009: Marcinkonių šnektos tekstai. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Leskauskaitė Asta 2016: Seirijų šnektos tekstai. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Straipsniai / Articles 131 NIOLĖ TUOMIENĖ Labov William 1963: The social motivation of a sound change. – Word 19, 207–309. Лабов Уильям 1975: О механизме языковых изменений. – Новое в лингвистике 7. Москва: Прогресс, 199–228. LKA I – Atlas of the Lithuanian Language 1. Lexicon, ed. Kazys Morkūnas. Vilnius: Mokslas, 1977. LKŽ – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas (I–XX, 1941–2002), elektroninis variantas. Red. kolegija: Gertūda Naktinienė (vyr. red.), Jonas Paulauskas, Rūtė Petrokienė, Vytautas Vitkauskas, Jolanta Zabarskaitė. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2005. Interneto prieiga: http://www.lkz.lt. LKŽ XIV – Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language 14. Vilnius: Mokslas, 1986. Meilūnaitė Violeta, Mikulėnienė Danguolė 2014: Trinaris optimizacijos modelis: punktų gyvybingumo laipsniai. – XXI a. pradžios lietuvių tarmės: geolingvistinis ir sociolingvistinis tyrimas, 124–128. Mikulėnienė Danguolė, Meilūnaitė Violeta [sud.] 2014: XXI a. pradžios lietuvių tarmės: geolingvistinis ir sociolingvistinis tyrimas. Žemėlapiai ir komentarai. Vilnius: Briedis. Mikulėnienė Danguolė, Morkūnas Kazys 1997: Dieveniškių šnektos tekstai. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Petrauskas Jonas, Vidugiris Aloyzas 1985: Lazūnų tarmės žodynas. Vilnius: Mokslas. Razmukaitė Marija, Pangonytė Aistė [sud.] 2002: Lietuviški tradiciniai vietovardžiai Gudijos, Karaliaučiaus krašto, Latvijos ir Lenkijos. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos centras. Romančiuk Ona 1987: Dėl leksinės interferencijos lietuvių kalbos salose. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 26, 140–149. Vilnius: Mokslas. Rudienė Vida 2011: Lietuvių kalba ir sociokultūriniai veiksniai. – Žmogus ir žodis 3, 40–49. Russel Bernard H. 1992: Preserving language diversity. – Human Organization 51, 82–91. СБ II – Dictionary of Belarusian Dialects of Northwestern Belarus and Its Borderlands 2. Minsk: Navuka i tekhnika, 1980. СБ IV – Dictionary of Belarusian Dialects of Northwestern Belarus and Its Borderlands 4. Minsk: Navuka i tekhnika, 1984. 132 Acta Linguistica Lituanica LXXVII Nevardomas skolinimasis kaip kalbos nykimo požemis Tuomenė Nijolė 2005: Mūsdienu izolētu lietuviešu izlākņu archaīskums un jaunumi. Valoda – 2005. Zinātnisko rakstu krājums XV. Daugavpils: Daugavpils universitāte, 88–94. Tuomenė Nijolė 2005a: Ramaškonių šnektos daiktavardžio kaityba: sociolingvistinis tyrimas (Daktaro disertacijos rankraštis). Vilnius. Tuomenė Nijolė 2006: Ramaškonių šnektos kodų kaita. – Kalbos kultūra 79. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 161–172. Tuomenė Nijolė 2006a: Periferisko lietuviešu izlākņu kalki. – Valoda – 2006. Valoda dažādu kultūru kontekstā. Zinātnisko rakstu krājums XVI. Daugavpils Universitātes akadēmiskais apgāds „Saule“, 2006, 80–86. Tuomenė Nijolė 2008: Ramaškonių šnektos tekstai. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Tuomenė Nijolė 2010: Ramaškonių šnektos daiktavardis: sociolingvistinis tyrimas. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 232 p.: iliustr. žemėl. (= Opera linguistica Lithuanica 13). Tuomenė Nijolė 2010a: Dvibalsių ie, uo vienbalsinimo tendencijos periferinėse Varėnavo šnektose. – Žmogus ir žodis 2(1). Vilnius: Vilniaus pedagoginis universitetas, 62–67. Tuomenė Nijolė 2010b: Pietų aukštaičių šnektos Balartuosje: kalbų sąveikos padariniai. – Respectus Philologicus 18(23), 223–234. Tuomenė Nijolė 2014: Archajiškosios ir inovacinės veiksmažodžio ypatybės Pietų aukštaičių patarmėje Baltarusijoje. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 70, 82–105. Urnėžiūtė Rita 1998: Kodų kaita jonėkiečių šnekamojoje kalboje. – Kalbotyra 47(1), 131–140. Vaitkevičius Vykintas 2011: Gervėčių sala istorijos tėkmėje. – Liaudies kultūra 5(140), 17–34. Vidugiris Aloyzas 1972: Iš Gervėčių tarmės semantinių dialektizmų. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 13, 19–29. Vidugiris Aloyzas 1998: Zietelos šnektos žodynas. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Vidugiris Aloyzas 2004: Zietelos šnekta. Vilnius: Presvika. Vidugiris Aloyzas 2014: Lazūnų šnekta. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla. Zinkevičius Zigmas 1966: Lietuvių dialektologija. Vilnius: Mintis. Straipsniai / Articles 133 NIJOLĖ TUOMIENĖ Zinkevičius Zigmas 1993: Rytų Lietuva praeityje ir dabar. Vilnius: Mokslo ir encyklopedijų leidykla. ZT I–II – Vidugiris Aloyzas, Mikulėnienė Danguolė. Texts of the Zietela dialect 1–2. Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language, 2005–2010. Uncontroled Borrowing as a Sign of Language Loss SUMMARY The article is based on the contemporary (the end of the 20th and beginning of the 21st centuries) dialectological and sociolinguistic data focusing on the current state of the Lithuanian language and its change. The material was collected in some isolated peripheral Lithuanian dialects of Ramaškonys, Rodūnia, Žirmūnai and Pikeliai located in the district of Voronava in Belarus. The mechanism of borrowing and adoption processes is examined with a focus on the problem of semantic adequacy. Recent years have witnessed an increase in the use of loan translations from Slavic languages in peripheral dialects. Bilingualism transforms the thinking mechanism of people, and, as a result, they easily take loan words and word groups, syntactic constructions and phraseology as their own. From the point of view of meaning and word formation, loan translations are analogous to the corresponding Belarusian words. Therefore, it is quite a complex task to discriminate between loan translations and independent words, which have developed as a result of historically determined systemic regularities of Slavic and Baltic languages and hence similar derivational bases. The majority of loan translations are calques or literal translations from Belarusian, which add a Belarusian, artificially coined, meaning to the Lithuanian word. The meaning is alien, often taken from another Lithuanian word, which is not a semantic equivalent of the original Belarusian word. The process leads to the impoverishment of the dialectal lexicon, the destruction of semantics, the deterioration of the national Lithuanian spirit, and the development of rather one-sided bilingualism. Received on 13 March 2018. NIJOLĖ TUOMIENĖ Institute of the Lithuanian Language 5 Petro Vileišio St., LT-10308 Vilnius, Lithuania [email protected] 134 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica XXVII