DAIVA ALIŪKAITĖ

Kaunas Faculty of Humanities, Vilnius University; Institute of the Lithuanian Language

Research interests: geolinguistics, sociolinguistics, perceptual dialectology, cognitive linguistics.

LANGUAGE VARIATION THROUGH THE EYES OF ADOLESCENTS: THE GENDER VARIABLE¹

Variability of Language in the Eyes of Teenagers: The Variable of Gender

A B S T R A C T

The article analyzes material from experiments conducted as part of the research project Lithuanian Language: Ideals, Ideologies and Identity Shifts. The article’s research question is whether the gender variable is a significant factor differentiating the language ideals of the younger generation of Lithuanians.

Data from experiments on conscious and unconscious attitudes also make it possible to consider other questions concerning the values of language variation. Analyzing material from experiments conducted around the seven largest regional cities of Lithuania and in Vilnius (the total sample comprised 1,451 ninth- and tenth-grade students from 23 Lithuanian schools), the article sketches sociolinguistic portraits of speakers of the language of one’s place of origin, urban language, and standard language.

A B S T R A C T

The article analyses the material from experiments in the research project “Lithuanian language: ideals, ideologies and identity shifts”. The research question is whether the variable of gender is a significant variable differentiating the Lithuanian language ideals of the young generation.

¹ The study was conducted as part of the project Lithuanian Language: Ideals, Ideologies and Identity Shifts, 2010–2013 (carried out by the Institute of the Lithuanian Language, led by Loreta Vaicekauskienė, and funded by the Research Council of Lithuania, contract No. VAT-14/2010).

K E Y W O R D S: sociolinguistics, gender variable, conscious attitudes, unconscious attitudes, sociolinguistic portrait.

K E Y W O R D S: sociolinguistics, gender variable, conscious attitudes, unconscious attitudes, sociolinguistic portrait.

Straipsniai / Articles

219

DAIVA ALIŪKAITĖ

The combination of experiments of the conscious and unconscious attitudes enables us to consider other issues of evaluations in relation to the variability of language. The analysis of the data of experiments carried out around 7 largest regional cities of Lithuania and Vilnius (the total sample of participants in the experiment – 1451 pupils of the ninth and tenth grade from 23 Lithuanian schools) allows us to sketch sociolinguistic portraits of the representatives of linguistic homeland, big city language, and standard language.

1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: THE GENDER VARIABLE FROM A SOCIOLINGUISTIC PERSPECTIVE

A sociolinguistic perspective that takes the social gender variable as a particular point of reference is twofold.

The first aspect is essentially associated with the research tradition of variationist sociolinguistics (English variationist sociolinguistics) or, in other words, quantitative sociolinguistics (English quantitative sociolinguistics) (see Labov 2004: 6–21). This paradigm is most often associated with the name of William Labov. Labov was the first to make explicit the idea that variability is an inherent characteristic of language (see Labov 1969: 728). It can be argued that this very insight of the researcher became a foundational principle of variationist sociolinguistics (cf. Tagliamonte 2012: 2).

In the earliest works of variationist sociolinguistics, gender was already recognized as a significant factor² determining variability in the speech community. In 1958, having investigated the use of -in and -ing in a village in New England (USA) (cf. fishin’ and fishing)³, and describing the variants in question as socially conditioned variants (English socially conditioned variant) or socio-symbolic variants (English socio-symbolic variants), John L. Fisher notes that the -ing variant is more characteristic of girls (for more on the study and the distribution of other variables, see Fisher 1964 (¹1958): 483–489). Essentially, Fisher’s study established the binary nature of the gender variable—the researcher deliberately designed the study to include informants of both genders. This strategy was new in the tradition of dialectological research. It is important to add here that Fishe

² It should be noted that in this article the category speech community corresponds to the definition of speech community, not language community. It is only because of usage conventions that the terms speech or speech community are not adopted (for more on this distinction, see Aliūkaitė 2007: 16–18; Vaicekauskienė, Sausverde 2012: 7).

³ The study group consisted of 24 children, an equal number of boys and girls. The informants belonged to two age groups, namely 3–6 years and 7–10 years. The research material comprised three types of linguistic data: so-called apperception tests (i.e., children’s dictated texts based on short introductory sentences provided by the researchers); responses to a formal questionnaire (older informants only); and informal interviews about their activities (with several older informants) (Fisher 1964 (¹1958): 483).

220

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIX

Kalbos variantiškumas paauglių akimis: lyties kintamasis

Fisher’s study grew out of dialectological foundations⁴, and when presenting his work, the scholar himself wondered whether such studies might be considered comparative ideolectology (English comparative ideolectology) (Fisher 1964 (¹1958): 487).

In Labov’s study of New Yorkers’ pronunciation⁵, which is particularly significant in the research tradition of quantitative sociolinguistics, the researcher’s analysis of the distribution of the variables r (after vowels, for example, bar) and th (for example, thing) enabled him to explain—or, more precisely, to demonstrate—that language change can be studied systematically, with attention also paid to gender as a significant factor. Free variation (English free variation) is in fact a fiction, since essentially all variables are associated with units of social structure—social class, occupation, gender, age, and so on. Labov showed that patterns of language variation (English patterns of variation) can be identified even in a complex metropolitan speech community (for more, see Labov 2006 (¹1966): viii, 30–33; Mesthrie 2001: 377–381).

Without examining in greater depth the significance of the variationist sociolinguistic tradition for the development of sociolinguistic research in general, it can be said that certain insights formulated by the earliest representatives of this tradition are also relevant to the study presented in this article. Thus, the findings of both Fisher’s and Labov’s studies show that girls (in Fisher’s study only) and/or women produce fewer marked variables; that is, their speech is closer to the standard, and prestigious forms are more characteristic of them (for more, see Fisher 1964 (¹1958): 484; Labov 1972: 243; Swann 2003: 221–222).

There are numerous sociolinguistic studies, large and small, that in one way or another foreground the gender variable in both the American and continental sociolinguistic traditions (cf. Eckert 1989: 245–267; Cheshire 2002: 423–443; Romaine 2003: 98–118; Tagliamonte 2012: 32–34, among others).

In 1990, drawing on more than 30 years of research experience, Labov formulated principles⁶ summarizing differences between men’s and women’s speech.

⁴ In 1954–1955, John L. Fisher and his wife collected linguistic material; its transcription drew attention to the realization of -in and -ing, which prompted the researcher to undertake an experimental study (see Fisher 1964 (¹1958): 483).

⁵ It should be added that the beginnings of variationist or quantitative sociolinguistic research are most often associated with William Labov’s 1963 studies of sound change on the island of Martha’s Vineyard (English Martha’s Vineyard) in Massachusetts (English a sound change). Applying the principles of direct observation, the researcher examined the realization of the linguistic variables /ay/ and /aw/ (English linguistic variable). The pioneer of quantitative sociolinguistics noted that studying the frequency and distribution of the phonetic variants of /ay/ and /aw/ among representatives of different age groups, occupations, ethnic groups, etc., would make it possible to explain sound change (see Labov 1972: 7–41 for more). However, studies of New Yorkers’ pronunciation, of course, had a greater influence on the development of this field. It should be added that the cited publication, Sociolinguistic Patterns (Labov 1972), reprints the study published in 1963.

⁶ Principle I. In stable sociolinguistic stratification, men use nonstandard forms more frequently than women. Principle Ia. In change from above (English change from above), women are more inclined than men to adopt prestigious forms. Principle II. In change from below (English change from below), women are usually the innovators.

Straipsniai / Articles

221

DAIVA ALIŪKAITĖ

…dles. The gender variable is not evaluated in absolute terms. Its influence becomes apparent within the internal structure of the social hierarchy, that is, in every class, members of the female speech community are found to aspire to prestigious norms, while also showing greater receptiveness to innovations (see Labov 1990: 210, 213, 215, cited in Cheshire 2002: 425–426; see also Mesthrie 2003: 106–107).

It is important to add that the conclusions available to researchers in variationist sociolinguistics summarize active linguistic behavior.

The second strand in the sociolinguistic paradigm, which regards the gender variable as a significant factor, is associated with studies of language attitudes.

Language concepts or any particular form of expression may be evaluated by research participants of either sex; thus, differences in perception and evaluation that emerge may also be associated with the gender of members of the speech community.

In discussing studies of language attitudes, the distinction between direct (English: direct) and indirect (English: indirect) studies is important. Research within the first paradigm is based on questionnaires, in which participants answer questions about the evaluation of language use, languages, language varieties, and so on; indirect methods conceal the object being studied. Methodological choices obscure the primary purpose, and researchers therefore consider indirect methods to elicit more spontaneous and candid responses (cf. Obiols 2002: 2).

As Kathryna Campbell-Kibler noted, stimuli are the basis of attitude experiments (see Campbell-Kibler 2013: 142). Thus, the first method to mention is the matched-guise method developed in 1960 by Wallace Lambert and his team (English: the matched guise technique⁷; see Murray 1998: 75–78)⁸. Its essence is that, when language attitudes are studied, respondents are not told the true purpose of the study, in the hope of obtaining unfeigned data. In a matched-guise study, participants listen to verbal stimuli and evaluate speakers’ personal, social, and other characteristics.

Katie Drager (2013), apibendrinusi eksperimentinius metodus sociolingvistikoje, išskyrė kaukės metodą su spontaniškos kalbos stimulais ir tikslingai parengtais stimulais. Ši – spontaniškos kalbos ir parengto stimulo – skirtis yra svarbi ir pristatysimam tyrimui. Taigi kaukės tyrimo esmė yra ta, kad paprastai stimulų garsyne vienas iš kalbėtojų kalba du kartus, vienu atveju neutraliai, kitu atveju atlieka tyrimo organizatorių paskirtąjį kaukės vaidmenį, t. y. realizuoja tiriamąją raišką (tai gali būti tarmiškai ar kaip kitaip žymėtas kalbėjimas). Taip išsiaiškinama, ar kalbėjimo variantas klausytojui-vertintojui tikslina, keičia socialinę kalbėtojo charakteristiką, ar ne. Vadinasi, gauti kalbėtojų įverčiai tampa pagrindu nustatyti atmainos socialinę, kultūrinę vertę. Kaukės metodas yra priskirtinas prie netiesioginių metodologijų.

⁷ Cf. A study based on the matched-guise method is presented in Aurelia Čekuolytė’s article, which analyzes how young people evaluate English words in adults’ speech (Čekuolytė 2010: 323–326).

⁸ Researchers emphasize that the verbal-guise method is one of the most widely used methods for studying language attitudes (Clopper 2013: 156).

222

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIX

Kalbos variantiškumas paauglių akimis: lyties kintamasis

In discussing research on language attitudes, the paradigm of perceptual dialectology is no less important. The methodological principles for perceiving and evaluating different speech varieties, primarily dialectal ones, developed or synthesized by Dennis R. Preston in 1981 (Preston 1989; Preston 1999a: xxiii–xl; Preston 1999b: 359–373; Preston 2002: 57–104) have been successfully applied in the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, Hungary, Italy, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Turkey, and several other countries.

Preston has described four main components of this kind of research: participants must complete a map task (marking on a map the boundaries of varieties known to them or imagined by them), rank varieties according to correctness and attractiveness, assess how different the varieties are from the variety they themselves use (or from some other point of comparison), and locate the varieties on a map (see Preston 1999a: xxxiv–xxxv for more).

Although the research mechanism has links with Lambert’s method, primarily in that stimuli are most often used in research (less often, participants have to rely on their own memories, mental images, etc.), and moreover, the outcome of such research, as with the matched-guise method, is the identification of attitudes toward one language variety or another⁹, there are nevertheless also fundamental differences between these methodologies. First, it should be emphasized that in perceptual dialectology research, participants are usually aware that they are evaluating language. Second, some components of perceptual dialectology research have their roots in the work of the geolinguistic paradigm; cf. the map task and the task of determining how different varieties are (see Preston 1999: xxv–xxx; Rensink 1999: 3–7; Daan 1999: 9–30; Kremer 1999: 31–36, etc.).

Thus, it can be argued that traditions of research on language attitudes have, in essence, developed out of two theoretical perspectives: social psychology, where research is primarily concerned with evaluating different languages¹⁰, and perceptual dialectology, whose proponents focus on research into the evaluation and perception of variation within a single language.

It should be noted that in the work of both traditions, the gender variable is an important component of the analytical toolkit. This article is concerned precisely with this second strand of sociolinguistic research: in analyzing language attitudes toward variation, it examines whether the gender variable is a significant factor that decisively differentiates the language ideals of the younger generation of Lithuanians.

The attitudes of the first perspective, i.e. variationist sociolinguistics, toward the gender variable are included in the main analysis only as comparative information, since the basis of the study presented here is not data on active language use, but rather data on evaluation and perception.

⁹ These intellectual connections are entirely understandable, since Preston was Lambert’s student (see Giles, Billings 2004: 190).

¹⁰ Lambert and his team used the matched-guise technique to assess attitudes toward English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians (see Murray 1998: 74–75 for more).

Straipsniai / Articles

223

DAIVA ALIŪKAITĖ

FIG. 1. Study sites

Thus, this discussion is based on data from language-attitude experiments conducted around the seven largest regional cities in Lithuania and in Vilnius. The linguistic material used in the experiments consisted of stimuli representing Standard Lithuanian, Vilnius city speech, Kaunas city speech, and regional speech, that is, dialectally marked speech. The total sample comprised 1,451 ninth- and tenth-grade students from 23 Lithuanian schools (see Fig. 1 for the study sites). The study was conducted at all sites in 2012.

2. METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK:

A TWO-PART EXPERIMENT

The language-attitude experiment has two parts: it examines unconscious and conscious attitudes. It should be stated at the outset that this model for studying attitudes is in any case more effective than attempting to investigate only one side of attitudes. Working with two types of data makes it possible to expect greater objectivity

224

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIX

Kalbos variantiškumas paauglių akimis: lyties kintamasis

and reliability. Of course, it should be acknowledged that metalinguistic discourse (and verbalized attitude data are precisely what make this possible) always leaves more questions than the study of primary linguistic data. In this case, however, it would be appropriate to paraphrase Labov slightly: commenting on some of his predecessors’ critical views of variation models in large speech communities, he argued that if one could speak of any models at all, it would be “a model of no model” (English the complete absence of any pattern), and emphasized that even very vague and unclear models of variation can be studied systematically and linked to social models (see Labov 2006: 24, 30). Thus, when considering the accuracy versus fallibility of metalinguistic discourse, or subjective data, it is certainly possible to expect that certain patterns can be generalized. In this case, these would be particular patterns of attitude variation, which are likely to be considerably associated with the social, regional, and other structures of the speech community and, even more likely, to reflect the community’s linguistic awareness. Insights from previous studies essentially encourage this view (cf. Kalėdienė 2010: 86; Kliukienė 2010: 104).

2.1. Model for Studying Unconscious Attitudes

The study of unconscious attitudes is based on a stimulus experiment. The experiment’s prototype is the methodological framework of the international LANCHART project (for more, see Kristiansen 2009: 173–178, especially Table 1, p. 174). To identify unconscious attitudes, the so-called speaker evaluation test (English speaker evaluation experiment) was used (see Kristiansen 2010: 544). Thus, the study’s methodological basis is essentially linked both to Lambert’s matched-guise method and to Preston’s techniques for studying perceptual dialectology.

The experiment used a standard seven-point semantic differential scale (for more on the use of the semantic differential scale in linguistic research, see Wray, Trott, Bloomer, Reay, Butler 2005: 174–176; Kristiansen 2010: 545) (see Fig. 2).

Typically, adjectives with antonymous meanings in the semantic differential (or constructions involving other parts of speech), which denote certain characteristics, relate to two dimensions, namely status and solidarity (cf. Ryan, Giles, Sebastian 1982, cited in Kristiansen 2010: 545) or superiority and attractiveness, and dynamism (cf. Zahn, Hopper 1985, cited in Kristiansen 2010: 545). Ratings on these dimensions model the speaker’s sociolinguistic profile (see Table 1). The study data will therefore make it possible at least to sketch the sociolinguistic profiles of speakers of Standard Lithuanian, Vilnius city speech, and dialectally marked speech.

The speakers in all the stimuli developed the same topic: they expressed their opinions about a good teacher. It should be added that almost all the stimuli repeat the lexical

Straipsniai / Articles

225

DAIVA ALIŪKAITĖ

FIG. 2. Rating scale

topic words (e.g., a good teacher, student, lesson, methods, lesson topic, etc.), so the participants could reasonably have formed the impression that the study was related to some pedagogical problem. In this respect, the experiment conforms to studies based on the guise technique.

The 12-stimulus sound corpus consisted of 8 fixed and 4 variable stimuli. In each case, the participants rated 4 representatives of Standard Lithuanian (2 girls and 2 boys) and 4 representatives of Vilnius speech (2 girls and 2 boys). The speakers of the remaining 4 stimuli (2 girls and 2 boys) represented regiolectal varieties or the youth speech of another major city (i.e., Kaunas).

The stimuli used at the Telšiai-group research sites (Žemaičių Kalvarija, Seda, and Alsėdžiai)¹¹ should be regarded as regiolectal units of the Samogitian dialect; the stimuli used at the Marijampolė-group research sites should be regarded as regiolectal units of the Western Aukštaitian Kauniškiai dialect; the stimuli used at the Šiauliai-group research sites should be regarded as regiolectal units of the Western Aukštaitian Šiauliškiai dialect; the stimuli used at the Panevėžys-group research sites should be regarded

¹¹ See Figure 1 for the research sites of the other groups.

226

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIX

Kalbos variantiškumas paauglių akimis: lyties kintamasis

as regiolectal units of the Eastern Aukštaitian Panevėžiškiai dialect; the stimuli used at the Utena-group research sites should be regarded as regiolectal units of the Eastern Aukštaitian Uteniškiai dialect; the stimuli used at the Alytus-group research sites should be regarded as regiolectal units of the Southern Aukštaitian dialect.

A regiolectal unit is understood as an intermediate variety between the traditional dialect¹² and Standard Lithuanian, reflecting the complex relationship between dialect and the standard language. Cornelis A. J. Hoppenbrouwers was probably the first to use the category of the regiolectal unit—the regiolect—using the term to denote a variety that takes shape through the mixing, convergence, and leveling of the standard language and dialect with one another (direction: dialect → standard language) (see Hoppenbrouwers 1983: 1). Other authors also use *regiolect* to refer to a formation resulting from the convergence, mixing, and overlap of several dialects (for more, see Aliūkaitė, Merkytė-Švarcienė 2012: 161–162; Aliūkaitė 2013: 5–6).

All stimuli were prepared from recordings of several minutes obtained in open-ended interviews on the topic “A Good Teacher” with students in the respective towns (see Fig. 1). For each site, at least 30 interviews were collected, with informants selected according to predefined criteria: 1) gender—the material needed to create stimuli had to include informants of both genders; 2) age—the informants had to be students in grades 11–12; 3) residential stability—the informants had to have been born and raised at the research site (i.e., Šiauliai, Marijampolė, etc.; see Fig. 1). Using the Audacity program, 13–16-second stimuli representing the speech of young people at the interview site were prepared. Thus, representative excerpts were selected from the interview material to create the stimuli, noise was removed, pauses were cut, the text was amplified, and so on.

When preparing stimuli representing regional varieties, the criterion of geolinguistic representativeness was followed; that is, the aim was for the regional stimuli to be dialectally marked (for example, the Samogitian dialect regiolect stimuli are characterized by Samogitian stress retraction and inconsistent diphthongization of o; the Eastern Aukštaitian Uteniškiai regiolect stimuli stand out for the pronunciation of o (with a distinct a quality), etc.). It should be emphasized that this stimulus-preparation strategy was used to test whether, in the view of members of the younger speech community, dialectally marked speech competes with Standard Lithuanian in terms of value. Undoubtedly, variation across the dialect–standard-language continuum is far more diverse than can be revealed by a sound corpus of 4 stimuli. Nevertheless, the experiment presents several models of dialect variation; consequently, speakers’ ratings can be interpreted as ratings of representatives of regional varieties and, most importantly, compared with data from representatives of Vilnius speech and Standard Lithuanian. Of course, the ratings that emerged cannot be considered universal, but it is possible to speak of trends.

¹² The criterion that is probably clearest is the distribution of distinguishing features within the variety.

Straipsniai / Articles

227

DAIVA ALIŪKAITĖ

One more important point should be noted: when forming the experimental groups in the regions (see Fig. 1), the criterion of dialect (or subdialect) boundaries was not followed; that is, experimental sites located in the areas of not only the same dialect (or subdialect), but also different dialects (or subdialects), were combined into a group of participants that, in every case, was designated provisionally according to the city in which the stimulus material was recorded—for example, the Šiauliai group, the Kaunas group, the Utena group, and so on. What matters most is the distance of the sites from the city whose patterns of dialect variation the stimuli demonstrate (for more, see section 3.1 of the article). There is no doubt that geographical proximity is an important condition for the possibility of linguistic experience.

Stimuli recorded in Kaunas and Vilnius¹³ represent variants of the speech of young people in major cities in this study. As in the case of the regional experiments, the stimulus sets (2 girls’ and 2 boys’) are evaluated collectively as a prototype of young people’s speech in major cities.

The 4 standard-language stimuli were prepared in accordance with the requirements of the orthoepic style. Thus, it can be said that these stimuli were purposefully prepared in terms of expression, with the aim of demonstrating pronunciation that conforms to the norms of standard-language pronunciation and stress.

The concept behind the sound recordings used in the experiments is to show the variability of language variants, which in turn provides a basis for discussing attitudes toward variants of the Lithuanian language, and these attitudes to some extent indicate the relationships among language variants in usage. Of course, the sound recordings evaluated represent only certain variants of Lithuanian; however, the three-part structure of the recordings—standard-language stimuli, Vilnius-speech stimuli, and regiolectal stimuli¹⁴—suggests broader insights.

It should be added that a methodological weakness of data obtained through attitude experiments is that participants’ evaluations may be determined not only by the language variant they hear, but also by other factors. This insight is prompted first and foremost by the work of researchers in perceptual dialectology. Typically, when conducting studies using dialect stimuli or mental-map tasks, perceptual dialectologists seek common denominators to summarize the features identified by participants. For example, when summarizing the characteristics identified by participants, Daniel Long refers to certain clusters of features as paralinguistic features (English paralinguistic) (e.g., mumbling, speaking rapidly, speaking in a resonant, sing-song voice) (for more, see Long 1999: 192–193; see also Aliūkaitė 2007: 58). It should be recalled that the methodological principle of perceptual dialectology is that participants know they are to evaluate a variant, not a speaker, unlike in the study presented here; nevertheless, the influence of paralinguistic features cannot be entirely disregarded in the present study either. Accordingly, it is also inappropriate to transfer speaker ratings unambiguously to the variant. Yet precisely these debatable aspects are the basis for scholarly discussion.

¹³ The collection of stimulus materials was organized according to the same criteria as in the regions.

¹⁴ In the case of the Kaunas group, stimuli represent variants of young people’s speech in Kaunas.

228

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIX

Kalbos variantiškumas paauglių akimis: lyties kintamasis

2.2. The model for studying conscious attitudes

The second stage of the study was an investigation of conscious attitudes. It was based on speech variety rankings (see Aliūkaitė 2011: 211–214; Aliūkaitė 2013). In the task prepared for participants, they were asked to rank 12 varieties according to the subjective criterion of like the most... like the least; participants in the Telšiai group were asked to rank 16 varieties, while participants in the city of Vilnius were asked to rank 10.

The lists of varieties provided to the different participant groups consisted of two parts: a fixed part, which included the following varieties: standard language, Vilnius speech, Kaunas speech, Klaipėda speech, Alytus speech, Marijampolė speech, Utena speech, Panevėžys speech, Šiauliai speech, and Telšiai speech; and a variable part, which in each case included 2 additional local varieties. The fixed list of local varieties included those of all the regional centers studied and of the three major cities (Vilnius, Kaunas, Klaipėda). The variable list included local varieties from the immediate surroundings of the sites studied (see Table 2 for all lists).

The list provided to the Telšiai group additionally included the Aukštaitian, Samogitian, Dzūkian, and Suvalkian dialects. As can be seen, the geolinguistic binary classification of dialects (Aukštaitian and Samogitian) was expanded to a four-part classification in the conscious-attitudes experiment (in the tasks given to participants). This was done on the basis of data from the project’s preparatory studies (see Aliūkaitė 2013: 12–13). Ordinary members of the language community have supplemented the binary classification of Lithuanian dialects with the Dzūkian and Suvalkian dialects. It is likely that these additions to the dialect system—the Dzūkian and Suvalkian dialects—reflect participants’ knowledge of Lithuania’s ethnographic regions. Thus, when studying the attitudes of ordinary members of the language community, it makes sense to take folk taxonomy into account, as this can be expected to yield greater accuracy.

The term local variety should be noted as somewhat provisional. The study does not adhere to the strict dialectological definition of a local variety as a linguistic unit occupying a smaller area than a dialect (cf. Kvašytė 2005: 113). This term was chosen because it is simpler and easier for ordinary members of the language community to understand; it designates a unit referring to a particular way of speaking characteristic of territory X (cf. in Kaunas, Utena, etc.), in place of the more scientifically precise terms variety or variant. It should be added that the very concepts, such as Šiauliai speech, Utena speech, Kaunas speech, and so on, are quite abstract. Such labels essentially eliminate variation if judged strictly from the perspective of variationist sociolinguistics. More precisely, one should refer to varieties of speech in the city of Šiauliai (or variants), and so on, since a city’s system of variants essentially corresponds to its demographic, social, and even regional structure. There is no doubt that pidginization and creolization processes occur most intensively in cities. Of course, what is meant are mild scenarios of pidginization and creolization, involving processes of dialect convergence and leveling that are inevitable given the regional and social structure of cities. Here it is also appropriate to recall the Labov mentioned earlier

Straipsniai / Articles

229

DAIVA ALIŪKAITĖ

variacijos modelių koncepciją (žr. Labov 2006: viii, 30–33). Kita vertus, atliktas tyrimas orientuotas į nuostatas, taigi pirmiausia dėmesys skiriamas sociokultūriniam lygmeniui. Vadinasi, kaip atskiri kalbos idealai, tam tikri vaizdiniai yra galimi ir tokie apibendrinti konceptai – Šiaulių šnekta, Vilniaus šnekta ir kt. Žinoma, neabejotina, kad ir apibendrinti vaizdiniai integruoja skiriamąsias charakteristikas, pavyzdžiui, indikatorius (angl. indicators) (žr. Labov 1972: 273), kuriais iš esmės ir pagrįstas pirmojo eksperimento (nesąmoningųjų nuostatų tyrimo) stimulų formavimas. Antras dalykas, kurį dera paminėti, yra tai, kad šio pagrindinio atmainų sąrašo dalies vienetai nėra vienos vertės geolingvistinės informacijos požiūriu. Žinoma, negalima teigti, kad paprasti kalbos bendruomenės nariai Utenos šnektą neabejotinai suplakė su rytų aukštaičių uteniškių patarme ar Panevėžio šnektą – su rytų aukštaičiais panevėžiškiais, tačiau manytina, kad kai kurie šnektų sąrašo vienetai tiriamiesiems galėjo kelti stereotipinių asociacijų, be to, kai kurie miestai, kaip rodo tyrimai, laikytini tarmių prototipiniais miestais (plg. Aliūkaitė 2007: 182). Tvirtai teigti, kad toks žinojimas galėjo veikti įvertį, negalima, kita vertus, grįžtant prie pagrindinio tyrimo tikslo, reikia pasakyti, kad tokia duomenų slinktis netgi būtų reikšminga – ji parodytų diferencijuotą dialektų (apskritai atmainų) vertinimą.

3. DATA ON UNCONSCIOUS ATTITUDES AND THE GENDER VARIABLE

When beginning the analysis of the data from the experiment on unconscious attitudes, the previously cited insights of Labov concerning the activities of members of an active speech community are relevant (see Labov 1990: 210, 213, 215, cited in Cheshire 2002: 425–426). The principles formulated by the researcher provide a solid basis for expecting patterns of attitude variation among subjects of different genders as well.

We could argue that in the present case the gender variable is a secondary dimension that determines how the data are divided. First and foremost, of course, is the subjects’ place of residence, or perhaps, more broadly, their region. Thus, the concept of linguistic homeland (Lith. linguistic homeland) from the paradigm of perceptual dialectology is applicable here (see Diercks 2002: 51–52). Patterns of unconscious attitudes are discussed accordingly. First, the sociolinguistic portrait of a representative of the linguistic homeland is evaluated, followed by the sociolinguistic portrait of a representative of the standard language. The sociolinguistic portrait of a representative of Vilnius speech is analyzed alongside that of a representative of the standard language. It should be added that the category of sociolinguistic portrait is used somewhat more loosely in this study than is customary in sociolinguistic research. Only the speakers’ characteristics along the dimensions of status and solidarity, superiority, and attractiveness are discussed (see Table 1). According to the study’s methodological model, the sociolinguistic-portrait ratings of the characteristics along the listed dimensions reveal attitudes toward the variant heard.

230

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIX

Kalbos variantiškumas paauglių akimis: lyties kintamasis

3.1. The Sociolinguistic Portrait of a Representative of the Linguistic Homeland

The participants’ linguistic homelands can be classified according to the likelihood of dialect features being prevalent there (see Fig. 3; also see Fig. 1).

In some subjects’ linguistic homelands, experience with dialect codes is more likely than in others’. The first type would include the subjects in the Marijampolė group (Kalvarija, Vilkaviškis, Pilviškiai), the Telšiai group (Žemaičių Kalvarija, Seda, and Alsėdžiai), the Utena group (Svedasai, Užpaliai, and Alanta), the Šiauliai group (Gruzdžiai, Kuršėnai, Radviliškis), the Alytus group (Daugai, Butrimonys, and Simnas), the Panevėžys group (Ramygala, Krekenava, Pumpėnai), and the Kaunas group (Kruonis, Babtai, Vilkija). Nearly all localities in these groups where the experiments were conducted in schools are points in the Atlas of the Lithuanian Language (e.g., Kalvarija—point 639 in the Atlas of the Lithuanian Language; Vilkaviškis—584, Pilviškiai—566, Žemaičių Kalvarija—66, Seda—43, Alsėdžiai—96, etc. (see Anthology of Lithuanian Dialects 2004: 299–318). Only the subjects in the Vilnius group (from the Mikalojus Daukša Secondary School and Abraomas Kulvietis Secondary School) belong to the second type.

FIG. 3. Classification of the experiment participants (stimulus raters)

Straipsniai / Articles

231

DAIVA ALIŪKAITĖ

It should be acknowledged that this classification of subjects may seem rather arbitrary and even somewhat stereotypical. One might get the impression that the classification is based on the assumption that regions a priori are associated with dialectal, or at least regiolectal, codes, while a metropolis is associated with the domain of standard-language use. This is certainly not the case, since such a horizontal division would run counter not only to the sociolinguistic axiom—that is, the conception of language variation—but also to geolinguistic principles, which have established the notion of dynamic space in dialectology (English dynamic space) (see Hernández-Campoy 1999: 78, 80). Moreover, studies of language attitudes conducted in Lithuania’s major cities also reveal residents’ strong dialect competence (see Kliukienė 2010: 95, 99); therefore, a metropolis cannot be strictly regarded as a linguistic homeland without a dialectal substratum.

Nevertheless, there is a fundamental difference between all the other subject groups and the subjects from the city of Vilnius, which justifies classifying the experiment participants in this way. At regional sites, at least some degree of regiolectal homogeneity can be expected: in Daugai, for example, one might expect a linguistic homeland with a Southern Aukštaitian substratum, in Seda one with a Samogitian dialect substratum, and so on. This may provide a solid basis for an ordinary member of the speech community to have an image of a particular variety—with clear features, at least in their subjective assessment, though not necessarily one they like or find attractive (cf. Inoue 1999b: 174). In their conscious (or subconscious) mind, this image functions as a prototype that helps distinguish insiders from outsiders. What follows depends on whether those recognized linguistically as one’s own are considered one’s own—that is, whether the regiolectal unit identified objectively as the code of a linguistic homeland, a code of a more or less familiar environment, is one’s own to the rater, suitable for their self-expression and way of life. Thus, everything depends on the (self-)value of the linguistic homeland code from the perspective of a member of the speech community.

It should be added that an evaluation is not necessarily directly related to matters of usage—that is, to the code used by the speech community member. Reflection on the linguistic homeland code and active linguistic practice can often be radically at odds. It is no coincidence that one of the so-called language myths, or myths about language, explicitly names this divide—the divide between self-monitoring and perception¹⁵. Everyone Speaks with an Accent Except Me (English Everyone Has an Accent Except Me)—this is the title of the twentieth myth¹⁶, which clearly encapsulates an almost typical position of the ordinary member of a speech community; otherwise, the researchers would not have included this clash among the twenty language myths.

¹⁵ By the way, in some cases the phenomenon of simulation probably should not be ruled out either, since the attitudes expressed by subjects, or a subject’s “opening up” during the study, do not necessarily correspond to their actual attitudes.

¹⁶ Laurie Bauer and Peter Trudgill arranged the myths in this order in their study Language Myths (1998). John H. Esling attempts to refute this myth (see Esling 1998: 169–175). However, this is, of course, only a scholarly perspective, and the arguments matter for research, not for language users, who need language to live their lives.

232

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIX

Kalbos variantiškumas paauglių akimis: lyties kintamasis

When it comes to the research participants from the city of Vilnius, their loyalty to the dialectal code cannot be assessed for several reasons. Given that this metropolis is a center of cultural, urban, social, and other forms of attraction, there can be no doubt about the diversity of its regional structure, which also provides the preconditions for dialectal variation. Moreover, the profile of a multilingual city (see Gudavičienė 2010: 207–229) also contributes to this kind of data distribution (see Fig. 3).

Thus, despite the points open to debate, it must be acknowledged that the image of the metropolis’s inhabitants’ linguistic homeland cannot be associated with dialectal expression as a prototype of a linguistic homeland. This group of participants thus becomes a kind of litmus test for determining whether preferences in evaluating two variants (i.e., standard language and Vilnius speech), when tertium non datur, follow the same trends as in the regions—that is, whether choosing from three options (in the regions) and only two (in the metropolis) brings out the same most attractive speakers (i.e., language ideals).

Of course, it is easier to rank three variants than two, but this is precisely the hidden aim of the experiments: to test how similar and how different the systems of language-ideal images are for young people in the regions and in the metropolis, and whether there may be shared ideals.

So, which linguistic homeland is more attractive: one inseparable from a greater or lesser degree of dialectality, or one associated with non-localized (or perhaps, on the contrary, localized, even very specifically localized; cf. Čičirkaitė, Vaicekauskienė 2011: 57–76; Aliūkaitė, Merkytė-Švarcienė 2012: 167–173) expression? Which representative of a linguistic homeland has the more attractive sociolinguistic profile, and so on? And, most importantly, do girls and boys sketch the same sociolinguistic portrait of a representative of their linguistic homeland?

The data from the implicit-attitude experiments show that at all regional sites, members of the younger generation’s speech communities drew a more unattractive than attractive sociolinguistic portrait of a representative of the linguistic homeland (regiolectal expression), compared with portraits of representatives of standard language or Vilnius speech. It follows that regiolectal speech varieties are evaluated less favorably than standard language or Vilnius speech in all participant groups. It should be added that this conclusion holds if we assess all four speakers of each variety holistically, as representatives of a particular type of variation, since the ratings for individual stimuli disrupt—albeit very slightly—the otherwise almost consistent hierarchy of evaluations of language varieties.

When the gender variable is considered in relation to evaluations of three-way variation—standard language, Vilnius speech, and regiolectal speech—some differences emerge between the groups.

When evaluating the speech codes of representatives of the linguistic homeland, participants in the Marijampolė group, both girls and boys, were consistent. The young female and male participants from Kalvarija, Vilkaviškis, and Pilviškiai created very similar sociolinguistic portraits of representatives of the linguistic homeland (see Table 3). There are essentially no statistically significant differences (see Table 4).

Straipsniai / Articles

233

DAIVA ALIŪKAITĖ

Girls’ and boys’ attitudes differ statistically significantly with respect to only one feature of the MarB (6)¹⁷ speaker: the representative of this stimulus seems more pleasant to girls. The overall rating of this feature on the solidarity dimension is low (only 7.56; by comparison, ratings for this feature among representatives of standard language in the Marijampolė group are 4.82, 5.52, and 5.80). Thus, this difference should probably not be overemphasized, since the girls’ and boys’ evaluations of MarB (6) do not differ on other parameters. In other words, it can be stated generally that the degree of solidarity with the linguistic homeland code is the same among girls and boys. Its low level is indicated by the much more favorable sociolinguistic portraits drawn of representatives of standard language and Vilnius speech.

These data support the hypothesis of a so-called dialect inferiority complex (English dialect inferiority complex) (see Sibata 1958, cited in Inoue 1999a: 148). Studies in perceptual dialectology show (cf. Evans 2002: 71–93) that distancing oneself from linguistic homeland expression and favoring other forms of expression are characteristic of communities that, for one reason or another, do not regard the dialectal code of their immediate surroundings as equivalent to codes used primarily in the public domain.

Fumio Inoue aptly explains the causes of the dialect inferiority complex by introducing the concept of a dialect image (English dialect image). The researcher argues that a dialect image is shaped both by the dialect itself and by stereotypical images of a place and its inhabitants (we might add: stereotypes). According to Inoue, such an image can influence dialect change and the spread of dialectal codes in general, if we are speaking of aspects of interest to linguists. At the same time, the dialect image is also a cause of the dialect inferiority complex—in Inoue’s view, this falls within the field of interest of social psychologists (for more, see Inoue 1999a: 147–159¹⁸; Inoue 1999b: 174).

Thus, based on the foregoing, it can be argued that the dialect image held by the young participants from Kalvarija, Vilkaviškis, and Pilviškiai (both girls and boys)—in this particular case, the image of the regiolectal code of the Western Aukštaitian Kaunas subdialect kapsai area (see Bacevičiūtė, Mikulėnienė, Salienė 2005: 93–95)—gives rise to at least a weak dialect inferiority complex.

The question arises whether this is the only possible explanation for the sociolinguistic portrait of a representative of the linguistic homeland. Probably not, but another perspective will be presented in an examination of points of contact between implicit and explicit attitudes and the logic of their differences. For now, a little about the implicit-attitude experiment data from the other groups.

The female and male participants in the Šiauliai group (Gruzdžiai, Kuršėnai, Radviliškis), when evaluating variation in the Šiauliai stimuli, reveal, in essence, very similar implicit attitudes. Regiolectal expression is not assigned high ratings (see Table 5).

¹⁷ The meanings of letters and other symbols in the stimulus labels: Mar – Marijampolė stimuli; M – girl, B – boy; (x) – the number indicates the stimulus’s sequence number.

¹⁸ Especially scheme 11.7, on p. 158.

234

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIX

Kalbos variantiškumas paauglių akimis: lyties kintamasis

Only slightly more favorable are the boys when sketching a sociolinguistic portrait of a representative of regiolectal speech. The speakers ŠiaulM (3)¹⁹’ assessment of seriousness vs. frivolity differs significantly between boys and girls, as does that of ŠiaulB (12). Both the female speaker ŠiaulAuM (3) and the male speaker ŠiaulAuB (12) seemed more serious than frivolous to them (see Table 6). Of course, the discourse factor must also be taken into account. One possibility is that the participants found precisely these speakers’ opinions about a good teacher the most acceptable and seriously reasoned.

In general, boys’ greater favorability toward regiolectal expression is more likely than unlikely. This is consistent with the usage pattern summarized in sociolinguistic research (see Labov’s Principle I, cited in Section 1 of this article, Introductory remarks: the gender variable in sociolinguistic perspective). However, it must be acknowledged that this condition is not met. The sociolinguistic portrait of a representative of regiolectal expression emerging from unconscious attitudes does not indicate that such expression is a usage pattern supported by boys.

The attitudes of participants in the other group—the ethnographic region of Dzūkija, that is, pupils from Daugai, Butrimonys, and Simnas—toward linguistic homeland stand out. In this group, the gender variable has the power to differentiate attitudes. For all four speakers, the attitudes of boys and girls differ significantly. The degree of significance varies in each case (see Table 8).

Thus, when evaluating the speaker AlM (3)²⁰, the female participants in this group express more favorable attitudes toward her seriousness, self-confidence, intelligence, and pleasantness. When evaluating the speaker AlM (9), the female participants in this group assess the speaker’s seriousness, pleasantness, reliability, interestingness, and intelligence more favorably than the boys do. In all cases, statistically significant or highly significant differences emerge between girls’ and boys’ unconscious attitudes. Both female speakers were rated most highly as serious. One may ask whether such attitudes indicate solidarity with speakers of the same sex. Probably not. This could be claimed if the girls had rated male speakers less favorably than female speakers. Although the overall ratings across all dimensions (cf. Table 1) are not very high and differ statistically significantly from the ratings of representatives of Standard Lithuanian and Vilnius speech, the sociolinguistic portrait of a representative of the linguistic homeland sketched by the girls (and likewise that of a female representative) nevertheless suggests that a young man or woman speaking in a regiolectal code (with a substratum of the Aukštaitian dialect [the Southern Aukštaitian subdialect]) does not become a complete stranger, someone suspect whose character might be called into question (see Table 7). Gir-

¹⁹ Meanings of the stimulus letters and other symbols: Šiaul – Šiauliai stimuli; M – girl, B – boy; (x) – number indicates the stimulus sequence number.

²⁰ Meanings of the stimulus letters and other symbols: Al – Alytus stimuli; M – girl, B – boy; (x) – number indicates the stimulus sequence number.

Straipsniai / Articles

235

DAIVA ALIŪKAITĖ

girls tend to think that A1B (6) is intelligent, self-confident, pleasant, goal-oriented, trustworthy and even tough. The girls’ attitudes toward the speaker A1B (12), concerning his pleasantness, self-confidence, trustworthiness, seriousness, and intelligence and toughness, also differ statistically significantly or very significantly.

Summarizing the differences between boys’ and girls’ ratings (which are statistically significant and even highly significant (see the characteristics marked *** in Table 8)), it can be argued that the sociolinguistic portrait of a representative of the girls’ linguistic homeland is positive. Thus, the female participants essentially acknowledge the value of the linguistic homeland code. On the basis of the unconscious-attitude experiment data, it can be argued that girls are more loyal to their linguistic homeland and identify with the region. In this group, one can speak only of a certain degree of dialect inferiority complex among boys. Again, it must be added that this tendency contradicts the usage patterns summarized in sociolinguistic discourse for boys and girls (see Labov’s Principle I, cited in Section 1 of this article, Introductory remarks: the gender variable in sociolinguistic perspective).

The sociolinguistic portraits of representatives of regiolectal expression created by participants in the two eastern Aukštaitian linguistic-environment groups (Panevėžys and Utena, see Fig. 1) also do not stand out (see Tables 9 and 11). It should be noted, however, that given the vitality of the eastern Aukštaitian Panevėžys and Utena subdialects (cf. Mikulėnienė 2012: 6–7), it was expected that participants in these groups would create stronger sociolinguistic portraits, that is, would assess the regiolectal variants they heard favorably.

Reviewing the data from the Panevėžys group (Ramygalos, Krekenava, Pumpėnai), no statistically significant differences at the level of unconscious attitudes between male and female respondents were observed when assessing the speech of speaker PanM (9)²¹. Speaker PanM (3) seems more trustworthy to the female participants, while speaker PanB (12) does so to the male participants. It may be that such identification with a same-gender speaker is not very significant, since no differences emerge in assessments of the other personal qualities of these speakers. Another speaker—the one in stimulus PanB (6)—creates a more self-confident impression among the female participants.

Speakers in the Utena stimuli are rated similarly by girls and boys on all parameters; the differences are not statistically significant. Only the assessment of speaker UtM (3)²² is worth noting. Female pupils from Švedasai, Užpaliai, and Alanta rate UtM (3)’s toughness, seriousness, and pleasantness more favorably than the boys do (see Table 12).

²¹ Meanings of the stimulus letters and other symbols: Pan – Panevėžys stimuli; M – girl, B – boy; (x) – number indicates the stimulus sequence number.

²² Meanings of the stimulus letters and other symbols: Ut – Utena stimuli; M – girl, B – boy; (x) – number indicates the stimulus sequence number.

236

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIX

Kalbos variant(i)škumas paauglių akimis: lyties kintamasis

Overall, when assessing the sociolinguistic portraits of speakers representing regiolectal expression sketched by these groups, gender should not be considered a significant factor determining portraits of different personal characteristics.

The gender of the participants is likewise not a decisive factor in the sociolinguistic portrait of a speaker representing their linguistic homeland created by young Samogitians (students from Žemaičių Kalvarija, Seda, and Alsėdžiai) (see Table 13). Statistically significant differences at the level of unconscious attitudes emerge in evaluations of two of the four speakers: girls tend to regard the TelšM (3)²³ speaker as slightly more serious than boys do, while the TelšB (6) speaker seemed more self-confident to the female participants (see Table 14).

Briefly summarizing the results for the regional groups, it can be said that the girls’ greater favorability toward regiolectal expressions of the linguistic homeland, although it does not accord with generalized usage patterns (see Labov’s first principle, cited in section 1, Introductory remarks: the gender variable in a sociolinguistic perspective of this article), is not entirely unexpected. Researchers in other countries sometimes obtain similar results²⁴.

Before presenting the data from the Kaunas group (Kruonis, Babtai, Vilkija), it should be recalled that participants in this group listened to a set of 12 stimuli, 8 of which represented codes from major cities. Four stimuli were created from interview material involving students from the city of Kaunas; therefore, it would not be entirely accurate to claim that these codes might remind the participants of the prototype of their linguistic homeland code.

From a geolinguistic perspective, Kruonis (point 554 of the Atlas of the Lithuanian Language) lies within the western Aukštaitian subdialect area adjoining Dzūkija (see Bacevičiūtė, Mikulėnienė, Salienė 2005: 114–116), while Vilkija (point 495 of the Atlas of the Lithuanian Language) lies within the northern area of western Aukštaitian²⁵. Babtai belongs to the Vareikonys point in the Atlas of the Lithuanian Language (this point (470) is in the western Aukštaitian Šiauliai subdialect area); the boundary of the western Aukštaitian Kaunas subdialect runs through Babtai (see Kazlauskaitė, Lapinskienė, Bacevičiūtė 2007: 24–25). Consequently, it is likely that the experiment participants may have experience with features of the western Aukštaitian Kaunas (and perhaps Šiauliai) subdialect, or at least of its regiolect. Thus, the Kaunas stimuli should not be regarded as examples of their linguistic homeland.

However, this of course does not mean that the Kaunas youth varieties are unfamiliar to the participants. Residents of these localities are drawn to Kaunas by both its industrial and cultural

²³ Meanings of the stimulus letters and other symbols: Telš – Telšiai stimuli; M – girl, B – boy; (x) – the number indicates the stimulus sequence number.

²⁴ Cf.: Data from Caroline L’Eplattenier-Saugy, who conducted studies based on perceptual dialectology methodology in the French-speaking part of Switzerland, showed that women are less strict in evaluating nonstandard varieties according to both correctness and attractiveness criteria, although the researcher had formulated the opposite hypothesis before the study (see L’Eplattenier-Saugy 2002: 354, 360–361).

²⁵ North of the Nemunas—this is how Rima Bacevičiūtė, Danguolė Mikulėnienė, and Vilija Salienė designate this area when explaining the internal differentiation of the western Aukštaitian Kaunas subdialect (see Bacevičiūtė, Mikulėnienė, Salienė 2005: 82–84).

Straipsniai / Articles

237

DAIVA ALIŪKAITĖ

services. Thus, there is no doubt that Kaunas is not unfamiliar to the young people in the locations discussed. Linguistically, Kaunas is not unfamiliar either. Nevertheless, it cannot be claimed that the participants in this group recognized the speakers in the Kaunas stimuli as young people from Kaunas and that this determined their evaluations.

It should be noted that during the experiment, after evaluating the speakers’ personal characteristics, the participants were given one more task—to indicate which city each speaker was from. Thus, the data from this task provide some clarification of the interpretation. KaunB (12)²⁶ was assigned to the city of Kaunas by 35% of the participants, and to the city of Vilnius by 45%; KaunM (3)—to the city of Kaunas by 38%, and to the city of Vilnius by 44%; KaunM (9)—to the city of Kaunas by 42%, and to the city of Vilnius by 44%; KaunB (6)—to the city of Kaunas by 41%, and to the city of Vilnius by 37%. In other words, the sociolinguistic portrait of the speaker, modeled in one way or another through these characteristics, was not associated exclusively with the city of Kaunas. It seems likely that the main association was more general—that of a large city.

And although the personal characteristics of the speakers in the Kaunas stimuli (as in the case of other regiolectal stimuli) were evaluated less favorably than those of the speakers in the Vilnius-language and standard-language stimuli (see Table 15), this did not prevent the participants from locating representatives of these codes in Vilnius²⁷.

Here it is worth recalling Willy Diercks’s distance (English distance) and actual distance (English actual distance) concepts (see Diercks 2002: 51), denoting real distance, that is, distance in terms of geographical parameters, and distance determined by social, cultural, and stereotypical parameters. Actual distance is manipulated in order to bring representatives of an attractive code closer or move representatives of an unattractive code farther away. Such “constructed” distances reveal attitudes toward one’s own or another evaluated code. In perceptual dialectology, so-called map tasks usually reveal distance and actual distance very effectively (cf. Aliūkaitė 2009: 165–166).

The experimental data from this group show that actual distance is influenced by the idea of the large city, probably as a concrete expression of the typical sociolinguistic opposition city vs. countryside.

Looking at the evaluations by participants in the Kaunas group (Kruonis, Babtai, Vilkija) with regard to the participant’s gender variable, it can be said that no statistically significant differences in attitudes between girls and boys were found when evaluating the speaker in the KaunB (6) text stimulus. For the speakers KaunM (9) and KaunB (12), statistically highly significant differences in attitudes between girls and boys concerned only the speakers’ rhythm. It is necessary

²⁶ The meanings of the stimulus letters and other symbols: Kaun – Kaunas stimuli; M – girl, B – boy; (x) – the number indicates the stimulus sequence number.

²⁷ It may simply be added that representatives of Vilnius speech were also assigned to both large cities in similar proportions; cf.: the speaker VilnB (2) was assigned to Kaunas by 46% of participants and to Vilnius by 48%; VilnM (5)—to Kaunas by 58% and to Vilnius by 32%; VilnB (8)—to Kaunas by 37% and to Vilnius by 46%; VilnM (11)—to Kaunas by 44% and to Vilnius by 44%.

238

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIX

Kalbos variantiškumas paauglių akimis: lyties kintamasis

It can be said that in both cases the speakers were rated more favorably by girls (see Table 16). The gender variable slightly differentiates attitudes toward the KaunM (3) female speaker as well. Girls rate this speaker’s interestingness, intelligence and toughness more favorably.

From the perspective of the gender variable, the participants from Vilnius schools are not especially original. The stimulus speaker VilnB (8)²⁸ was rated without statistically significant differences by both girls and boys. The girls and boys tend to sketch the sociolinguistic profiles of the other three speakers somewhat differently.

The ratings of the personal qualities of the VilnM (4) female speaker stand out most. Girls rate this speaker’s intelligence, pleasantness, interestingness, and reliability more favorably. Girls also rate this speaker more highly on the superiority dimension, in the quality of goal orientation. Another representative of Vilnius speech, the VilnM (6) participant, seems more interesting, self-confident, and tough to the female participants. Boys are more critical of this speaker, giving statistically significantly lower ratings. The experiment results do not support the conclusion that girls are more favorable toward female speakers, since the creator of the VilnB (2) stimulus was also rated more favorably by the participants. To female participants, the representative of this stimulus seems more intelligent and interesting than to male participants (see Tables 17 and 18).

3.2. Sociolinguistic profiles of representatives of Standard Lithuanian and Vilnius speech

The sound files for all groups contained 12 stimuli (8 stimuli for the Vilnius group) to be rated: 4 Standard Lithuanian stimuli and 4 Vilnius speech stimuli.

To summarize the data obtained, it should be said that participants in all groups created attractive sociolinguistic profiles of both representatives of Standard Lithuanian and representatives of Vilnius speech. The ratings given by girls and boys differ significantly (or even very significantly (see Table 19).

It is worth noting that the data obtained—that is, the higher ratings girls gave to the personal qualities of representatives of Standard Lithuanian stimuli—are consistent with the usage tendencies summarized by sociolinguists (cf. Labov’s Principle I).

The ratings given by participants in the Marijampolė group (Kalvarija, Vilkaviškis, Pilviškiai) and the Alytus group (Daugai, Butrimonys, Simnas) stand out most. In experiments on unconscious attitudes, female participants from these groups create particularly positive profiles of representatives of Standard Lithuanian, in terms of qualities belonging to both the social attractiveness and status dimensions. As Table 19 shows, the speaker’s gender is not important to the female participants.

²⁸ Meaning of stimulus letters and other symbols: Viln – Vilnius stimuli; M – girl, B – boy; (x) – the number indicates the stimulus sequence number.

Straipsniai / Articles

239

DAIVA ALIŪKAITĖ

Participants in the other groups (perhaps with the exception of the Telšiai group) show, in essence, no greater favorability than the participants toward the standard-language stimuli of boys. Such differences may indicate girls’ identification with a female speaker. High ratings show that the standard-language code is attachedto (cf. the previously mentioned concept of Diercks’s subjective distance). Thus, a quite logical evaluation model can be reconstructed from the data: girls primarily demonstrate identification with female speakers, rather than male speakers.

Overall, correlating differences between boys’ and girls’ ratings with the speakers’ characteristics, it should be noted that there are statistically significant or highly significant differences in ratings of characteristics in both the solidarity and status dimensions. Most often, girls give speakers higher ratings for the speaker’s reliability and pleasantness (characteristics of the solidarity dimension) and self-confidence and intelligence (characteristics of the status dimension).

The sociolinguistic portrait of a representative of Vilnius speech competes with that of a representative of standard language in some respects. What concerns us is whether this portrait is refined by the gender variable. It should be added that the sociolinguistic portrait of a representative of Vilnius speech created by the Vilnius group participants themselves is, essentially, a portrait of a representative of their linguistic homeland (see Tables 17 and 18), so their rating differences are not considered here.

It should be noted that the gender variable significantly affects the parameters of the sociolinguistic portrait of a representative of Vilnius speech. It can be argued that, in all participant groups, girls’ ratings substantially determine the position of the Vilnius speech stimuli among the stimuli of all varieties. The sociolinguistic portrait of a representative of Vilnius speech sketched by girls, like the portrait of a representative of standard language, is more positive than the one sketched by boys. On the other hand, girls also rated some characteristics of representatives of their linguistic homeland more favorably than boys did (see the previous section of the article). Tentatively, since the sociolinguistic portraits of representatives of the linguistic homeland are quite general, it can be argued that girls generally maintain a distance when making evaluations; they are not as categorical, and their position is more tolerant than that of boys. Returning to the ratings of the Vilnius speech stimuli, it should be noted that girls’ greater favorability toward the stimuli of this variety is associated with the overt prestige factor. It is unlikely that an ordinary member of the speech community clearly distinguishes the Vilnius speech stimuli from the standard-language stimuli²⁹. Thus, the same system of images and prototypes of correct language is at work in the evaluation.

²⁹ The markedness of the Vilnius speech stimuli is subtle; they differ from the standard-language stimuli only in features such as the lengthening of short vowels, the shortening of long vowels in unstressed positions, the monophthongization of the diphthongs ie and uo, retraction of stress, and so on. Cf.: in the VilnM (4) stimulus, [iː] is shortened in 3 of 4 positions; [uː] is shortened in 1 of 1 position; in the VilnM (8) stimulus, [ie] is monophthongized (1 of 1) and so is [uo] (also 1 of 1), and so on.

240

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIX

Kalbos variantiskumas paauglių akimis: lyties kintamasis

The fewest statistically significant or highly significant rating differences occur in the Utena and Šiauliai groups. The greatest favorability toward representatives of the Vilnius speech stimuli is shown by girls in the Alytus and Telšiai groups (see Table 19). It should be recalled that the portrait of a representative of the linguistic homeland sketched by girls in the Alytus group is also more positive than that sketched by boys; thus, such rating differences are likely to reflect girls’ general linguistic awareness and tolerant attitude toward language variation overall.

When differences between boys’ and girls’ ratings are related to speakers’ characteristics, the same trends emerge as in the evaluation of representatives of standard language. There are statistically significant or highly significant differences in ratings of speakers’ characteristics in both the solidarity and status dimensions.

Most often, girls give speakers higher ratings for the speaker’s pleasantness and interestingness (characteristics of the solidarity dimension) and self-confidence and intelligence (characteristics of the status dimension). The study data show that the sociolinguistic portraits of a representative of Vilnius speech created by girls and boys differ least in their ratings of the toughness characteristic.

In conclusion, it should be said that girls’ and boys’ unconscious attitudes toward standard language and Vilnius speech are very similar. It is plausible that the similarity of their evaluations is related to the rather unclear image of standard language among young members of the speech community. In the participants’ system of images, the set of differentiating features of standard language is not firmly established or clearly defined; consequently, similar codes that lack clear regiolectal features are measured against the same available standard-language prototype, which leads to high ratings for the characteristics of representatives of such a variety. The result is very positive sociolinguistic portraits of the speakers.

4. DATA ON CONSCIOUS ATTITUDES AND THE GENDER VARIABLE

The ratings of the dialects show the participants’ conscious attitudes. As might be expected, the data from the conscious-attitudes experiment do not correspond to the unconscious attitudes. Overall, the data from this part of the experiment make it possible to conclude that loyalty to one’s native region is characteristic of the younger generation.

Participants from the city of Vilnius, the Kaunas group, the Alytus group, the Panevėžys group, the Utena group, and the Telšiai group openly declare their allegiance to the varieties of their linguistic homeland. Only participants from the Šiauliai and Marijampolė groups tend to evaluate the Vilnius dialect more favorably (see Table 20). Nevertheless, the data from the conscious-attitudes experiment do not supplement the data from the unconscious-attitudes experiment, which suggested insights into signs of a dialect inferiority complex in the regions.

Straipsniai / Articles

241

DAIVA ALIŪKAITĖ

Overall, the results of the conscious-attitudes experiment reveal that the system of attractive speech prototypes in the regions is multilayered. Two main models that organize perceptions of language variation can be summarized: most attractive variety vs. less attractive vs. even less attractive, and so on.

The first model is as follows: the prototype of the most liked way of speaking is a variety of one’s linguistic kin; less attractive are the standard language and/or the language of large cities; other varieties are ranked according to their actual distance from one’s linguistic kin. This model, with some minor refinements, is characteristic of participants in the Kaunas, Telšiai, and Alytus groups.

The attitudes of participants in the Alytus group are a particularly representative and accurate reflection of this model. First, the variety of one’s linguistic kin is evaluated; standard language and the varieties of large cities occupy second place—a system of perceptions that implies a distinction between private and public domains. The position of the Druskininkai and Varėna dialects in the dialect rankings further reinforces loyalty to one’s native region.

Only the model of perceptions held by participants in the Kaunas group can be refined slightly. It is likely that the concept of perceived distance mentioned above can explain the position of the Marijampolė and Šakiai dialects in the rankings.

For participants in the other groups, the prototype of the most liked way of speaking is heterogeneous; that is, differences in the attractiveness scores for the variety of one’s linguistic kin, the standard language, and the languages of large cities (Kaunas, Vilnius) are not statistically significant, while other varieties are ranked according to their actual distance (more or less) from one’s linguistic kin. Thus, the speech of one’s linguistic kin is not evaluated more favorably than the standard language or the varieties of large cities (especially Vilnius).

This model is characteristic of participants in the Panevėžys, Šiauliai, Utena, and Marijampolė groups. One could argue that, of all the participants, the Marijampolė group is the least loyal to the speech of their linguistic kin, but apparently Vilkaviškis dialect occupies Marijampolė’s place in the system of perceptions of linguistic kin (one of the experiments for this group was conducted in Vilkaviškis).

To summarize the ratings of dialects by the Vilnius participants, when statistically significant differences in scores are taken into account, it should be noted that participants in this group particularly favor the Vilnius dialect; the scores for the standard language, which ranks second, differ statistically significantly.

When the gender variable is included in the review of dialect rankings, numerous differences emerge, unlike in the data from the unconscious-attitudes experiment. It can be argued that examining members of a speech community consisting of only one gender would yield different dialect rankings. This cannot be said only of the participants from Vilnius and, essentially, the Alytus group. The linguistic preferences of girls and boys in the Alytus group diverge only in their evaluation of the Vilnius dialect: girls like it more than boys do. Participants in this group rank the other varieties in the same way.

242

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIX

Kalbos variantiškumas paauglių akimis: lyties kintamasis

The stance of the young Samogitians is also fairly consistent. As shown in Table 20, they had to rank 16 varieties, but including dialects in the lists of varieties to be ranked did not substantially alter the final results. Only the evaluation of the Klaipėda variety differs very significantly (**=p<.01)³⁰. Girls like this variety more than boys do. One might consider whether linguistic or non-linguistic factors are decisive in this evaluation. Klaipėda is one of the major cities; consequently, the more favorable view of the variety may also be related to this factor. The evaluations of Standard Lithuanian also differ significantly (*=p<.05). Girls evaluate Standard Lithuanian more favorably than boys do and assign it higher positions in the ranking. It should be noted that if only boys had participated in the experiment, their top four varieties would perhaps most clearly indicate support for Samogitian identity: the Samogitian dialect, the Telšiai variety, the Plungė variety, the Klaipėda variety. Girls’ conscious attitudes harmonize this distinction: girls place Standard Lithuanian second in the ranking of varieties.

The participants in the Kaunas group unanimously assign the status of most liked variety to the Kaunas variety, but rank the other varieties differently. At the level of conscious attitudes, boys in the Kaunas group express greater favor toward the Vilnius variety than toward Standard Lithuanian. The differences between boys’ and girls’ evaluations are very significant (**=p<.01). The evaluations of other varieties also differ significantly (*=p<.05). Mean evaluations of the Šiauliai, Panevėžys, Šakiai, Marijampolė, and Telšiai varieties show that boys more often than girls assign these varieties higher positions in the ranking of varieties.

At the level of conscious attitudes, the language ideals of boys and girls in the Marijampolė group differ perhaps more than those of any other group. The boys’ top three in the ranking are the Vilkaviškis variety, Standard Lithuanian, the Marijampolė variety, while the girls’ top three are the Vilnius variety, the Kaunas variety, Standard Lithuanian. Statistically highly significant differences (***=p<.001) emerge in the ranking of the Vilnius and Kaunas varieties, as well as the Marijampolė and Vilkaviškis varieties. Girls much more often than boys assign the varieties of major cities a higher rank, whereas boys more often regard the varieties of their linguistic homeland as the most liked. Essentially, this ranking shows that the gender variable determines two different systems of prototypes for expressions deemed most liked.

Similarly, the gender variable differentiates the data on variety rankings in other participant groups as well.

³⁰ The significance of the differences was calculated using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (English: Wilcoxon Signed Pair test). This test checks whether the differences between boys’ and girls’ evaluations are significant or non-significant, providing a basis for discussing differences in attitudes. Several significance levels were selected to differentiate the data: evaluations differ significantly... evaluations differ very significantly, i.e., *=p<.05; **=p<.01; ***=p<.001.

Straipsniai / Articles

243

DAIVA ALIŪKAITĖ

Boys in the Šiauliai and Panevėžys groups express stronger loyalty to varieties of their linguistic homeland. In boys’ evaluations alone, the Šiauliai and Panevėžys varieties would occupy the top positions in the variety ranking; in girls’ evaluations alone, both varieties would be in third place. The ranking data for the Vilnius variety in these groups also differ very significantly (**=p<.01). In the ranking of varieties for these groups, boys’ evaluations would place it second, and girls’ evaluations first. Conscious attitudes toward Standard Lithuanian also correlate with the gender variable. From a sociolinguistic perspective, it is to be expected that girls are more favorable toward this variety.

In the variety ranking, boys in the Šiauliai group assign the Šiauliai variety a higher position than girls do. The differences in evaluation are statistically highly significant (**=p<.01). It may be that this evaluation is related to favor toward regional varieties or greater solidarity with neighboring regions. The city of Panevėžys is stereotyped as a city of non-standard speech, so this shift in boys’ evaluations, expressing loyalty to the code of their own linguistic homeland, is entirely to be expected.

The evaluations of Standard Lithuanian most strongly differentiate the overall ranking of varieties by participants in the Utena group. For girls, Standard Lithuanian is the most liked variety (it is most often assigned the highest ranking positions); in boys’ evaluations, Standard Lithuanian ranks only third among the varieties they like. The differences in evaluation are statistically highly significant (***=p<.001). Boys’ and girls’ attitudes toward the Klaipėda and Šiauliai varieties also differ, but these differences in evaluations should not be considered very important, since both varieties are only in the second group of five in the ranking.

5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

An examination of the data from the experiment on conscious and unconscious attitudes allows several conclusions and observations to be formulated.

Dialect rankings show that the participants’ gender is an important variable determining differences in girls’ and boys’ ratings of the attractiveness of individual varieties and, in some cases, the systems of prototypes for the most attractive forms of expression. A tendency was observed for boys’ dialect rankings to reveal greater loyalty to the linguistic homeland (or regional varieties in general) (data from the Marijampolė, Šiauliai, Utena, Panevėžys, and Telšiai groups), whereas girls’ dialect rankings reveal a more favorable evaluation of the standard language (data from the Utena, Telšiai, Panevėžys, and Marijampolė groups).

The results of the study of unconscious attitudes allow us to conclude generally that regional language varieties are evaluated less favorably than the standard language or Vilnius speech in all participant groups. This conclusion is valid if we assess all four speakers of each variety holistically, as representatives of a particular type of variation, since ratings of individual stimuli disrupt, albeit very slightly, an almost consistent hierarchy of language-variation ratings.

244

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIX

Kalbos variantiškumas paauglių akimis: lyties kintamasis

—representative, since ratings of individual stimuli disrupt, albeit very slightly, an almost consistent hierarchy of language-variation ratings.

It should be noted that gender should not be strongly associated with the three-part distinction (i.e., standard language, Vilnius speech, regional variety) in variation. The data show that gender is not a significant factor in the evaluation of varieties. The statistically significant or highly significant differences in evaluations between boys and girls revealed at the level of unconscious attitudes show that the female participants tend to hold a more favorable position in cases of any kind of variation. When evaluating speakers of all varieties, girls tend to construct more positive sociolinguistic portraits than boys; however, gender differentiates sociolinguistic portraits of linguistic-homeland speakers considerably less often than those of standard-language or Vilnius-speech speakers.

It should be noted that a tendency was observed for girls to identify with female speakers rather than male speakers. These are signs of solidarity with members of their own gender. However, this tendency is very weak.

Kaip pažymėjo Tore Kristiansenas (cit. iš Maegaard 2009: 133), nesąmoningosios nuostatos yra tikros (angl. real), būtent jos turi poveikį kalbos kaitai. Vadinasi, toliau plėtojant Kristianseno įžvalgą, galima teigti, kad nesąmoningosios nuostatos atskleidžia tikrąjį vertintojo veidą. Taigi, sąmoningosios nuostatos atskleidžia parodomąjį vertintojo veidą. Tikrojo ir parodomojo veido skirtis yra labai svarbi, nes tampa nuoroda į vaidmenų sistemą – socialinių, taigi ir kalbinių. Kalbant apie nesąmoningąsias nuostatas buvo pabrėžta, kad kalbinės gimtinės atmainų nepalankūs įverčiai (lyginant su bendrinės kalbos ir Vilniaus kalbos įverčiais) skatina įžvalgas dėl dialekto menkavertiškumo komplekso, ir keltas klausimas, ar tik tokia gali būti atmainų hierarchizavimo priežastis. Taigi ieškant logikos ir sąlyčio taškų tarp nesąmoningųjų ir sąmoningųjų nuostatų, išdėstytinas toks pasvarstymas: ar palankios sąmoningosios nuostatos ir nepalankios nesąmoningosios nuostatos kalbinės gimtinės raiškoms bei palankus bendrinės kalbos ir Vilniaus kalbos vertinimas nesąmoningųjų nuostatų lygmeniu negali būti susiję su viešumo ir privatumo perskyra. Čia svarbu prisiminti pri(si)taikymo teoriją (angl. accommodation theory) (žr. Giles, Coupland, Coupland 1991: 1–68), aiškinančią kalbėtojo elgesį, jo kalbinį (ne)prisitaikymą prie aplinkybių, prie pašnekovo ir pan. Taigi formuluojama įžvalga, kad vartotojai pritaiko ne tik kalbą, bet ir nuostatas.

Manipulating forms of expression, adapting one’s linguistic repertoire, and being able to respond appropriately from a linguistic perspective to a changed situation (as interlocutors, topic, and circumstances change) indicate a speaker’s good sociolinguistic competence³¹; consequently, differences between conscious and unconscious attitudes may indicate not only the actual limited nature of codes—

³¹ Cf. Giedrius Tamaševičius’s observations on journalists’ public speech and their sociolinguistic competence (Tamaševičius 2010: 189–198).

Straipsniai / Articles

245

DAIVA ALIŪKAITĖ

vertiškumą (cf. regional varieties – if we rely on the data from the implicit attitudes experiment) or, conversely, an demonstrative overestimation (cf. if we rely on the data from the explicit attitudes experiment), which arises from ideological, cultural, or similar pressure. Could it be that the discrepancy between implicit and explicit attitudes reflects clearly perceived social roles and the boundaries between privacy vs. publicity? Perhaps young members of the speech community are able to assess whether a way of speaking is appropriate to the situation, and this determines the ratings.

The reasoning is as follows: although in the implicit attitudes experiment the participants were expected only to evaluate the speakers, the content of the stimuli (discussions of what makes a good teacher) “transported” the participants into the public domain, which is instinctively associated, without much deliberation, with the standard language (or a variety that differs very little from the standard language), since people’s experience of public life, primarily in the role of a student, is connected with the standard language. Thus, the point of reference for evaluation is clear. Moreover, the first stimulus also represented the standard language.

The prototype of expression in the public domain, the ideal language, is the standard language (or a variety close to it); therefore, at the level of implicit attitudes, the devaluation of varieties of linguistic homeland seems entirely predictable. Representatives of linguistic homeland speech are rated as unable to adapt to the public domain.

On the other hand, the loyalty to linguistic homeland (and regional varieties in general) that emerged at the level of explicit attitudes in no way indicates that such an attitude must always and everywhere be accompanied by consistent use of a regional variety. It may be assumed that the communicative situation is assessed in each case. This is precisely what happened in the implicit attitudes experiment. When asking which varieties were liked best at the level of explicit attitudes, participants were not asked when, where, and with whom they were appropriate, and so on; therefore, only a model was obtained, which undoubtedly encompasses situations in both the public and private domains—hence it is no coincidence that, in the rankings of speech varieties, the linguistic homeland variety, the standard language, and Vilnius speech appear side by side. The implicit attitudes experiment assessed specific cases. The common topic (what makes a good teacher) could have implied the question: does the code fit the discourse? Consequently, one could not expect ratings of specific situations to correspond to the model.

Thus, although a very clear distinction emerged between the participants’ explicit and implicit attitudes, it is unlikely that the relationship between the conscious and unconscious language ideals is highly conflictual. It seems that members of the younger generation (both girls and boys) readily accept linguistic variation, without considerable deliberate effort, and intuitively sense (and/or know) the social rules governing where and which variety is acceptable; they possess strong sociolinguistic competence. It is precisely this strong sociolinguistic competence that accounts for the differences between explicit and implicit attitudes. Of course, this is a debatable interpretation, but there are arguments in its favor.

246

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIX

Kalbos variantíškumas paauglių akimis: lyties kintamasis

LITERATŪRA

Aliūkaitė Daiva 2007: Tarminis kalbėjimas ir bendrinė kalba: objektyviųjų ir subjektyviųjų skirtumų kultūrinė vertė. Daktaro disertacija [rankraštis]. Vilniaus universitetas.

Aliūkaitė Daiva 2009: Perceptyviniai dialektų tyrimai: mentalinis žemėlapis. – Respectus Philologicus 15(20), 164–179.

Aliūkaitė Daiva 2011: Jaunųjų žemaičių raiškos idealai: sąmoningosios nuostatos. – Respectus Philologicus 20(25), 209–220.

Aliūkaitė Daiva 2013: Horizontalusis ir vertikalusis kalbos kontinuumo skaidumas: XXI amžiaus kalbėjimo variantai paprastojo kalbos vertintojo požiūriu. – Taikomoji kalbotyra 2, 1–22.

Aliūkaitė Daiva, Merkytė-Švarcienė Erika 2012: Bendrinės kalbos regionai jaunųjų lietuvių kalbos bendruomenės narių požiūriu: kompetencija ir vaizdiniai. – Kalbos kultūra 85, 155–177.

Bacevičiūtė Rima, Ivanauskienė Audra, Leskauskaitė Asta, Trumpa Edmundas, sud., 2004: Lietuvių kalbos tarmių chrestomatija. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla.

Campbell-Kibler Kathryn 2013: Language Attitude Surveys: Speaker Evaluation Studies. – Data Collection in Sociolinguistics: Methods and Applications, ed. by Christine Mallinson, Becky Childs, Gerard Van Herk. London, New York: Routledge, 142–146.

Cheshire Jenny 2002: Sex and Gender in Variationist Research. – The Handbook of Language Variation and Change, ed. by Jack K. Chambers, Peter Trudgill, Natalie Schilling-Estes. Oxford: Blackwell, 423–443.

Clopper Cynthia 2013: Experiments. – Data Collection in Sociolinguistics: Methods and Applications, ed. by Christine Mallinson, Becky Childs, Gerard Van Herk. London, New York: Routledge, 151–161.

Čekuolytė Aurelia 2010: Jaunimo požiūris į angliškus žodžius suaugusiųjų kalboje. – Kalbos kultūra 83, 322–341.

Čičirkaitė Ramunė, Vaicekauskienė Loreta 2011: Vilniaus klausimas bendrinės lietuvių kalbos sampratose: metalingvistinių vilniečių komentarų tyrimas. – Darbai ir dienos 56, 57–76.

Daan Jo C. 1999: Dialects. – Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology 1, ed. by Dennis R. Preston. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 9–30.

Diercks Willy 2002: Mental Maps. Linguistic-Geographic Concepts. – Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology 2, ed. by Daniel Long, Dennis R. Preston. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 51–70.

Straipsniai / Articles

247

DAIVA ALIŪKAITĖ

Drager Katie 2013: Experimental Methods in Sociolinguistics: Matched Guise and Identification tasks. – Research Methods in Sociolinguistics: A Practical Guide, ed. by Janet Holmes, Kirk Hazen. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.

Eckert Penelope 1989: The Whole Woman: Sex and Gender Differences in Variation. – Language Variation and Change 1(3), 245–267.

Esling John H. 1998: Everyone Has an Accent Except Me. – Language Myths, ed. by Laurie Bauer, Peter Trudgill. London: Penguin Books, 169–175.

Evans Betsy E. 2002: Attitudes of Montreal Students towards Varieties of French. – Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology 2, ed. by Daniel Long, Dennis R. Preston. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 71–93.

Fischer John L. 1964 (¹1958): Social Influences on the Choice of a Linguistic Variant. Reprinted – Language in Culture and Society, ed. by Dell Hymes. New York: Harper and Row, 483–489.

Giles Howard, Billings Andrew C. 2004: Assessing Language Attitudes: Speaker Evaluation Studies. – The Handbook of Applied Linguistics, ed. by Alan Davies and Catherine Elder. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 187–209.

Giles Howard, Coupland Nikolas, Coupland Justine 1991: Accommodation theory: Communication, Context and Consequence. – Contexts of Accommodation: Developments in Applied sociolinguistics, ed. by Howard Giles, Nikolas Coupland, Justine Coupland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–68.

Gudavičienė Eglė 2010: Sociolingvistinis Vilniaus miesto paveikslas. – Miestai ir kalbos, red. Meilutė Ramonienė. Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla, 207–229.

Hernández-Campoy Juan Manuel 1999: Paradigmatic Complementariness in Variation Studies. – Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 12, 75–89.

Hoppenbrouwers Cor 1983: Het genus in een Brabants regiolect. – TABU, Bulletin voor Nederlandse Taalkunde 13, 1–25.

Inoue Fumio 1999a: Classification of Dialects by Image: English and Japanese. – Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology 1, ed. by Dennis R. Preston. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 147–160.

Inoue Fumio 1999b: Subjective Dialect Division in Great Britain. – Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology 1, ed. by Dennis R. Preston. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 161–176.

Kalėdienė Laima 2010: Lietuvybės perspektyva Lietuvos miestuose. – Miestai ir kalbos, red. Meilutė Ramonienė. Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla, 71–89.

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

248

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIX

Kalbos variantiškumas paauglių akimis: lyties kintamasis

Kliukienė Regina 2010: Tarmės mieste: mokėjimas, vartojimas ir kalbinės nuostatos. – Miestai ir kalbos, red. Meilutė Ramonienė. Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla, 91–105.

Kremer Ludger 1999: The Netherlands-German National Border as a Subjective Dialect Boundary. – Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology 1, ed. by Dennis R. Preston. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 31–36.

Kristiansen Tore 2009: The Macro-level Social Meanings of Late-modern Danish Accents. – Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 41: 1, 167–192.

Kristiansen Tore 2010: Investigating Language in Space: Experimental Techniques. – Language and Space. An International Handbook of Linguistic Variation. Volume 1: Theories and Methods. HSK Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft, ed. by Peter Auer, Jürgen Erich Schmidt. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter, 528–549.

Kristiansen Tore 2011: Attitudes, Ideology and awareness. – The SAGE handbook of sociolinguistics, ed. by Ruth Wodak, Barbara Johnstone, Paul Kerswill. London: SAGE Publications, 265–279.

Kvašytė Regina 2005: Lietuvių ir latvių tarmės: terminija ir žodynai. – Baltų kalbų tarmės: rašytinis palikimas, ats. red. Regina Kvašytė, Anna Stafecka. Šiauliai: Discens, 112–123.

L’Eplattenier-Saugy Caroline 2002: A Perceptual Dialect Study of French in Switzerland. – Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology 2, ed. by Daniel Long, Dennis R. Preston. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 351–365.

Labov William 1969: Contraction, Deletion, and Inherent Variability of the English Copula. – Language 45(4), 715–762.

Labov William 1972: Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Labov William 2004: Quantitative Analysis of Linguistic Variation / Quantitative Analyse sprachlicher Variation. – Sociolinguistics/ Soziolinguistik. An international handbook of the science of language and society 1, ed. by Klaus Matthheier, Ulrich Ammon, Peter Trudgill. Berlin: De Gruyter, 6–21.

Labov William 2006 (¹1966): The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Long Daniel 1999: Geographical Perception of Japanese Dialect Regions. – Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology 1, ed. by Dennis R. Preston. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 177–198.

Maegaard Marie 2005: Language Attitudes, Norm and Gender. A Presentation of the Method and Results from a Language Attitude Study. – Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 37, 55–80.

Straipsniai / Articles

249

DAIVA ALIŪKAITĖ

Maegaard Marie 2009: How many Standards? Investigating ‘The Double Standard Model’ in the Light of Evaluative Patterns from a Young Urban Community. – Language Attitudes, Standardization and Language Change, ed. by Marie Maegaard, Frans Gregersen, Pia Quist, J. Normann Jørgensen. Oslo: Novus, 131–147.

Mesthrie Rajend 2001: Sociolinguistic Variation. – Concise Encyclopedia of Sociolinguistics, ed. by Rajend Mesthrie. Oxford: Elsevier Science, 377–389.

Mesthrie Rajend 2003: Social Dialectology. – Rajend Mesthrie, Joan Swann, Ana Deumert, William L. Leap Introducing Sociolinguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 76–113.

Mikulėnienė Danguolė, Bacevičiūtė Rima, Salienė Vilija, sud., 2005: Vakarų aukštaičiai kauniškiai ir Klaipėdos krašto aukštaičiai. Tarmės mokyklai. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

Mikulėnienė Danguolė 2012: XXI a. pradžios Lietuvos situacija: tarmės transformacija. Geolingvistikos ir sociolingvistikos polilogas XXI amžiuje. Konferencijos tezės. 2012 m. gruodžio 6–7 d., Kaunas 2012, Vilniaus universiteto Kauno humanitarinis fakultetas, 6–7.

Murray Stephen O. 1998: American Sociolinguistics: Theorists and Theory Groups. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Obiols Solís M. 2002: The Matched Guise Technique: a Critical Approximation to a Classic Test for Formal Measurement of Language Attitudes. – Noves SL. Revista de sociolingüística, 1–6.

Preston Dennis R. 1989: Perceptual Dialectology: Nonlinguists’ Views of Areal Linguistics. Dordrecht: Foris, 51–70.

Preston Dennis R. 1999a: Introduction. – Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology 1, ed. by Dennis R. Preston. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, xxiii–xl.

Preston Dennis R. 1999b: A Language Attitude Approach to the Perception of Regional Variety. – Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology 1, ed. by Dennis R. Preston. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 359–373.

Preston Dennis R. 2002: Perceptual Dialectology: Aims, Methods, Findings. – Present-day Dialectology. Problems and Findings, ed. by Johannes Bernardus Berns, Jaap van Marle. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 57–104.

Rensink W. G. 1999: Informant Clasification of Dialects. – Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology 1, ed. by Dennis R. Preston. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 3–7.

Romaine Suzanne 2003: Variation in Language and Gender. – The Handbook of Language and Gender, ed. by Janet Holmes, Miriam Meyerhoff. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

250

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIX

Kalbos variantiškumas paauglių akimis: lyties kintamasis

Swann Joan 2003: Gender and language use. – Rajend Mesthrie, Joan Swann, Ana Deumert, William L. Leap Introducing Sociolinguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 216–247.

Tagliamonte Sali A. 2012: Variationist Sociolinguistics: Change, Observation, Interpretation. Malden: Blackwell.

Tamaševičius Gierius 2010: „Bloga“ kalba ir sociolingvistinė kompetencija. – Darbai ir dienos 54, 189–198.

Vaicekauskienė Loreta, Sausverde Erika 2012: Lietuvos tarmių rezervatas: socialiniai ir geografiniai tarmės mobilumo ribojimai tiesioginių tyrimų duomenimis. – Taikomoji kalbotyra 1, 1–27.

Wray Alison, Trott Kate, Bloomer Aileen, Reay Shirley, Butler Chris 2005: Projects in Linguistics. A Practical Guide to Researching Language. London: Replika Press Pvt.

PRIEDAS

1 LENTELĖ. Sociolingvistinio portreto dimensijos: savybių matrica³²

Statusas Solidarumas Viršenybė Patrauklumas ir dinamizmas siekiantis tikslo … neapsisprendęs – + + – patikimas … nepatikimas – + + – rimtas … lengvabūdis + – + – įdomus … nuobodus – + – + pasitikintis savimi … nepasitikintis savimi + – – + protingas … kvailas + – + – malonus … nemalonus – + – + kietas … nevykėlis + – – +

³² Savybių matrica parengta remiantis Kristiansen 2009: 187–189, Kristiansen 2010: 545, Kristiansen 2011: 267, Maegaard 2005: 67–69.

Straipsniai / Articles

251

DAIVA ALIŪKAITĖ

2 LENTELĖ. Šnektų reitingo eksperimento šnektų sąrašai

Vilniaus miesto | Kauno grupės | Marijampolės grupės | Šiaulių grupės | Alytaus grupės | Panevėžio grupės | Utenos grupės | Telšių grupės; Bendrinė kalba | Bendrinė kalba | Bendrinė kalba | Bendrinė kalba | Bendrinė kalba | Bendrinė kalba | Bendrinė kalba | Bendrinė kalba; Didesnių šnečių: Vilniaus šnekta | Vilniaus šnekta | Vilniaus šnekta | Vilniaus šnekta | Vilniaus šnekta | Vilniaus šnekta | Vilniaus šnekta | Vilniaus šnekta; Kauno šnekta | Kauno šnekta | Kauno šnekta | Kauno šnekta | Kauno šnekta | Kauno šnekta | Kauno šnekta | Kauno šnekta; Klaipėdos šnekta | Klaipėdos šnekta | Klaipėdos šnekta | Klaipėdos šnekta | Klaipėdos šnekta | Klaipėdos šnekta | Klaipėdos šnekta | Klaipėdos šnekta; Regionų centrų: Telšių šnekta | Telšių šnekta | Telšių šnekta | Telšių šnekta | Telšių šnekta | Telšių šnekta | Telšių šnekta | Telšių šnekta; Šiaulių šnekta | Šiaulių šnekta | Šiaulių šnekta | Šiaulių šnekta | Šiaulių šnekta | Šiaulių šnekta | Šiaulių šnekta | Šiaulių šnekta; Alytaus šnekta | Alytaus šnekta | Alytaus šnekta | Alytaus šnekta | Alytaus šnekta | Alytaus šnekta | Alytaus šnekta | Alytaus šnekta; Panevėžio šnekta | Panevėžio šnekta | Panevėžio šnekta | Panevėžio šnekta | Panevėžio šnekta | Panevėžio šnekta | Panevėžio šnekta | Panevėžio šnekta; Marijampolės šnekta | Marijampolės šnekta | Marijampolės šnekta | Marijampolės šnekta | Marijampolės šnekta | Marijampolės šnekta | Marijampolės šnekta | Marijampolės šnekta; Utenos šnekta | Utenos šnekta | Utenos šnekta | Utenos šnekta | Utenos šnekta | Utenos šnekta | Utenos šnekta | Utenos šnekta; Artimos kalbinės aplinkos: Jonavos šnekta | Vilkaviškio šnekta | Joniškio šnekta | Varėnos šnekta | Pasvalio šnekta | Ignalinos šnekta | Plungės šnekta; Šakių šnekta | Šakių šnekta | Pakruojo šnekta | Druskininkų šnekta | Kupiškio šnekta | Anykščių šnekta | Kretingos šnekta; Tarmės: Aukštaičių | Žemaičių | Suvalkiečių | Dzūkų

252

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIX

Kalbos variantiškumas paauglių akimis: lyties kintamasis

³ LENTELĖ. Marijampolės grupės tiriamųjų regiolektinės raiškos atstovo sociolingvistinis portretas³³

Siekiantis tikslo (1) – neapsisprendęs (7) (N³⁴=203)

MarM (3)

MarB (6)

MarB (12)

MarM (9)

7,04

7,48

8,43

8,79

Patikimas (1) – nepatikimas (7) (N=202)

MarM (3)

MarB (6)

MarB (12)

MarM (9)

6,69

7,56

8,11

8,75

Rimtas (1) – lengvabūdis (7) (N=203)

MarM (3)

MarB (12)

MarB (6)

MarM (9)

7,29

7,84

7,90

8,19

Įdomus (1) – nuobodus (7) (N=202)

MarM (3)

MarB (6)

MarB (12)

MarM (9)

6,51

7,03

8,23

9,54

Pasitikintis savimi (1) – nepasitikintis (7) (N=189)

MarB (6)

MarM (3)

MarM (9)

MarB (12)

6,85

7,29

9,20

9,29

Protingas (1) – kvailas (7) (N=199)

MarM (3)

MarB (12)

MarB (6)

MarM (9)

6,68

8,34

8,38

8,77

Malonus (1) – nemalonus (7) (N=198)

MarM (3)

MarB (6)

MarB (12)

MarM (9)

6,88

7,56

8,36

9,21

Kietas (1) – nevykėlis (7) (N=203)

MarB (6)

MarM (3)

MarB (12)

MarM (9)

6,44

7,42

7,98

9,18

³³ Lentelėje pateikiami vidutiniai rangai. Kalbėtojai išrūšiuoti pagal vidutinį rangą, jų reikšmių mažėjimo tvarka. Mažesnis vidutinis rangas reiškia, kad kalbėtojui dažniau linkta priskirti semantinio diferencialo poros kairėje pusėje esančią pozityviąją savybę (pavyzdžiui, siekiantis tikslo, patikimas, rimtas ir t. t.). Pažymėtina, kad ir kitų grupių duomenys lentelėse aiškintini taip pat.

³⁴ N – grupės tiriamųjų skaičius. Pažymėtina, kad ir kitų grupių duomenis pateikiančiose lentelėse N žymi tiriamųjų skaičių.

Straipsniai / Articles

253

DAIVA ALIŪKAITĖ

4 L E N T E L Ė. Marijampolės grupės mergaičių ir berniukų vertinimo skirtumai³⁵

Siek. tikslo

Pati-kimas

Rimtas

Įdomus

Pasit. savimi

Pro-tingas

Ma-lonus

Kietas

MarM (3)

chi²

0,080

0,151

0,000

0,147

0,434

0,393

0,011

0,189

p=

0,777

0,697

0,998

0,701

0,510

0,531

0,918

0,664

Berniukų ir mergaičių vertinimo skirtumų nėra

MarM (9)

chi²

1,328

0,028

0,277

1,413

0,247

0,054

0,012

0,100

p=

0,249

0,867

0,598

0,235

0,619

0,816

0,914

0,752

Berniukų ir mergaičių vertinimo skirtumų nėra

MarB (6)

chi²

0,000

2,326

1,768

0,247

0,916

1,579

5,994

0,138

p=

0,984

0,127

0,184

0,619

0,339

0,209

0,014

0,710

*(m>b)

MarB (12)

chi²

0,337

0,000

0,081

0,044

0,198

1,844

3,420

0,089

p=

0,561

0,993

0,776

0,834

0,656

0,174

0,064

0,765

Berniukų ir mergaičių vertinimo skirtumų nėra

Kruskal-Wallis testas: * =p<.05, ** =p<.01, *** =p<.001

5 L E N T E L Ė. Šiaulių grupės tiriamųjų regiolektinės raiškos atstovo sociolingvistinis portretas

Siekiantis tikslo (1) – neapsisprendęs (7) (N=190)

ŠiaulB (6)

ŠiaulB (12)

ŠiaulM (9)

ŠiaulM (3)

6,35

7,03

7,56

8,08

Patikimas (1) – nepatikimas (7) (N=188)

ŠiaulB (6)

ŠiaulB (12)

ŠiaulM (9)

ŠiaulM (3)

6,41

7,17

7,38

7,65

Rimtas (1) – lengvabūdis (7) (N=188)

ŠiaulB (6)

ŠiaulM (3)

ŠiaulB (12)

ŠiaulM (9)

6,12

7,27

7,66

7,95

³⁵ Skirtumo tarp tiriamųjų grupių (berniukų ir mergaičių) vertinimo reikšmingumas patikrintas Kruskalo ir Voliso (angl. Kruskal-Wallis) testu. Chi kvadrato skaičiaus didėjimas rodo skirtumo tarp tiriamųjų grupių vertinimo didėjimą. Duomenims diferencijuoti pasirinkti keli reikšmingumo lygmenys: vertinimai reikšmingai skiriasi... vertinimai labai reikšmingai skiriasi, t. y. *=p<.05; **=p<.01; ***=p<.001. Pažymėtina, kad ir kitų grupių duomenys lentelėse aiškintini taip pat.

254

A c t a L i n g u i s t i c a L i t h u a n i c a L X I X

Kalbos variantiškumas paauglių akimis: lyties kintamasis

Įdomus (1) – nuobodus (7) (N=189)

ŠiaulB (12) ŠiaulM (3) ŠiaulB (6) ŠiaulM (9)

6,52 6,71 6,82 8,00

Pasitikintis savimi (1) – nepasitikintis (7) (N=186)

ŠiaulB (6) ŠiaulB (12) ŠiaulM (9) ŠiaulM (3)

6,42 7,26 7,63 8,10

Protingas (1) – kvailas (7) (N=191)

ŠiaulB (6) ŠiaulM (9) ŠiaulM (3) ŠiaulB (12)

6,37 7,85 7,86 8,05

Malonus (1) – nemalonus (7) (N=190)

ŠiaulB (6) ŠiaulB (12) ŠiaulM (9) ŠiaulM (3)

6,89 7,28 7,52 8,23

Kietas (1) – nevykėlis (7) (N=190)

ŠiaulB (6) ŠiaulM (3) ŠiaulB (12) ŠiaulM (9)

6,04 6,80 6,96 7,37

6 LENTELĖ. Šiaulių grupės mergaičių ir berniukų vertinimo skirtumai

Siek. tikslo Pati-kimas Rimtas Įdomus Pasit. savimi Pro-tingas Ma-lonus Kietas

ŠiaulM (3) chi² 0,660 1,36 4,551 2,012 1,18 0,338 0,178 0,224

p= 0,416 0,243 0,033 0,156 0,277 0,561 0,673 0,636

*(b>m)

ŠiaulM (9) chi² 1,101 0,921 0,299 1,481 0,648 0,211 0,644 0,87

p= 0,294 0,337 0,585 0,224 0,421 0,646 0,422 0,351

Berniukų ir mergaičių vertinimo skirtumų nėra

ŠiaulB (6) chi² 2,099 2,233 0,226 3,381 0,943 2,672 1,936 0,653

p= 0,147 0,135 0,634 0,066 0,331 0,102 0,164 0,419

Berniukų ir mergaičių vertinimo skirtumų nėra

ŠiaulB (12) chi² 1,085 0,434 4,094 0,016 1,729 0,267 0,399 0,000

p= 0,298 0,510 0,043 0,899 0,188 0,605 0,527 0,988

*(b>m)

Kruskal–Wallis testas: *=p<.05, **=p<.01, ***=p<.001

Straipsniai / Articles

255

DAIVA ALIŪKAITĖ

7 LENTELĖ. Alytaus grupės tiriamųjų regiolektinės raiškos atstovo sociolingvistinis portretas

Siekiantis tikslo (1) – neapsisprendęs (7) (N=163) AlB (12) | AlB (6) | AlM (9) | AlM (3) 7,06 | 7,50 | 7,70 | 8,16 Patikimas (1) – nepatikimas (7) (N=161) AlM (9) | AlB (12) | AlM (3) | AlB (6) 7,53 | 7,53 | 7,63 | 7,73 Rimtas (1) – lengvabūdis (7) (N=159) AlB (12) | AlB (6) | AlM (3) | AlM (9) 6,44 | 7,45 | 8,01 | 8,07 Įdomus (1) – nuobodus (7) (N=163) AlB (6) | AlB (12) | AlM (3) | AlM (9) 6,85 | 7,13 | 7,73 | 8,10 Pasitikintis savimi (1) – nepasitikintis (7) (N=155) AlB (6) | AlB (12) | AlM (3) | AlM (9) 6,82 | 7,25 | 8,54 | 8,57 Protingas (1) – kvailas (7) (N=162) AlB (12) | AlB (6) | AlM (3) | AlM (9) 7,14 | 7,44 | 7,71 | 8,09 Malonus (1) – nemalonus (7) (N=164) AlM (3) | AlB (6) | AlB (12) | AlM (9) 7,02 | 7,17 | 7,65 | 7,84 Kietas (1) – nevykėlis (7) (N=162) AlB (6) | AlB (12) | AlM (3) | AlM (9) 6,16 | 6,57 | 7,71 | 8,11

8 LENTELĖ. Alytaus grupės mergaičių ir berniukų vertinimo skirtumai

Siek. tikslo | Pati-kimas | Rimtas | Įdomus | Pasit. savimi | Protingas | Malonus | Kietas AlM (3) | chi² | 1,304 | 0,728 | 9,623 | 0,611 | 8,349 | 4,656 | 3,929 | 3,2 AlM (3) | p= | 0,254 | 0,394 | 0,002 | 0,434 | 0,004 | 0,031 | 0,047 | 0,074 AlM (3) | **(m>b) | **(m>b) | *(m>b) | *(m>b) AlM (9) | chi² | 1,616 | 3,87 | 7,596 | 4,036 | 3,164 | 5,383 | 10,663 | 1,723 AlM (9) | p= | 0,204 | 0,049 | 0,006 | 0,045 | 0,075 | 0,020 | 0,001 | 0,189 AlM (9) | *(m>b) | **(m>b) | *(m>b) | *(m>b) | **(m>b)

256

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIX

Kalbos variantiškumas paauglių akimis: lyties kintamasis

Siek. tikslo | Pati-kimas | Rimtas | Įdomus | Pasit. savimi | Protingas | Malonus | Kietas AlB (6) | chi² | 4,725 | 5,234 | 1,026 | 2,653 | 9,926 | 18,65 | 8,734 | 6,502 p= | 0,030 | 0,022 | 0,311 | 0,103 | 0,002 | 0,000 | 0,003 | 0,011 *(m>b) | *(m>b) | **(m>b) | ***(m>b) | **(m>b) | *(m>b) AlB (12) | chi² | 0,437 | 4,762 | 4,246 | 2,553 | 10,495 | 5,875 | 15,044 | 5,784 p= | 0,509 | 0,029 | 0,039 | 0,110 | 0,001 | 0,015 | 0,000 | 0,016 *(m>b) | *(m>b) | **(m>b) | *(m>b) | ***(m>b) | *(m>b) Kruskal-Wallis testas: * =p<.05, ** =p<.01, ***=p<.001

9 LENTELĖ. Panevėžio grupės tiriamųjų regiolektinės raiškos atstovo sociolingvistinis portretas

Siekiantis tikslo (1) – neapsisprendęs (7) (N=162) PanM (3) | PanB (6) | PanM (9) | PanB (12) 6,40 | 6,74 | 7,84 | 8,14 Patikimas (1) – nepatikimas (7) (N=161) PanB (6) | PanM (3) | PanB (12) | PanM (9) 6,63 | 6,66 | 7,83 | 8,05 Rimtas (1) – lengvabūdis (7) (N=163) PanM (3) | PanB (6) | PanB (12) | PanM (9) 6,28 | 6,55 | 7,87 | 8,74 Įdomus (1) – nuobodus (7) (N=162) PanB (6) | PanM (3) | PanB (12) | PanM (9) 6,47 | 6,64 | 7,13 | 7,52 Pasitikintis savimi (1) – nepasitikintis (7) (N=154) PanM (3) | PanB (6) | PanM (9) | PanB (12) 5,90 | 6,48 | 6,98 | 7,40 Protingas (1) – kvailas (7) (N=158) PanM (3) | PanB (6) | PanM (9) | PanB (12) 6,01 | 6,81 | 7,93 | 8,34 Malonus (1) – nemalonus (7) (N=162) PanM (3) | PanB (6) | PanB (12) | PanM (9) 5,88 | 7,01 | 8,05 | 8,19 Kietas (1) – nevykėlis (7) (N=161) PanB (6) | PanB (12) | PanM (3) | PanM (9) 6,18 | 6,40 | 6,51 | 7,14

Straipsniai / Articles

257

DAIVA ALIŪKAITĖ

10 LENTELĖ. Panevėžio grupės mergaičių ir berniukų vertinimo skirtumai

Siek. tikslo Patikimas Rimtas Įdomus Pasit. savimi Protin-gas Malo-nus Kietas PanM (3) chi² 0,107 3,995 0,404 2,098 1,042 6,725 2,012 0,789 p= 0,743 0,046 0,525 0,147 0,307 0,010 0,156 0,374 *(m>b) *(m>b) PanM (9) chi² 1,098 0,81 0,964 0,505 2,296 0,025 0,413 1,122 p= 0,295 0,368 0,326 0,477 0,130 0,875 0,521 0,289 Mergaičių ir berniukų vertinimo skirtumų nėra PanB (6) chi² 0,034 0,862 0,058 3,458 4,439 2,166 0,531 0,057 p= 0,853 0,353 0,810 0,063 0,035 0,141 0,466 0,811 *(m>b) PanB (12) chi² 1,061 5,538 1,825 1,429 1,656 0,723 0,064 2,858 p= 0,303 0,019 0,177 0,232 0,198 0,395 0,801 0,091 *(b>m) Kruskal-Wallis testas: *=p<.05, **=p<.01, ***=p<.001

11 LENTELĖ. Utenos grupės tiriamųjų regiolektinės raiškos atstovo sociolingvistinis portretas

Siekiantis tikslo (1) – neapsisprendęs (7) (N=120) UtM (3) UtB (6) UtB (12) UtM (9) 6,52 7,83 8,18 8,21 Patikimas (1) – nepatikimas (7) (N=118) UtM (3) UtB (6) UtB (12) UtM (9) 6,86 7,19 8,08 8,34 Rimtas (1) – lengvabūdis (7) (N=119) UtM (3) UtB (6) UtB (12) UtM (9) 6,63 7,59 8,01 8,48 Įdomus (1) – nuobodus (7) (N=116) UtB (6) UtM (3) UtB (12) UtM (9) 6,94 7,54 7,81 8,99

258

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIX

Kalbos variant iškumas paauglių akimis: lyties kintamasis

Pasitikintis savimi (1) – nepasitikintis (7) (N=114) UtM (3) | UtB (6) | UtB (12) | UtM (9) 6,54 | 7,29 | 8,11 | 9,42 Protingas (1) – kvailas (7) (N=116) UtM (3) | UtB (6) | UtB (12) | UtM (9) 6,91 | 7,57 | 8,65 | 9,32 Malonus (1) – nemalonus (7) (N=119) UtM (3) | UtB (6) | UtB (12) | UtM (9) 7,37 | 7,4 | 7,75 | 8,79 Kietas (1) – nevykėlis (7) (N=119) UtM (3) | UtB (6) | UtB (12) | UtM (9) 7,36 | 7,47 | 7,79 | 9,06

12 LENTELĖ. Utenos grupės mergaičių ir berniukų vertinimo skirtumai

Siek. tikslo | Patiki-mas | Rimtas | Įdomus | Pasit. savimi | Pro-tingas | Ma-lonus | Kietas UtM (3) | chi² | 0,030 | 2,186 | 4,416 | 2,172 | 1,339 | 2,24 | 5,194 | 11,412 p= | 0,863 | 0,139 | 0,036 | 0,141 | 0,247 | 0,135 | 0,023 | 0,001 | | | | *(m>b) | | | *(m>b) | **(m>b) UtM (9) | chi² | 0,142 | 0,004 | 1,677 | 0,046 | 0,260 | 0,182 | 1,008 | 0,734 p= | 0,706 | 0,947 | 0,195 | 0,831 | 0,610 | 0,669 | 0,315 | 0,392 Berniukų ir mergaičių vertinimo skirtumų nėra UtB (6) | chi² | 0,828 | 0,679 | 0,037 | 0,016 | 0,472 | 1,767 | 1,829 | 1,104 p= | 0,363 | 0,410 | 0,847 | 0,898 | 0,492 | 0,184 | 0,176 | 0,293 Berniukų ir mergaičių vertinimo skirtumų nėra UtB (12) | chi² | 0,232 | 1,140 | 0,746 | 2,090 | 0,362 | 1,162 | 1,055 | 0,791 p= | 0,630 | 0,286 | 0,388 | 0,148 | 0,547 | 0,281 | 0,304 | 0,374 Berniukų ir mergaičių vertinimo skirtumų nėra

Kruskal-Wallis testas: *=p<.05, **=p<.01, ***=p<.001

Straipsniai / Articles

259

DAIVA ALIŪKAITĖ

13 LENTELĖ. Telšių grupės tiriamųjų regiolektinės raiškos atstovo sociolingvistinis portretas

Siekiantis tikslo (1) – neapsisprendęs (7) (N=170) TelšB (12) TelšB (6) TelšM (3) TelšM (9) 6,31 7,58 7,92 8,11 Patikimas (1) – nepatikimas (7) (N=168) TelšB (12) TelšB (6) TelšM (3) TelšM (9) 6,59 7,42 7,81 8,13 Rimtas (1) – lengvabūdis (7) (N=173) TelšB (12) TelšB (6) TelšM (3) TelšM (9) 6,56 7,48 8,10 8,51 Įdomus (1) – nuobodus (7) (N=170) TelšB (12) TelšB (6) TelšM (9) TelšM (3) 5,14 7,32 7,92 8,22 Pasitikintis savimi (1) – nepasitikintis (7) (N=163) TelšB (12) TelšB (6) TelšM (3) TelšM (9) 5,36 7,31 7,95 8,65 Protingas (1) – kvailas (7) (N=174) TelšB (12) TelšB (6) TelšM (3) TelšM (9) 6,97 7,42 8,18 8,49 Malonus (1) – nemalonus (7) (N=172) TelšB (12) TelšB (6) TelšM (3) TelšM (9) 6,91 7,73 7,79 8,31 Kietas (1) – nevykėlis (7) (N=168) TelšB (12) TelšB (6) TelšM (9) TelšM (3) 4,51 6,43 8,08 8,57

14 LENTELĖ. Telšių grupės mergaičių ir berniukų vertinimo skirtumai

Siek. tikslo Pati-kimas Rimtas Įdomus Pasit. savimi Pro-tingas Malonus Kietas TelšM (3) chi² 0,001 3,185 5,517 1,834 2,438 0,32 1,52 0,291 p = 0,982 0,074 0,019 0,176 0,118 0,572 0,218 0,589 *(m>b) TelšM (9) chi² 0,547 2,340 1,016 2,396 0,532 1,022 2,218 1,701 p = 0,460 0,126 0,313 0,122 0,466 0,312 0,136 0,192 Berniukų ir mergaičių vertinimo skirtumų nėra

260

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIX

Kalbos variant iškumas paauglių akimis: lyties kintamasis

Siek. tikslo | Pati-kimas | Rimtas | Įdomus | Pasit. savimi | Pro-tingas | Malonus | Kietas TelšB (6) | chi² | 0,127 | 1,600 | 0,352 | 1,227 | 5,646 | 0,170 | 3,600 | 0,87 p= | 0,722 | 0,206 | 0,553 | 0,268 | 0,017 | 0,680 | 0,058 | 0,351 *(m>b) TelšB (12) | chi² | 2,548 | 3,081 | 1,843 | 0,004 | 0,533 | 0,329 | 0,455 | 0,377 p= | 0,110 | 0,079 | 0,175 | 0,947 | 0,465 | 0,566 | 0,500 | 0,539 Berniukų ir mergaičių vertinimo skirtumų nėra Kruskal-Wallis testas: *=p<.05, **=p<.01, ***=p<.001

15 LENTELĖ. Kauno grupės tiriamųjų Kauno jaunimo atmainos atstovo sociolingvistinis portretas

Siekiantis tikslo (1) – neapsisprendęs (7) (N=189) KaunM (3) | KaunB (12) | KaunM (9) | KaunB (6) 6,02 | 6,81 | 7,67 | 7,76 Patikimas (1) – nepatikimas (7) (N=187) KaunM (3) | KaunB (12) | KaunB (6) | KaunM (9) 6,37 | 6,96 | 7,53 | 7,55 Rimtas (1) – lengvabūdis (7) (N=186) KaunB (12) | KaunM (3) | KaunM (9) | KaunB (6) 5,80 | 6,73 | 7,10 | 7,26 Įdomus (1) – nuobodus (7) (N=182) KaunM (3) | KaunB (12) | KaunM (9) | KaunB (6) 6,03 | 7,16 | 7,36 | 7,57 Pasitikintis savimi (1) – nepasitikintis (7) (N=182) KaunM (3) | KaunB (12) | KaunM (9) | KaunB (6) 6,46 | 6,93 | 7,46 | 7,52 Protingas (1) – kvailas (7) (N=184) KaunM (3) | KaunB (12) | KaunM (9) | KaunB (6) 6,24 | 6,76 | 7,32 | 7,84 Malonus (1) – nemalonus (7) (N=189) KaunM (3) | KaunM (9) | KaunB (6) | KaunB (12) 6,22 | 7,01 | 7,45 | 8,19 Kietas (1) – nevykėlis (7) (N=187) KaunB (12) | KaunM (3) | KaunB (6) | KaunM (9) 6,66 | 6,74 | 7,06 | 7,74

Straipsniai / Articles

261

DAIVA ALIŪKAITĖ

16 LENTELĖ. Kauno grupės mergaičių ir berniukų vertinimo skirtumai

Siek. tikslo Patikimas Rimtas Įdomus Pasit. savimi Pro-tingas Malonus Kietas KaunM (3) chi² 0,083 2,129 1,254 9,341 0,065 4,841 1,949 4,115 p= 0,774 0,145 0,263 0,002 0,799 0,028 0,163 0,043 **(m>b) *(m>b) *(m>b) KaunM (9) chi² 0,024 2,752 11,334 0,600 0,751 0,609 3,491 0,052 p= 0,877 0,097 0,001 0,439 0,386 0,435 0,062 0,820 **(m>b³⁶) KaunB (6) chi² 0,050 0,428 0,422 0,109 0,867 0,000 0,013 0,534 p= 0,823 0,513 0,516 0,741 0,352 0,994 0,908 0,465 Mergaičių ir berniukų vertinimo skirtumų nėra KaunB (12) chi² 0,013 0,067 7,360 0,016 0,759 1,605 1,160 0,095 p= 0,910 0,795 0,007 0,899 0,384 0,205 0,281 0,758 **(m>b) Kruskal-Wallis testas: *=p<.05, **=p<.01, ***=p<.001

17 LENTELĖ. Vilniaus grupės tiriamųjų kalbinės gimtinės atstovo sociolingvistinis portretas

Siekiantis tikslo (1) – neapsisprendęs (7) (N=177) VilnM (6) VilnB (2) VilnB (8) VilnM (4) 4,05 5,09 5,18 5,26 Patikimas (1) – nepatikimas (7) (N=177) VilnM (6) VilnM (4) VilnB (2) VilnB (8) 4,35 4,71 5,08 5,25 Rimtas (1) – lengvabūdis (7) (N=175) VilnM (6) VilnM (4) VilnB (8) VilnB (2) 4,01 4,95 5,23 5,51 Įdomus (1) – nuobodus (7) (N=173) VilnB (2) VilnM (6) VilnM (4) VilnB (8) 4,05 4,15 4,88 4,89

³⁶ Šioje ir kitose priedo lentelėse: m – vertintojos mergaitės, b – vertintojai berniukai.

262

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIX

Kalbos variantškumas paauglių akimis: lyties kintamasis

Pasitikintis savimi (1) – nepasitikintis (7) (N=169)

VilnM (6) | VilnB (2) | VilnB (8) | VilnM (4)

4,20 | 4,35 | 5,28 | 5,82

Protingas (1) – kvailas (7) (N=176)

VilnB (2) | VilnM (4) | VilnM (6) | VilnB (8)

5,38 | 5,00 | 4,37 | 5,27

Malonus (1) – nemalonus (7) (N=178)

VilnM (4) | VilnM (6) | VilnB (2) | VilnB (8)

4,13 | 4,69 | 4,70 | 5,31

Kietas (1) – nevykėlis (7) (N=178)

VilnB (2) | VilnM (6) | VilnB (8) | VilnM (4)

3,82 | 4,24 | 4,76 | 5,24

18 LENTELĖ. Vilniaus grupės mergaičių ir berniukų vertinimo skirtumai

Siek. tikslo | Patiki-mas | Rim-tas | Įdomus | Pasit. savimi | Protingas | Malonus | Kietas

VilnM (4) | chi² | 4,596 | 5,509 | 1,378 | 5,477 | 0,764 | 9,926 | 7,421 | 2,986

p= | 0,032 | 0,019 | 0,240 | 0,019 | 0,382 | 0,002 | 0,006 | 0,084

*(m>b) | *(m>b) | | *(m>b) | | **(m>b) | **(m>b)

VilnM (6) | chi² | 2,570 | 2,528 | 2,437 | 4,768 | 5,451 | 1,378 | 1,536 | 6,213

p= | 0,109 | 0,112 | 0,119 | 0,029 | 0,020 | 0,240 | 0,215 | 0,013

*(m>b) | *(m>b) | *(m>b)

VilnB (2) | chi² | 0,645 | 1,911 | 1,207 | 5,538 | 0,655 | 4,725 | 1,846 | 0,033

p= | 0,422 | 0,167 | 0,272 | 0,019 | 0,418 | 0,030 | 0,174 | 0,857

*(m>b) | *(m>b)

VilnB (8) | chi² | 0,343 | 0,6 | 0,036 | 0,078 | 1,015 | 1,237 | 2,703 | 0,188

p= | 0,558 | 0,439 | 0,850 | 0,779 | 0,314 | 0,266 | 0,100 | 0,664

Mergaičių ir berniukų vertinimo skirtumų nėra

Kruskal-Wallis testas: * =p<.05, **=p<.01, ***=p<.001

Straipsniai / Articles

263

DAIVA ALIŪKAITĖ

19 LENTELĖ. Bendrinės kalbos ir Vilniaus kalbos atstovo sociolingvistiniai portretai: mergaičių ir berniukų vertinimo skirtumai³⁷

Vilniaus miesto tiriamieji | Kauno grupė | Marijampolės grupė | Šiaulių grupė | Alytaus grupė | Panevėžio grupė | Utenos grupė | Telšių grupė BkM (1): siek. tikslo | *(m>b) | *(m>b) | *(m>b); patikimas | **(m>b) | *(m>b) | ***(m>b) | *(m>b) | ***(m>b) | **(m>b); rimtas | *(m>b) | *(m>b) | ***(m>b) | **(m>b); įdomus | **(m>b) | **(m>b) | **(m>b) | *(m>b) | **(m>b); pasitik. savimi | *(m>b) | ***(m>b) | **(m>b) | **(m>b) | *(m>b) | **(m>b) | *(m>b); protingas | *(m>b) | **(m>b) | ***(m>b) | **(m>b) | *(m>b); malonus | *(m>b) | ***(m>b) | ***(m>b) | ***(m>b) | *(m>b); kietas | *(m>b) | **(m>b) | **(m>b) | **(m>b) BkM (7): siek. tikslo | *(m>b) | ***(m>b); patikimas | *(m>b) | *(m>b) | ***(m>b); rimtas | *(m>b); įdomus | ***(m>b) | *(m>b) | ***(m>b); pasitik. savimi | *(m>b) | *(m>b); protingas | **(m>b) | ***(m>b); malonus | *(m>b) | ***(m>b) | ***(m>b) | *(m>b); kietas | *(m>b) | **(m>b) | *(m>b) BkB (4) / BkB33: siek. tikslo | **(m>b) | **(m>b); patikimas | **(m>b) | *(m>b) | ***(m>b); rimtas | *(m>b) | *(m>b); įdomus; pasitik. savimi | **(m>b); protingas | *(m>b) | **(m>b); malonus | *(m>b) | **(m>b); kietas | *(m>b)

³⁷ Suskaičiuoti eksperimento duomenys patikrinti, taikant Kruskalo ir Voliso testą (taip pat žr. 35 išnašą). Santrumpa Bk – bendrinė kalba. Pažymėtina, kad Vilniaus grupėje teikti vertinti tik 8 stimulai, taigi už pasvirojo brūkšnio (/) nurodyta Vilniaus grupėje vertintų stimulų numeriai.

264

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIX

Kalbos variantiskumas paauglių akimis: lyties kintamasis

Vilniaus miesto tiriamieji Kauno grupė Marijampolės grupė Šiaulių grupė Alytaus grupė Panevėžio grupė Utenos grupė Telšių grupė BkB (10) / BkB (5) siek. tikslo **(m>b) patikimas **(m>b) *(m>b) rimtas **(m>b) įdomus **(m>b) **(m>b) *(m>b) pasitik. savimi ***(m>b) **(m>b) **(m>b) protingas ***(m>b) **(m>b) malonus ***(m>b) ***(m>b) ***(m>b) kietas *(m>b) VilnM (5) / VilnM (4) siek. tikslo *(m>b) ***(m>b) patikimas *(m>b) ***(m>b) **(m>b) rimtas *(m>b) **(m>b) įdomus *(m>b) *(m>b) pasitik. savimi *(m>b) protingas **(m>b) ***(m>b) *(m>b) malonus **(m>b) *(m>b) *(m>b) ***(m>b) *(m>b) kietas VilnM (11) / VilnM (6) siek. tikslo *(m>b) *(m>b) *(m>b) *(m>b) **(m>b) patikimas **(m>b) *(m>b) *(m>b) *(m>b) rimtas **(m>b) ***(m>b) **(m>b) įdomus *(m>b) *(m>b) *(m>b) **(m>b) **(m>b) ***(m>b) pasitik. savimi *(m>b) **(m>b) *(m>b) **(m>b) **(m>b) protingas ***(m>b) *(m>b) **(m>b) **(m>b) *(m>b) ***(m>b) malonus **(m>b) *(m>b) *(m>b) **(m>b) ***(m>b) ***(m>b) kietas *(m>b) **(m>b) VilnB (2) siek. tikslo patikimas *(m>b) ***(m>b) *(m>b) rimtas *(m>b) įdomus *(m>b) **(m>b) **(m>b) ***(m>b) *(m>b) pasitik. savimi *(m>b) ***(m>b) *(m>b) *(m>b) *(m>b) protingas ***(m>b) malonus **(m>b) ***(m>b) *(m>b) **(m>b) kietas *(m>b) *(m>b) **(m>b) **(m>b)

Straipsniai / Articles

265

DAIVA ALIŪKAITĖ

Vilniaus miesto tiriamieji | Kauno grupė | Marijampolės grupė | Šiaulių grupė | Alytaus grupė | Panevėžio grupė | Utenos grupė | Telšių grupė; VilnB (8) | siek. tikslo | | | *(m>b) | | **(m>b) | |; patikimas | | | **(m>b) | *(m>b) | **(m>b) | *(m>b) | |; rimtas | | | | | **(m>b) | | | *(m>b); įdomus | | | | *(m>b) | **(m>b) | | | *(m>b); pasitik. savimi | | | | | **(m>b) | | | **(m>b); protingas | | | **(m>b) | *(m>b) | ***(m>b) | *(m>b) | | **(m>b); malonus | | | **(m>b) | **(m>b) | ***(m>b) | | | ***(m>b); kietas | | | *(m>b) | | | | |

20 LENTELĖ. Šnektų reitingai

Vilniaus miesto | Kauno grupės | Marijampolės grupės | Šiaulių grupės | Alytaus grupės | Panevėžio grupės | Utenos grupės | Telšių grupės; Vilniaus šnekta | Kauno šnekta | Vilniaus šnekta | Vilniaus šnekta | Alytaus šnekta | Panevėžio šnekta | Utenos šnekta | Žemaičių; Bendrinė kalba | Bendrinė kalba | Vilkaviškio šnekta | Šiaulių šnekta | Bendrinė kalba | Vilniaus šnekta | Vilniaus šnekta | Telšių šnekta; Klaipėdos šnekta | Vilniaus šnekta | Bendrinė kalba | Bendrinė kalba | Vilniaus šnekta | Bendrinė kalba | Bendrinė kalba | Bendrinė kalba; Utenos šnekta | Klaipėdos šnekta | Kauno šnekta | Kauno šnekta | Kauno šnekta | Kauno šnekta | Anykščių šnekta | Klaipėdos šnekta; Kauno šnekta | Alytaus šnekta | Marijampolės šnekta | Klaipėdos šnekta | Druskininkų šnekta | Klaipėdos šnekta | Kauno šnekta | Plungės šnekta; Alytaus šnekta | Jonavos šnekta | Klaipėdos šnekta | Panevėžio šnekta | Varėnos šnekta | Šiaulių šnekta | Klaipėdos šnekta | Vilniaus šnekta; Šiaulių šnekta | Utenos šnekta | Alytaus šnekta | Joniškio šnekta | Klaipėdos šnekta | Pasvalio šnekta | Panevėžio šnekta | Aukštaičių; Panevėžio šnekta | Šiaulių šnekta | Šakių šnekta | Utenos šnekta | Utenos šnekta | Marijampolės šnekta | Šiaulių šnekta | Kauno šnekta; Marijampolės šnekta | Panevėžio šnekta | Panevėžio šnekta | Marijampolės šnekta | Marijampolės šnekta | Utenos šnekta | Alytaus šnekta | Šiaulių šnekta; Telšių šnekta | Šakių šnekta | Šiaulių šnekta | Telšių šnekta | Panevėžio šnekta | Alytaus šnekta | Marijampolės šnekta | Kretingos šnekta

266

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIX

Kalbos variantiškumas paauglių akimis: lyties kintamasis

Vilniaus miesto

Kauno grupės

Marijampo-lės grupės

Šiaulių grupės

Alytaus grupės

Panevėžio grupės

Utenos grupės

Telšių grupės

Marijampolės šnekta

Utenos šnekta

Alytaus šnekta

Šiaulių šnekta

Kupiškio šnekta

Ignalinos šnekta

Panevėžio šnekta

Telšių šnekta

Telšių šnekta

Pakruojo šnekta

Telšių šnekta

Telšių šnekta

Telšių šnekta

Utenos šnekta

Alytaus šnekta

Marijampolės šnekta

Dzūkų

Suvalkiečių

Variability of Language in the Eyes of Teenagers: The Variable of Gender

S U M M A R Y

The article analyses the data from the research project “Lithuanian language: ideals, ideologies and identity shifts”. The research question is whether the variable of gender is a significant variable differentiating the Lithuanian language ideals of the young generation. Such consideration is based on the data of experiments of linguistic attitudes carried out around 7 largest regional cities of Lithuania and Vilnius. An experiment of linguistic attitudes performed in 23 Lithuanian schools is binary: unconscious and conscious attitudes were analysed.

The experiment of stimuli was the basis for the study of unconscious attitudes. The speech database of 12 stimuli consisted of 8 stable and 4 variable stimuli. In each case the participants evaluated 4 representatives of the standard language (2 girls and to boys) and 4 representatives of the Vilnius language (2 girls and 2 boys). The speakers of the remaining 4 stimuli (2 girls and 2 boys) are attributed to regiolectal expressions. The so called speaker evaluation experiment was applied to identify unconscious attitudes. A standard 7-point semantic differential scale was used in the experiment.

The ratings of sub-dialects formed the basis for the study of conscious attitudes. The participants rated the varieties of the Lithuanian language by the subjective – best...worst – criterion.

In summary of the study of conscious and unconscious linguistic attitudes, several conclusions can be drawn. The data of the ratings of sub-dialects suggest that the gender of participants is an important variable determining different evaluations of attractiveness of individual language varieties among girls and boys or even the prototype systems of the most attractive expression in certain cases. A tendency can be recorded that the ratings of sub-dialects of boys

Straipsniai / Articles

267

DAIVA ALIŪKAITĖ

reveal a greater loyalty to the varieties of linguistic homeland (or regiolectal varieties in general), whereas the ratings of sub-dialects of girls reveal a more favourable evaluation of the standard language. It can be stated that the variable of gender should not be strongly associated with the trinomial (i.e. standard language, Vilnius language, regiolectal variety) variability. The data from the part of experiment dealing with unconscious attitudes show that the variable of gender is significant in respect of evaluation of non-varieties. The statistically significant or highly significant differences in evaluations between boys and girls manifest on the level of unconscious attitudes show that female participants can be characterised by a more favourable disposition in respect of any variability. In evaluating the speakers of all language varieties, girls were prone to creating more positive sociolinguistic portraits than boys; only the sociolinguistic portraits of the representatives of linguistic homeland are corrected by the variable of gender to a far lesser extent compared to a representative of the standard language or the Vilnius language.

Įteikta 2013 m. spalio 7 d.

DAIVA ALIŪKAITĖ

Vilniaus universiteto Kauno humanitarinis fakultetas

Muitinės g. 8, LT-44280 Kaunas, Lietuva

[email protected]

268

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIX