Daiva Aliūkaitė, Danguolė Mikulėnienė, Agnė Čepaitienė, Laura Geržotaitė. „Kalbos variantiškumas ir jo vertinimas perceptyviosios dialektologijos požiūriu: variantų ir vietų vaizdiniai“

DALIA PAKALNIŠKIENĖ Klaipėda University Research fields: Baltic studies, geolinguistics, the history of the verb. Daiva Aliūkaitė, Danguolė Mikulėnienė, Agnė Čepaitienė, Laura Geržotaitė LANGUAGE VARIATION AND ITS EVALUATION FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF PERCEPTUAL DIALECTOLOGY: IMAGES OF VARIANTS AND PLACES COLLECTIVE MONOGRAPH Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla, 2017, 326 p. ISBN 978-609-459-913-2 A reviewed monograph is an exceptional event in the field of Lithuanian studies. An innovative quantitative and qualitative study of Lithuanian language variation, based on evaluations by ordinary members of the speech community, provides new data for revealing the inventory, interpretation, development, and prospects of language variation. First, the wide-ranging selection of linguistic literature catches the eye: the work draws on the most important studies of language variation and perceptual dialectology, and makes critical use of the theoretical positions and practices of leading linguistic schools. As the numbering indicates, the monograph consists of six parts of varying lengths. Part 5 is only six pages long, while Part 6 presents the conclusions; therefore, it would probably have been more appropriate to combine these chapters and present them as general conclusions. Indeed, Chapter 5, “The Value of the Dimensions of Images and Attitudes in Studies of Language Variation,” clearly summarizes the research findings. Chapter 1, entitled “Introduction,” presents the concept of language variation and distinguishes two of its most important manifestations Straipsniai / Articles 259 DALIA PAKALNIŠKIENĖ categories—the images of varieties and places. The team of four scholars set itself an ambitious goal: “to investigate the geolinguistic competence of ordinary members of the speech community, which the authors of the monograph understand as the knowledge and abilities to recognize linguistic variation and relate it to various kinds of areas: 1) geographical (i.e., territorial variables); 2) social (i.e., social variables); 3) cultural (i.e., cultural variables/cultural dimensions)” (p. 20). At first glance, this “ephemeral” aim can be reliably measured through consistent steps—the tasks were formulated to ensure the study’s success: to develop a research methodology, establish criteria for selecting participants and the regional sites to be studied, and, using the developed model for investigating geolinguistic competence, conduct the study. The monograph makes a significant choice, since the project The Place of Standard Lithuanian in the Mental Map of the Lithuanian Language was carried out at the Kaunas Faculty of Vilnius University in 2014–2016 with funding from the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language (led by Prof. Dr. Daiva Aliūkaitė). Thus, a range of experience was gained, and lessons were learned from both successes and mistakes. The sample is substantial—more than 1,400 young people. The researchers decided to investigate the verbalized and visualized linguistic attitudes, in other words, geolinguistic competence, of a relatively homogeneous group of 15–19-year-old gymnasium students and pupils in ten Lithuanian localities that best represent both traditional Lithuanian dialects and the newest dialectal formations of the 21st century: the Kretinga, Plungė, and Mažeikiai geolects represented the Northern Samogitians; the Biržai and Panevėžys geolects, the Eastern Aukštaitians; the Vilkaviškis geolect, the Western Aukštaitians; and the Varėna geolect, the Southern Aukštaitians. The transitional geolects of Šiauliai, Kupiškis, and Ukmergė are the most difficult to interpret. The substantial second chapter of the monograph, “Linguistic Variation from the Perspective of Perceptual Dialectology,” presents a critical retrospective, from rural to urban dialectology and from traditional to dynamic and perceptual dialectology, as well as the speaker-oriented paradigm that made it possible to develop an innovative research methodology. Perceptual studies are chronologically grouped into periods before and after Dennis R. Preston’s book Perceptual Dialectology (Preston 1989), whose many premises underpin contemporary linguistics. The methodology is accompanied by terminology that has been skillfully translated or adapted, together with equivalents in other languages. It is to be hoped that this terminology will take root naturally, be adopted by other researchers in Lithuania, and be readily “convertible” in an international context. The study draws creatively on Dennis R. Preston’s five-component perceptual research model, which comprises several tasks: drawing a map of varieties, assessing the correctness and appeal of varieties, identifying differences between varieties, recognizing dialects, and making a conceptual assessment (Preston 199). The essence and value of these tasks are elaborated. To investigate linguistic variation in Lithuania 260 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVII Daiva Aliūkaitė, Danguolė Mikulėnienė, Agnė Čepaitienė, Laura Geržotaitė Linguistic Variation and Its Evaluation from the Perspective of Perceptual Dialectology: Images of Varieties and Places the scholars developed a comprehensive questionnaire model that visualizes and verbalizes the respondent’s geolinguistic competence. The third and fourth chapters of the monograph are devoted to qualitative and quantitative interpretation of the data obtained. Chapter 3, “Subjective Models of Lithuanian Linguistic Variation: The Conceptualization of Dialectal Speech and the Mapping of Mental Images of Linguistic Variation,” develops a discourse on images of regional linguistic variation in Lithuanian. First, it discusses the sociolinguistic portrait of a dialect speaker that emerges from the questionnaires. Following the principles of Fumio Inoue’s evaluative words (Inoue 1999) and the keyword technique of Peter Garrett, Angie Williams, and Betsy Evans (Garrett, Williams, Evans 2005), a network of keywords was prepared. The questionnaire data showed that the main traits attributed to a dialect speaker are associated with their region and place of residence, age, and respect for the past, language, and so on. The clear connection with the image of the NORM (Chambers, Trudgill 2004) reveals the respondents’ attitudes: dialectal speech is a feature of a past or vanishing world. However, as the monograph demonstrates in detail, verbally and especially visually, this conceptualization varies in intensity across the different sites. Analysis of the mental maps and their commentary revealed an imagined dialect landscape and identified prototypical dialect zones. The maps systematized using the computer program Gabmap (Nerbonne et al. 2011) show how linguistic homelands for different dialects and sites are conceptualized, along with images of dialect zones and descriptions of linguistic features that indicate fairly good geolinguistic competence. It would be interesting to compare maps of the perceived degree of dialectalness at different sites, which would bring out the influence of linguistic homeland on the respondents’ attitudes. In addition, the maps of differences (Fig. 70) could be discussed in greater detail. It would be useful not only to explain the lines on the maps—that is, what a darker or lighter line connecting places indicates—but also to consider why precisely these dialect areas take shape in the respondents’ mental images. Examples of the hand-drawn maps show that respondents comment on a considerable number of them, listing the features of dialectalness marked in a particular area (correct, understandable, beautiful or ugly, etc.). An analysis of these features would have greatly enriched the study of prototypical dialect zones as well. The maps revealed several ways of classifying dialects, with the binary (Samogitian/Aukštaitian) and four-part (Samogitian/Aukštaitian/Suvalkian/Dzūkian) classifications predominating (other classifications were also recorded, of course). It was observed that the young respondents tended to shift to the four-part classification, and the following reasons for this shift are given: the influence of ethnographic regional classification, the unequal size of the Samogitian and Aukštaitian areas, and other historical circumstances. Recenzijos / Reviews 261 DALIA PAKALNIŠKIENĖ Chapter 4, “Subjective Models of Lithuanian Language Variation: Conceptualization of the Standard Language and Mapping of Mental Images of Language Variation,” constructs a sociolinguistic portrait of the standard-language speaker on a geolinguistic basis, seeking to show the differences between high and low conceptualizations of the standard language. Using the same technique of key words and associates, three most important features of the standard-language speaker’s portrait were identified: education, urban identity, and correct language (the latter less frequently). Another important element indicating different high and low conceptualizations of the standard language is modernity, which establishes the stereotypical opposition “dialect = a variant of the past and the oldest generation / standard language = a variant of the present and the younger generation” (p. 192). This is a pronounced attitude among the highlanders, whereas young Samogitians do not associate the standard language with modernity, linking it instead to the vitality of Samogitian dialectality. No major differences were found between young highlanders’ and Samogitians’ images of the standard language. The researchers recorded that Samogitians regard someone speaking the standard language as an outsider. The hand-drawn maps revealed images of the localization of the standard language. Standard-language zones are usually associated with centers—large cities, regional centers, or even a linguistic kin group. The western part of Lithuania is most often associated with the standard language, and the central or eastern parts less often. According to the research data, young people at all survey locations most often identify Vilnius and Kaunas, and less often Klaipėda, with the standard-language zone. The researchers’ finding that the most prototypical standard-language zones are located in places least strongly identified with dialect zones is noteworthy. The brief fifth chapter, “The Value of the Dimensions of Images and Attitudes in Research on Language Variation,” concludes that, in terms of the sample of participants and the data collected, the study of linguistic attitudes in Lithuania is representative. As I have already noted, all the ideas set out here could naturally be incorporated into conclusions presenting systematically the images of the standard language and dialects held by ordinary language users, together with their main features. It emerged that the most important characteristics of the standard language are education and location (large cities—Vilnius, Kaunas, Klaipėda). Mental maps showed that the most prototypical dialect zones are located in newly formed dialectal varieties: the Plungė, Kretinga, and Mažeikiai geolects (in the Samogitian area), and the Biržai and Varėna geolects (in the Aukštaitian area), as well as in regional centers—Telšiai, Šiauliai, Panevėžys, Alytus—and other towns such as Rietavas and Skuodas. The research results show that young people in Lithuania’s gymnasiums and secondary schools have adequate geolinguistic competence. This assessment is supported primarily by the hand-drawn maps, which show that members of the younger generation in the speech community intuitively distinguish strongly, moderately, and weakly dialectal zones. 62 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVII Daiva Aliūkaitė, Danguolė Mikulėnienė, Agnė Čepaitienė, Laura Geržotaitė Language Variation and Its Evaluation from the Perspective of Perceptual Dialectology: Images of Varieties and Places Modern quantitative and statistical methods enhance the reliability and objectivity of the research. A computer program created using dialectometric methods, Gabmap, was used to qualitatively and quantitatively summarize maps of the prototypical dialect and standard-language usage zones at the survey points; value maps produced using statistical methods, reflecting the differences among all locations marked in terms of dialectality; maps of networks showing the degree of dialectality; cluster maps; and dendrograms—the monograph features no fewer than 174 figures! Among the monograph’s many other merits, its scholarly and formal unity and coherence are commendable—an achievement that was not easy for these talented researchers. On the contrary, researchers from different generations combined their experience and expertise into a rich, unified fabric. A modern, high-quality, precise study—another cornerstone in the edifice of Lithuanian geolinguistics, naturally opening out into the global linguistic sphere. LITERATŪRA Chambers Jack K., Trudgill Peter 2004: Dialectology. Second Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Garrett Peter, Williams Angie, Evans Betsy 2005: Accessing Social Meanings: Values of Keywords, Values in Keywords. – Acta Linguistica Hafniensia: International Journal of Linguistics 37(1), 37–54. Inoue Fumio 1999: Classification of Dialects by Image: English and Japanese. – Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology 1, eds. Dennis R. Preston. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 147–160. Nerbonne John, Colen Rinke, Gooskens Charlotte, Kleiweg Peter, Leinonen Therese 2011: Gabmap – A Web Application for Dialectology. – Dialectologia Special Issue II. Preston Dennis R. 1989: Perceptual Dialectology: Nonlinguists’ Views of Areal Linguistics. Dordrecht: Foris. Preston Dennis R. 1999: Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology 1, eds. Dennis R. Preston. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Įteikta 2018 m. birželio 30 d. DALIA PAKALNIŠKIENĖ Klaipėdos universitetas Salomėjos Nėries g. 5, LT-9227 Klaipėda [email protected] Recenzijos / Reviews 263