LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI XXVII (1988)

LIETUVIŲ KALBA IR BILINGVIZMAS

ALOYZAS VIDUGIRIS

THE DEVELOPMENT OF ETHNOLINGUISTIC RELATIONS IN PELESA AND THE SURROUNDING AREA

The present linguistic situation along the Lithuanian–Belarusian border is the result of centuries of development in Lithuanian and Belarusian ethnolinguistic contacts. Both the northwestern outskirts of the Byelorussian SSR and the southeastern outskirts of the Lithuanian SSR, apart from the differences caused by the current border between those republics, have a great deal in common. One of the essential common features of this border zone is the similar ethnic and linguistic composition of its population. This similarity was determined by the region’s former shared past and common historical-political, economic, and cultural-ideological conditions. Even today, on both sides of the aforementioned border, Lithuanian and Belarusian dialects and their literary varieties, as well as Russian, are in close and intensive contact throughout the extensive border zone—not to mention the people of other nationalities, or their groups, who are still occasionally encountered there. A similar ethnolinguistic situation in Southeastern Lithuania has already been discussed (Vidugiris, 1983, p. 46–61). The aim here is to examine in somewhat greater detail the development of ethnolinguistic relations in the area directly adjoining the Lithuanian SSR, which lies almost entirely between the Dubičiai and Dieveniškės protrusions. This is the present-day Voranava district in the Grodno region of the northwestern Byelorussian SSR, of particular interest to linguists for its southwestern part—the environs of Pelesa and Ródūnia.

Until the Second World War, most of the present-day Voranava district—including such long-established localities as Asava (sometimes named after the former famous Aradnõs estate; cf. Sinodus, 1744, p. 63), Benekáinys, Nočia, Pelesà, Ródūnia, and Varenãvas (formerly Balatna, -õs)—belonged to the Lida county, while the smaller part—the environs of Armoniškės and Kaulėliškės—belonged to the Ašmena county. Until the First World War, these places were part of Vilnius Governorate, and during the interwar period they belonged to the Novogrudok Voivodeship. According to the ecclesiastical administrative division, the parishes bearing these names belonged to the Ródūnia deanery (Sinodus, 1744, p. 42–64). Pelesà, which for a long time was part of the Ródūnia district and parish, is known as the center of a local administrative unit from 1637. However, it became the cultural center of the area only in the early 20th century, when a school was moved here from the village of Pilitūnai in 1908. The church in Pelesa, mentioned in 1553 (Ochmański, 1972, p. 70), was probably built on the estate of Senóji Pelesa and later fell into ruin along with the estate, since the present-day village of (Naujoji) Pelesa became a parish center only in 1917, and construction of a stone church began here in 1924.

The distinctiveness and geographical location of these dialects early attracted the attention of researchers from many countries. More than a century ago (first in 1886 and again in 1893), Eduard Volter visited the environs of Armoniškės, Benekáiniai, and Kaulėliškės, recording characteristic phonetic and morphological features,

21

retesnių žodžių (Wolter, 1895, p. 173—187). 1895 m. Asavõs ir Žirmūnų apylinkėse (iš Aradnõs, Grubėnų, Lapotiškių, Pãradnio, Puodžiū, Zaniūnų ir kitų kaimų) medžiagą rinko garsus norvegų slavistas Olafas Brokas. Turėdamas jautrią klausą, jis gerai aprašė šių apylinkių lietuvių šnektų vokalizmą, konsonantizmą, morfologiją, pateikė nemažą pluoštą tarminių tekstų (Broch, 1958, p. 1—71). Tačiau reikia pasakyti, kad O. Brokas čia pirmiausia vyko tirti vietos baltarusių tarmes (Broch, 1957) ir tik paskui, užgirdęs, kad minėtų kaimų žmonės kalba lietuviškai, pradėjo užrašinėti ir lietuvių kalbos faktus. Tai buvo labai novatoriškas tyrimo būdas, o paskelbti darbai yra visapusiškai vertingi ir dabar.

In 1906, Jonas Jablonskis visited the environs of Benekáinys, where he recorded various words and expressions (Jablonskis, 1906). During the interwar years, a considerable number of valuable folklore texts were collected in the aforementioned areas (Tautosakos darbai, 1938, vol. 4, p. 1—301). Juozas Aidulis, from the village of Sklodoniai in the environs of Ródūnia, collected especially extensive and excellent folklore. After Poland established diplomatic relations with Lithuania, in the summer of 1938 the lexicographers Napalys Grigas and Juozas Senkus came here to collect words, assisted by Elena Samaniūtė-Otrembskienė of Vilnius (Grigas, 1938, p. 404—406).

In the postwar years, the first dialectological expedition arrived here as early as 1952, led by J. Senkus. Linguists J. Senkus, N. Grigas, Monika Sapijanskaitė-Kuosienė, Jonas Paulauskas, and Adelė Laigonaitė, together with folklorist Jurgis Dovydaitis, studied the speech of the environs of Armõniškės, Asavõs, Benekáiniai, Kaulėliškės, and Varenãvas according to the “Program for Collecting Materials for the Atlas of the Lithuanian Language.”

Professor Juozas Balčikonis took a particular interest in the study of these dialects. Together with various assistants, he traveled several times through many Lithuanian villages in Voranava district. While collecting words and place names, he sought to involve more linguists in the work. Following O. Brok’s routes, he gathered a small collection of facts and texts and sent it to Christian Stang in Oslo, who published them (Stang, 1960, p. 337—339). Professor Tadas Ivanauskas was a true protector of the Lithuanians of this region.

The longest expedition here—about three weeks—was the dialectological expedition of 1959, during which, under the aforementioned program, the speech of the environs of Armõniškės (revisited), Nočia, Pelesõs, and Ródūnia was studied. In addition, materials were collected individually in 1957, 1958, and 1963 in the environs of Asavõs, Benekáiniai, Pelesõs, Ródūnia, and Žirmūnai. At that time, dialect materials were collected here by Dalia Gargasaite, Aldona Jonaitytė, Bronys Savukynas, Jonas Šukys, Aloyzas Vidugiris, and Vytautas Vitkauskas. Among the published works, the most valuable are J. Šukys’s description of the speech of Ramiškoniai (in the environs of Armõniškės) (Šukys, 1960, p. 177—189) and the collection of dialect texts (Chrestomatija, 1970, p. 396—402). Some information has also been published about the use of Lithuanian in these areas (Vidugiris, 1959, p. 242—245) and about the results of the 1959 expedition (Grinaveckienė, 1960, p. 191—194).

In 1971, a comprehensive expedition of Lithuanian dialectologists, lexicographers, toponymists, and folklorists worked here. Its participants included the lexicographers Antanas Balašaitis, Kazys Eigminas, Irena Erm anytė, and Kazys Pakalka; the toponymists Aleksandras Vanagas, Marytė Razmukaitė, and Vitalija Maciejauskienė; and the dialectologists Jonina Lipskienė

22

and Aloyzas Vidugiris, folklorists Juozas Aidulis, Kazys Grigas, Bronė Kerbelytė, Vanda Misevičienė, Leonardas Sauka, Norbertas Vėlius, and others.

In 1974–1976, a joint expedition of linguists from Moscow, Vilnius, and Minsk took place in the environs of Rodūnia and Pelesa. It included the Muscovites Vladimir Toporov, Tamara Sudnik (organizer and leader), Lida Nevskaya, and Tania Tsivyan; Aldona Jonaitytė from Vilnius; Valerijus Čekmonas, formerly from Minsk; and others. An entire publication was devoted to the ethnolinguistic contacts of these areas: “Baltic-Slavic Ethnolinguistic Contacts” (1980). Among the works in that volume concerning the environs of Pelesa and Rodūnia are: T. Sudnik’s study of the linguistic situation in the environs of Pelesa and some data on its history (Судник, 1980, с. 181–191); A. Vanagas’s study of the hydronyms of those areas (Ванагас, 1980, с. 192–201); V. Vitkauskas’s study of some features of the Rodūnia dialect (Виткаускас, 1980, с. 202–205); V. Čekmonas’s study of the problem of Lithuanian-Belarusian phonetic interference in Pelesa (Чекман, 1980, с. 206–226); A. Jonaitytė’s study of the names of cultivated plants in the Pelesa dialect (Йонайтите, 1980, с. 227–244); L. Nevskaya’s study of burial customs in the environs of Pelesa (Невская, 1980, с. 245–254); and others.

Recently, Laima Grumadienė and Kazimieras Garšva have joined the study of the Lithuanian dialects of this borderland, as well as its linguistic situation and its dynamics. V. Čekmonas actively continues the so-called frontal dialectological studies. In 1986, a group of philologists from the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature came to the environs of Pelesa and Rodūnia to collect linguistic, sociolinguistic, and folklore material: K. Eigminas, K. Garšva, L. Grumadienė, N. Laurinkienė, A. Romančiuk, and A. Vidugiris.

As interest in the problem of Baltic and Slavic linguistic relations grows, more sociolinguistic research is also needed. No serious study of language contacts can now proceed without discussing the social factors that usually determine the development of linguistic and ethnolinguistic relations. Such research is needed in greater quantity and in greater depth, because ethnolinguistic relations along the Lithuanian-Belarusian border are changing in leaps and bounds. Many advocates of synchronic research into linguistic relations, when they visit these areas today, find it hard to imagine that things here could once have been very different. More than one Lithuanian linguist can view the linguistic situation in this region from a distance of over 30 years. During that time (the author of this article visited here in 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1984, and 1986), the mosaic of ethnolinguistic relations in this region underwent enormous changes, both quantitative and qualitative.

The environs of Pelesa are now regarded as an island of Lithuanian-Belarusian bilingualism, surrounded by Belarusian-speaking areas (Судник, 1980, с. 181). Traditionally, the following villages are considered to belong to the environs of Pelesa: Dubiniai, Druškininkai (Senieji and Naujieji), Leliušiai, Lelionys, Lipkūnai, Paditvys (also Padzityvš || Padzvicyš), Pamedė, Pavalakė (sometimes also Paulakė), Pelesà (also Pelasà)—the largest village (in 1976 it had 195 homesteads)—Piliūnai, Senieji Smilginiai, Slabadà, Surkantai, and Varlai. Formerly, other nearby villages also belonged to this area: Bartašiūnai, Kargaudai, Klaišiai, Kūrkės, Lūnkai, Navikai, and Vigōnys (Słownik, 1886, p. 935).

23

According to T. Sudnik, the small environs of Pelesa bring together, as it were, stages of a once unified linguistic situation that have changed in different ways over time: from the complete extinction of Lithuanian (Smilginiai, Leliušiai, and especially Pamedė), when only the oldest residents retained the Lithuanian language and thus bilingualism, through a state of bilingualism balanced in both quality and quantity (Pelesa, Piliūnai, Dubiniai), to the genuine, almost unchallenged predominance of Lithuanian (Pavalakė, Senieji Druskininkai). Until quite recently (about 15–20 years ago), the linguistic situation of the entire Varėnavas district could be described according to this pattern.

The formation of the current linguistic situation in Varėnavas district needs to be examined in greater detail, not only for researchers of these dialects but also for readers who have long been interested in the fate of these Lithuanians. This is all the more necessary because, despite the contrasts and changes that have occurred, the former linguistic situation seems to remain alive in many people’s memories, often evoking a painful reverence for the past and its traditions.

Contacts between Lithuanian and Belarusian are undoubtedly very old, dating back to the time when neither language had yet crystallized out of the respective Baltic and East Slavic language groups. In general, the southeastern boundary of Lithuanian ethnic territory was never clear or stable, since Lithuanians and Belarusians lived side by side here, often in mixed communities. As a result, population mixing and assimilation shifted that boundary to the detriment of the Lithuanian ethnic element (Jakubovskis, 1921, p. 4–5). In the Pelesa area, however, the boundary has been preserved and has changed little since the 14th–16th centuries (Зинкявичюс, Гаучас, 1985, с. 174–176).

Intensive contacts between Lithuanian and Slavic languages are also reflected in the hydronymy of the environs of Pelesa and Rodūnia. Research results show (Ванагас, 1980, с. 192–201) that the oldest layer consists of Baltic hydronymy, while the Slavic layer is considerably more recent, with some of it dating from very recent times. Furthermore, there are substantial historical (Ochmański, 1972, p. 83–89) and linguistic (Судник, 1980, с. 184–189) arguments that people of Prussian origin, or groups closely related to them, migrated from the regions of Barta, Skalva, and perhaps Pamedė and settled around Rodūnia and Pelesa. This circumstance may have contributed to the compact group of Lithuanian villages surviving around Pelesa longer than elsewhere. Natural conditions may also have played a role: to the southeast, south, and southwest, broad marshes and the rivers Ditvôs and Pelesa, the former Lake Pelesa, and other features separated the environs of Pelesa from Belarusian villages.

Unfortunately, circumstances and time took their toll. Gradually, especially after the Union of Lublin (1569), as the nobility and later the townspeople became Polonized, the local Belarusian dialect, being similar to Polish, became a language of both external and internal communication here. For Lithuanian peasants, whose language had come to be regarded with contempt, learning Polish from members of the upper classes was too difficult. Moreover, after the wars and plague epidemics of the 17th–18th centuries, more or fewer inhabitants from East Slavic lands may have settled here in place of the Lithuanians who had perished. Those among them who did not become Lithuanianized may later have acted as a catalyst in the assimilation of the local population.

From the mid-19th century, the Lithuanian language began to disappear very rapidly along the southeastern borderlands. This wave first swept over the eastern borderland, including the Lithuanian capital Vilnius, and then spread from Vilnius at extraordinary speed in all directions, encompassing various cities, towns, and their environs. In many places here, Lithuanian almost immediately became only a—

24

the language of the older generation, while young people turned to Slavic languages. This coincided with the intensification of the Polish national movement and, in connection with it, the tsarist officials’ extraordinarily intensive campaign to strengthen the Russian language and Orthodoxy in the area. The struggle that flared up between the tsarist officials and landowners and clergy with a Polish orientation burdened the Lithuanian peasants with a double yoke. Coercive assimilation, imposed by the state, church, manor, and school, was added to natural assimilation.

Having enjoyed unlimited influence, the clergy were throughout subordinated to the Polish ecclesiastical hierarchy, whose center was in Gniezno, Poland (the Diocese of Vilnius later, and in fact to this day, came under the Archdiocese of Łomża). The foremost task of the churches administered by the Poles was to spread not so much the faith as Polishness. In contrast to the Orthodoxy of the Eastern Slavs, the Catholic faith came to be called the Polish faith (“polska wiara”), and Catholics were regarded as Poles. As a result, many residents who spoke only Lithuanian in their families, and sometimes did not even know a Slavic language, began to consider themselves Poles.

The forces of the Lithuanian national intelligentsia, already depleted, were scattered or destroyed during the uprisings of 1831 and 1863–1864. The ban on printing in Latin script amounted to a ban on Lithuanian printing in general. Consequently, the Lithuanian national movement, which could have supported Lithuanians with wavering self-awareness in time, was considerably delayed.

The rate at which the Lithuanian language in this region diminished and disappeared can be seen by comparing data from the first half of the 19th century with those from the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century. In 1827, P. Köppen (Кеппен, 1827, с. 94), drawing on data collected by A. V. Pelikan, a professor at Vilnius University, and the Lithuanian writer D. Poška, stated that Lithuanian was spoken in Lida County from the boundary of Vilnius County as far as Žirmūnai. This information is also confirmed by the historians M. Baliński and T. Lipiński (Baliński M., Lipiński T., 1846, 251, 264), who knew the region well: Lithuanian was spoken in Lida County along the banks of the Ditva, around Žirmūnai and Benekainys (at the time, the Benekainys district included not only Varenavas but also the present-day Butrimonys area, which lies in the Lithuanian SSR), around Balčininkai and Eišiškės (the Eišiškės area, including Kalesninkai, then belonged to Lida County), and even beyond Lida, as far as the Nemunas. Current studies also confirm that Lithuanians lived beyond Lida (Гаучас, Видугирис, 1983, с. 39, 41; Зинкявичюс, Гаучас, 1985, с. 175). According to A. Rittich’s data (Риттих, 1875), in 1867 Lithuanians made up 21.3% of the population of Lida County, or about 26,000 people, although on his map the Pelesa area was assigned to the Belarusian territory (cf. also Гаучас, Видугирис, 1983, с. 44).

In the second half of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, the Pelesa River was considered the Lithuanian–Belarusian dividing line at least in the area around Pelesa (up to the Pelesa estate); farther east, the boundary between the parishes of Rōdūnia and Žobalatė (Užūbalys) as far as the Ditva River; then upstream along the Ditva; and farther east along the Asavõs River, though in fact some distance south of it—A. V.—toward Geranainiai (Киркор, 1858, с. 120–121; Корева, 1861, с. 287; Bieliński, 1893, p. 528; Карский, 1962, с. 385–386).

As the areas nearer Vilnius became Slavicized relatively rapidly in the 19th century, the Lithuanian character of the northern part of Lida County was emphasized.

Vienas iš „Geografinio žodyno“ (Słownik, 1882, p. 142) autorių, rašydamas apie Aradnõs dvarą, kuris įėjo į Asavõs parapiją, pažymi, kad visi parapijos gyven-

25

the inhabitants are of pure Lithuanian descent and still speak Lithuanian among themselves. However, such reports were few. In the Lithuanian press of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, there was generally apprehension and protest over the forced Slavicization of Lithuanians. And there was indeed reason for apprehension. Once a relatively compact area of Lithuanian speech in the southeast, where villages were Slavicized at varying rates, was becoming severely eroded. This is clearly evident from the statistics collected by Plater in 1890 and analyzed by Anonimo (Anonim, 1898, p. 62—67), on the basis of which J. Rozwadowski (Rozwadowski, 1904, p. 93) drew a map of the distribution of the Lithuanian language. The map was rather approximate, since information on the use of Lithuanian had not been collected from many villages in the Benekainys, Šalčininkai, and Varenavas areas, or the data were incomplete. Since many local residents in the fairly broad Lithuanian–Belarusian border zone were bilingual or trilingual (hamlets of petty nobility had sprung up beside estates and manor farms), and their national self-awareness was uncertain and usually fluctuating, the boundaries of Lithuanian-language use drawn by J. Rozwadowski must also be regarded as only approximate and provisional.

In Lida County, within the continuous Lithuanian-speaking territory, J. Rozwadowski assigned the area around Eišiškės and Pabarė, as well as some villages between Eišiškės and Nočia and Saltoniškiai, where Belarusian had spread rapidly in the second half of the 19th century, to the Belarusian territory. He thereby seemed to separate a large Lithuanian-speaking peninsula from the main Lithuanian territory. Consequently, some researchers depict this landmass on maps as a peninsula (Карский, 1903; Verбickis, 1911), while others show it as an island (Rozwadowski, 1914; Матулянис, 1902, c. 45—46).

That Lithuanian was no longer spoken in all the villages on the aforementioned peninsula—the young people in many places had begun speaking Belarusian—is already evident from a note appended to the material collected by Plater: in the southeastern part of the Armionys area, “the old people speak Lithuanian, the young people Belarusian” (Anonim, 1898, p. 62). In the Ródūnia parish, other languages were already used alongside Lithuanian. According to one correspondent’s report, as early as the end of the 19th century in the Ródūnia parish “the peasants speak Lithuanian, the szlachta Polish, calling themselves Lithuanians. Some Lithuanians have become Russified; they speak a peculiar jargon, half Russian and half Polish, or, as they say there, ‘simply’ (po-prostu), that is, ‘like peasants.’ Lithuanians speak Lithuanian only at home, and elsewhere either Polish or ‘po-prostu’ (Б- c, 1895, c. 497). E. Volter’s observation is valuable: ‘In the Lydos district, despite the mockery of the Polonized szlachta toward Lithuanians, Lithuanian songs and Lithuanian speech as a home language can nevertheless be heard. Lithuanians (or perhaps the ancient Yotvingians) speak three languages: to officials—in Russian or “po-prostu,” that is, Belarusian; to the priest—in Polish; and among themselves—in Lithuanian, and aloud when no one is laughing. Even at public gatherings one can hear people speaking Lithuanian’ (Вольтер, c. 66).

Although incomplete, A. Plater’s and Anonimo’s statistics recorded 16,634 Lithuanians in Lida County, that is, 12.1% of the total population (137,025). A somewhat larger number of Lithuanians was recorded in the general census of 1897—17,702—but their share was lower, at 9% of the total rural population of 196,444. By contrast, the proportion of Poles grew nearly fourfold, from 1.2% to 4.2%. Apparently, Lithuanian and Belarusian bilinguals and

26

At the time of the 1897 census, Lithuanian, Belarusian, and Polish trilinguals were more often classified among the Slavs, especially the Poles.

After the abolition of serfdom, the villages of free peasants and nobles in the vicinity of Pelesa most likely began to become Slavicized: Bartašiūnai, Slabadà, Surkantai, and others. Thus, as early as 1890, of the 1,723 inhabitants of the area, 1,421 were recorded as Lithuanians and 302 as Belarusians and Poles (Anonim, 1898, p. 64—66).

The Polonization of the local population, like the process of Slavicization in general, was proceeding very rapidly and vigorously at that time throughout the southeastern fringes of the Lithuanian-speaking area. Sometimes the stage of bilingualism during a language shift was quite short. According to H. Turska (Turska, 1939, p. 33—34), Lithuanians of the older generation often learned a Slavic language (Polish or Belarusian) and began using only that language once they were already adults.

On the other hand, Lithuanian national consciousness was also rising sharply in Lithuania at the same time. This process began in western Lithuania, where books and newspapers printed illegally in Lithuania Minor became more widespread. Moreover, in 1904, alarmed by the revolutionary movement, the administration of tsarist Russia was forced to lift the ban on printing books and newspapers in Latin Lithuanian letters; in 1906 it allowed Lithuanian to be taught as a separate subject in schools. From then on, the Lithuanian press could legally assist its compatriots. The Lithuanian intelligentsia grew in number, and through its activities helped strengthen Lithuanian national consciousness. Church services increasingly began to be conducted in Lithuanian. The rise of the Lithuanian national movement also affected the course of ethnolinguistic processes. However, until the First World War, this rise encompassed mainly Suvalkija, most of Kaunas Governorate, and only part of Vilnius Governorate.

In response to the rise of the Lithuanian national movement, representatives of the Polish-oriented camp became particularly active: the local landed gentry, intelligentsia, the leadership of the Vilnius diocese, and some of the clergy, backed by a substantial local Polish press (Gintautas, 1910, p. 197—206). Since the Church’s influence on the course of ethnolinguistic processes was decisive, they did everything possible to obstruct the activities of Lithuanian clergy and Lithuanian services (in 1905, 1910, 1913, 1915, and other years, local residents who had become Polonized and were supported by them started brawls during Lithuanian services in Asavõs, Benekainys, Nočios, Ródūnios, Varenavas, and elsewhere), appointed Polish-oriented clergy to Lithuanian parishes, and persecuted Lithuanian clergy who were more active, exiling them to exclusively Slavic parishes. The admission of Lithuanians to the Vilnius Theological Seminary was sharply curtailed (Viltis, 1908, p. 130). At the same time, the Polonizers vilified the Lithuanian language, calling it pagan, and tried to instill the idea that Lithuanian was unsuitable for an educated person.

It was not only Lithuanians who were Polonized, but also Catholic Belarusian speakers. The latter adopted a Polish identity particularly readily. Thus, among Lithuanians, the use of not only Polish but also Belarusian was encouraged.

Data from the local census are important for studying the ethnolinguistic processes that took place in the early 20th century. In 1909, the local administration collected these data from nine governorates of the so-called Western Russian region (Viltis, 1909, p. 90, 92, 94 96). The figures given here concern the numbers of the main nationalities: Lithuanians, Poles, Jews, and Russians. The last category (i.e., Russians) includes Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians together, but they are distinguished by religion. The 1909 data were collected not according to the language used, as

27

in 1897, but according to national identity; therefore, the data cannot be compared with one another. Their juxtaposition is nevertheless interesting from another perspective, since it shows how Polish national identity spread along the Lithuanian–Belarusian borderlands among both Lithuanian-speaking and Belarusian-speaking Catholics.

Very few people in Lida County registered as Lithuanians—only 4,238, or 2% (out of 211,839 rural inhabitants). Apparently, quite a few of them considered it more honorable to call themselves Poles, whose numbers were growing rapidly (1890 – 1,580, or 1.2%; 1897 – 8,298, or 4.2%; 1909 – 12,462, or 5.9%). However, many bilingual Lithuanians, whose mother tongue and nationality were constantly discredited, were undecided about their national identity and were classified by census takers according to the state—to the Russians (i.e., Belarusians).

On the eve of the First World War, the aforementioned Lida region, which had still been quite Lithuanian, had already begun to become strongly Belarusianized. According to approximate reports in the Lithuanian periodical press of the time, Lithuanian was still spoken by about 2/3–3/4 of the local population in the parishes of Armõniškės, Asavõs, Butrimonys, Nočios, Ródūnia, and Varenãvas; by 1/2 in Kalesninkai; by 1/3–1/2 in Benekainys and Eišiškės; by 1/3 in Geranainys and Kaulėliškės (according to other data, up to 1/2); by 1/4–1/3 in Trakėliai, Žirmūnai, and Žõbalatė; and by 1/5 in Lida. In these parishes, Lithuanian was either never used in the churches or had been removed from them; only Lithuanian sermons were still occasionally given. Very few Lithuanian newspapers reached the area.

It seems that echoes of the Lithuanian national movement failed to reach many villages here in time. Where the movement did take hold, it came very late and affected only the more Lithuanian and more compactly preserved villages (e.g., around Pelesa and Ramaškõnis, as well as the isolated villages of Plikiai, Sklodoniai, and others), and probably not all their inhabitants, but only a greater or smaller proportion; elsewhere, perhaps only individual families. Yet even that was enough for the Lithuanian language to continue its existence here and there up to the present day. The uneven pace of Slavicization may have been partly due to Lithuanian cultural figures who worked here, even if only briefly—teachers and more progressive clergy (Ziminskas, 1931, no. 80, 105–106; 1944, no. 51, 68, 119; Gustaitis, 1942, no. 178). The restoration of the Lithuanian state also undoubtedly had an effect.

Having occupied all the southeastern Lithuanian lands in 1920–1939, bourgeois Poland in effect began to pursue a systematic policy of denationalization there: it required Polish to be used everywhere, restricted the Lithuanian press and amateur activities, and closed Lithuanian schools that had been established and maintained through great effort. By 1931–1932, all 37 private Lithuanian schools operating in the territory of what is now Varenãvas District had been closed, and by 1936 all the reading rooms established in their place had also been shut down. In addition, three new Lithuanian schools were called for in the Asavõs area, but permission to establish them was denied. Peasants who maintained Lithuanian schools were often punished with imprisonment and other fines, and teachers were persecuted. Lithuanian children were forced to attend Polish schools, and those who did not attend were punished. Lithuanian services were no longer allowed at all in the churches of Armõniškės, Asavõs, Benekainys, and Ródūnia, and Lithuanian clergy were terrorized. Only the people of Pelesa, who had built a separate church, managed to maintain Lithuanian services until 1947.

28

Until the end of the first quarter of the 20th century, the Ródūnia district was still considered fairly Lithuanian. According to many local residents, about 75% of the population could still speak Lithuanian here, but most, being indifferent, apparently adopted a Polish identity very quickly.

Data from the map compiled by O. Chominski in 1928–1933 are interesting for tracing the development of ethnolinguistic relations. Within the territory of present-day Varėnavas district alone, another hundred villages are indicated in which, at the time, between 100% and 10% of the population spoke Lithuanian. This means that villages where only individual families or persons spoke Lithuanian were not included on the map. According to that map, the total number of Lithuanian speakers was about 6,000 (in our view, it must have been at least a third higher, if not twice as high). Yet even this shows that local Lithuanians, who had previously become more Slavic in identity, now began rapidly to become more Slavic in language. The younger generation, it seems, was for the most part already being taught to speak a Slavic language. Polish schools played a decisive role. The resettlement of the population into individual farmsteads also contributed considerably. In earlier times, the linear village had been a good school for the Lithuanian language, both for newcomers and for the children of mixed families who had not managed to learn Lithuanian at home. Thus, most representatives of the older generation stopped passing their native language on to the younger generation. This situation continued until 1939, when the region was incorporated into the Byelorussian SSR.

During the war and postwar years, many Lithuanians here, often entire families, were killed by gangs of Polish Belarusians (Armia Krajowa), who particularly terrorized the more politically conscious Lithuanians. From then on, many Lithuanians began speaking Polish or at least Belarusian among themselves. It became customary in Lithuanian families for at least one member to register as Polish. For these and other reasons, quite a large number of Lithuanian-speaking people emigrated to Poland in 1945–1958.

Despite all those events, which were of decisive importance for the further development of ethnolinguistic relations in the region, during the postwar years Lithuanian-speaking representatives of the older and middle generations could still be found quite widely across almost the entire Varėnavas district. People who had long known Lithuanian were found even in villages that Anonim and O. Chominski described as purely Slavic. This is not surprising, since at the time knowing Lithuanian was more a misfortune than a blessing.

The following villages are listed by locality and degree of proficiency; during excursions and expeditions in 1955–1963, more or fewer people were still found who spoke Lithuanian or knew how to speak it. It is regrettable that more attention was devoted to localities and their parts where Lithuanian villages were more densely concentrated (e.g., Pelesà, Ródūnia, Asavà, partly Benekáinys, Varėnàvas, Armóniškės), and that there was not enough time or opportunity to explore more thoroughly the villages around Geranáinys, Kaulėliškės, Nõčia, Trakeliai, and elsewhere that had become partly or entirely Slavic.

The most Lithuanian-speaking area was the Pelesõs locality, with the villages of Senieji Druskininkai, Dubiniai, Pãditvys, Pavalakė, Pelesõs, and Piliūnai, where Lithuanian was spoken in most households. Only the village of Naujieji Druskininkai was mixed. The older and middle generations spoke Lithuanian in the villages of Kargaudai, Klaišiai, especially Vigoniai, and partly Senieji Smilginiai. Only the older generation knew Lithuanian in the villages of Balčiškiai, Leliūšiai, Pamedė, Naujieji Smilginiai, and Varliai. Here and there, one or another elderly person who knew Lithuanian was encountered,

29

in the villages of Bartašiūnai, Kūrkiai, Lelionys, Lipkūnai, Lūnkiai, Navikai, Petrošiūnai, Pocėliai and Slabada. According to the recollections of the old residents of Pelesa, people in Abrōmiškiai, Smilginiai (toward Vosyliškiai), Tolkūnai, Treigiai, Valdotiškiai (/Valdōnai), and Vilbikai had also known Lithuanian.

The most Lithuanian-speaking villages in the Rodūnia locality were Dočiškės, Piliakalnis, Plikiai, and Sklodōnys. More or fewer members of the older generation who spoke Lithuanian could still be found in villages such as Advėrnykai, Butrimai, Daugirdiskės, Garōnys, Jotautai, Jucīnai, Senosios Kazoškiškės, Kemeišiai, Kivōnys, Mažeikiai, Paditvys, Paliūnai, Pasodė, Pusiāvaris (/Pusiāvariai), Račkūnai, Radžiūnai, Straciūnai, Vaškėliai, and others.

In the Asava locality, many Lithuanian speakers of the middle and older generations lived in the villages of Grubėnai, Puodžiai, Vaikūnonū (/Vaikūnai), and Žilionys. Quite a number of Lithuanians, mostly from the older generation, were also still found in other villages, such as Asavā, Balatnīkās, Bilōnys, Galmantiskės, Kaniūkai, Lapōtiškės, Nevāšiai, Paasavys, Paaradnys (/Aradniškiai), Padvarė (/Padvarōnys), Povilōnys, Sališkės, and Trūmpiškės. No very old people were found in the villages of Zaniūnai (/Zeniūnai) and Žasiniai (/Žusinai), and those who had been middle-aged already spoke Lithuanian only with difficulty.

In the Žirmūnai locality, people who knew how to speak Lithuanian were found in Mogūnai village, one peasant woman in Budrevičiai village, three elderly people in Nāniškiai village, and two in Žirmūnai. According to their recollections, the inhabitants of Giratoniai, Mieliūnai, Minykai, Reksčiai, Sakalai, Šaltiniai, Taukiniai, and other villages had spoken Lithuanian in the past.

In the Bene kainai locality, the largest number of Lithuanian speakers was in Bieliūnai village. In many homesteads, there were people who knew Lithuanian in villages such as Senieji Benekainys, Baziliai, Bruželiai (/Brazėliai), Kiemėliai, Didieji Kužiai, Lauciai, Lietuvā, Liubartai, Mikālčiai, Padvariškės, Ramūčiai, Varnakėliai, Visgirdai, Žigai, and others.

The Lithuanian villages best preserved in Varėnavas district were Stanišiai and Stilgūnai; the others had already begun to become more or less Belarusianized: Bajōrai, Balčinỷkėliai, Balsiai, Daukšionys, Kuodžiai, Lōzoriškės, and Vekōnys. Families or individuals who spoke Lithuanian could still be found in the villages of Drabisiūnai and Paleckiškės, especially in Varenavė.

In the Armōniškės locality, Lithuanian was spoken most widely in the villages of Dainavōs, Ramaškonys, and Tūsamonai, and somewhat less in Ciesliūkiškės, Lašėkai, Naujasodis (/Navasėdai), and Pārubiškės (Pārabiškės). Quite a number of Lithuanian speakers were still found in the villages of Armōniškės, Miliūnonū (/Miliūnai), Pūpašoniai, and Valātkiškės, and fewer in Pažižmis, Pereigoniai, Šeškai, Žeziai, and other villages.

The most Lithuanian-speaking village in the Kauleliškės locality was Biliai. Elderly people who knew Lithuanian were found in Kaulėliškės, Lenčiškės, and Didžiosios Liepės (other villages were not surveyed).

In the Nočia locality, essentially everyone in the villages of Bieliūnai and Strižūnai knew Lithuanian. In the villages of Miežionys and Poviloniai, it was mainly the older residents who spoke Lithuanian; people of various ages who knew Lithuanian were found in Jančiai and Raubiškės.

In the localities of Armōniškės, Asavōs, and Rōdūnia, people encountered while working in the fields spoke Belarusian, but all it took was for someone to say a few words in Lithuanian for an almost choral response in Lithuanian to follow. Older people sometimes still spoke Lithuanian at home even with very young people. It was therefore sometimes hard to shake the impression that one had somehow found oneself somewhere near Marcinkōnis or Varėna. Most representatives of those localities firmly—

30

…that until the First World War, Lithuanian was still spoken throughout the villages mentioned. The transition to Belarusian began mainly during the years of the Polish occupation, especially when children started attending Polish schools.

After the war, Belarusian schools began operating everywhere here. Many of the more Lithuanian-speaking localities and villages in Varėnava District still wanted to obtain Lithuanian-language schools. In 1957, four schools in the Pelesa area were switched to Russian as the language of instruction, with the option of teaching the native language (Lithuanian or Belarusian) as a subject for two lessons a week in grades III–VIII. These were the Pelesa and Paditvys eight-year schools, and the Dubiniai and Pavalakė primary schools. At the time, the standing of these schools had clearly risen, and they had quite a large number of pupils. Even parents who did not speak Lithuanian at home with their children hoped that the children would learn Lithuanian. However, Lithuanian teachers generally could not stay here long because of the specific and difficult working conditions; as a result, Lithuanian was not taught everywhere or consistently. Later, as the population declined and schools were consolidated, the Dubiniai and Pavalakė schools were closed. Four grades were retained in Paditvys, while the upper grades were moved in 1981 to Balčiškės, now the local administrative and collective-farm center; Lithuanian is no longer taught in either place. Until recently, Lithuanian lessons were offered only at the Pelesa eight-year school.

In general, the fate of the native language here is determined by the school’s language of instruction, which pupils are encouraged to use consistently. Parents and grandparents also adopt the school’s language, or one close to it, so that communication with the children will be easier and possible in a single language. Once Belarusian schools were established, the whole of Varėnava District was, in effect, completing its transition to Belarusian. This process has now affected the formerly Lithuanian-speaking villages in the Pelesa area as well. The older Lithuanian generation is dying out, while the younger generation, being bilingual, is beginning to speak exclusively in Belarusian or Russian. Thus, over thirty years, the linguistic situation in Varėnava District has changed fundamentally, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Much was also contributed by the mixing of the population that began during collectivization, the formation of new settlements, the decline of old ones, and especially the pull of cities and towns. Recently, Lithuanian cultural life in these places has been languishing. From 1936 to 1960, the choir of Plikiai village was well known here; later, for two decades, the ethnographic ensemble of Pavalakė village in the Pelesa area (the nine Kanevičiūtės sisters) represented Varėnava District, performing in Minsk, Vilnius, and elsewhere. Now, deaths and the infirmities of old age are bringing the ensemble to the point of disintegration.

As the spheres in which Lithuanian is used grow ever narrower, the older generation no longer passes its language on to the younger generation. Since Lithuanian here was preserved mainly by older people, their numbers are rapidly dwindling year by year. It is regrettable that there is no law providing protected-area status for peripheral Lithuanian dialects—as a relic of one of the most archaic Indo-European languages—as advocated by the renowned Balticist and Indo-Europeanist, and researcher of these dialects, V. Toporovas (Топоров, 1981, с. 13).

The peripheral Lithuanian dialects of Varėnava District are a continuation beyond the republic’s borders of the Southern Aukštaitian, or Western Dzūkian, subdialect. Although the subdialect is one, as one travels from west to east its system acquires an increasing number of features of the morphology, lexicon, and syntax of Eastern Aukštaitian Vilnius, or Eastern Dzūkian. Thus, at least three dialects can be distinguished here: western (the Nočia, Pelesa, and Ródūnia areas), central (Asavõs, Bene-

31

kainiai, and the Varėnava area), and eastern (the Armõniškės and Kaulėliškės areas). Alongside archaic features, a wealth of various innovations thrives here. This is a treasure of exceptional value to language researchers. Unfortunately, it is disappearing far too quickly. It is now no longer easy to find good representatives of the dialect even in the Pelesa area. What, then, can be said of the other areas?

The overview of the development of ethnolinguistic relations in various localities of Varėnava District shows that extralinguistic conditions determined the contacts between the main languages of this region, Lithuanian and Belarusian, and their distribution across spheres of use. Lithuanian, once the most important language of the region’s inhabitants, gradually became merely a family, or home, language after the onset of the forced assimilation of Lithuanians, particularly in the second half of the 19th century; in some places it began to disappear from use altogether. Nevertheless, in most of what is now Varėnava District, it remained the main language spoken at home until the First World War, and often later—for example, in the compact group of Lithuanian villages around Ramáškonis (roughly between Benekáiniai and Armõniškės, Varėnávas and Kaulėliškės), as well as in some villages around Asava and Nõčia, until the middle of the second quarter of the 20th century; in individual villages around Ródūnia, until the end of the third quarter of the 20th century; and in some villages in the Pelesa area, to this day.

The Belarusian language (more precisely, the local Belarusian dialect), formerly a language of contact, became a micro-intermediary in the second half of the 19th century and gradually began to displace Lithuanian from its last sphere of use—the family. This can be explained by the denationalization policies pursued by Tsarist Russia and bourgeois Poland. Because of its similarity to Polish and its many Polish loanwords, the local Belarusian language seemed like a variety or dialect of Polish to Polonized nobles and Lithuanian Catholic peasants, while to tsarist officials, as to many Belarusian Orthodox Christians, it was merely a dialect of Russian. Because Belarusian national consciousness developed late, the local population did not associate this language with the Belarusians as a distinct nationality, and it was called neutrally (pa)prasta, or local, language. Without conflicting with any of the aforementioned languages, it served as a kind of intermediate, transitional language both for the Polonization and the Russification of the local population. Although the local Belarusian language is now the dominant language of this region, it, like its literary variety, is not highly regarded by the local population. This may also be connected with the fact that most local people consider themselves Polish or Lithuanian by nationality, rather than Belarusian. Meanwhile, the spheres in which Russian is used are constantly expanding. As a macro-intermediary and the main language of administration, it poses serious competition to local Belarusian as a micro-intermediary.

Polish, the language of the local landowning class and clergy, became more widespread among the local population only during the occupation by bourgeois Poland (1920–1939). Local residents tried to use it in various spheres of life, but it never managed to establish itself firmly anywhere. Only members of the older generation know it. Polish is now maintained here mainly through the church.

Recently, the fate of the native language here has been determined largely by the language of the school. The region’s three-component linguistic situation shows a tendency to become two-component. Lithuanian is used here only as a family language. Belarusian here is not only a family language but also the language of the region. However, the regional-language function is increasingly being taken over by

32

tending to adopt Russian as a macro-mediator. Lithuanian–Belarusian or Belarusian–Lithuanian bilingualism here can be discussed only as one of the stages in the assimilation of the Lithuanians of this region.

А. ВИДУГИРИС

ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF ETHNOLINGUISTIC RELATIONS IN PELESA AND NEIGHBORING AREAS

Abstract

The article traces the development of ethnolinguistic relations from the first half of the 19th century to the present in the territory of Voronovo District, Grodno Region, Byelorussian SSR. Local dialects of Lithuanian, Belarusian, and Polish, their literary forms, and Russian interact here.

It is noted that Lithuanian (a continuation of the dialect of the southern aukštaitai, or the so-called western Dzūkian dialect) was the principal language of the local population’s households in this territory mainly until the First World War, and often later: for example, in the compact group of former Lithuanian villages near the village of Ramaškoniai in the Germaniskis parish, as well as in individual villages near Nač and Asava, until the middle of the second quarter of the 20th century; in individual villages around Raduń, until the end of the third quarter of the 20th century; and in some villages near Pelesa, to this day.

Belarusian (more precisely, its local dialect), formerly the language of contact, began to serve as a micro-mediator from the second half of the 19th century and thereby increasingly displaced Lithuanian from its last domain of use—the family. This process is explained by the assimilationist policies pursued both by the administration of tsarist Russia and by the government of bourgeois Poland. Today, the fate of local native languages is determined by the language of schooling. Although the local Belarusian language is now one of the most widely used languages in communication, at the same time it, like its literary form, is often disdained by the local population. This is connected with the fact that most local residents consider themselves Polish or Lithuanian by nationality, not Belarusian. By contrast, the domains of Russian use are constantly expanding. As a macro-mediator, it is now a serious competitor to Belarusian as a regional language.

Polish, formerly the language of the local nobility and clergy, spread among the peasants mainly as the official language during the years of the Polish occupation (1920–1939). During those years, the local population used it in various spheres of life, but it did not manage to become more firmly established in any sphere of communication. Only members of the older generation speak it. Polish is sustained here only by the Catholic Church.

A. VIDUGIRIS

ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF ETHNOLINGUISTIC RELATIONS IN PELESA AND ADJACENT AREAS

Zusammenfassung

The article examines the development of ethnolinguistic relations from the first half of the 19th century to the present in the Varenavas district (Grodno Region, Byelorussian SSR). Local Lithuanian, Belarusian and Polish dialects, their literary varieties, as well as the Russian language, are used here.

3. 1880

33

It is confirmed that the Lithuanian language (more precisely, the continuation of the Southern Aukštaitian or Western Dzūkian dialect) was the principal home language of the local inhabitants in the territory mentioned, mostly until the First World War and often later as well. For example, it survived in the former compact territory of Lithuanian villages around Ramaškönys in the Armoniškės parish, as well as in isolated villages around Asava and Nočia, until the middle of the second quarter of the 20th century; in individual villages in the Pelesa and Rodūnia districts, until the end of the third quarter of the 20th century; and in some villages in the Pelesa district, to this day.

The Belarusian language, more precisely the local Belarusian dialect, formerly the language of contact, has been the region’s intermediary language since the second half of the 19th century and appears to be displacing Lithuanian from its last sphere of use—the family. This process was driven both by the policy of tsarist Russia and by the government policy of bourgeois Poland. The language of schooling now determines the fate of the native language. Although the local Belarusian language in fact prevails here today, it is not highly valued by local inhabitants, nor is its literary variety. This is connected with the fact that the majority of local inhabitants consider themselves not Belarusians, but Poles and Lithuanians.

The sphere of use of the Russian language is therefore continually expanding. As a macro-mediating language, it now poses serious competition to Belarusian as the regional language.

The Polish language (more precisely, its peripheral dialect), formerly the language of the nobility and clergy, spread among local inhabitants mainly as the official language during the Polish occupation (1920—1939). In those years, local inhabitants tried to use it in various spheres of life, but it never took root. Only people of the older generation understand this language. Here, the Polish language is supported mainly by the church.

LITERATŪRA

Anonim. Obszar języka litewskiego w gubernii Wileńskiej // Materiały antropologiczne-archeologiczne i etnograficzne. Kraków, 1898. T. 3.

Bagdonas J. Lietuvių padėjimas Vilniaus wyskupijoje // Viltis. 1908. Nr. 115 (150) ir kt.

Baliński M., Lipiński T. Starożytna Polska pod względem historycznym, geograficznym i statystycznym. Warszawa, 1846. T. 3.

Bieliński J. Wilno // Słownik geograficzny królestwa Polskiego i innych krajów słowiańskich. Warszawa, 1893. T. 13.

Broch O. Über einen weissrussischen Dialekt aus der Gegend südlich von Vilna. — In: Zeitschrift für slavische Philologie, 1957, Bd. XXVI.

Broch O. Zum Litauischen südlich von Vilna. — In: Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap, Oslo, 1960.

Chomiński O. Mapa obszaru językowego litewskiego w Rzeczypospolitej polskiej. Warszawa, 1928—1933.

Gintautas J. Vilniaus gubernijos lietuviai // Švyturys: Mėraštis-almanachas. 1912 m. V., 1910.

Grigas N. Vilniaus kelionės įspūdžiai // Tautos mokykla. 1938. Nr. 17.

Grinaveckienė E. Tarmių medžiagos rinkimas Lietuvių kalbos atlasui // Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai, 1960. T. 3.

Gustaitis A. Lydos — Pelesos apylinkėje pasidairius // Naujoji Lietuva, 1942. Nr. 178.

Jablonskis J. Užrašai [Rankraštis]. 1906. Lietuvos TSR Mokslų akademijos Centrinės bibliotekos Rankraštynas. JJ—37.

Jakubovskis J. Tautybių santykiai Lietuvoje prieš Liublino uniją. K., 1921. Lietuvių kalbos tarmės. Chrestomatija. V., 1970.

Martinkėnas V. Vilniaus krašto lietuviškos pradžios mokyklos ir skaityklos 1919—1939 metais [mašinraštis]. V., 1970. Lietuvos TSR Mokslų akademijos Centrinės bibliotekos Rankraštynas. F. 284—2.

34

Ochmański J. Biskupstwo Wileńskie w średniowieczu. Poznań, 1972.

Ochmański J. Skołwa i Borcie. Zachodniobałtyjskie osadnictwo na Litwie średniowiecznej // Z polskich studiów slawistycznych. Ser. 4. Historia. Warszawa, 1972.

Rozwadowski J. Mapa języka litewskiego w gubernii Wileńskiej // Materiały i prace komisji językowej Akademii umiejętności w Krakowie. Kraków, 1904. T. 1.

Rozwadowski J. Mapa języka litewskiego // Polska i Litwa w dziejowym stosunku. Warszawa—Lublin—Łodź—Kraków, 1914.

Synodus dioecesana Vilnensis. Vilnae, MDCCXLIV (1744).

Słownik geograficzny królestwa Polskiego i innych krajów słowiańskich. Warszawa, 1880–1 T. 1–14.

Stang Chr. S. Nachtrag zur Abhandlung von O. Broch: Das Litauische südlich von Vilna // Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap. 1960. T. 19.

Šukys J. Budingesnės Ramaškonių tarmės ypatybės // Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai. V., 1960. T. 3.

Turska H. O powstaniu polskich obszarów językowych na Wileńszczyźnie. Wilno, 1939.

Verbickis V. Lietuvos žemėlapis su etnografijos siena. V., 1911.

Vidugiris A. Nauji darbai apie lietuvių kalbos tarmes // Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai. V., 1959. T. 2.

Vidugiris A. Dėl kalbų kontaktavimo Pietryčių Lietuvoje // Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai: Kalbų, kontaktai Lietuvos TSR. V., 1983. T. 23.

Vilniaus krašto lietuvių tautosaka // Tautosakos darbai. K., 1938. T. 4.

Viltis. 1908, 1909.

Viltis. 1909. Nr. 90, 92, 94, 96.

Wolter E. Zur litauischen Dialektkunde // Mitteilungen der Litauischen litterarischen Gesellschaft Heidelberg, 1895, 20.

Ziminskas J. Lyda ir Lydos apskritis // Mūsų Vilnius. 1931. Nr. 4, 5.

Ziminskas J. Iš Lietuvos ribų iškritusi Rodūnė // Ateitis. 1944. Nr. 68.

Ziminskas J. Žirmūnų lietuvių kryžiaus kelias // Ateitis. 1944. Nr. 119.

Б-с. Радунский приход Лидского уезда Виленской губернии // Живая старина. СПб, 1895. Вып. 3–4.

Ванагас А. П. Гидронимы Пелясы // Балто-славянские этноязыковые контакты. М., 1980.

Виткаускас В. Некоторые особенности литовского говора в окрестности Радуньи // Балто-славянские этноязыковые контакты. М., 1980.

Вольтер Э. Рукописи. Центральный архив АН СССР в Ленинграде. Ф. 178. Оп. 1, № 66.

Гаучас П., Видугирис А. Этнолингвистическая ситуация литовско-белорусского пограничья с конца XVIII по начало XX в. // Geografija, 1983. T. 19.

Зинкявичюс З., Гаучас П. Восточная граница распространения литовского языка в прошлом по данным топонимики // Проблемы этнической истории балтов. Рига, 1985.

Йонайтите А. Названия культурных растений в пелясском литовском говоре // Балто-славянские этноязыковые контакты. М., 1980.

Карский Е. Ф. Этнографическая карта белорусского племени. 1903 // Дыялекталагічны атлас беларускай мовы. 1963.

Карский Е. Ф. Труды по белорусскому и другим славянским языкам. М., 1962.

Кеппен П. О происхождении, языке и литературе литовских народов. СПб, 1827.

Киркор А. Статистический взгляд на Виленскую губернию // Памятная книжка Виленской губернии на 1853 год. СПб, 1853. Ч. 2.

Корева А. К. Виленская губерния. СПб., 1861.

Матулянис С. П. Литовское племя в Виленской губернии // Памятная книжка Виленской губернии на 1902 год. Вильно, 1901. Ч. 3.

Невская Л. Г. Погребальный обряд в Пелясе / структура и терминология // Балто-славянские этноязыковые контакты. М., 1980.

3*

35

Риттих А. Ф. Этнографическая карта Европейской России. СПб, 1875.

Судник Т. М. К истории языковой ситуации Пелясы // Балто-славянские этноязыковые контакты. М., 1980.

Топоров В. Н. Категория времени и пространства и балтийское языкознание // Балто-славянские исследования. 1980. М., 1981.

Чекман В. Н. К проблеме литовско-белорусской фонетической интерференции в Пелясе // Балто-славянские этноязыковые контакты. М., 1980.