VILIA RAGAIŠIENĖ

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

Research areas: accentology, dialectology, lexicography.

TEXTS OF THE SEIRIJAI DIALECT

Compiled by Asta Leskauskaitė

Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2016, 296 p. + 1 garso diskas (CD) ISBN 978-609-411-183-9

At the beginning of 2017, the Institute of the Lithuanian Language published another dialectal source prepared by the experienced dialectologist Asta Leskauskaitė—Texts of the Seirijai Dialect, accompanied by an audio CD. This book is the third collection of South Aukštaitian subdialect texts compiled by the author. As a competent editor of dialectal texts, A. Leskauskaitė presented to the scholarly community and the wider public texts from her native dialect published just over a decade earlier—Texts of the Kūčiai Region Dialect (2006; 428 pp.). Not long afterward, that is, three years later, appeared a publication distinguished by its scholarly maturity and devoted to the southern South Aukštaitian dialects—Texts of the Marcinkonys Dialect (2009; 384 pp.). While welcoming the new book by the distinguished researcher of the South Aukštaitian subdialect, one must regret that it is considerably shorter than the first two (especially since the Geolinguistics Centre’s Dialect Archive at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language contains a substantial number of published texts from the Seirijai dialect, pp. 33–34). The desire to have as many as possible of the experienced dialectologist’s transcribed texts with commentary is, I think, entirely understandable. Authentic dialectal texts are an invaluable source not only for dialectologists, Balticists, and researchers of early writings, but also for ethnologists, ethnographers, and historians. Although the book under review is shorter, in terms of preparation and scholarly insight it certainly does not fall short of the dialectal texts A. Leskauskaitė published in 2006 and 2009.

The structure of the book Texts of the Seirijai Dialect is essentially no different from that of any other publication of this kind published to date. As usual, the book consists of a preface (pp. 9–12), a scholarly study (pp. 13–88), and dialect texts (pp. 89–251). At the end of the book there is also a glossary (pp. 252–265) and a set of transcription symbols (pp. 266–268). Following these is a list of sources

288

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVI

Seirijų šnektos tekstai

(pp. 269–270), a fairly extensive bibliography (pp. 271–282), a list of abbreviations (pp. 283–284), and an English-language summary (pp. 285–292). A CD is included with the book, containing good-quality audio recordings of most of the narratives published in it.

The scholarly study, which the author modestly calls an introductory article (p. 5), consists of four chapters, some longer and some shorter: “From the History of the Seirijai Region,” “Dialect Research and Sources,” “The Sociolinguistic Situation at the Beginning of the 21st Century,” and “The Dialect Area and Its Main Features.” The first chapter (pp. 13–31), drawing on historical sources, discusses in considerable detail the history of the Seirijai region from ancient times to the present. It provides information not only about the historical circumstances that shaped the region’s development, but also valuable data about the religious views, ethnic composition, and language use of people living in the Seirijai area in the 17th–20th centuries. The data presented in Tables 1 and 2 of this chapter on the inhabitants of the Meteliai and Seirijai rural districts in Seinai County in 1885 and at the end of the 19th century are particularly valuable. For comparative analysis, especially in the future, a similar table on the people living in Seirijai Eldership at the beginning of the 21st century, based on the 2011 Population and Housing Census, would certainly be useful.

The chapter “Dialect Research and Sources” (pp. 32–35) briefly discusses earlier research on the Seirijai dialect, which, as the author rightly notes, is “scarce and fragmentary” (p. 32). It is commendable that the scholar surveys not only published dialectal material but also introduces previously unpublished manuscript and audio sources, indicating where they are held. In discussing dialectological material gathered during various expeditions, it might be worth stating how much of it is currently held altogether in the Dialect Archive of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language (at least specifying the localities represented and the number of hours of audio recordings).

The third chapter (pp. 36–44) offers what is perhaps the first fairly detailed overview in a publication of this kind of the dialect’s sociolinguistic situation: the current composition of the Seirijai region, the distribution of inhabitants by age group, language attitudes, and language use. Given Lithuania’s overall demographic situation, one must agree with the author that “a further decline in the population is also foreseeable in the future” (p. 38). However, comparing the identical data in Figures 1 and 2 on the number of residents of Seirijai Eldership by age group as of January 1, 2011 and 2016 (pp. 37–38), one may hope that the population decline is (and is likely to remain) not particularly rapid. On the other hand, some doubts arise about statistical data that have remained completely unchanged over several years (could there perhaps be a proofreading error?).

From a scholarly perspective, the fourth chapter of the study, “The Dialect Area and Its Main Features,” is particularly valuable. It consists of four shorter subsections: “Phonology,” “Grammatical Structure,” “Syntax,” and “Lexicon” (pp. 45–88). This chapter discusses the most important and salient features of the Seirijai dialect, which has so far been little studied.

Recenzijos / Reviews

289

VILIJA RAGAŠIENĖ

…features, and the most relevant linguistic literature is indicated. An experienced phonologist, the author describes the dialect’s sound system with great precision in the first subsection, choosing appropriate examples to support her statements (pp. 46–56). The subsection “Stress and Intonation” (pp. 56–58) presents data not only on stress and intonation but also on the dialect’s stress system, which, according to the researcher, “is similar to that of other western Southern Aukštaitian dialects” (p. 56). In discussing the stress system, the dialectologist draws readers’ attention to two features characteristic of Southern Aukštaitian, particularly its southwestern and western dialects: variation in the position of stress in inflected words and their forms (accentual variants), and a tendency to generalize the oxytone (i.e. mobile-stress) pattern. It is worth noting that the discussion of the accentuation system takes up half of the relatively short subsection “Stress and Intonation.” Thus, the author unnecessarily narrowed the subsection’s title without indicating that it also discusses the stress system.

Perhaps the most thorough subsection in the chapter under review is “Grammatical Structure” (pp. 58–79), which examines “some of the more important and salient features of morphology, word formation, and syntax” (p. 58). Of all the parts of speech, the noun receives the most detailed treatment: the categories of number and gender, the declension system, and the formation of diminutives. The main points are also identified and appropriately presented in the discussion of other parts of speech—pronouns, verbs, prepositions, and conjunctions used in the Seirijai dialect. I would like to offer a collegial objection only to the brief presentation of the adjective (barely a page of text is devoted to it). Even if one accepts the author’s position that “the declension system and derivation of adjectives in the Seirijai dialect do not differ from those in other Southern Aukštaitian dialects, so only a few cases need be discussed” (p. 69), it remains unclear why the most important linguistic literature is cited. After all, a number of linguists have written about the declension system, function, and various aspects of usage of Southern Aukštaitian adjectives (see Zinkevičius 1966: 268, 272–273; Grumadienė 1994: 97–106; Mikulėnienė 1996: 150–151; Markevičienė 1999: 33; Lauskaite-Ragašienė 2008: 94–104; Leskauskaitė 2006: 53; 2008: 31–43; 2009: 55–57; Ragašienė 2015: 274–308; 2016: 120–199, etc.). I would also like to draw attention to the accentuation of adjectives with the suffix -okas, -a—to the derivatives with acute accentuation didokas, -a, baišokas, -a, ašrokas, -a (p. 69). Even allowing that a circumflex intonation is possible in these cases, the accentual paradigm of the adjectives listed remains unclear. The masculine forms apparently show the fourth accentuation pattern, but it is unclear how the feminine forms are stressed: didoka (4 / 2 / 3) or didóka (1)? In such cases, the accentuation pattern of the examples given should be specified and the accentuation tendencies explained. After all, adjectives with the suffix -okas, -a display different accentual tendencies in Southern Aukštaitian dialects. In the southern Southern Aukštaitian dialects, first-pattern forms of the derivatives under discussion are more widespread (cf. Leskauskaitė 2009: 57). In the southwestern part of the area, there is a tendency to stress these adjectives according to

290

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVI

Seirijų šnektos tekstai

trečiąją kirčiuotę (Leskauskaitė 2006: 54; Ragauskienė 2015: 29). Tik Punko ir Seinų šnektose jie dažniau nei kitur kirčiuojami dvejopai, pvz.: gerõkas, -à (3) / gerõkas, -a (1), smarkõs, -à (3) / smarkõs, -a (1) ir kt. (Ragauskienė 2015: 290; 2016: 167). Be to, čia dažniau nei kitų linksnių piesagio ir galūnėje kirčiuojamos moteriškosios giminės vienaskaitos vardininko formos (Ragauskienė 2015: 291; 2016: 148).

The subsection “Syntax” (pp. 77–79) briefly discusses the extended constructions characteristic of Southern Aukštaitian, some of which, as A. Leskauskaitė correctly notes, have been inherited from earlier times, while others have been borrowed from Slavic languages. The subsection “Lexicon” (pp. 79–88) presents many interesting features characteristic not only of Southern Aukštaitian but of other Aukštaitian dialects as well. Indeed, the author must have listened to a substantial number of audio recordings and reviewed written sources in order to examine so thoroughly the dialectalisms, loanwords, phraseological expressions, and comparisons used in the dialects, and to provide so many examples of usage. I would like to point out just one small detail: a less experienced reader may not understand whether some of the examples provided alongside the statements they illustrate should be regarded as lexical or semantic dialectalisms, for instance: užkūsti ‘to scold’, paydùs, -ì ‘paydus’, skrūtnùs, -ì ‘darbtus’, vikrùs, sudėjì ‘to double, to put two together’, etc. (p. 80).

The most interesting and valuable part of the book—and unquestionably the one that demanded the greatest amount of work and scholarly expertise from the author—is “Dialect Texts” (pp. 80–251). The volume presents narratives by nine representatives of the oldest generation from different settlements—Seirijai, Paser­nikai, Barčiūnai, and Sta­tiškė—providing an excellent record of the Seirijai dialect as spoken at the end of the 20th century. An experienced dialectologist with an excellent understanding of everyday life and material culture, A. Leskauskaitė has chosen texts on a variety of subjects that aptly “reflect local residents’ worldview and values, dialect identity, customs, attitudes toward family, neighbours, and national minorities, historical events, and many other things” (p. 34). A collection of texts assembled on this principle, rich in material and free from excessive editorial intervention, is a genuine treasure not only for researchers of lexicon, morphology, and syntax, but also for those studying prosody, the standard language, and language contact. The expertly selected and appropriately presented material allows scholars to assess the development and changes of various linguistic features. In other words, the material published in the collection provides researchers with evidence from actual usage on problematic linguistic matters and helps answer some questions that remain open to debate.

Until now, the accentuation of the Southern Aukštaitian subdialect—especially its western and southwestern parts—has perhaps raised the greatest number of questions and uncertainties among dialect researchers. These concern the distinction of intonations in long vowels [ū], [ī], [ē] / [ē], [ɔ̄] / [ō] / [ō] and diphthongs [ie], [uo], as well as variation in inflected words (variation in stress position and intonation). The former issue in particular has been widely discussed and written about by scholars. In recent years, the view seems to have become established in the scholarly literature that

Recenzijos / Reviews

291

VILIJA RAGAISIENĖ

the Dzūkai do not always distinguish the acute and circumflex intonations of long vowels and the diphthongs [ie], [uo]; there are signs of the two intonations becoming levelled (for details, see Leskauskaitė 2004: 180–194 and the literature cited there). From this perspective, A. Leskauskaitė’s studies of the Seirijai dialect are highly valuable, as they modify earlier scholarly assumptions to some extent. The author states that it is difficult to determine the intonation of long vowels and the diphthongs [ie], [uo] when, for example, the sounds in question are pronounced shorter owing to falling intonation, especially at the end of a word. In such cases, an internal intonation is marked ^s. In other cases, acute and circumflex intonations are pronounced clearly” (p. 58). It should also be added that an internal intonation ^s is marked fairly consistently in the texts in cases of retracted stress as well, for example: kɔ.pūsus, blīnus, pītus, grīna, rǘzes, etc. (pp. 116, 118, 123, 150, 225). If we accept that speakers of the Seirijai dialect distinguish the intonations of the sounds in question fairly well, the question arises how such accentuation cases should be interpreted: puodā, vaikštė(s), kūolā, kaimū. / kaimīnu, kūoliena, sīki, namūosa / namūosa, riebalūose / riebalūose, ǯras, etc. (pp. 116, 128, 136, 141, 181, 175, 191, 195, 226, 213). Undoubtedly, when marking the circumflex or circumflex intonation of long vowels and the diphthongs [ie], [uo], the author took account of the direction and intensity of the fundamental tone. Thus, in the cases under discussion, as confirmed by the relevant scholarly texts, one should speak not of the levelling or merger of the two intonations but of their alternation. That variation between acute and circumflex in the root or suffix of the same word is possible in dialects is also confirmed by the 1983 Kalbos faktų rinkimo programa, which gives numerous examples of such accentuation, for instance: ōras (3/1) / ōras (4), mergė (1) / mergtė (2), etc. (pp. 21, 31).

The variation in intonation among some of the nouns discussed in the review is certainly neither accidental nor new (Lazauskaitė-Ragaisienė 2008a: 37–50; 2009: 161–181). In fact, it should be regarded as a phenomenon with historical roots, that is, as connected with the collective plural preserved to this day in Southern Aukštaitian dialects. It is thought that, owing to generalized stress on the plural paradigm’s ending and on the singular instrumental forms, a circumflex intonation may have arisen in the root or suffix of some nouns; circumflex intonation is generally characteristic of retracted stress. For example: kaimān, kaimān, kaimān(s), kaimān → kaimānas; ožiai, ožiū, ožiem(s), ožūs → ožīs, ōži; cf. also purvīnas, slīkas (pp. 127, 173), etc. (Zinkevičius 1966: 40–41; Lazauskaitė-Ragaisienė 2008: 47; Ragaisienė 2010: 56, 67). Thus, from a diachronic perspective, the circumflex in some words should be interpreted as the intonation of retracted stress (from collective plural forms) (Mikulėnienė 1996: 152–153; 2005: 156). I would only disagree with the circumflex intonation in plural instrumental forms šāusmūse, lūkuose, namūosa, etc. (pp. 125, 186, 195). As is known, these forms, like the Latvian form laukūsna, for example, have stress on the ending inherited from the old plural accusative (Zinkevičius 1966: 238–239; 1980: 197). Thus, in this case, circumflex intonation on the ending is entirely incompatible with Saussure–Fortunatov’s law.

92

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVI

Seirijų šnektos tekstai

Attention is also drawn to the commentaries accompanying the dialect texts. As the author notes, the footnotes comment on “rarer phonetic, morphological and other features, irregular phenomena, and other facts” (p. 34). Indeed, most matters are commented on with impeccable scholarly precision—that is, very clearly, precisely, and concisely. I would like to discuss with the author only the accentuation of the noun bėržai. It is stated that the form dù bėržai indicates that, in the Southern Aukštaitian area, alongside fixed accentuation, this noun may also exhibit a consistent-accentuation variant (p. 94, footnote 8). It is more likely, however, that this is a relic of the old baritone accentuation; cf. Latvian bērza, bērze, bērzs (Stundžia 1994: 20), attesting to the former accentual and semantic contrast between two plurals—the ordinary and the collective; cf. dù bėržai and ā.uga berzài. Thus, in this case, we should speak not of the retention of an inherited fixed-accent paradigm, but of the use of individual sentence-accent forms. Of course, the author’s assumption that in some Southern Aukštaitian dialects the noun béržas may also be accented according to the first accent paradigm should not be ruled out entirely (especially since the fixed-accent paradigm, as a variant, is used in the Eastern Aukštaitian Vilnius dialects).

It is worth noting that the footnotes explain old and rare cases of accentuation quite consistently, and discuss words and forms that are accented in two ways in the dialect. I only missed a comment on the accent of the hitherto unfamiliar form slįkai (p. 204).

The presentation and explanation of words and their meanings are very well thought out. Dialect words, loanwords, and hybrids marked with a special sign in the transcribed texts are explained in the glossary. More interesting examples of usage are also discussed in the footnotes, for instance, the distribution of the diminutive kostimės (kõstīmel) across the subdialect area (p. 145, footnote 140), and the meaning ‘bog’ of the noun raiktė (raikė.m) (p. 151, footnote 153), and so on. In a text of considerable length, only a few words that may not be familiar to all readers escaped the author’s notice, for example: bañgas, miglinù, talanduòje, vesukas, dedada (pp. 150, 161, 168, 181, 251). Some would have been worth including in the glossary, while others could have been explained in the footnotes.

The explanatory glossary (pp. 252–265) has been compiled in accordance with the principles for preparing a lexicographic glossary: word origins, parts of speech, and meanings are provided, and derived words are listed. The glossary contains many words and meanings attested only in Seirijai and neighboring subdialects, for example: appaškýti, appaškùina, appaškùina ‘to measure out’, bimbė (1) ‘bubble’, dubės (2) ‘broad-leaved pondweed’, kolytė (2) ‘shepherd’s purse’, and others (pp. 252, 253, 255, 258). Thus, the glossary’s material supplements the comprehensive Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language with new data.

In concluding this review, it should be said that the author succeeded in achieving her stated aim—to “show both the archaism of the Seirijai subdialect and its change” (p. 10). I offer my warmest congratulations. And one more thing: no one should get the impression that the occasional discussion-oriented observation, collegial remark, or enthusiastic piece of advice diminishes A. Leskauskaitė’s professionally accomplished work. After all, we discuss matters and

Recenzijos / Reviews

293

VILIJA RAGAISIENĖ

consult only with those who are more experienced, more deeply involved, and ahead of us. A careful reading and discussion of the book simply show how necessary and important sources are for researchers today and in the future alike: dialect texts prepared by experienced scholars and accompanied by a compact disc of audio recordings.

LITERATŪRA

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

Kalbos faktų rinkimo programa. Vilnius: Mokslas, 2009.

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

Lazauskaitė-Ragaisienė Vilija 2008a: Diskiemenių io kamieno daiktavardžių kirčiavimo variantai pietų aukštaičių ir rytų aukštaičių vilniškių šnektose. – Lituanistica 54 3(75), 37–50.

Lazauskaitė-Ragaisienė Vilija 2009: Diskiemenių o ir io kamienų daiktavardžių kirčiavimo variantų plitimas pietų aukštaičių ir rytų aukštaičių vilniškių šnek-tose. – Garsas ir jo tyrimo aspektai: metodologija ir praktika. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 161–181.

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

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

Leskauskaitė Asta 2008: Daugaskiemenių būdvardžių darba pietinėse pietų aukštaičių šnektose. – Lituanistica 54 4(76), 31–43.

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

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

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

Mikulėnienė Danguolė 2005: Cirkumfleksinė metatonija lietuvių kalbos vardžodiniuose daiktavardžiuose ir jos kilmė. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

294

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVI

Serijų šnektos tekstai

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

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

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

Stundžia Bonifacas 1994: Daiktavardžių kamienų bei giminių variantai baltų kalbose (ide. ir bendroji baltų bei slavų kalbų leksika). – Baltistica 27(2), 13–29.

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

Zinkevičius Zigmas 1966: Lietuvių kalbos istorinė gramatika 1. Vilnius: Mokslas.

Įteikta 2017 m. birželio 14 d.

VILIJA RAGAIŠIENĖ

Lietuvių kalbos institutas

Petro Vileišio g. 5, LT-1038 Vilnius, Lietuva

[email protected]

Recenzijos / Reviews

295