Dėl kalbų kontaktavimo pietryčių Lietuvoje

KALBŲ KONTAKTAI LIETUVOS TSR LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI XXIII (1983) ALOYZAS VIDUGIRIS ON LANGUAGE CONTACT IN SOUTHEASTERN LITHUANIA Introduction Language contact, or contacts, is generally understood as the interaction of languages, manifested in linguistic communication among groups of people speaking different languages under particular geographic, historical, and social conditions (Ахманова О. С., 1966, 535). Southeastern Lithuania is especially rich in linguistic diversity, where Lithuanian, Belarusian, and Polish dialects, their literary varieties, as well as Russian, are in contact across extensive areas or larger and smaller enclaves, not to mention other languages also encountered here. Southeastern Lithuania, having long been directly connected with a much larger territory in which “the most intensive and extensive contacts between Slavic and Baltic ethnolinguistic and cultural complexes take place” (Судник Т. М., Толстая С. М., Топоров В. Н., 1967, 38), is of great significance to scholarship from many perspectives. A separate, extensive study would be needed to describe more fully the linguistic relations of this territory, or at least one part of it, their development and causes. From a purely sociological perspective, this article seeks to describe in somewhat greater detail language contact in the southeasternmost corner of the Lithuanian SSR, which essentially coincides with the administrative area of present-day Šalčininkai District, and to trace its development. In addition, an effort is made to examine the languages used here according to the nature of their contact and the functions they perform, that is, as a system, or what is called the linguistic situation (Никольский Л. Б., 1970, 7; Никольский Л. Б., 1976, 80). For this purpose, the term linguistic situation is also frequently used alongside it. Until the Second World War, present-day Šalčininkai District belonged to four counties: the localities of Akmenynė (or Kamenka), Daučiūnai, Jašiūnai, Šalčininkėliai, Šalčininkai, and Turgeliai were in Vilnius County; Butrimonys, Dainava, Eišiškės, Gerviškės, and Kalesninkai were in Lida County; Rūdninkai was in Trakai County; and Dieveniškės and Poškonys were in Ašmena County. Thus, in terms of its diversity of ethnolinguistic relations—which, among other social factors, was also conditioned by its belonging to different administrative units—Šalčininkai District can in a certain sense represent a much larger Lithuanian-Belarusian border region. The linguistic mosaic and contacts of this district, especially the Lithuanian dialects and their distinctive features, have long attracted the attention of researchers from various countries. These dialects have been studied individually and through expeditions conducted here in 1952, 1955, 1963, 1964, 1966, and 1974. Most attention has been devoted to the Lithuanian dialect of the Dieveniškės area, which was studied and discussed in the works of E. Volteris (Wolter E., 1895, 173–187), K. Būga (Būga K., 1906), J. Jablonskis (Jablonskis J., 1906), P. Arumaa (Arumaa P., 1930, 19–30, 46 (61—65), E. Frenkelis (Fraenkel E., 1936, 14—107), Z. Zinkevičius (Zinkevičius Z., 1966), J. Lipskienė and A. Vidugiris (Lipskienė J. ir Vidugiris A., 1967, 183—222; Lipskienė J., 1968, 196—207; Vidugiris A., 1968, 190—196), I. Ermanytė and K. Eigminas (Ermanytė I., Eigminas K., 1968, 211—235), among others. Linguistic material was collected in this and other localities of Šalčininkai District by J. Balčikonis, N. Grigas, J. Senkus, J. Dovydaitis, M. Sapijanskaitė-Kuosienė, K. Morkūnas, V. Vitkauskas, M. Razmukaitė, and others. Recently, increasing attention has been paid to language contact in the area. The interaction of the local Lithuanian, Belarusian, and Polish phonological and grammatical systems in the Šalčininkai area was studied by M. Łekomceva (Лекомцева М. И., 1972, 116—134, 174—185); in the Kalesninkai area, by V. Čekmanas (Чекман В. Н., 1973, 29—43); in the Dieveniškės area, by T. Sudnik (Судник Т. М., 1975, 102—121, 202—210); and in Butrimonys and some other localities of southeastern Lithuania, by E. Grinaveckienė (Grinaveckienė E., 1969, 219—229; Грина­вецкене Е. И., 1972, 294—408). The local Polish dialect and its relations with Lithuanian and Belarusian throughout the Vilnius region were examined by H. Turska (Turska H., 1939); the Polish dialect of the village of Lopatiškės (Lopatovščizna) (formerly in the Turgeliai area, now in the Mariampolis area of Vilnius District) was studied by A. Zdaniukievičius (Zdaniukiewicz A. A., 1972; Zinkevičius Z., 1974, 204—214), while local Belarusian dialects were studied by E. Grinaveckienė, J. Kovalčiuk, J. Mackevič, E. Romanovič (Грина­вецкене Е. И., Ковальчук И. П., Мацкевич Ю. Ф., Романович Е. М., 1972, 377—393), among others. As research into Baltic and Slavic linguistic relations and contacts expands from a linguistic perspective, interest is also growing in the sociological aspect of that contact. In essence, no serious linguistic study can dispense with a discussion of the social factors that usually determine the development of linguistic facts. In the absence of work in this field, researchers are often compelled to rely on chance hearsay, subjective and frequently contradictory observations, and the like. Lithuanian linguists have been investigating these topics during various linguistic expeditions and other field trips, and observing the development of ethnolinguistic relations in this region for more than 20 years. In that time alone (the article’s author relies chiefly on data from his own research conducted in 1955—1980), certain shifts—both quantitative and qualitative—have occurred in the linguistic-relations mosaic of this corner of the country (so how many such changes must have occurred even earlier?!). Researchers of this region need to know all this, at least in broad outline, so that they can form an accurate picture of sometimes rather complex linguistic relations and identify the objective patterns governing their development. Spread and characterization of the languages in use Any territorial-political community is usually characterized not only by relatively stable economic, political, and cultural ties, but also by linguistic ties. Linguistic ties, manifested in language contact, are in turn broken down according to their component parts, or the languages in use, each of which has a considerable number of distinctly individual features. Therefore, an understanding of the relations between these languages and of the linguistic situation as a system depends to a considerable extent on the accurate characterization of the distinctive features of the languages used here— 47 as a system. Below, these languages are reviewed in order of their distribution and frequency of use: Belarusian, Polish, Lithuanian, and Russian. a. The Belarusian language. The predominant language in the southeastern corner of the Lithuanian SSR is a local Belarusian dialect, which is essentially a continuation of the western part of the central Belarusian dialect, considerably mixed with elements of the Lithuanian and Polish dialects of the area. Local people most often call it (pa)prastą kalbą, praštas or tuteišas lietuvis, or say of it that it dudena (sometimes klėga, kalba, ščarina) paprastai (па-просту, по-простему, па-тутэйшаму), and so on. For most inhabitants of the area described, this language is the primary one, although it is not always their mother tongue. For many older-generation inhabitants, especially in the southern part of the territory mentioned, it is not their mother tongue—that is, it is their second language—and has become their primary language over time for various reasons, since the mother tongue (usually Lithuanian) is no longer the primary language for many here. Although Belarusian is not an official language here, its sphere of use is relatively broad. First and foremost, for many it is the language of the home or family. It is used even more widely as an unofficial public language. It is most often spoken at various local gatherings, sometimes at official meetings, during collective work, and so on. Since Belarusian is used for communication not only between local Lithuanians and local Poles, but also by many local residents when interacting with Russian-speaking people, this Belarusian dialect may be considered a distinctive language of intercommunication, or contact language, for the region. In other words, the local Belarusian dialect plays a certain role as a regional language here. The local Belarusian dialect is also influenced to some extent by the literary Belarusian language, since a considerable proportion of the population often listens to Belarusian radio and watches its television programs. Nevertheless, the influence of literary Belarusian here is not as great as might be expected, given the prevalence of the local Belarusian dialect. The main reason for this phenomenon may be that people who speak this dialect generally do not consider themselves Belarusians and regard their language as a distinctive dialect of the local Polish (or Russian) language. b. The Polish language. Polish is also used quite widely across the territory described—more precisely, a cultural peripheral dialect of Polish (“polszczyzna kresowa” or “polszczyzna litewska”), which developed on the basis of Polish and the local Lithuanian as well as Belarusian dialects (Веренис̌ В. Л., 1965, 193–209; Вярэніч В. Л., 1973, 5–21). This Polish dialect, however, does not yet cover a large compact area. Many residents of larger towns or townships (e.g., Eišiškės, and in part Šalčininkai, Dieveniškės, Jašiūnai, Rūdninkai, Turgeliai, etc.) and some descendants of the so-called szlachta farmsteads (around Eišiškės, Jašiūnai, Pabarė, Turgeliai, etc.) use it as their mother tongue and primary language. Otherwise, the Polish dialect is most often used here alongside local Belarusian and, sometimes, Lithuanian dialects. In general, for most residents of the area, this Polish dialect is a common means of communication. It is also often the language of the local administration. Polish is usually spoken between strangers or people from more distant localities who meet, by neighbors wishing to maintain a “good tone,” and, of course, by local intellectuals. Very often, Polish is regarded here as a sign of politeness, good upbringing, and education. 48 Polish, formerly the language of the local landed gentry and the Church, began to be actively used everywhere by the local population (or at least efforts were made to use it), chiefly during the years of the bourgeois Polish occupation (1920–1939). The Polish spoken by local residents is not uniform. Representatives of the older generation generally know only the local Polish dialect. Many members of the younger generation who have completed eight-year (formerly seven-year) or secondary schools, most of which here teach in Polish, generally have a better command of literary Polish. A portion of the young people who attend or have attended only schools where instruction is in Lithuanian or Russian have little command of Polish. The influence of literary Polish is felt here not only through schools but also through the press (besides Polish-language newspapers, books, and journals published in the Lithuanian SSR, many also subscribe to and read publications issued in the Polish People’s Republic), radio, television (i.e., broadcasts in Polish both in our republic and in the PPR), amateur arts activities, and so on. The considerable influence of the Polish language and Polish culture in general is also due to the fact that most local residents, who often speak Belarusian or Lithuanian in their families, officially consider themselves Polish. In addition, many local families have close kinship ties with the Polish People’s Republic as a result of emigration during the war and postwar years. c. Lithuanian—essentially a continuation of the Western Dzūkian (or Southern Aukštaitian) subdialect—is used here quite unevenly. Although the traditional Dzūkian dialect has generally survived across a fairly broad belt extending from the state border of the Lithuanian SSR in the south to approximately the Visinčia River in the north, that is, as far as Gudeliai and Šalčininkėliai, it has retained a dominant position to this day only in individual parts of this area. Larger pockets where Lithuanian predominates are found around Dieveniškės, especially in the central and western parts of the Dieveniškės salient (Lipskienė J. and Vidugiris A., 1967, 183—185), and in the western corner of Šalčininkai District, mostly along the border with Varėna District (the villages of Mištūnai, Naniškės, Naujažvaris, etc.). The traditional Dzūkian dialect is used here by representatives of all generations, from the oldest to children. In the central part of the area, roughly from Kalesninkai to Šalčininkai, local residents who know and speak Lithuanian make up only a small percentage. In the environs of Butrimonys, Dainava, Daučiūnai, Gerviškės, and Kalesninkai, Lithuanian is spoken or understood mainly by older people and a few younger ones. Around Šalčininkai, Šalčininkėliai, and Eišiškės, few even of the oldest generation remain. Because the younger generation has in practice not been taught to speak Lithuanian at home for some time—that is, Lithuanian is no longer spoken with them at home—the sphere in which Lithuanian is used is steadily shrinking. Lithuanian is abandoned first in mixed families, when the husband or wife does not know Lithuanian at all or knows it less well than, for example, Belarusian or Polish. But sometimes parents, even those with a fairly good command of Lithuanian, stop speaking it for the sake of their children, so that school will be easier for them (most schools here teach in Polish); later, they themselves grow unaccustomed to the language altogether. One or two such families can still be found in the environs of Dainava (the villages of Gilviniškės and Vėžionys), Butrimonys, and Gerviškės (Jurgonys, Kaniūkai, Šiauliai, or old Strielčiai), and occasionally in other villages. 4. 949 49 A large proportion of the inhabitants of this area now know Lithuanian only passively: they understand it better or worse but can no longer speak it fluently. These are mostly people who have stopped speaking it actively themselves but heard their parents, grandparents, and others speaking Lithuanian in their families, or who spoke it themselves from childhood but later forgot it. During field research, such representatives of the older and sometimes middle generations could still often be encountered throughout the southern part of Šalčininkai District (including Šalčininkai itself), from the Dieveniškės salient to the environs of Dainava and Kalesninkai. However, even people who cannot speak Lithuanian sometimes sing in it. North and northeast of the aforementioned Visinčia River—in the areas around Akmenynė, Jašiūnai, Rūdininkus, and Turgeliai—the local Lithuanian Dzūkian dialect has essentially disappeared. No one speaks it here anymore; only some still remember it from stories told by their parents, grandparents, or neighbors. Even the oldest informants have not spoken this dialect themselves, although a few remember individual words from their parents or grandparents, can explain them, and can translate a little. They mention people who spoke it in the past. The Lithuanian substrate in the local Belarusian and Polish dialects also attests to the fact that the Lithuanian Dzūkian dialect survived here until relatively recently (Zdaniukewicz A. A., 1972, 5–6; Zinkevičius Z., 1974, 207–214). A few elderly local people encountered here who knew some Lithuanian (partly dialectal, partly literary) explained that they had learned it as adolescents or adults, while working in “Lithuania” or otherwise interacting with Lithuanian-speaking people from elsewhere. There are more local people here who learned Lithuanian later, especially among the younger generation. They generally speak the literary language. Most are people who recently completed various schools in Vilnius, Kaunas, and elsewhere, or who worked or have been working alongside Lithuanian speakers for some time. Almost everyone who has completed an eight-year or secondary school understands Lithuanian to some extent, but most cannot speak it (few manage to learn to speak Lithuanian well solely in school Lithuanian lessons). Through school, pupils from the aforementioned southern part of the area generally acquire a somewhat better command of Lithuanian, as their parents or grandparents, who have not forgotten Lithuanian—that is, the local Dzūkian dialect—may still help them somewhat at home. Consequently, when speaking Lithuanian, members of the younger generation in those environs still mix in some elements of the local Dzūkian dialect. Many members of the middle generation from the Butrimonys, Gerviškės, and Dainava environs, who studied Lithuanian in local schools operating from 1940 to 1953, speak considerably more dialectally (partly dialectally, partly in the literary language).1 It should be noted that in the southern part of the area, many representatives of the oldest generation also have a fairly good command of literary Lithuanian. Most read the Lithuanian press, listen to the radio, watch television programs, and generally follow Lithuanian cultural life actively. Some already know the literary language better and use it more often than the dialect. The preference given here to the literary language should be explained first and foremost by the same reasons that are now bringing it to prominence in all our dialects. On the other hand, local conditions also play a considerable part: the Slavic languages of this area are isolu- 1 At present, all subjects in Šalčininkai District were taught in Lithuanian at the Dieveniškės, Eišiškės, and Šalčininkai complete secondary schools (i.e., schools with parallel classes taught in Polish and Russian), at the eight-year school in Poškonys, and at the primary schools in Daubutiškės and Kazuliai in the Dieveniškės environs, and in the village of Mištūnai in the Dainava environs. 50 These Lithuanian-language dialects can now maintain contact with the Lithuanian language only through the literary language, mediated by radio, television, the press, etc. Thus the literary language, in turn, breathes life into these dialects, enabling them to continue to exist. In general, however, Lithuanian as the official administrative language is used here only to a very limited extent because, as we have mentioned, a considerable proportion of the local population no longer speaks Lithuanian. d. Russian. Although Russian was the native language of almost none of the local population before the Second World War, it was not entirely foreign to the people of this region either. Many men of the older generation had studied Russian at school during the years of tsarist rule, had learned some while serving in the army, or otherwise during longer trips away for government work. Moreover, even without having studied Russian anywhere, someone who speaks Belarusian can understand Russian fairly well because of the genetic affinity between the languages, and can converse in it after a little practice. Russian became especially popular during the Soviet period. The multilingual inhabitants of this region learn it fairly easily and well at school, or by listening to the radio, watching television programmes and films, working, travelling, or simply interacting with people of various nationalities. In addition, many residents from other republics, especially Belarus, have settled in Šalčininkai and Eišiškės, and their young people speak mostly Russian by now. It is true that the literary Russian used here sometimes contains some local Polish or Belarusian influence. As one of the principal languages of administration, and often serving as an international language, it is spreading quite rapidly not only as a public language but also more generally as a language of culture. Consequently, the number of schools with Russian as the language of instruction is also growing. Thus, Russian is successfully taking the place of Lithuanian and Polish here and partly restricting their use and spread. Functional relations among the contacting languages Each language used here has its own sphere of use, which depends to some extent on the local communities. Since the southeastern corner of the Lithuanian SSR is made up not of speakers of a single language but of a community of groups linked by close economic and cultural contacts, the languages serving that community are likewise connected by close mutual relations. In other words, from the perspective of the continuum of communication, the languages or linguistic systems serving that community together form a system, or what is known as an archisystem (Никольский Л. Б., 1976, 80). Depending on the functions performed by languages, a linguistic situation may comprise several components, usually arranged in a certain hierarchical order. The present-day linguistic situation in southeastern Lithuania may provisionally be described as three-component. Lithuanian, Belarusian, and Polish serve as the local languages here. The so-called macro-mediator language is Russian. The question of the regional language is somewhat more complicated. In the broader sense, the function of a regional language would have to be assigned to literary Lithuanian as the administrative language, whereas in the narrower sense it would belong to Polish, which is most widespread here as a public language and the language of local administration. For now, however, neither one alone is capable of serving all the inhabitants of the region under discussion, who speak different languages. 4* 51 The language-shift process, which has advanced too far, prevents Lithuanian from performing this role, while Polish has not managed to become established everywhere. One of the most widely used and understood varieties here is the local Belarusian dialect; however, since it is neither officially approved nor codified, it cannot perform all the functions that only a corresponding literary language can fulfil. Its use, by virtue of its genetic affinity, nevertheless creates considerable opportunities for the adoption of Russian. Thus, Russian is quite often used not only as an international, or macro-mediator, language, but also as a regional language. Consequently, an essentially two-component linguistic situation is beginning to take shape here. Bilingualism and diglossia The interaction of communities speaking different languages or dialects, often distinguished by ethnic and social background, results not only in a linguistic situation but also in bilingualism and diglossia. Bilingualism or diglossia, in turn, is generally described as a reflection of that same linguistic situation from the perspective of a person or individual (Никольский Л. Б., 1976, 90). Contact among the languages used in this region is manifested in various types and forms of bilingualism. In practice, there are no people here who can get by in only one language—that is, monolingual individuals or monolinguals—apart perhaps from small children. Yet there are also few local people who know two or all of the languages used here equally well (representatives of the so-called coordinate type of bilingualism). Most know one language better—the one most commonly used or their primary language—while they generally know less well the others, which are used less often or are secondary and usually learned later (representatives of the so-called subordinate type of bilingualism). Since the languages used here occupy unequal positions in the linguistic activity of an individual or a group of individuals (equivalent bilingualism is rare), it is appropriate to speak of functional bilingualism, more precisely, of a compound type of bilingualism, since in the initial stage of bilingualism each language was used by the same individuals in different domains, and often continues to be used that way today. And since most individuals whose native language is Lithuanian usually also know the other languages used here, whereas speakers of other languages know Lithuanian much less often, and so on, the so-called unidirectional type of bilingualism predominates here. Specific forms of bilingualism usually depend on which language is used first, where each language predominates, and often on the age of the speakers. For example, among older people, the following forms of bilingualism are characteristic across the area, in order of frequency and precedence of language use: Belarusian–Polish, Lithuanian–Belarusian, Lithuanian–Belarusian–Polish, Polish–Belarusian, Belarusian–Polish–Russian, Belarusian–Lithuanian–Polish, less commonly Lithuanian–Polish, Lithuanian–Belarusian–Polish–Russian, Polish–Belarusian–Russian, and so on. The order of these forms of bilingualism is somewhat different among younger people, given that in many places the use of Lithuanian (especially the local Dzūkian dialect) as a native and primary language has declined. In many places it has been replaced by Belarusian and, in part, Polish. In turn, the role of literary Lithuanian has increased, serving for some residents as a learned, secondary language. 52 Moreover, the spheres of use of literary Polish (especially in the countryside) and Russian (especially in towns) expanded considerably. Since diglossia is essentially a simpler phenomenon (it encompasses only the subsystems of a single language system) than bilingualism, the distinction between “bilingualism without diglossia” and “bilingualism with diglossia” is therefore not fundamental. For this reason, the phenomena of diglossia (its types and varieties) are not discussed separately in further detail. Although brief, this overview of the dynamics and development of the types and varieties of both bilingualism and diglossia shows that a complex process is taking place in southeastern Lithuania, involving not only interaction between languages but also language shift. This phenomenon is not new. Its origins and causes should be sought not so much in the present as in the past. Key data on the development of language contact Įvairių tyrinėjimų duomenimis (Būga K., 1961, 550; Топоров В. Н., Трубачев О. Н., 1962, 3–16, 236; Седов В. В., 1970, 191–192; Хабургаев Г. А., 1980, 45–60), seniau baltų gyventa žymiai toliau į rytus ir pietus, negu tiesiogiai liudija rašytiniai istorijos šaltiniai. Lietuvių etninė teritorija, formuojantis lietuvių tautybei, į pietus ir rytus yra siekusi taip pat toliau negu dabar (Łowmiański H., 1931, 53–56; Jasas R., 1965, 17). Tiesa, ši lietuvių ir rytinių slavų riba niekada nėra buvusi labai aiški ir pastovi, nes „čia buvo susidūrusios ir sumišusios dvi skirtingos gyventojų dalys, kurios kitados buvo sudariusios Lietuvos valstybę – lietuviai ir gudai (t. y. baltarusiai)“ (Jakubovskis J., 1921). Kitaip sakant, mišriai buvo gyvenama tam tikra vienur platesnė, kitur siauresnė pereinamoji lietuvių ir baltarusių paribio zona. Vietomis, ypač prie svarbesniųjų kelių, ji galėjo paplatėti ir dėl tam tikros abipusės gyventojų migracijos2. Dėl įvairių istorinių politinio, ekonominio ir kultūrinio pobūdžio aplinkybių ši paribio juosta paprastai kito ne lietuvių elemento naudai (Jakubovskis J., 1921, 4). Nevertheless, until the mid-nineteenth century, Lithuanian still predominated throughout the former Vilnius County, in a large part of Ašmena County, and in the northern part of Lida County (Baliński M. i Lipiński T., 1846, 122, 251, 264). In 1827, the local parish priest, P. Grinaškevičius, provided valuable information about language use in part of the area under study—Šalčininkai parish (which at that time also included the Šalčininkėliai filial church). Having noted that “all the peasants of the local parish speak their native Lithuanian,” he went on to state that Lithuanian was spoken southeast of Šalčininkai around Kaulėliškės, Dieveniškės, Subatninkai, and Įvija, all the way to the Nemunas (Ведомости, 1827, 5). Thus, the settlements of Gervėčiai, Lazūnai, and others, now known as Lithuanian language islands, were then still directly connected to the main Lithuanian-speaking area. However, for a considerable proportion of the local population, Lithuanian was already no longer the only language. The same P. Grinaškevičius noted that the Lithuanian peasants, “because of the Vilnius city’s proxim- 2 The infiltration of an East Slavic element into the southeastern Lithuanian ethnic lands may have been encouraged by the Grand Duchy of Lithuania’s capital cities—Vilnius and Trakai—as centers of attraction, and by the vacant lands and homesteads left in the wake of the wars and plague of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (Baliński M. i Lipiński T., 1846 122–123; Dundulienė P., 1963, 105–122). 53 ity and the two highways (wielkich traktów) that cross the parish also know Polish; it is the only language in which they pray. The szlachta of both the surrounding area and all the manors know no Lithuanian at all and speak only Polish.” Having once again emphasized that “the native language of the local parish’s common people is Lithuanian,” he immediately added that “the common people also know and even speak Rusyn (i.e., Belarusian.—A. V.) among themselves” (Ведомости, 1827, 5). This shows that all the languages mentioned here were used to varying degrees and in differentiated ways. All the peasants spoke Lithuanian, while the landowners, szlachta, and clergy spoke Polish. Since local landowners, szlachta, and often members of the clergy did not know Lithuanian, the peasants were forced to learn a language understood by the upper classes in order to communicate with them. However, apart from prayers memorized by heart, most peasants still did not know how to speak Polish. Therefore, when communicating with members of the upper classes or newcomers who did not know Lithuanian, they tried to use the local Belarusian dialect, which had already served as a language of contact and, to some extent, a regional language. Over time, this local Belarusian dialect apparently began to be used as a public language, and then began to displace Lithuanian even from the family, the basic cell of society. Nevertheless, no major decline in Lithuanian is yet apparent. At best, most local inhabitants were bilingual, and some may even have been trilingual. The questionnaire on language use completed that same year, 1827, for Turgeliai parish received the brief and concise answer: “Dialect of the Lithuanian language” (“Dialekt mówienia litewskiego języka”) (Ведомости, 1827, 7). It goes on to state that the parish landowners and szlachta spoke Polish, while the townspeople spoke Russian (i.e., Belarusian). This should be understood to mean that at the time the Lithuanian Dzūkian dialect predominated here, while the townspeople had already begun to use the local Belarusian dialect more often, at least in public. The 1849 “Chronicle” of Eišiškės parish states that “the parishioners of Eišiškės speak Lithuanian, Russian (i.e., Belarusian), and Polish” (Kronika, 1848, A — 2667). This remark can be understood in two ways: either the three languages were used in different places and by different families as separate home languages, or they were used by one and the same inhabitants. Although the local population in individual villages or groups of villages had begun to Slavicize somewhat earlier, the linguistic situation overall differed little; that is, it had advanced little further in Slavicization than the similar linguistic situation around Šalčininkai. According to A. Rittich’s data (Риттих А. Ф., 1875), the area around Rūdninkai was still Lithuanian in the third quarter of the nineteenth century and became Slavicized during the final quarter of that century. According to the recollections of the oldest local people, until the beginning of the twentieth century a considerable number of older inhabitants who understood or even spoke Lithuanian could still be found, even in villages where, according to official statistics from the late nineteenth century, no Lithuanian speakers were recorded (Anonim, 1898, 65 — 66; Rozwadowski J., 1904, 93. Первая всеобщая перепись, 1905). Tiek vietos žmonių pasakojimu, tiek įvairių tyrinėjimų duomenimis (Turska H., 1939, 6 — 56; Zinkevičius Z., 1966, 24 — 31; Zinkevičius Z., 1976, 22 — 23; Vidugiris A., 1971, 236 — 248), lietuvių kalbos nykimas šiame Lietuvos kampe ypač suintensyvėjęs po baudžiavos panaikinimo (1861) ir 1863 — 1864 m. sukilimo, t. y. iš esmės tas suintensyvėjimas sutapo su kapitalistinių gamybinių santykių įsigalėjimu kaime ir su kovos paaštrėjimu tarp lenkiškos orientacijos dvarininkijos bei dvasi- 54 the nobility, on the one hand, and the Tsarist officials, on the other, over influence among Lithuanian peasants. The linguistic situation, with language shift already clearly progressing, is reflected in a description of Šalčininkai rural district from 1872, based on a special questionnaire distributed by the Russian Geographical Society. The description states: “The principal inhabitants of the rural district are Lithuanians, and therefore the Lithuanian language is used. In some places, Belarusian is spoken. Many Lithuanians adopt this (i.e., Belarusian) language, and some of them speak it fluently” (Сведения, 1872, 11139). Responses from other rural districts on the same questionnaire show that a similar situation prevailed elsewhere as well, for example, around Benekainis and Butrimonis (Сведения, 1872, 11250), and elsewhere. At that time, the areas closer to Vilnius were becoming Slavicized particularly rapidly. How rapidly the ethnolinguistic situation in this region changed in the second half of the 19th century can be seen by comparing data from the first half of the 19th century with data from its end, mapped in J. Rozwadowski’s “Map of the Lithuanian Language in Vilna Governorate” (based on statistics collected by A. Plater in 1890 and processed by Anonim in 1898) (Anonim, 1898, 1—72; Rozwadowski J., 1904, 93). Despite the shortcomings and bias of these statistics (Rozwadowski J., 1904, 89—93; Š-klys, 1903, 36), it is evident that by the end of the 19th century most of the former Vilnius district, a large part of Ashmyany district, and a considerable part of Lida district had already been almost entirely Slavicized or were in the process of becoming so. In southeastern Lithuania, only the southernmost part of Vilnius district remained less Slavicized; it roughly coincided with the Šalčininkai parish of that period and, under the ecclesiastical administrative division, belonged to the Rodūnia deanery. The Rodūnia deanery3 also included, at that time just beginning to become Slavicized somewhat more rapidly, the parishes of Butrimonys (then a filial parish of Benekainiai), Dieveniškės, and Eišiškės (the latter then also encompassing the present-day parishes of Kalesninkai and Pabarė) (Synodus, 1744, 64—69; Executorium, 1854, 10—61). The Ashmyany deanery included the present-day parish of Nòrviliškės, whose northwestern part now forms part of the Dieveniškės area. The parishes of Rūdninkai and Turgeliai, located in the northern part of the area under discussion (the latter included the present-day parishes of Akmenynė, Jašiūnai, and Taboriškės for a long time), belonged to the Vilnius deanery (Synodus, 1744, 42, 53; Executorium, 1854, 10—61), where only members of the older generation or individual families were still able to speak Lithuanian4. Thus, the varying pace of the language-shift process is clearly connected with the boundaries of ecclesiastical administrative divisions. On the other hand, Vilnius also played a considerable role here: at that time it was one of the most important centers of Polish culture in the region and had a decisive influence on the pace of Slavicization in the surrounding areas. The southeastern borderlands, which directly adjoined the Belarusian-language territory, were also becoming Slavicized fairly rapidly. In fact, the Lithuanian language was disappearing both in the borderlands and in the interior. The main centers from which Slavic languages spread were estates, folwarks, szlachta homesteads, small towns, and parish 3 To this day, a greater or lesser number of Lithuanian-speaking or Lithuanian-understanding people remain in many parishes that then belonged to the Rodūnia deanery, for example, in Armoniškės, Asavõs, Benekainiai, Kaulėdiškiai, Lazūnai, Nočia, Pelėsõs, Ródūnia, Varanėvas, and elsewhere. 4 According to local people, such families or elderly people could still be found around Jašiūnai, Pãrudaminis, Turgeliai, and elsewhere in the first half of the 20th century. 55 centers, where more Tsarist administrative and cultural institutions were concentrated and people of various nationalities lived. As early as 1886 and 1893, E. Volteris, who had visited Lida and Ashmyany districts and the areas around Benekainiai, Dieveniškės, Eišiškės, Kaniava, Rodūnia, and elsewhere, noted that the Polonized szlachta constantly mocked Lithuanians, calling them various insulting names (Вольтер Э., 66). Yet despite the mockery, even where the szlachta predominated, “one could nevertheless hear Lithuanian songs and speech, as the language of the home. Lithuanians (or perhaps the ancient Yotvingians) speak three languages: with the official—in Russian or the ordinary language, that is, Belarusian; with the priest—in Polish; and among themselves—in Lithuanian, even loudly when no one is laughing. Lithuanian can even be heard at public gatherings” (Вольтер Э., 66). To E. Volteris’s testimony it may be added that the Lithuanian language was persecuted not only by ordinary members of the szlachta, but also by the Polonized upper classes—and, for a different purpose, by Tsarist officials. At that time, the personal stance and activities of Catholic clergy had a major influence on the linguistic and national orientation of many localities. Taking advantage of their almost unlimited influence over the peasants, clergy of Polish orientation played a very negative role in the assimilation of this region. They succeeded in making many peasants who still spoke Lithuanian regard Polish as the only language suitable for public use, and as the language of the upper social strata, science, religion, literature, and culture in general. The result of this conviction was that the disappearance of the “common” Lithuanian language accelerated greatly. Furthermore, Catholic affiliation often came to be equated with belonging to the Polish nation. This view arose during the years of Tsarist oppression, when Catholicism, as the “Polish faith” (cf. the popular expression “polska wiara”), was understood as a contrast to Orthodoxy, that is, the state “Russian faith.” Consequently, most inhabitants, judging by their religion and regardless of their origins or mother tongue, began to consider themselves Polish. For both Lithuanian- and Belarusian-speaking people, the disenfranchisement of their languages and the negative attitude toward them among the ruling class and upper strata—as languages of the “lower” estate, that is, of the common people—made it difficult to regard their language as the basis of their nationality. The situation was even worse for Lithuanian: Polonizers sought to brand it as the language of pagans, that is, a language to be avoided by a good Catholic. As a result, many people’s true national consciousness was effectively extinguished before it had even had time to awaken. The “catastrophic abandonment of the Lithuanian language” that accompanied this process, as H. Turska put it (Turska H., 1939, 46), occurred here mainly in the late 19th century and the first half of the 20th century. According to local residents, in a large part of Šalčininkai district Lithuanian was spoken predominantly until the occupation by bourgeois Poland (1920) or until the First World War (1914). True, at the beginning of the occupation many more determined peasants fought for Lithuanian schools and reading rooms despite persecution, fines, and imprisonment, but in 1931— —1936 they were completely banned5. Unfortunately, torn apart by conflicting national convictions and capitalist relations, the Lithuanians of this region were no longer able to resist for long and eventually abandoned their language and nationality. The survival of the Lithuanian language was greatly harmed 5 From 1922—1925 until 1931—1936, there were 6 such schools, or reading rooms established in their place after closure, in the areas of Eišiškės, Kalesninkai, and Dainava; 8 in Butrimonys, Daučiūnai, and Gerviškės; and 11 in Dieveniškės and Poškonys (Martinkėnas V., 1970). 56 This was also brought about by the national discord incited by nationalists during the Second World War. The more the number of Lithuanian-speaking people in this region declined, the harder life became for them. The difficult, rightless situation that the Lithuanian-speaking local residents had to endure was succinctly described by Macys Rimpa, an elderly resident of Šalčininkai (aged 75): “So whoever spoke Lithuanian was not a person” (recorded by the author in 1963). Only during the Soviet years, when political, economic, ideological, and cultural conditions changed fundamentally, did relations among the inhabitants change, and the basis for national discrimination against Lithuanians disappeared. However, the consequences of the past remained. The ethnolinguistic character of this region changed fundamentally as a result of the denationalization policy systematically pursued for a long time by the upper strata and the ruling class. The uneven pace of Slavicization is explained by the influence of the intensifying Lithuanian national consciousness and of individual figures in its cultural life5. Recently, the Lithuanian language—that is, the traditional local Dzūkian dialect—has been nearing extinction throughout the central part of the area under study. At times, because of the abundance of Slavic loanwords and its limited applicability, even its own speakers no longer value this dialect—though these are mostly people already oriented toward Polish. Only standard Lithuanian enjoys greater prestige here, as one of the languages used in the administration and higher schools; it is also taught as a subject in all the schools in the region. Yet the sphere in which it can be put to practical use is also limited here, which in turn restricts its social standing and influence. In this respect, conditions have recently been more favorable here to the Slavic languages: Polish, Belarusian, and Russian. In discussing the specific features of the decline of Lithuanian and the spread of Slavic languages in this region, it must be noted that Belarusian nevertheless spread more rapidly here than Polish, despite the latter being promoted; Belarusian seemed to have blocked the way for Polish. A number of circumstances helped Belarusian gain dominance here. Since the Lithuanian ethnic borderlands had long been connected with areas inhabited by Belarusians, Belarusian served as a kind of means of communication between the two groups—that is, it functioned as a regional language. Local Lithuanians, by contrast, had no such contacts with Polish ethnic areas, and the rather rare, occasional encounters with Polish-speaking landowners or clergy were not enough to acquire a good command of Polish. Moreover, because of its kinship and numerous Polish loanwords, Belarusian was perceived as a variety or dialect of Polish. Neutral terms for it were “the local language” (tuteiša) or “the common language”; it was not associated with the language of Belarusians as a separate nationality. Even the szlachta here often spoke Belarusian (Turska H., 1939, 32). Although Belarusian spread more rapidly than Polish, it failed to achieve national resonance (for objective reasons, Belarusian national consciousness, like Lithuanian national consciousness, developed late), did not come into conflict with Polish, and instead became a kind of ally. In other words, in the linguistic Polonization of the population it served as a certain intermediary or transitional language, as it did elsewhere, where the shift from Lithuanian to Polish also proceeded through Belarusian (Turska H., 1939, 10). 6 The inhabitants of the environs of Butrimonys and Gerviškės respectfully remember the cultural work of local teachers Veronika Jankelaitytė (1888–1965) and Adomas Mikna (1892–1974). In the environs of Dieveniškės, a positive role was played by the work of the educator P. Butvydas, who worked there for an extended period (from 1885) (Žiminskas J., 1944, 3), and others. 57 Polish, formerly the language of local landowners and the church, spread among the peasantry as a public language chiefly during the Polish occupation. People sought to learn it and use it in various spheres of public life. To this day, Polish remains the public language of many schools and local administrations in numerous places. However, it has only recently begun to take root more widely as a language of everyday life, especially in the families of the younger generation. Thus, when discussing the linguistic Polonization of the local population throughout the region, Soviet researchers distinguish three periods: 1) until 1920, 2) from 1920 until the Second World War, and 3) the postwar years (Вярэніч В. Л., 1973, 5–21; Чекман В. Н., 1973, 42). The prestige of Russian grows year by year. Here it serves not only as an international language but is also becoming one of the region’s most important languages of administration, schooling, science, and culture in general. Needless to say, this attempt to survey the development of linguistic relations in southeastern Lithuania and to present a scheme of language contact in the region is somewhat simplified and requires continual additions and corrections—not only because relevant research is lacking, but also because the linguistic relations in this district are particularly unstable and dynamic. LITERATŪRA Anonim. Obszar języka litewskiego w gubernii Wileńskiej. – Kn.: Materiały antropologiczno archeologiczne i etnograficzne. Kraków, 1898, t. 3. Arumaa P. Litauische mundartliche Texte aus der Wilnaer Gegend mit grammatischen Anmerkungen. – Dorpat, 1930. Baliński M. i Lipiński T. Starożytna Polska pod względem historycznym, geograficznym i statystycznym. – Warszawa, 1846, t. 3. Būga K. Rinktiniai raštai. – V., 1961, t. 3. Būga K. Užrašai. 1906 (rankraštis). Vilniaus valstybinio V. Kapsuko universiteto Mokslinės bibliotekos Rankraščių skyrius. F. D–545, l. 26–27. Dundulienė P. Badas ir maras Lietuvoje, feodalizmo laikais. – Lietuvos TSR Aukštųjų mokyklų mokslo darbai. Istorija, 1963, t. 4. Ermanytė I., Eigminas K. Žemės kalba (vietovardžiai). – Kn.: Dieveniškės. V., 1968. Executorium decretum de limitibus diocesis Vilnensis. – Vilnae, 1854. Fraenkel E. Der Stand der Erforschung des im Wilnagebiete gesprochenen Litauischen. – Baltico-slavica. Wilno, 1936, t. 2. Grinaveckienė E. Lietuvių ir slavų kalbų gramatinio kontaktavimo reiškiniai pietryčių Lietuvoje. – Kn.: Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos tyrinėjimai. V., 1969. Jablonskis J. Dieveniškės. 1906 (rankraštis). Lietuvos TSR Mokslų Akademijos Centrinės bibliotekos Rankraščių skyrius. F. JJ–37. Jakubovskis J. Tautybių santykiai Lietuvoje prieš Liublino uniją. – K., 1921. Jasas R. Lietuvių kilmė. – Kn.: Lietuvos TSR istorijos bruožai. K., 1965. Kronika 1848. Vilniaus valstybinio V. Kapsuko universiteto Mokslinės bibliotekos Rankraščių skyrius. F. A.–2667. Lipskienė J., Vidugiris A. Dieveniškių tarmė. – Kn.: Lietuvių gramatinė sandara. V., 1967 Lipskienė J. Frazeologizmai. – Kn.: Dieveniškės. V., 1968. Łowmiański H. Studja nad początkami społeczeństwa i państwa Litewskiego. – Wilno, 1931, t. 1. 58 Martinkėnas V. Vilniaus krašto lietuviškos pradžios mokyklos ir skaityklos 1919–1939 metais: Medžiaga mokyklos istorijai (mašinraštis. V., 1970). – Lietuvos TSR Mokslų Akademijos Centrinės bibliotekos Rankraščių skyrius. F. 284–2. Rozwadowski J. Mapa języka litewskiego w gubernii Wileńskiej. – In: Materiały i prace komisji językowej Akademii umiejętności w Krakowie. Kraków, 1904, t. 1. Synodus diocesana Vilnensis. – Wilnae, MDCCXLIV (1744). Š-klys. Prie statistikos Vilniaus gubernijoje. – Varpas, 1903, Nr. 2. Turska H. O powstaniu polskich obszarów językowych na Wileńszczyźnie. – Wilno, 1939. Vidugiris A. Pastabos apie tarmės leksiką. – Kn.: Dieveniškės. V., 1968. Vidugiris A. Kalbų sąveikos klausimu. – Kn.: Dubingiai. V., 1971. Wölter E. Zur Kunde der Wilnaer litauischen Dialekte. – Mitteilungen der litauischen litterarischen Gesellschaft. Heidelberg, 1895, 20. Zdaniukiewicz A. A. Gwara Łopatowszczyzny. Fonetyka, fleksija, słownictwo. – Wrocław–Warszawa–Kraków–Gdańsk, 1972. Ziminskas J. Eišiškių sritis tautinio atgimimo priešaušryje. – Ateitis, 1944, Nr. 51(354). Zinkevicius Z. [Rec.:] Alojzy Adam Zdaniukiewicz, Gwara Łopatowszczyzny. – Baltistica, 1974, t. 10(2). Zinkevicius Z. Lietuvių dialektologija. – V., 1966. Zinkevicius Z. Lietuvių antroponimika. Vilniaus lietuvių asmenvardžiai XVII a. pradžioje. – V., 1977. Ахманова О. С. Словарь лингвистических терминов. – М., 1966. Ведомости о костелах и монастырях Виленской епархии. 1827. – Lietuvos TSR Centrinis-valstybinis istorinis archyvas. F 694, b. 1, Nr. 769. Верениц В. Л. Польские говоры на территории СССР и задачи их изучения. – В кн.: Пытані мовазнаўства и методыкі выкладання моў. Мінск, 1965. Вольтер Э. Рукописи. – Центральный архив АН СССР в Ленинграде. Ф. 178, оп. 1, № 66. Вярэч В. Л. Польскія периферыйныя гаворкі на ўсходзе. – В кн.: Польские говоры в СССР. Минск, 1973, ч. 1. Гринявецкене Е. И. Некоторые явления контактирования литовских и славянских говоров (на материале языковых контактов в юго-восточной Литве). – Балто-славянский сборник. М., 1972. Гринявецкене Е. И., Ковальчук И. П., Манкевич Ю. Ф., Романович Е. М. Северо-западные белорусские говоры литовского пограничья. – Балто-славянский сборник. М., 1972. Лекомцева М. И. О взаимодействии фонологических систем в районе балто-славянского пограничья. – Балто-славянский сборник. М., 1972, с. 116–134. Лекомцева М. И. Система значений глагольных граммем в пограничных литовско-славянских говорах. – Балто-славянский сборник. М., 1972, с. 174–185. Никольский Л. Б. Изучение языковой ситуации как прикладная языковая дисциплина. – В кн.: Проблемы изучения языковой ситуации и языковой вопрос в странах Азии и северной Африки. М., 1970. Никольский Л. Б. Синхронная социолингвистика. – М., 1976. Первая всеобщая перепись населения Российской империи в 1897 г. Виленская губерния. – Вильна, 1905. Риттих А. Ф. Этнографическая карта Европейской России. – СПб., 1875. Сведения о состоянии сельского хозяйства и промышленности. – Vilniaus valstybinio V. Kapsuko universiteto Mokslinės bibliotekos Rankraščių skyrius. F. A–63, A–64, b. 11139, 112507. Седов В. В. Славяне Верхнего Поднепровья и Подвинья. – М., 1970. Судник Т. М., Толстая С. М., Топоров В. Н. К характеристике южной части балтийско-славянского языкового союза. – Советское славяноведение, 1967, № 2. Судник Т. М. Диалекты литовско-славянского пограничья: Очерки фонологических систем. – М., 1975. 59 Топоров В. Н., Трубачев О. Н. Лингвистический анализ гидронимов Верхнего Поднепровья. — М., 1962. Хабургаев Г. А. Становление русского языка. — М., 1980. Чекман В. Н. Фонетические особенности говоров села Колесники Эйшишкского района Лятовской ССР. — В кн.: Польские говоры в СССР. Минск, 1973, ч. 1. А. ВИДУГИРИС О КОНТАКТИРОВАНИИ ЯЗЫКОВ В ЮГО-ВОСТОЧНОЙ ЛИТВЕ Резюме В статье в социологическом аспекте характеризуется функциональное контактирование языков, или т.н. языковая ситуация, и прослеживается его образование на территории юго-восточной Литвы, по существу совпадающей с территорией нынешнего Шальчининского района, в состав которого вошли разные местности бывших Виленского (Вильнюсского), Тракайского, Лидского и Ошмянского уездов. Здесь взаимодействуют местные диалекты литовского, белорусского и польского языков, их литературные варианты и русский язык. Результаты этого взаимодействия постоянно привлекают внимание лингвистов разных стран. По функциям, которые выполняют употребляемые на указанной территории языки, в сущности формируется двухкомпонентная ситуация: функцию местных языков выполняют литовский, белорусский и польский диалекты, а языка-макропосредника и (нередко) регионального языка — русский язык. Исполнять роль регионального языка — как третьего компонента — литовскому литературному языку мешает то обстоятельство, что на значительной части указанной территории местный литовский диалект подвергся сильной ассимиляции; польскому же языку препятствует то, что он не успел укрепиться во всех сферах общения. Во второй половине XIX в. преобладавший на данной территории литовский язык стал быстро вытесняться славянскими языками. Этот процесс объясняется ассимиляторской политикой, проводившейся правительством царской России. В конце XIX—начале XX в. в северной и северо-восточной части указанной территории произошла полонизация местного населения, распространившаяся вскоре и на остальную — южную и юго-западную часть. Характерно, что большинство местных жителей под воздействием внушения местного дворянства и реакционного духовенства стали считать себя поляками, хотя в быту продолжали употреблять литовский язык. Таких людей еще немало среди представителей старшего поколения жителей южной части исследуемой территории. В процессе полонизации населения взамен литовского языка быстрее распространялся не польский, а местный белорусский диалект, который на литовско-белорусском пограничье и ранее играл определенную роль в качестве контактного языка. Запоздалым развитием белорусского национального самосознания объясняется тот факт, что данный язык местным населением по существу не считался языком белорусов как отдельной нации, а воспринимался (из-за генетической близости и обилия полонизмов) как своеобразная разновидность или диалект польского языка. В процессе языковой полонизации местного населения он играл роль посредника или переходного языка. Поэтому местный белорусский диалект и теперь не имеет заметного общественного веса, хотя в то же время является одним из наиболее распространенных в общении языков. Польский язык, раньше бывший языком местного дворянства и духовенства, среди крестьян распространялся главным образом как официальный язык в годы т. н. польской оккупации (1920—1939). В эти годы местное население стремилось пользоваться им в разных сферах жизни, хотя языком семьи он стал только в ограниченном масштабе. В настоящее время на большой части указанной территории польский язык является языком местной администрации, многочисленных школ и культурно-просветительских учреждений. 60 A. VIDUGIRIS ÜBER DIE KONTAKTE DER SPRACHEN IM SÜDÖSTLICHEN LITAUEN Zusammenfassung Im Artikel wird im rein soziologischen Aspekt der funktionelle Kontakt der Sprachen oder die sogenannte sprachliche Situation charakterisiert und ihre Bildung auf dem Territorium des südöstlichen Litauens verfolgt, das im wesentlichen mit der administrativen Fläche des Schaltschininkai – Bezirks zusammenfällt, dessen Bestandteile verschiedene Umgebungen der ehemaligen Bezirke von Vilnius, Trakai, Lida und Aschmena sind. Auf dem oben genannten Territorium wirken örtliche Dialekte der litauischen, belorussischen und polnischen Sprachen, ihre literarischen Varianten, sowie die russische Sprache zusammen. Die Ergebnisse der Zusammenwirkung dieser Sprachen fesseln ständig Aufmerksamkeit der Sprachforscher aus verschiedenen Ländern. Gemäß den Funktionen der gebrauchten Sprachen formiert sich hier im wesentlichen aus zwei Komponenten bestehende sprachliche Situation: die Funktion der örtlichen Sprachen erfüllen die litauischen, belorussischen und polnischen Dialekte, die Funktion der Sprache – des Makrovermittlers und ziemlich oft die Funktion der regionalen Sprache erfüllt aber die russische Sprache. Der litauischen literarischen Sprache hindert die Rolle der regionalen Sprache – als der dritten Komponente – zu erfüllen der Umstand, daß hier auf dem großen Teil des Territoriums die Assimilation des litauischen Dialektes zu viel weit von sich gegangen ist, und der polnischen Sprache – weil sie nicht zurechtkam, in allen Bereichen des Verkehrs sich zu befestigen. Wegen der assimilatorischen Politik, die eine lange Zeit die herrschenden Klassen führten, wurde hier überall noch in der zweiten Hälfte des XIX. Jh. vorherrschende litauische Sprache schnell von den slawischen Sprachen verdrängt. Am Ende des XIX. Jh. und am Anfang des XX. Jh. ist die Polonisierung der örtlichen Bevölkerung auf dem nördlichen und nordöstlichen Teil des genannten Territoriums geschehen, und in schnellem Tempo umfaßte sie den übriggebliebenen südlichen und südwestlichen Teil. Es ist bezeichnend, daß die Mehrheit der örtlichen Bevölkerung unter der aktiven Suggestion des örtlichen Adels und der reaktionären Geistlichkeit sich zu den Polen zu zählen begann, obwohl sie mit einander noch litauisch sprachen. Solche Vertreter besonders der älteren Generation gibt es auch gegenwärtig viel genug im südlichen Teil des Territoriums, das erforscht wird. Während des Prozesses der Polonisierung der örtlichen Bevölkerung verbreitete sich schneller anstatt der litauischen Sprache nicht die protegierte polnische Sprache, sondern der örtliche belorussische Dialekt, der auf dem litauisch-belorussischen Grenzgebiet schon früher bestimmte Rolle der regionalen Sprache gespielt hatte. Wegen der verspäteten Entwicklung des belorussischen nationalen Selbstbewußtseins wurde diese Sprache von der örtlichen Bevölkerung nicht für die Sprache der Belorussen als der einzelnen Nation, sondern wegen der genetischen Nähe und dem Überfluß an Polonismen für eigenartige Abart oder einen Dialekt der polnischen Sprache gehalten. Für die sprachliche Polonisierung der örtlichen Bevölkerung diente sie als ein bestimmter Vermittler oder als eine Übergangssprache. Deshalb hat der örtliche belorussische Dialekt auch jetzt kein bemerkbares gesellschaftliches Gewicht, obwohl er gleichzeitig eine der am meisten im Verkehr gebrauchten Sprachen ist. Die polnische Sprache, die früher Sprache des örtlichen Adels und der Geistlichkeit war, verbreitete sich unter den Bauern hauptsächlich als gesellschaftliche Sprache in den Jahren der sogenannten polnischen Okkupation (1920–1939). In diesen Jahren strebte die örtliche Bevölkerung nach ihrer Beherrschung und nach ihrem Gebrauch in verschiedenen Bereichen des Lebens, obwohl zu der Familiensprache sie nur im beschränkten Maße wurde. Gegenwärtig ist die polnische Sprache im großen Teil des genannten Territoriums die Sprache der örtlichen Administration, vieler Schulen und der Kultur. -2-