JANINA ŠVAMBARYTĖ-VALUŽIENĖ

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

Research areas: analysis of dialects in written sources, dialect lexicography and lexicology, sociolinguistics, geolinguistics.

A PECULIAR LINGUISTIC PHENOMENON IN THE ŠIAULIŠKIAI AREA (BASED ON DATA FROM POINT NO. 73 OF THE ATLAS OF THE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE)

A Peculiar Linguistic Phenomenon in the Šiauliškiai Area (Based on Data from Lithuanian Language Atlas Point No. 73)

ABSTRACT

For the first time, the article presents to the scholarly community the use of the emphatic particle –agei and its variants –agė, –agi with verbs and other parts of speech. This local linguistic phenomenon was discovered during a 2013 field expedition at point No. 73 (Dargaičiai) of the Atlas of the Lithuanian Language in the Western Aukštaitian Šiauliškiai area (abbreviated as WAŠ). Possible reasons for the formation and use of this linguistic phenomenon are indicated. Some linguistic features of WAŠ and manifestations of dialect interaction observed in recordings of the local dialect are discussed; these were mentioned in the works of Lithuanian dialectologists as early as the 1960s and 1970s. The appendix material supplements the article.

KEYWORDS: Western Aukštaitian Šiauliškiai, processes of dialect interaction, emphatic particle, closed linguistic community, idiolect.

ANNOTATION

The article is the first-time presentation of the use of emphatic particle –agei and its variants –agė, –agi in combination with verbs and other parts of speech to the scientific community. This local linguistic phenomenon was discovered in the course of fieldwork carried out in 2013 in Point No. 73 of the Atlas of the Lithuanian Language (hereinafter – ALL),

Straipsniai / Articles

175

JANINA ŠVAMBARYTĖ-VALUŽIENĖ

which marks the Western Aukštaitian subdialect of Šiauliškiai (hereinafter – VAŠ) (Dargaičiai). It specifies the likely reasons behind the formation and use of such a linguistic phenomenon. Certain linguistic peculiarities of VAŠ and the manifestations of cross-dialectal interaction observed in the records of the subdialect and mentioned in the works of Lithuanian dialectologists as far back as the 1950s–1960s are discussed. The material of the supplements is a valuable contribution to the text of the article.

KEYWORDS: Western Aukštaitian subdialect of Šiauliškiai, processes of cross-dialectal interaction, emphatic particle, self-contained linguistic community, idiolect.

INTRODUCTION

The project Contemporary Geolinguistic Research in Lithuania: Optimization of the Network of Points and Interactive Dissemination of Dialectal Information (Project code No. VP1-3.1-ŠMM-07-K-01-028), carried out in 2011–2014 by the Institute of the Lithuanian Language (abbreviated as LKI) and Lithuanian higher education institutions, made it possible to check the linguistic situation at all points in the Atlas of the Lithuanian Language (abbreviated as LKA) after more than seventy years (the material for this publication was collected in 1950–1971).

One of the Western Aukštaitian Šiauliai-area points researched by the article’s author, LKA No. 73, was the unique street-village of Dargaičiai, laid out in the strip-field pattern and first mentioned in written sources in 1620. During the period of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (abbreviated as LDK), Dargaičiai belonged to the Šiauliai economy, and from 1791 to the Šiauliai rural district. From 1897, Dargaičiai was subject to the Piktuižiai eldership of Gruzdžiai rural district, since the manor was located there, seven kilometers northwest of Gruzdžiai, and a collective farm was later established there. From 1919, Dargaičiai belonged to the Saveikiai eldership in Šiauliai County (Saveikiai served as the center of the eldership from 1919 to 1945. Saveikiai is 2.3 km from Dargaičiai and 3.3 km from Piktuižiai). According to the 1923 census, Dargaičiai had 43 farms and a population of 211. From 1950, Dargaičiai belonged to the Gruzdžiai local district in Šiauliai County. From 1953 to 1991, the land of Dargaičiai village belonged to the Gruzdžiai Agricultural Technical School farm. According to the 1959 census, the village had a population of 142. The population later declined: 121 in 1970, 83 in 1979, and 62 in 1989. In 2001, Dargaičiai had a population of 46, while according to the 2011 census it had 51 residents (in recent years, respondents report, people from nearby Šiauliai city and Gruzdžiai have been moving to Dargaičiai). Dargaičiai, whose strip-field village layout has been preserved to this day, has been designated an ethnographic village.

176

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIV

A Distinctive Linguistic Phenomenon in the Šiauliai Dialect Area (Based on Material from LKA Point No. 73)

In the ethnographic village of Dargaičiai, located 25 kilometers from Šiauliai, there is a recreation area called “Pelėdynė”; excursions, tastings of traditional village dishes, walking on stilts, and rides on summer skis are organized. Fishing takes place in a pond on the Kūra, a dammed tributary of the Mūša; visitors can ride in a horse-drawn cart, visit the Kulnis Oak, a state-protected site, and celebrate traditional festivals: Jurginės (the first weekend after April 23) and the Traditional Old Crafts Festival (the first weekend in August, usually on Sunday).

RESEARCH MATERIAL, AIM, OBJECTIVES, AND METHODS

During the 2013 field expedition, five local Dargaičiai village respondents from the oldest generation were interviewed at LKA point No. 73: three women (R 2 (1923), R 3 (1947), R 5 (1953)) and two men (R 1 (1926), R 4 (1951)). In 2013, the oldest respondent was over 90, and the youngest over 60. Respondents R 1 and R 2 had attended primary schools: R 1 completed three grades at Šakyna Primary School, while R 2 completed four grades at Gruzdžiai Primary School. R 3, R 4, and R 5 had completed secondary school: R 3 and R 5 at Gruzdžiai Secondary School, and R 4 at Mindaugiai Secondary School (Joniškis District). R 4 completed studies at Joniškėlis Agricultural Technical School, and R 5 at Gruzdžiai Agricultural Technical School.

The linguistic recordings of the respondents interviewed amounted to more than ten hours of dialectal text on various topics. The main topics included memories of the village as it used to be; various farm tasks; historical upheavals: war, occupations, deportations, resistance struggles, service in the Soviet army, the establishment of collective farms; illnesses and doctors; religious holidays; changes in farming practices; emigration; disagreements within the local community; everyday household chores; work in the forest, and so on.

The respondents received the article’s author, an outsider, in various ways: R 1 treated her as an interlocutor with whom he needed to maintain a distance (later, after about half an hour, when the author recounted her own life story and that of her parents, this attitude was forgotten); as a listener to whom he should speak with pride (especially when talking about his grandchildren); or as an explainer and teacher to whom he should impart his life experience, at times expressed in an emotional narrative (when comparing the realities of life in the past and the present). Communication with R 2 was very natural, with no sense of distance, which is why R 1 often interrupted R 2, as if belittling her and preventing her from speaking. Respondent R 3 was interviewed for quite a long time. At first, only questions were answered, but (after almost an hour) the respondent began to engage in a natural narrative, encouraged by the article’s author. The conversations with R 4 and R 5 were very natural,

Straipsniai / Articles

177

JANINA ŠVAMBARYTĖ-VALUŽIENĖ

without any preconceived bias, sometimes raising linguistic questions with some emotion—questions that R 4 and R 5 themselves tried to explain by drawing on examples from everyday language use and their own linguistic observations. The author of the article detected no particularly strong emotional coloring in the respondents’ accounts.

The aim of the article is to present a distinctive (local) linguistic phenomenon at LKA point No. 73, which formed through dialect contact and has remained in active use for more than 90 years.

The objectives are: a) to transcribe dialect texts; b) to conduct a preliminary linguistic analysis of the transcribed texts; c) to compare the dialect data with material from expeditions organized in the Šiauliai and Kuršėnai areas in 1950–1965, published in research publications and dissertations; d) to examine the distinctive local phenomenon—the use of the emphatic particle -agei (-agė, -agi); and e) to summarize the results and offer predictions about this linguistic phenomenon.

The research object comprises recordings of the dialect spoken by local residents of Dargaičiai village (Gruzdžiai eldership, Šiauliai District), a unique village of the street-plan strip-field type that has survived to this day (more than ten hours of text held in the LKI Dialect Archive), and more than 280 forms used by local respondents containing the particle cluster -agei and its variants -agė, -agi.

The article draws on methods of dialect-recording text analysis, comparative analysis of linguistic phenomena, and computation, as well as linguistic predictions.

REFLECTIONS OF THE DIALECT FEATURES OF WESTERN HIGHLANDERS OF ŠIAULIAI (VAŠ), NORTHERN SAMOGITIANS OF TELŠIAI (ŠŽT), AND SOUTHERN SAMOGITIANS OF VARNIAI (PŽV) AT LKA POINT NO. 73

Dargaičiai belongs to the VAŠ subdialect, which linguists have regarded as a transitional dialect between the western and eastern dialects (Zinkevičius 1994: 39; Lktch 2004: 60; Vaš 2007: 25). The distinctive Šiauliai features predominate at the Dargaičiai linguistic point: a) the diphthongs an, am, en, em (brañgi, samdí:dava, pagrāndu., su angliū.ms (with the English), gyvėntojei, but piñkól ikto (fifteenth); b) the sounds represented by the nasal vowels ą, ę are also retained (akulū.ka. (a little collar), mažū.te. (a little one), plečū.ka. (a little shoulder), tarba. (a sack), though not always consistently (since in the past active participle forms of verbs, nasal ę becomes į; cf. atė:ji. (having come), nusipīrki. (having bought), nuvė:ži. (having transported), kā:si. (having dug)); c) retracted stress is retained most consistently (par_ miškūs (through the forests), màmās (mothers) (Zinkevičius 1994: 36–39; Lktch 2004: 60–61; Vaš 2007: 25–28). The vowels a and e

178

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIV

A distinctive linguistic phenomenon in the Šiauliai area (based on material from LKA point No. 73)

are used interchangeably in word roots, e.g.: ãpušes (epušes, ‘fir trees’) (R 2), ẽšmenis (ašmenys, ‘blades’) (R 2), su_alėktrà (with electricity) (R 3).

In the discourse of respondents R 1, R 2, and R 3 (less often R 5), one observes the use of shortened word forms gelžies (R 1), gelžinius (R 2), and ėže / kur_àkmai nudėta (stones) (R 1). The softening of consonants k, l, n, v, and ž is particularly pronounced in the Dargaičiai texts; for example: krẽutis (R 1, R 2), kilõt (hands) (R 1, R 5), dainúot (R 2), senù.ke (R 3), senù.kai (R 5), akmìnù.kai (R 5), tevùkai (R 1, R 2, R 3), žùvù. ĩ čė daug (R 1), mažù.tis (R 5). An instance of hardening of consonant r, more characteristic of the southern VAŠ area, was noted before the diphthong ei; cf. graĩt (R 2). Respondents R 1 and R 2 inserted the consonants j and v at consonant clusters or at the beginning of a word starting with a vowel; cf. nuvėję (R 1), nebėjėmi (R 2), ji.magei (takes) (R 1). The same respondents used different surname suffixes: in one instance they gave Aukštaitian forms with the suffix -yčia (for women’s maiden names), and in another, Samogitian forms with -atis (for female and male surnames); cf. Bajelyčia (Bajelytė) (R 1), Lukýčia (Lukytė or Lukaitė) (R 2), but Bajãla (Bajelytė) (R 1), su tuo Baltramãčiu (Baltramaistis) (R 2).

The dialect recordings from Dargaičiai contain nouns with a stem differing from that of the standard language, e.g.: tárdytojis (tardytojas, ‘interrogator’) (R 1), siuvėjis (siuvėjas, ‘tailor’) (R 2), póperis, póperi. (popierius, ‘paper’) (R 2), popereĩs (R 3), mėgėjis (mėgėjas, ‘amateur’) (R 3), gýdytojus (R 5), mókytojus (R 2), leñguvu (lightweight) (R 2). Forms of some nouns show that the plural is inflected according to the paradigm of a different stem; cf. alùčiaus (R 2), sūnai (R 2), píetai (R 2, R 3). Stem mixing, characteristic not only of VAŠ but also of the Samogitian dialects (ŠŽT and PŽV), is observed in verbal paradigmatic forms; cf. gãliam, gãliat (we can, you can) (R 3), lėide (let) (R 1), sėdžiam, sėdž (we sit, you sit) (R 2, R 5), sudėkiam (let’s put together) (R 2), túriam (we have) (R 3), nebetúriam (we no longer have) (R 2), túriat (you have) (R 1), žiūriam (we watch) (R 3). Respondents (VAŠ) used a few athematic forms, also found in the ŠŽT and PŽV areas; cf. acigérsme, ateĩsme (R 2), lėksme (R 3), pìrkšme (R 3), paliėkt (leaves behind) (R 2), skaũst (hurts) (R 2).

The transcribed texts show noun forms with gender differing from that of the standard language (bìržis (biržė, ‘birch’) (R 2), be_cùkra gẽr; cùkra (sugar) (R 3), saldaĩnes (give) (candies) (R 2)) and the dual number (dù mètù (two years) (R 1, R 2)).

Forms of the words mėdze (of a tree) (R 2), miškas, miškelis (forest, little forest) (R 2), šakau (I say) (R 1, R 2), siẽns (hay) (R 1), spitòle (hospital) (R 2), and pársoiete (shone through) (R 1) are to be considered cases of šlekiavimas. Several forms involving regressive assimilation in verbs were also used; cf. pašižėt (R 3), pašižėję (R 1), pašišėrk (R 2), nešusišnekėsi (R 2).

The Dargaičiai linguistic point records alternating use and mixing of the consonants d(ž) and g, d, and t; for example: *dilỹs (surname Gylys) (R 1), žũ·megei (withered trees) (R 1), dringėlėm (for paving stones) [in the yard] (R 3).

Straipsniai / Articles

179

JANINA ŠVAMBARYTĖ-VALUŽIENĖ

It is worth noting that respondents more often used compounds formed without a linking vowel, characteristic of the northern area of the VAŠ dialect, e.g.: limpėlė (R 2), lįnplu.kįž (R 2), medžkirtys (R 1), pópermałkei (R 2), šiernpiūtis (R 2), špārmedžei (R 2), (on) viensėdžu. (R 2) (cf. Jšpt 2001: 50–51). The terminological texts reflect a variety of vivid vocabulary, e.g.: vadīdava bādgribei / didesni / usikabini an_pėčėus / tīsi ta._grėbli. pa(r)_rugiēnas (R 1), dūonos su_saulōgražeis (with sunflower seeds) [you buy] (R 2), ã·psnuki. uždėje (oxygen apparatus) (R 2), páršvieta. [did] (X-ray photograph) (R 2), gi.veņīmūks (homestead) (R 1), (from) plū.skes (split logs) (R 2), rāti-nis (spinning wheel) (R 2), susižaiždāva (a wound formed) (R 3).

The syntactic structure of the dialect text reflects the use of dual genitive forms characteristic of VAŠ (giminū. giminęs (R 3)); the expression of possession (Màmàs trỹz brólei bū.va (R 1)); use of the preposition par with a singular or plural genitive to express location or duration (par_vīsa. kāima. viens arklēlis (one ploughman in the whole village) (R 2), usikabini tarbėle. / ir_eiri par_žmōnes (R 1), par_diena bent_keli ateidāva ūbagai (at least a few beggars would come during the day) (R 1), par_pā.ra. i_mi.re (R 3)); the use of the preposition pro with the singular genitive in a phrase in place of the preposition apie (a(š)_šnekū pro_*kūlni. (R 2); and the use of appended constructions (sulėide stiprūs vaistūs / i_gātāus (R 2)).

Although features of the VAŠ subdialect predominate in the Dargaičiai term recordings, phenomena of dialect contact and instances of distinctive usage are also evident. Among the phonetic features, the retention of the unpalatalized consonant t is noteworthy, e.g.: baikštēs (timid) [of deer] (R 2), šėpetei (brushes) (R 2) (Lktch 2004: 198, 225, 240). Plural instrumental forms common in Samogitian are also found in VAŠ, cf.: abžėlušum kōjum (with overgrown legs) [of a rooster] (R 2), su_būlbūm (with potatoes) (R 2), juostum (with ribbons) (R 2), formūkum (with little forms) (R 2), kārōum (with cows) (R 1), kėlnūm (with trousers) [of a rooster] (R 2), rankėlūm (with little hands) (R 2), mergičkūm (with girls) (R 2), su_piktžōlum (with weeds) (R 2) (Lktch 2004: 227; Jonait ytė 1962: 10).

In the transcribed texts of the Dargaičiai dialect, a phenomenon was noted whereby the reflexive marker is sometimes shifted to the end of the word: neskīrsis (R 2), nebežė.nijos (R 1), neberašauš (R 1), laikos [the cow] (R 2), ne-auginās (R 2), nebesodinas (R 3).

In Samogitian (ŠŽT and PŽV), pronominal forms of nominal words are found, and they also occur in the Dargaičiai texts, cf.: ašāi (R 3), jīn (R 3), su jāje (R 1, R 2), gerėjei (R 2), šėnajei, senōji (R 3), stambējei (R 2), sti.pre.je. [chemistry] (strong chemistry) (R 3).

In their narratives, respondents also used perfective forms, cf.: reĩb rāut že.me. [cucumbers] (R 3), tik_naktinū(ž) že.mė / tuōs_jau nuvolīka (R 5) (Girdenis 2000: 307–314).

A review of the dialectal features in the Dargaičiai recordings shows that there are numerous reflections of dialect contact along the border of VAŠ.

180

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIV

A distinctive linguistic phenomenon in the Šiauliai area (based on material from LKA point No. 73)

DISTINCTIVE PHENOMENA OF DIALECT CONTACT: PARTICLES AND THEIR ROLE IN THE SPOKEN DIALECT SYSTEM

Dialectologists observed in the 1950s and 1960s that in certain areas of Žemaitija and the Western Aukštaitian Šiauliai dialect (VAŠ), a particle -ai is appended at the end of a word (Elena Grinaveckienė calls it a postposition), and it is added to the shortened third-person forms of verbs in the present or simple past tense¹. Grammarians note that particles, as words of indefinite meaning, can become attached to individual words and mark semantic, modal, and expressive nuances of constituents (LKG II 543, 568)². From the perspective of functional grammar, particles shift the lexical burden in speech onto other words and modify them in various ways, emphasizing them and adding emotional coloring (see Valeckienė 1998:188). In her dissertation, The Šakyna Dialect, Aldona Jonaitytė mentions that -ai may formerly have had an intensifying, emphatic meaning, which later faded (Jonaitytė 1962: 431). The dialectologist also mentions the particle gi, which has an intensifying, emphatic meaning and can be extended in the dialect under study either by “the affix o, forming the particle ogi,” or by “the affix a / agi/” (Jonaitytė 1962: 437–438).

Scientific literature in the 1960s discussed the invariant forms of the present and past frequentative tenses of verbs, observed by dialectologists in the aforementioned areas of the Southern Žemaitian Raseiniai dialect (PŽR), the Southern Žemaitian Kelmė dialect (PŽK), and VAŠ, which have -ai (reflexive -aitis) (Grinaveckienė 1960: 198; 1962: 164)³. Only LKG attributes such forms to Žemaitian dialects and identifies them as

¹ According to Grinaveckienė, -ai is added to verbs in the Southern Žemaitian Raseiniai dialect (PŽR) area around Kelmė, and in Kelmė district around Kušleikiai, Tytuvėnėliai, and Kubiliai, as well as in the Northern Žemaitian Kretinga dialect (ŠŽK) area around Kretinga. The linguist observed the same phenomenon in VAŠ in Šiauliai district around Pakapė, Šakyna, Bridai, Valdomai (Gruzdžiai eldership), Lūpaičiai (Meškuičiai eldership), Narušaičiai (now Norušaičiai), Kirbaičiai (a former village in Kairiai eldership), and Žagarė, Joniškis district.

² Particles are discussed as follows: “Particles are words with very vague, indefinite meanings” (LKG II 543). “The most characteristic particle, used solely and most often to emphasize the significance of a word, is gi. In a sentence it can occur as a separate little word or be attached to another word” (LKG II 568). “A particle can mark semantic, modal, and expressive nuances of constituents. Particles seem not to carry their own lexical burden, but to transfer it to other words, modifying and emphasizing them in various ways and adding emotional coloring to them (freely quoted)” (Valeckienė 1998: 188).

³ “The dialect material presented from the Kušleikiai, Tytuvėnėliai, and Kubiliai survey points extends the distribution of the a-stem present-tense third-person verb ending -ai (jis éinai, gáunai, nėšai ~ jis eina, gáuna, nėša and so on)” (Grinaveckienė 1960: 198). “The suffix -davai (reflexive -davaisis) is most likely formed from the past frequentative suffix -dau- and the postposition -ai (-aisis). As the examples show, this compound invariant suffix is added

Straipsniai / Articles

181

JANINA ŠVAMBARYTĖ-VALUŽIENĖ

-ai as an emphatic particle (LKG II 132)⁴. Vytautas Vitkauskas calls the phenomenon sound change by analogy (Vitkauskas 2001: 15).⁵

Recordings from Dargaičiai show that third-person forms of the past frequentative tense, which should end in –(dav)o, instead have –ai, still in use today; cf.: aidavai ‘used to walk’ (R 3), (ati-)dúodavai ‘(would) give (back)’ (R 1, R 2), džiáudavai ‘used to dry’ (R 2), (par-)eīdavai ‘(would) come back’ (R 1, R 3), (nebe-)galėdavai ‘(would) no longer be able to’ (R 2), gáudavai ‘used to catch’ (R 2), gerbdavai ‘used to honor’ (elderly people) (R 1), (atsi-)neš-davai ‘used to carry (back) with oneself’ (R 2), sėdėdavai ‘used to sit’ (R 2), šu vinėdavai ‘used to embroider’ (R 2), turėdavai ‘used to have’ (R 2), (iš-)varydavai ‘used to drive out’ (R 2), važinėdavai ‘used to travel’ (R 5), veždavai ‘used to transport’ (R 2). There is a tendency to shorten –ai and drop the vowel a. Aldona Jonaitytė has written about the shortening of endings in the nearby Šakyna dialect⁶. Perhaps for this reason respondents used forms with the vowel –i or a tense vowel similar to –ė, e.g.: gáudavi ‘you used to catch = used to catch’ (R 2), laikydāvi ‘you used to keep = used to keep’ (R 2), ateīdāvē ‘you used to come = used to come’ (R 5). Evidently, this may be an idiolectal language phenomenon⁷.

for all past frequentative tense persons, singular and plural. In the area indicated, the postposition –ai can also be added to the past simple stem [...] (Bridai). In neighboring Žemaitian dialects (Kelmė district) and other northwestern Aukštaitian dialects (the southern part of Šiauliai district), the postposition –ai is often added to all present-tense stems, e.g.: (Pakapė, Šiauliai district, No. 196, researched by D. Skurkaitė) giestai ‘sings’, išbirnai ‘spills out’, nenūorai ‘does not want’, pàkelai ‘lifts’, surišai ‘ties’, stūovai ‘stands’, tūrai ‘has’ (Grinaveckienė 1962: 164).

⁴ “In some Žemaitian localities, third-person forms of first-conjugation verbs have a peculiar ending—or, more precisely, an emphatic particle—ai, e.g.: būnai, dirbai, džiūnai, einai, gęstai, griūnai, lȳnai, piáunai, pūnai, rȳnai Klm, eitai, ȳrai Krt” (LKG II 132).

⁵ “Indeed, around Šakyna, Skaistgirys, and Žagarė, the diphthong ai was introduced in place of the former a in the third-person present and future indicative forms of reflexive verbs: dúodais, n’èšais, n’èš eis, m’èš eis [...]. This is not a phonetic law but a certain sound change by analogy, a kind of similarity [...]; the long endings a, e were understood by the Aukštaitians as a diphthong whose elements had merged into one vowel, as it appeared to them (–ai, –ei)” (Vitkauskas 2001: 15).

⁶ The shortening of endings “began around the 15th–16th centuries” (Jonaitytė 160: 158). “A comparison of neighboring dialects suggests that the shortening of endings in the Šakyna dialect is the result of influence from Žemaitian dialects” (Jonaitytė 1960: 159). “[...] the wave of ending-shortening, at least with regard to the Šakyna dialect, moved from west to east” (Jonaitytė 1960: 159).

⁷ The author of this article used to hear (and still hears) similar past frequentative verb forms ending in –i in the speech of her aunts Aniceta Rakickienė (Švambarytė) (1929) and Izolina Barbora Švambarytė (1935), who were born and raised in the former village of Daušiškiai (6–7 km west of Meškučiai, Šiauliai district). Rita Urnežžiūtė also heard and recorded such forms, but with –ai, in Lydėkiai in 1998–1999 (Joniškis district, about 12 km from Meškučiai). The phenomenon presumably spread north and northeast.

182

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIV

A distinctive linguistic phenomenon in the Šiauliai dialect area (based on material from LKA point No. 73)

Incidentally, Grinaveckienė has noted that “in the northwestern Aukštaitian dialect around Šakyna and Žagarė, the postposition –ai may be attached to all inflecting and non-inflecting parts of speech” (Grinaveckienė 1962: 164).

Linguists have regarded such instances of particle use as peripheral to the language; they have been mentioned, but have not been given much consideration⁸.

A LOCAL LINGUISTIC PHENOMENON: THE COALESCENCE OF THE PARTICLES -AI AND -GI

In the recordings of the Dargaičiai dialect, as throughout the VAŠ area, the third-person present forms of verbs with –a- and –i- stems are used in shortened form (eĩn, važúoj, nė̃š), while the –o stem has the ending –a (dāra, sāka, rāša). Respondents also used one third-person present form of the verb sirgti with the particle –ai, although in VAŠ one would expect the short form serg or serga (standard Lithuanian), cf.: kaimi.jɨka lābai sūn̄kei sērgai (R 3). The possibility that this is an accidental, isolated form is ruled out by another third-person present form of a verb, used not only with –ai but also able to take the postpositional particle –gi⁹.

As early as 1962, Jonaitytė noted that in the Šakyna dialect “agi is always enclitic”; its “intensive meaning has become greatly weakened, turning into something like a distinctive rhythmic element of the sentence,” for example: õ·ška papjāuta gūl_agi (Darg.), tó·ks tā· sō·džus: kēli givān_agi (Darg.), šnā·k_agi, ka_dā· dāugau būva acitikimu· (Darg.), dàba grõ·vuos vā·ndens – prigē·rt gā·l_agi (Škn.) (Jonaitytė 1962: 438).

The linguist also noted that “in the same places where agi is said, sometimes an etymologically unclear particle, age·i, is used instead with the same meaning,” for example: bré·kšt_a-ge·i, tai_vā·kars tā·mst (Darg.); skāust_agei kaip_skaudé·jus i_tiek (Škn.)” (Jonaitytė 1962: 438).

Thus, more than fifty years ago this phenomenon was present in the vicinity of Gruzdžiai–Šakyna, within a radius of about 15–20 km (Gruzdžiai is 12 km from Šakyna and 15 km from the Latvian border).

It is conceivable that the particle –agei may have arisen as a contraction of a(r) girdi, a(r) girdėjai. This idea is suggested by literature, more precisely by the work Gyvenimo apysaka by Stasė Jasiūnaitė, a teacher and writer born in 1912 in Joniškis, who died in 1986 and was buried in Kulautuva, in which the dialectal vocabulary of VAŠ

⁸ The author adopted the LKG position of treating –ai as an emphatic particle, but also retained Valeckienė’s term monifying particle. The recordings of the Dargaičiai dialect and the inflectional paradigm of the verb used by respondents would suggest that the coalesced particles –agei perform an emphatic function together with a modifying one.

⁹ Plg. negi, argi. Plačiau apie postpozicines dalelytes, jų sąaugas žr. Valeckienė 1998: 190.

Straipsniai / Articles

183

JANINA ŠVAMBARYTĖ-VALUŽIENĖ

and there are many terminological forms as well. The book also abounds in examples such as: Thank you, I hear, that you brought [it] (97), I have, I hear, milked the colostrum (98), Pour yourself some milk, I hear (118), How dare you two, I hear, with the priest! (117), She knocked her sticks off the table, I hear, and sits down (120), You won't manage to ask her, I hear (122), I had gone to Mikšienė's, I hear (129), So how old are you, I hear? (132), Get ready to go, I hear (132).

Nevertheless, in the author's view, this is most likely a fusion of the particles ai and gi, -a(i)gi, which may have developed into -agei, -agė. In Dargaičiai, -agei is most often used with third-person present-tense verb forms, which are shortened in the VAŠ area¹⁰. Dialect texts have shown that the aforementioned particle -agei can be used with a shortened infinitive, sometimes uttered together with the infinitive without a pause, although most often there is a short pause between the infinitive and the particle, e.g.: su-ein_agei vaikai pašōkt_agei (R 1), [the water] išgrāužė gā tve. / pravāžūot_agei negā.l (R 3), jau_pradējė tikri:tagei tas_pāšalpas (R 3).

The emphatic particle -agei is used with the stem-final segment of the third-person present-tense verb, which ends in various consonants; for example, instead of the VAŠ forms bėg, dirb, duod, gyven, and so on, one says bégagei (R 3), dírbagei (R 1, R 2, R 3), dúodagei (R 1, R 2), gyvēnagei (R 3), jīmāgei (R 1), juñtagei (R 1), mēkstagei (R 3), rìšagei (R 1), sėjagei (R 2), stóvagei (R 2), šnēkagei (R 2), šviēčagei (R 1), tū.ragei (R 1, R 3), ver̄pagei (R 2), vēžagei (R 1).

In respondents' speech, the aforementioned particle fusion is not always pronounced as inseparable from the verb stem, as if it had merged with the word. Sometimes, after the verb stem and before -agei, a longer or shorter pause can be heard, e.g.: ār_agei (R 2), dīrb_agei (R 1, R 2), su-ein_agei (R 1), kiš_agei (R 2), nèles_agei (R 2). A pause is heard when the verb has more than two syllables (is polysyllabic), or when the stem-final segment contains consonant clusters that are harder to pronounce—dž, nt, st—making the entire form difficult to pronounce and requiring a breath, cf.: (pa)dīrb_agei (R 2), (nebe)gāl_agei (R 3), mokytojāuj_agei (R 2), (iš)nykst_agei (R 2), sēdž_agei (R 2), (ap)sodīn_agei (R 1), (ne)suprānt_agei (R 1).

The particle fusion varies in the speech of the same or another respondent and can develop into -agė (less often) or -agi (much more often). Such variation has been observed in the speech of respondents R 3 (more markedly) and R 4 and may be an idiolectal phenomenon. The particles in question are used with verbs, e.g.: (iš)áugagi (R 3), bégagi (R 4), dēdagi (R 3), dírbagi (R 3), dúodagi (R 3), gamīnagė (R 1), [the new people] i.ra-gi (R 3), (pa)kelāujagi (R 3), keñčagi (R 3), (pa)kviēčagi (R 3), (nusi)nešagi (R 3), nuomōjagi (R 1), (su)organizūojagi (R 3), pāšakojagi (R 3), (nu)pelījagi (R 3), rūpag-i (R 3), (su)skaičūojagi (R 3), smirdžagi (R 3), stójagi (R 3), (pri)važūojagi (R 3).

¹⁰ An older form, presumably *-ogei. Cf. the particle jogei, cited in LKŽ and known from written sources.

184

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIV

A Distinctive Linguistic Phenomenon in the Šiauliai Area (Based on Data from LKA Point No. 73)

The particle -agi, like -agei, is also uttered separately from the verb by respondent R 3, e.g.: (par)dúod_agi (R 3), (neiš)lėidž_agi (R 3), pã.ded_agi (R 3), (nu) pasakoj_agi (R 3), (su)naudój_agi (R 3), žirž_agi (R 3).

In the dialect texts of Dargaičiai village, not only third-person but also first-person present-tense verb forms with the particles -agei, -agi have been found, e.g.: rí:ta / sáule nėtek / jeu_àš dainúoju_agei laukė (R 2), pàti susiskáldau_agi / kiẽk_jaũ reik tu._mã.lku. (R 3), àš tai_lendù_agei / màn sarmàtà / nė če_kō· ródìt (R 3).

Several forms of the verb's past simple tense with the particle -agei have also been observed; they are uttered after a pause, e.g.: tik pà-eme / spùrš’t iš_kièma / ir_išlėke_agei (R 2), i_sulėide_agei [the medicines] (R 2).

The texts also contain a very interesting imperative form in which the particle -agė occurs in the middle of the word, before the second-person imperative suffix -k, e.g.: žù.ragėk / čè mãtos (R 2).

One might suppose that in the respondents' speech (idiolect), the cluster of particles used with the verb served a kind of paradigm-level inflectional leveling function: perhaps the endings, which tend to be shortened in VAŠ, did not always seem adequate to members of this close-knit linguistic community for expressing their thoughts and could therefore be adjusted.

The particle -agei, whose formation Jonaitytė noted was unclear, became established in Dargaičiai over more than fifty years (since the 1960s), while the use of -agi and -agė with verbs declined.

It is worth recalling Grinaveckienė's observation, quoted above, about the use of the particle -ai with inflected and uninflected parts of speech. In the dialect texts from the Dargaičiai point, there are instances of the particle -agei being used with inflected parts of speech, such as an adjective and a pronoun; cf.: gèṙagei žmòni.s (good people) (R 2); o_*dárgaičiuose / tik_mú·su._agei / viena kárve (R 1)¹¹. Respondents also use the particle -agei with an adverb, even together with other particles, da, tikt, e.g.: kaĩp_agei tu_búsi lú·dininku? (R 2), kai_kæũla da_paršúojes / anà pri·gul_da_agei [the pig has farrowed / and she lies down with the piglets] (R 2), senàeũ dà / dà_agei nebūdava gelžìes (R 2), tìktagei tuos_vaikùs nebeskaũdi.t [behaves in such a way as not to hurt the children] (R 3).

Examples of this kind are also found in the aforementioned work by Jasiūnaitė; cf.: Alone, I hear, like a reed in the wind (105), The Bagočiai, I hear (115), For where there are parties, there are also harvest feasts, I hear (118), So why, I hear? (125).

Dialectologists have observed that the vividness of a verb can create conditions for a particle to occur alongside it, intensifying the verb's emotional force. The topics under discussion, listed at the beginning of the article, are not emotional

¹¹ For a more detailed discussion of the suffix -ai attached to pronouns and the use of pronouns ašai, jinai, and so on, among Samogitians, see Arumaa 1933: 19–21. Jonaitytė does not associate such forms, also found and used around Šakyna, with the formant -ai. For further discussion, see Jonaitytė 1964, 165–177.

Straipsniai / Articles

185

JANINA ŠVAMBARYTĖ-VALUŽIENĖ

Although they are distinctive, the respondents’ narratives also feature vivid verbs, especially when speaking about doctors, the lax lifestyle of today’s society, hard work abroad, and so on. Vivid verbs could include (apsi)džiaugti, kęsti, kolioti, mauti [to run, flee], smirdėti, (pa)smirsti, zirzti with the particle cluster –agei (–agi). All the other verbs are emotionally neutral, for example: duoti, imti, nešti, parduoti, važiuoti, vesti, and so on. One might suppose that in Dargaičiai –agei is used both as an emphatic particle cluster and as a modifying particle cluster, “which specify and variously modify the meanings of words, groups of words, and sentences” (Valeckienė 1988: 190).

The phenomenon described, as Jonaitytė observed, had once been more widespread, since the speech of R 1, born and raised 10 km from Dargaičiai, near Šakyna, does not differ from that of R 2, who was born and raised in Dargaičiai¹². Jonaitytė also wrote in her dissertation about the spread of this phenomenon in the Šakyna area.

R 4’s view of the local speech is also interesting. R 4 is married to a woman from the village of Dargaičiai and came from Skilvioniai, Joniškis district, which belongs to the same Šiauliai subdialect area, but to the Joniškis dialect (Jšpt 2001: 13). He immediately noticed a linguistic phenomenon that struck his ear as very distinctive:

pàškui pas_juõs i.rà / àš kol_i.pràtaũ / jiẽ kõ_nors kal’b / kal’b / paskuĩ / nu_pàškui irà tõks priežodis / gãl ne_priežodis / tõks.../ tòke galī.ne. pri.deda prę_ kiekvienà veiksmažodžę / nepastebėjot? / pàvi:zždžui / paklausi / nu_kur_nõrs.. / kur̃ *pẽtras i.rà / anė? / dirbagi / sãko / dirbagi / ne_dīrb / ar_darbė / dirbagi / nu_dīrb_agi / pastōvei / žũrũ (R 4).

This phenomenon could be associated with an idiolect. The respondents themselves observed that Dargaičiai is a distinctive village:

če giminũ. gimines kaškaĩp ein (R 3), kaĩp ir negiminaičei / bet su-eidava i. giminũ. lizda. (R 3), *dárgaičei / ta(i)_i.rà giminaičiu. káimas (R 5), če nu_tẽvũ. kàs išlī. ke. [on the use of particles –agei, –agė, –agi with verbs] (R 4).

If idiolect is understood traditionally as a social, territorial, and psychological feature of language (Gaivenis, Keinys 1990: 81), one might say that vocabulary best reflects an individual’s psychological and linguistic profile, while the system of its use is created by the speakers of the local language themselves. And it is related not only to an individual’s speech

¹² Manuscripts of dialect recordings from expeditions in Gruzdžiai eldership were checked in the LKI Dialect Archive. Students Ruškytė and Andrijaitytė visited point No. 73a and recorded several folktales from Gruzdžiai (notebooks 1 and 2, No. 583). The only observation was that respondents use the postpositive particle gi with verbs, as a conjunction linking sentences, and as an emphatic particle (Gi kas buvęs, kas ne, bo vargs tai vargs). Jonaitytė, who studied the Šakyna area, mentions the use of gi first in her account of particles (Jonaitytė 1962: 15).

186

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIV

Savitas kalbinis reiškinys šiauliškių plote (remiantis LKA punkto Nr. 73 medžiaga)

formos ir turinio bet ir prasmės lygmenimis (Vulas 1977: 13, Žalkauskaitė 2011: 151–152).

The aforementioned local linguistic phenomenon will disappear over time, since even now the use of shortened VAŠ forms is noticeable ein, išein, valda (valdo), alongside those discussed in the article.

The question arises as to when this phenomenon may have developed. It is likely to have occurred in the late eighteenth or early nineteenth century. According to Jonaittytė, “the Samogitians have influenced the Šakyna dialect under study much more strongly than that dialect has influenced the Samogitians. This may have been because the area of Samogitian pronunciations is larger and more compact, whereas the area of Western Aukštaitian here extends only in a narrow strip, and immediately beyond Šiauliai it almost comes to an end. Thus, the dialect under study, together with the sole neighboring Northern Western Aukštaitian Šiauliai dialect, is in a way isolated from the other dialects of the same group. And the Šiauliai dialect, being as transitional as Šakyna, was scarcely able to withstand the influence of the neighboring Samogitian pronunciations. Moreover, the spread of Samogitian influence was aided by the administrative and ecclesiastical division of the dialect area, and consequently by greater interaction between the inhabitants and the Samogitians” (Jonaittytė 1964: 175).

The reasons why this phenomenon did not disappear can only be speculated upon. One external cause seems to have been the village’s not being dispersed into isolated farmsteads. This enabled the community to preserve linguistic expression naturally, passing it from generation to generation as an inherited practice, although Dargaičiai, like the linguistic development of other survey points, was strongly affected by historical upheavals and the period of occupation (XXI a. pradžios lietuvių tarmės: geolingvistinis ir sociolingvistinis tyrimas 2014: 200–2005). It is also worth noting that there have been virtually no comprehensive linguistic studies of individuals and linguistic communities in Lithuania; therefore, the causes of a linguistic phenomenon that has persisted for more than 90 years warrant broader and more systematic investigation using dialect recordings from surrounding survey points. It cannot be ruled out, either, that this linguistic phenomenon may be related to matters of speech rhythm, speaker style, and idiolect.

CONCLUSIONS

In the dialect texts recorded in 2013 at LKA survey point No. 73 (Dargaičiai), forms of inflected (verb principal forms and forms of inflectional paradigms), declined (adjectives, pronouns), and invariable (particles) parts of speech were identified with the particle sequence -agei, -agė, -agi, pronounced both without and with a pause. Respondents used these forms more than 280 times in the texts (repeated forms were also counted). Approximately one in every ten to twelve verbs was uttered with the particle sequence.

Straipsniai / Articles

187

JANINA ŠVAMBARYTĖ-VALUŽIENĖ

This local phenomenon is associated with interaction between dialects. Contact between the Samogitian (ŠŽT and PŽV) and Aukštaitian (VAŠ) dialects (especially the process of ending shortening) may have given speakers a sense of linguistic uncertainty: the short verb form may have seemed inadequate to perform its function in linguistic expression. The possibility cannot be ruled out that the use of -agei, -agi, -agė is also related to sentence rhythm. This is supported by examples from works of fiction, whose author has excellent command of the dialect and naturally incorporates dialect forms into literary text.

The established idiolectal, local linguistic phenomenon probably emerged in the late seventeenth or early nineteenth century. The prestige of the locally used forms united the linguistic community and fostered a sense of linguistic security. From a historical and cultural perspective, the conditions that allowed this linguistic phenomenon to persist may have included the village’s reticent character. The absence of dispersal into isolated farmsteads and the closed community maintained a closed linguistic system as well. Respondents who have used verb forms (and forms of other parts of speech) with -agei, -agė, -agi for more than ninety years now begin to distinguish linguistic codes: they speak without the forms mentioned above with outsiders, and only after leaving and psychologically crossing the boundary between familiar and unfamiliar do the forms begin to appear naturally in their speech. This linguistic phenomenon is disappearing, because younger generations of local residents, under the influence of the standard language and population change (newcomers from other VAŠ areas), no longer use -agei, -agi, -agė emphatic (modifying) particles with verbs and other parts of speech.

188

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIV

Savitas kalbinis reiškinys šiauliškių plote (remiantis LKA punkto Nr. 73 medžiaga)

A P P E N D I C E S

TABLE 1. Present-tense 3rd-person verbs with –agei in recordings of the Dargaičiai dialect

–agei (pronounced without a pause)

–agei (pronounced with a pause)

(ne-, nebe- už-) would say (R 1, R 2, R 3), would speak (R 3), would shine (R 1), would blow (R 3), would give (R 1, R 2), (i-) would lead (R 1, R 3), (į-) would place R 2, would drive (R 2), would ride (R 2), (i)would lend (R 2), (at-) would travel (R 1, R 3), (ap-) would sow (R 2), would drive around (R 2), would rent (R 2), would finance (R 3), would trade (R 3), would scold (R 3), would grow (R 1, R 2, R 3), would finish (demolish buildings) (R 2), would become ill (R 2, R 3), would run (R 3), would pull (R 2), would gather (R 2), would talk (R 2, R 3)), would fly (R 2), would turn around (R 3), (už) would pay (R 3), would suit (R 3), would have (R 3), (nesi) would carry [about the Žolinės feast] (R 2), would fade (R 3), (atsi-, pri-, užsi-) (i) would take (R 1, R 2), (ne-, nepa-) would support (R 2, R 3), would steam (R 1), (at-, iš-, ne-, par-, pri-, su(v)-) would go (R 1, R 2, R 3), would live (R 1, R 2, R 3), would raise (R 2), would suffocate (R 2), (ne) would lean (R 2), would call (R 2), (nu) would pull out (R 2), (užsi-) would raise (R 2, R 3), would tread (R 2), would be (R 3), would live (R 3), would be (R 3), would receive (R 3), would put on (R 3), would run away (R 3), would spin (R 2), would care (R 3), would bake (R 3), (ne-) would have (R 1, R 3), (iš) would plow (R 2), would want (R 3), (atsi) would return (R 3), (atsi-, pra-, pri-) would drink (R 3), would like (R 3), would tie (R 1), (pa) would prepare (R 3), would ask (R 3), would feel (R 1), would die (R 3), (atsi) would stand (R 3), would work (R 3), (pa) would boil (R 3), would stand (R 2), (at-, iš(si)-), nu- would drive (R 1, R 3), would stink (R 1), would no longer press (R 1), would not hear (R 3), (neap-) (ne) would allow (R 3).

(ne-, pa-, už-) dirb agei (R 1, R 2), (nebe-, su-) ded agei (R 2), (ne-, pa-r-) duod agei (R 1), (atsi-, ne-) rand agei (R 2), (at-, nu-, pri-) važiuoj agei (R 1, R 2, R 3), važinėj agei (R 2), mokytojauj agei (R 2), nusioj agei (R 2), sėj agei (R 2), (iš)rušiuoj agei (R 2), (nebeatsi)skrepliuoj agei (R 3), serg agei (R 3), trauk agei (R 2), renk agei (R 2), šnek agei (R 2), (nebe-) reik agei (R 3), (nu) kul agei (R 2), (nebe)gal agei (R 3), kalb agei (R 3), (pri(j))im agei (R 1, R 2), (ne)rem agei (R 2), (at-, iš-, ne-, su-) ein agei (R 1, R 2), (pri)min agei [about animal manure] (R 2), (su)dažiūr agei (R 2), gyven agei (R 1, R 2), gaun agei (R 1), spausdin agei (R 1), [nieks] (neiš)ein agei [about winemaking] (R 1), (ap)sodin agei (R 1), gaun agei (R 1), (pa)būn agei (R 2), gyven agei [krėgždutės] (R 2), (ap)siūn agei (R 2), (su)gadin agei (R 2), (nebeiš-) per agei (R 2), ar agei (R 2), šėr agei (cats) (R 2), (ne-) tur agei (R 1, R 2), (iš)nykst agei (R 2), (pri)prant agei (R 2), žiūr agei (R 3), (ne)les agei (R 2), (ne) kas agei [about hens] (R 2), kiš agei (R 2), (pra)neš agei (R 2), (neatsi)neš agei (R 2), (pri)kiš agei (R 2), (ne)suprant agei (R 1), įprant agei (R 2), tįst agei (R 2), trūkst agei (R 2), stov agei (R 2), (at-, iš-) vež agei (R 1, R 2), melž agei (R 2), sužeidž agei (R 1), sėdž agei (R 2).

Straipsniai / Articles

189

JANINA ŠVAMBARYTĖ-VALUŽIENĖ

TABLE 2. Present-tense 3rd-person verbs in the Dargaičiai subdialect ending in –agė and –agi

–agė

–agi (pronounced without a pause)

–agi (pronounced with a pause)

gaminagė (R 1), patiragė (R 3),

dirbagi (R 3), keñčagi (R 3), (pa)kviečagi (R 3), (par-) duodagi (R 3), dedagi (R 3), (nebepa)judagi (R 3), noragi (R 3), nuomojagi (R 1), (neiš)einagi (R 3), (at-, pri-, su-) važiuojagi (R 3), (pa)keliaujagi (R 3), (su)skaičiuojagi (R 3), (nu)pelyjagi (R 3), pasakojagi (R 3), (su)organizuojagi (R 3), stojagi (R 3), (nesi)ginčijagi (R 3), atostogaujagi (R 4), šarojagi (R 4), (apsi) džiaugagi (R 3), (par)bėgagi (R 3), (iš-, nebe-) augagi (R 3), bėgagi (R 4), (nebe-) reikagi (R 3), (pra-) lekagi [passes by quickly] (R 3), (pa)tinkagi (R 3), reikagi (R 3), (pa)šnekagi (R 3), šaukagi (R 3), (pa)šaukagi (R 3), (neatsi)tinkagi (R 3), (iš)traukagi (R 3), (nebeapsi)mokagi (R 3), (nenusi)perkagi (R 3), (nebeati)tinkagi (R 3), (nebe-) galāgi (R 3), (iš)balagi (R 3), (pa) gailagi (R 3), (atsi)(i)magi (R 3), gyvenagi (R 3), suprantagi (R 3), auginagi (R 3), (at-, iš-, nu-, pa-, pra-, pri-) einagi (R 3, R 4), (pri)kabinagi (R 3), būnagi (R 3, R 4), gyvenagi (R 3), kilnagi (R 4), (pa) kvimpagi (R 3), rūpagi (R 3), noragi (R 3), turagi (R 3), (pri)žiūragi (R 3), gūragi (R 3), turagi (R 3), (ne)norāgi (R 3), i.ragi (R 3), mėkstagi (R 3), (nusi)nešagi (R 3), (nu) slinkstagi (R 3), (pa)smirstagi (R 3), (už) mokėtagi (R 3), (at-, su-) vežagi (R 3), smirdžagi (R 3).

(pa)ded agi (R 3), (par)duod agi (R 3), (pra)važiuoj agi (R 3), ūkininkauj agi (R 3), (su)naudoj agi (R 3), (nu) pasakoj agi (R 3), vedžioj agi (R 3), sirgulioj agi (R 4), (ne)gail agi (R 3), būn agi (R 3), (at-, neiš-) ein agi (R 3), (pa)senst agi (R 3), (atsi)bost agi (R 4), zirz agi (R 3), (neiš)leidž agi (R 3), (išsi)šluoj agi (R 3).

190

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIV

Savitas kalbinis reiškinys šiauliškių plote (remiantis LKA punkto Nr. 73 medžiaga)

LITERATŪRA

Arumaa Peeter 1933: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der litauischen Personalpronomina. Tartu.

Gaivenis Kazimieras, Stasys Keinys 1990: Kalbotyros terminų žodynas. Kaunas: Šviesa.

Girdenis Aleksas 2000: Kalbotyros darbai 2. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

Grinaveckienė Elena 1960: Tarmių medžiagos rinkimas Lietuvių kalbos atlasui. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 3, 191–205.

Grinaveckienė Elena 1962: Kai kurios lietuvių kalbos tarmių ypatybės (iš 1961 metų dialektologinių ekspedicijų). – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 5, 147–169.

Jasiūnaitė Stasė 1986: Gyvenimo apysaka. Vilnius: Vaga.

Jonaitytė Aldona 1960: Šakynos tarmės žodžio galo vokalizmas. – Lietuvos TSR Mokslų akademijos darbai, serija A. 1(8), 151–162.

Jonaitytė Aldona 1962: Šakynos tarmė (rankraštis, saugomas Vilniaus universiteto bibliotekoje, F 76–360).

Jonaitytė Aldona 1964: Žemaitiškos morfologinės ypatybės Šakynos tarmėje. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai. Lietuvių kalbos morfologinė sandara ir jos raida, 165–177.

Jšpt – Joniškio šnektų pratimai ir tekstai, sud. Nerija Bartkutė, Rasa Dumčiūtė, Aušra Kaikarytė, Lina Kazlauskaitė, Janina Švambarytė (ats. red.). Šiauliai: K. J. Vasiliausko įm., 2001.

LKG II – Lietuvių kalbos gramatika 2, vyr. red. Kazys Ulvydas. Vilnius: Mintis, 1971.

Lktch – Lietuvių kalbos tarmių chrestomatija, sud. Rima Bacevičiūtė, Audra Ivanauskienė, Asta Leskauskaitė, Edmundas Trumpa, mokslinė red. Laima Grumadienė. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2004.

Valeckienė Adelė 1998: Funkcinė lietuvių kalbos gramatika. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

Vaš – Vakarų aukštaičiai šiauliškiai, sud. Rūta Kazlauskaitė, Lionė Lapinskienė, Rima Bacevičiūtė. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2007.

Vitkauskas Vytautas 2001: Lietuvių kalbos tarmių morfoneminiai reiškiniai. Vilnius: Žara.

Vulas S. M. 1977: Teoretičeskie i metodičeskie voprosy kriminalističeskogo issledovanija pismennoj reči. Moskva.

Straipsniai / Articles

191

JANINA ŠVAMBARYTĖ-VALUŽIENĖ

XXI a. pradžios lietuvių tarmės: geolingvistinis ir sociolingvistinis tyrimas (žemėlapiai ir jų komentarai), sud. Danguolė Mikulėnienė, Violeta Meiliūnaitė. Vilnius: Briedis, 2014.

Zinkevičius Zigmas 1994: Lietuvių kalbos dialektologija. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla.

Žalkauskaitė Gintarė 2011: Idiolekto požymiai elektroninių laiškų leksikoje. — Kalbotyra 63(3), 149–164.

Ионайтите А. 1962: Шакинский говор. Автореферат дисертации на соискание ученой степени кандидата филологических наук. Вильнюс.

Peculiar Linguistic Phenomenon in the Area of Šiauliškiai (According to Data of Point No. 73 of the Atlas of the Lithuanian Language)

SUMMARY

The author discusses a peculiar surviving local phenomenon of dialectal language recorded in the course of fieldwork carried out in 2013. 5 local oldest-generation respondents from Dargaičiai Village (Šiauliai District Gruzdžiai Eldership) were interviewed by the author in Point No. 73 of the Atlas of the Lithuanian Language (ALL): 3 women (R2 (1923), R3 (1947), R5 (1953)) and 2 men (R1 (1926), R4 (1951)). Over ten hours of dialectal text were recorded.

Dargaičiai belongs to the Western Aukštaitian subdialect of Šiauliškiai (VAŠ) which linguists consider a boundary or transitional dialect between western and eastern dialects (Samogitian and Aukštaitian). The linguistic point of Dargaičiai is dominated by the distinctive features of the Šiauliškiai subdialect: retained nasal vowels ą, ę and diphthongs an, am, en, em; the stress is consistently retracted from the ending.

Dialectologist Elena Grinaveckienė, who analysed the environs of Gruzdžiai belonging to VAŠ, and Aldona Jonaitytė, who collected the material in the environs of Šakyna (VAŠ) around the 1940s–1950s, paid special attention to the use of particles with the third person present and past iterative forms. Vytautas Vitkauskas also wrote about it.

Having scrutinized the dialectal records of Dargaičiai Village, the author discovered the principal forms of the verb and the forms of the conjugation paradigm with the particle combination -agei and its variants -agė, -agi which are pronounced with the verb with a pause and without it, e.g.: pašokṭ_agei (R 1), lendu_agei (R 3), vežagei (R 1, R 2), gaun_agei

192

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIV

Savitas kalbinis reiškinys šiauliškių plote (remiantis LKA punkto Nr. 73 medžiaga)

(R 1), mėkstagi (R 3), atsibost_agi (R 4), gaminagė (R 1), išlėkė_agei (R 1), etc. The respondents used over 280 of such forms in the texts (repetitive forms were included as well).

This local phenomenon is associated with the interaction of subdialects. The contacts between Samogitian and Aukštaitian dialects and the process of shortening of endings could have given rise to an idiolect, a local linguistic phenomenon, which have possibly originated at the end of the 18th century or in the beginning of the 19th century. The local prestige of morphological forms united the linguistic community and created the sense of linguistic security. In fact, from a historical and cultural perspective, the so called strip village (Lith. rėžinis kaimas) could have been the decisive factor for the linguistic phenomenon to survive. A non-division into isolated farmsteads and a self-contained community also maintained a closed linguistic system. The respondents who have been using the verbal forms including -agei, -agė, -agi for over ninety years separate between the linguistic codes: they omit the aforementioned forms when speaking to strangers; they are naturally included in the language as the speakers get into the conversation and cross the psychological familiar / unfamiliar boundary.

Įteikta 2015 m. spalio 10 d.

JANINA ŠVAMBARYTĖ-VALUŽIENĖ

Lietuvių kalbos institutas

Petro Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius, Lietuva

[email protected]

Straipsniai / Articles

193