SOCIALINĖS LINGVISTIKOS PROBLEMOS LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI, XIX (1979)

Laima GRUMADIENĖ

ON THE SOCIOLINGUISTIC STATUS OF VILNIUS LITHUANIAN SPOKEN LANGUAGE

As the forms of mass communication have increased and diversified, and universal education and learning have intensified, the problem of literary spoken language has become more pressing, and the range of influence between written and spoken language has changed. The increased significance of spoken language has created a need for the mass acquisition of a unified literary spoken language. Favorable conditions for successfully addressing this task in our republic include the preparation of academic Lithuanian grammars and dictionaries, the continuous improvement of school textbooks and teaching methods, the work of the Language Commission, periodical and one-off publications on language culture, language columns in the press, radio and television programs, and lectures on language issues.

Nevertheless, an increasing number of practical and theoretical questions are arising concerning Lithuanian literary spoken language. First of all, not everyone understands this concept in the same way. Therefore, there is no single universally accepted answer to the questions of who speaks literary language, and when and where it is spoken.

Different requirements are placed on the literary spoken languages of different languages. Linguist O. Lapteva (1976, 5), having surveyed the scholarly literature on Russian spoken language, observes that the linguistic status of Russian spoken language as a phenomenon of literary language is more or less established—it is the everyday language of educated residents of cultural centers. A fairly uniform language norm can also be explained by the fact that Russian literary language developed on the basis of the spoken language of the city of Moscow and its surroundings, although it was strongly influenced by both northern and eastern Russian dialects [Котков С. И., 1974, 31]. Two variants of the current norm of Russian literary language are distinguished—Moscow and Leningrad spoken language [Вербицкая Л. А., 1976, 71]. The literary languages of some peoples even have several variants each. For example, Swiss Romansh, one of the four national languages used in the country, has six variants of its literary form [Бородина М. А., 1973, 11]. The fact that this language has no unified norm is also explained by the absence of a cultural and economic center for the Romansh [Степанов Г. В., 1976, 124]. Two variants of literary language are also distinguished in Albania, whose linguistic bases are two different dialects [Десницкая А. В., 1960, 22]. The divergence of the variants of Norwegian literary language (Riksmål and Landsmål) is explained by the fact that, in the struggle to unify written and spoken language forms, two different paths were taken [Стеблин-Каменский М. И., 1953, 78].

Lithuanian literary language has no several coequal variants. In shaping our literary language, the standardization principle advanced by J. Jablonskis was followed—not to mix elements from different dialects [Piročkinas A., 1977, 100]. Although the phonological system of the dialect on which a literary language is based serves as the model for pronunciation norms only at the initial stage in the development of the literary language [Palionis J., 1976, 36], the pronunciation norms of contemporary Lithuanian literary language differ very little from the phonological system of the Western Aukštaitian dialect [Pakerys A., Pupkis A., 1976]. This circumstance presents a rather difficult obstacle for speakers of other dialects.

Attention should be drawn to the relationship and interaction between language codification, norms, and usage. The problem of various language norms is treated quite inconsistently in linguistics—

93

miškai. Palyginti išsami šio klausimo apžvalga pateikta L. Verbickajos (1976, 5—19) darbe, skirtame rusų literatūrinės kalbos tarčiai. Pastaruoju metu lituanistai paprastai laikosi nuomonės, kad kodifikacija yra „mokslinis literatūrinės kalbos normų aprašymas bei susisteminimas, taip pat tam tikrų kalbos (ir rašybos) lyčių tikimo normai nustatymas“ [Palionis J., 1976, 44], kad „literatūrinės kalbos norma — tai literatūrinėje kalboje tam tikru metu tvirtai prigijusi ir visų arba bent daugelio jos vartotojų aprobuota kalbos lytis“, o „literatūrinės kalbos vartosenoje gali būti (ir paprastai būna) daugiau ar mažiau ir nenorminių, individualių, okazionalinių reiškinių, atskirų šios kalbos vartotojų susidarytų ar iš kitų kalbos tipų patekusių, bet plačiau nepaplitusių literatūrinėje kalboje ir netapusių jos norma“ (ten pat, 33). Pakitimai vartosenoje tam tikra prasme veikia normą, o pastaroji — kodifikaciją.

Usage changes for many reasons. Social, functional, and territorial differentiation of language is of great importance here. The result of all this is language variability and variation. The following types of variation are potentially present in literary language: social modifications, functional-stylistic variation, genre-stylistic variation, spatial (or territorial) variation, and variation over time [Гухман М. М., 1977, 6].

The social stratification of language is a necessary consequence of the development of class society. Social differentiation of language arises because language must first and foremost perform its communicative function in interaction among groups of people within a particular social structure. These particular people have attained a certain level of material and spiritual culture, which determines their command of language, value orientation, and social attitudes.

If the social stratification of language in our society becomes less pronounced as class boundaries disappear, functional-stylistic differentiation of language does not tend to disappear, since the need for specific linguistic means of expression increases as the spheres of social activity multiply.

Territorial differentiation of language is fading; dialects are rapidly giving way to literary language [Zinkevičius Z., 1966, 17—22], but the transitional period is characterized by various semidialects that lack systematicity. Semidialects arise in both the countryside and the city. V. Sobinikova (1975, 7), a researcher of the language of Voronezh, hypothesizes that city dwellers who have recently moved from the countryside and found themselves in a new linguistic environment speak a so-called semidialect, in which dialectal features are realized less systematically the farther the speech has moved from its dialectal basis. This could be explained in part by the “vertical rules” of the American sociolinguist S. Ervin-Tripp (1971, 58). Here, switching from using one language variety to another is explained by vertical rules governing the mutual compatibility of linguistic elements; this means that when the vocabulary of another language variety is used, its morphology, phonetics, and so on are used accordingly. Switching may be absolute, when vertical rules are followed in all cases, or partial, when switching occurs, for example, only at the lexical level. It is also significant whether the rules are followed automatically: the more automatic this switching is, the more uniform it is. Automaticity depends directly on how frequently linguistic elements are used.

The current stage of development of developed languages is characterized by social and territorial stratification. According to some researchers of contemporary English, the structure of English can be represented schematically as a pyramid, whose horizontal cross-section would reflect territorial differentiation of language, and whose vertical cross-section would reflect social differentiation. The base of the pyramid would be the language of low-paid workers, characterized by substantial territorial differentiation. At the apex of the pyramid, where territorial division is no longer evident, would be represented the minimally different spoken-language variants of Oxford and Cambridge [Halliday M. A. K., McIntosh A., Strevens P., 1973, 18]. The varieties of language classified in this way are called social regional dialects. Undoubtedly, social stratification is not as rigid in our socialist society, but it is relevant to the study of language.

94

In Soviet linguistics, various language forms characteristic of the transition from dialects to the standard language have often been called semi-dialects [Степанов Ю. С., 1975, 195; Жирмунский В. М., 1956, 574; Степанов Г. В., 1976, 222]. In F. Filin’s view (1968, 12), many inhabitants of the contemporary Russian countryside speak either the standard language or a koine, a distinctive transitional form. V. Yartseva (1969, 27) and V. Kolesov (1975, 3) call the interdialectal language forms of large cities koine. It is thought that a Lithuanian koine had also taken shape in Vilnius in the seventeenth century, serving the functions of the literary language of eastern Lithuania [Zinkevičius Z., 1972, 79 – 100]. Since transitional language forms are most evident in the speech of large-city residents, whose language is characterized by sharper social rather than territorial differentiation, this variety is studied separately and given its own names. B. Larin (1977, 187), calling for the study of urban spoken languages in 1928, hypothesized that various argots were spoken in cities, which the scholar treated as bilingualism consisting of two tiers: the first comprising occupational and group argots, and the second, the urban vernacular (просторечие). Researchers of contemporary Russian, O. Lapteva (1976, 76) and L. Verbitskaya (1976, 16 – 19), regard the spoken language of residents of large cities as the standard language with local features. This concept of the spoken language of large-city residents has also been adopted in major studies of contemporary Russian spoken language, led by M. Panov (ed., 1968), E. Zemskaya (ed., 1973), and L. Krysin (ed., 1975). V. Yartseva (1977, 12 – 15) calls the spoken language of large cities a regional substandard. At times, urban spoken language is simply called a dialect [Степанов Г. В., 1975, 30; Швейцер А. Д., 1976, 145; Лабов V., 1975, 213].

Matyt, teбėra aktualūs B. Larino (1977, 175) 1928 m. pasakyti žodžiai, jog, „jeigu žemėlapyje pavaizduotume lingvistinį šių laikų Europos tyrinėjimą, tai didžiausi balti plotai būtų ne patys tolimiausi užkampiai, o kaip tik didieji miestai“. Tame pačiame pranešime mokslininkas apibūdina ir miestų kalbos tyrinėjimo metodologinę reikšmę, pažymėdamas, jog šios problemos studijavimas galėtų stumtelėti lingvistiką pirmyn taip, kaip tai padarė kaimo tarmių tyrinėjimas XIX a.

The sociolinguistic problem of the status of urban spoken language remains unresolved. Research has clearly demonstrated that a successful solution depends to a great extent on the methodology and methods of the inquiry.

For example, spoken English in New York has been studied repeatedly. In 1950, A. F. Hubbell concluded that New Yorkers’ speech had no system at all [Hubbell A. F., 1950, 48], whereas in 1966 W. Labov demonstrated that it did have a system [Labov W., 1966, 7].

Studies of urban language are important not only because cities are precisely where one can best observe how “dialects melt together” and what transitional language forms emerge, but also because the spoken language of large cities often becomes a point of reference for society’s values. Two approaches are possible: either the norm of urban spoken language is equated with the norm of standard spoken language, or the urban language norm is consciously adhered to (“this is how we speak”). The language of cities, especially capital cities, is highly significant for the norms of the standard language: a shift in society’s orientation can change the norm itself. G. Stepanov (1978, 40) emphasizes this fact when discussing the influence of spoken language in Mexico City on the standard norm of Mexican Spanish. The current shift in Italy toward the spoken Italian of Rome as the norm for the standard language is now widely recognized, although Rome has not yet become a language capital like Paris [Касаткин А. А., 1976, 183].

It is probably not useful to speak of a single norm for urban spoken language, since this variety, too, is differentiated in certain ways according to speakers’ social position, regional origin, value orientation, communicative goals, setting, and similar circumstances.

It should be noted that city residents often find themselves in diglossic situations, that is, they use various language forms and varieties depending on social circumstan-

95

ces. Social attitudes determine which language form becomes prestigious in a particular situation. A prestigious form does not always become the standard language. However, the range of evaluations of the spoken language of large cities is very broad—from prestigious to odious. This depends to a great extent on social language differentiation: the speech of lower social strata in New York [Labov W., 1966, 25] and Cockney in London [Matthews W., 1970, 232] are language forms often regarded as odious.

Society’s value orientation toward language must be shaped on a scientific basis. This is what is done through broad-ranging work in language culture. The success of this work depends on comprehensive study of language norms and usage. Urban spoken language provides fertile ground for this work.

From this perspective, the spoken Lithuanian of Vilnius residents can also be studied. Vilnius, the republic’s capital, is not only the nation’s economic center but also its cultural center. The realization of standard-language norms emanates precisely from cultural centers. In a certain sense, the language of these cultural centers is also part of urban spoken language, its highest tier. However, like the elements of any structure, the different tiers of Vilnius residents’ spoken language are interdependent. It should be noted that there are several spoken languages in Vilnius: Lithuanian, Russian, local Polish, and others. Thus, the norms of different languages used by different social strata of the population become intertwined in everyday use and influence one another.

It is also worth noting that a large proportion of Lithuanians in Vilnius are newcomers from the countryside or from other cities in Lithuania. It has been observed that newcomers’ speech, too, acquires certain common features over time. Moreover, children whose parents’ speech has dialect features speak a language that may differ considerably from their parents’ speech, but differs little from that of their peers born in Vilnius. This fact is highly significant for fostering the normative use of the standard language, since the articulatory basis is formed in childhood. Children become speakers of a particular dialect between the ages of 4 and 13. A child aged 10 or 11 may already be unable to learn another dialect well enough to speak it without an accent [Labov W., 1970, 34].

The influence of urban spoken language is considerable. Comparing the speech of people who studied at higher education institutions in Vilnius and Kaunas—which necessarily acquires certain features, more or less pronounced, by the time their studies are completed—one can observe that they acquire two kinds of features: those characteristic of Vilnius and those characteristic of Kaunas.

The greatest number of shared features can be observed in the speech of people born and having lived in Vilnius for a long time, although differences often emerge as well.

To answer the question of how people speak in Vilnius, a sociolinguistic analysis of Vilnius residents’ spoken language is necessary. The speech of Lithuanians born and living in Vilnius should be studied. After all, it is in their speech that the features of “Vilnius speech” are most apparent—the features that newcomers also acquire. By clarifying the nature, spread, and evaluation of these features, it would be possible to counter slang elements more effectively and, at times, perhaps even reconsider questions concerning the norms and codification of the standard language. Applying such an analysis to the spoken language of all the larger cities in Lithuania would reveal the actual relationship between the norm of the standard language and usage in contemporary Lithuanian. The process of dialect leveling proceeds particularly rapidly in urban conditions. Clarifying its trends would be highly significant for the conscious regulation of language development, to the extent permitted by the specific nature of the object.

Using the conceptual framework of sociolinguistics proposed by the Soviet scholar A. Schweitzer (1976, 69—85), the language of Vilnius residents could be studied as the social-communicative system of a speech community, of which Lithuanian is one component. It should be noted that the components of a social-communicative system are linked to one another through relations of functional complementarity. The distribution of the system’s components, determined by social conditions, is twofold: distribution according to spheres of use and the social functions of language, and distribution according to social situa-

96

Therefore, the spoken Lithuanian of Vilnius residents, as a separate component of the communicative system of all Vilnius residents, should be examined from both stratificational and situational perspectives. Stratificational variation is the social differentiation of language, determined by the social structure of society. Situational variation is determined by different social situations. In studying the spoken language of a city, it is essential to take these different dimensions of variation into account.

For the study of stratificational language variation, it is appropriate to distinguish speech communities within the speech collective, that is, certain social or sociodemographic groups whose members share at least one characteristic (age, education, and so on).

The speech collective of Vilnius Lithuanians comprises all Lithuanians living here. According to the 1970 Union census [Vilnius skaičiais, 1975, 11–12, 15], 372,100 citizens lived in Vilnius, of whom 159,156 (i.e., 42.8%) were Lithuanians. It is difficult to determine precisely how many Lithuanians in this number were Vilnius natives, that is, born and living in Vilnius without having left for an extended period. To identify such individuals, the archive of the Central Statistical Administration of the Lithuanian SSR and the questionnaires from the 1970 All-Union Population Census were consulted. These provide information on the year from which a person had lived in the same city or village. Informants were therefore selected by comparing that year with their year of birth.

Three speech communities were formed, classified by age. The first community consists of those born before 1931, the second of those born in 1932–1952, and the third of those born in 1953 or later.

The study can be conducted in two ways: either by obtaining many answers to a few questions, or by interviewing fewer people in greater depth. The second approach was chosen. In accordance with certain requirements of statistical theory, the minimum number of respondents in one age-based speech community was established as 19 [Урбанис Б. Ц., 1962, 251]. Under a fairly broad research program, 61 Vilnius residents were interviewed. In analyzing the collected material, consideration is given to the informants’ type of work [Руткевич М. Н., 1972], level of education, place of birth of their parents (both of whom must be Lithuanian), knowledge and use of Russian and Polish, and other circumstances.

Material from the same informant was collected in several ways: through a sociolinguistic interview and questionnaire, and by means of value-orientation tests. Some questions were investigated using audio tests and spectral analysis. Throughout the study, characteristic features of the spoken Lithuanian of Vilnius residents were sought through uncontrolled observation.

Such a sociolinguistic study of the spoken Lithuanian of Vilnius residents makes it possible, from a particular perspective, to trace the development of the Lithuanian language under special conditions, when speakers constantly find themselves in situations of polilingualism, bilingualism, and diglossia.

Literatūra

Ervin-Tripp S. Sociolinguistics. – In: Fishman J. (ed.). Advances in the Sociology of Language. The Hague, Mouton, 1971, Vol. 1.

Halliday M. A. K., McIntosh A., Strevens P. The Users and Uses of Language. – In: Bailey R. W., Robinson J. L. (eds.). Varieties of Present-Day English. The University of Michigan, 1973.

Hubbel A. F. The Pronunciation of English in New York City. New York, 1950.

Labov W. The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Center for Applied Linguistics, 1966.

Labov W. The Study of Nonstandard English. Columbia University, 1970.

Matthews W. Cockney Past and Present. A Short History of the Dialect of London. Detroit, 1970.

Pakers A., Pupkis A. Lietuvių kalbos bendrinė tartis. Plokštelių tekstai. V., 1976.

Palionis J. Lietuvių literatūrinės kalbos istorijos įvadas. V., 1976.

Piročkinas A. Prie bendrinės kalbos ištakų. V., 1977; Vilnius skaičiais. 1940–1974 metų statistinių duomenų rinkinys. V., 1975.

7. Užs. Nr. 1554

97

Zinkevičius Z. Lietuvių dialektologija. V., 1966.

Zinkevičius Z. Rytiėsiöji XVII a. lietuvių raštų kalba, jos kilmė ir išnykimas. — Baltistica. V., 1972. T. VIII (1).

Бородина М. А. Сравнительно-сопоставительная грамматика романских языков. Ретороманская подгруппа. — Л., 1973.

Вербицкая Л. А. Русская орфоэпия. — Л., 1976.

Гухман М. М. Введение. — В кн.: Ярцева В. Н., Гухман М. М. (отв. ред-ы). Социальная и функциональная дифференциация литературных языков. М., 1977.

Десницкая А. В. Из истории образования албанского национального языка. — Тр. Ин-та языкознания АН СССР. Вопросы формирования и развития национальных языков. М., 1960. Т. X.

Жирмунский В. М. Немецкая диалектология. — М.—Л., 1956.

Жирмунский В. М. Русская разговорная речь. Под ред. Е. А. Земской. — М., 1973.

Касаткин А. А. Очерки истории литературного итальянского языка XVII—XX вв. — Л., 1976.

Колесов В. В. Границы стилистической вариативности в современном русском произношении. — В кн.: Вопросы стилистики. Межвузовский науч. сб. Саратов, 1975. Вып. 10.

Котков С. И. Московская речь в начальный период становления русского национального языка. — М., 1974.

Русский язык по данным массового обследования. Под ред. Л. П. Крысина. — М., 1975.

Лабов У. О механизме языковых изменений. — В кн.: Новое в лингвистике. М., 1975. Вып. VII.

Лаптева О. А. Русский разговорный синтаксис. — М., 1976.

Ларин Б. А. История русского языка и общее языкознание. — М., 1976.

Русский язык и советское общество. Под ред. М. В. Панова. — М., 1968.

Руткевич М. Н. Методологические проблемы изучения социальной структуры социалистического общества. Свердловск, 1972.

Собинникова В. И. Заметки о речи городского населения. — В кн.: Изв. Воронежского гос. педагогического ин-та. Очерки по русскому языку. Воронеж, 1975. Т. 141.

Стеблин-Каменский М. И. История скандинавских языков. — М.—Л., 1953.

Степанов Г. В. Типология языковых состояний и ситуаций в странах романской речи. — М., 1976.

Урланис Б. Ц. Общая теория статистики. — М., 1962.

Филин Ф. П. Введение. — В кн.: Язык и общество. М., 1968.

Швейцер А. Д. Современная социолингвистика. Теория, проблемы, методы. — М., 1976.

Ярцева В. Н. О территориальной основе социальных диалектов. — В кн.: Норма и социальная дифференциация языка. М., 1969.

Ярцева В. Н. Соотносительность региональных и социальных вариантов языка в плане стиля и нормы. — В кн.: Социальная и функциональная дифференциация литературного языка. М., 1977.

Lietuvos TSR Mokslų Akademijos Lietuvių kalbos ir literatūros institutas

К ВОПРОСУ О СОЦИОЛИНГВИСТИЧЕСКОМ СТАТУСЕ ЛИТОВСКОЙ РАЗГОВОРНОЙ РЕЧИ ЖИТЕЛЕЙ г. ВИЛЬНЮСА

Резюме

В связи с развитием форм массовой коммуникации и интенсификацией всеобщего образования особенно актуальной стала проблема разговорной разновидности литературного языка.

В некоторых языках наблюдается разнообразие вариантов литературной разговорной речи, что часто объясняется наличием нескольких культурно-экономических центров на территории, где распространен определенный язык.

Литовская литературная разговорная речь различных вариантов не содержит. Однако узус литовского литературного языка неоднороден, различается несколько потенциальных его типов: „социальные модификации, варьирование функционально-стилистическое, жанрово-стилистическое, пространственное (или территориальное) и временное“ („Социальная и функциональная дифференциация литературных языков“. М., 1977).

Для узуса литовской разговорной речи очень характерна территориальная дифференциация. Наличие различного происхождения полудиалектов — характерная черта современного состояния литовского языка, особенно четко выступающая в городской среде.

Но язык города подлежит исследованию не только из-за обилия полудиалектов, по которым можно проследить процесс плавления территориальных диалектов, он часто является ценностным ориентиром носителей языка. В этом случае возможны два аспекта: норма

98

городской разговорной речи отождествляется с литературной нормой, или сознательно предпочитается городская норма и противопоставляется литературной.

Речь горожан отличается неоднородностью и в связи с тем, что значительная роль отводится социальной установке и ценностной ориентации. Поэтому следует уделять большое значение научному формированию ценностной ориентации общества по поводу языка. Это, в сущности, работа над культурой речи. Необходимым условием для успеха становится всестороннее исследование соотношения речевой нормы и узуса. Обширный материал для этой цели может дать изучение городской речи.

С этой точки зрения возможно социолингвистическое исследование и литовской разговорной речи жителей г. Вильнюса. Вильнюс – это столица, из культурных центров которой распространяется реализация нормы литературной речи. В данном случае в определенной степени проявляется взаимовлияние нормы и узуса. Дети даже тех родителей, которые являются недавними выходцами из диалектной среды, разговаривают уже на языке, отличающемся от речи родителей, но во многом совпадающим с речью ровесников. Из Вильнюса различными путями распространяется узус городской речи на всю Литву.

В исследовании жители-литовцы г. Вильнюса рассматриваются как речевой коллектив, а литовская речь — как компонент его социально-коммуникативной системы. Анализ данных проводится с учетом стратификационной и ситуативной вариативности речи.

Исследование литовской разговорной речи жителей г. Вильнюса способствует решению проблемы реального соотношения узуса и нормы литовского литературного языка.

7*