SOCIALINĖS LINGVISTIKOS PROBLEMOS

LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI, XIX (1979)

Vytautas VITKAUSKAS

THE INFLUENCE OF SOCIAL FACTORS ON DIALECTAL LEXICON

Traditional Lithuanian dialects and subdialects formed and existed in rural communities, for which they were almost the only means of communication both with the outside world and among themselves. Under the influence of certain laws, our dialects and subdialects changed, refining their phonetic and morphological structure and continually changing and supplementing the established vocabulary to meet their needs.

Questions concerning lexical change differ fundamentally from those concerning changes in morphology and phonetics. The vocabulary of any language or dialect is closely connected with life and various realities, and life greatly changes the lexicon, the so-called most dynamic element of language.

Lithuanian dialects and all subdialects are currently undergoing one of the most important stages in their history. With Lithuania’s economy and culture developing at an unprecedented pace, the situation in our villages has changed considerably. Population migration, the growth of cities (young people are moving to cities), and universal schooling are driving dialects out of everyday life; by tradition, they persist among the older rural population, wherever they may live. Their environment also changes their speech, eroding important dialect features.

The economic and cultural situation has now developed to such an extent that, in practice, there is no longer a social stratum that takes up subdialects and dialects as systems and speaks them consistently in all settings. Grandchildren learn a few features of the subdialect from their grandparents, but the school, with all the dynamism of its life, influences young people and instills the norms of the standard language in them quite effectively. Younger residents of villages and small towns begin to speak a new dialect, one might say, characterized by a particular blending of the rules of the standard language and the local subdialect¹.

The lexical situation of dialects and subdialects is even more complex. Their vocabulary consists of words common to the whole nation and dialectisms—that is, words characteristic only of a particular dialect, subdialect, or part of a dialect [Филин Ф. П., 1965, 5]. In general, as the literary language gains ground in public life and the subdialect becomes merely the language of the home, specialized dialect words begin to be used passively. Those dialectisms that characterize a dialect’s lexicon [Филин Ф. П., 1961, 15], as the rural population becomes more heterogeneous (in some places, local, long-standing residents of a given village have even become a minority²), lose their communicative significance because they are not understood by people who have come from elsewhere. For example, the following incident occurred in the village of Urkuvėnai, Šiauliai district: an agronomist explains to a collective farm worker that the hay wagon should be kept in the kluonas (i.e., the barn), while her interlocutor frankly says: a mùn gaivuo nèbgerà’ | šīna aš sáuguoju | ne un klùna laikâu—to her, kluonas means the little meadow by the cattle shed, in the yard. There are many such misunderstandings, and the authority of the subdialect has clearly “wavered”: whether they like it or not, dialect speakers have to adapt to users of the standard language—collective farm managers, specialists, and machine operators.

Population mixing and the spread of the standard language through various means of communication, schools, and cultural institutions are the factors that cause subdialects—even those that have retained their phonetic and morphological systems well—to survive lexically as though alongside

¹ Pirmą kartą lietuvių dialektologijoje tai yra iškelta Grinaveckio V. (1974, 129—139). Kuršėnų m. kaip tik buvo vienas iš V. Grinaveckio tyrinėjimo objektų.

² For example, in 1975, only 5 of the 12 homesteads in the village of Akminaičiai, Šiauliai district, were inhabited by local residents; the others had already been bought by people from elsewhere. There are now even fewer isolated homesteads.

111

bendrinės kalbos leksikos [Филин Ф. П., 1965, 5]. Ypač tai matyti klausinėjant šnektų atstovus konkrečių žodžių — daiktų pavadinimų, būdvardžių. Pasakę tarmišką žodį, šnektų atstovai tuoj pat imasi jį aiškinti, manydami jo nesuprasiant. Tokių atvejų, šių eilučių autoriui tiriant žemaičių šnektas, teko patirti ypač daug. Štai, nykstant Kuršėnų apylinkėse būdvardžiui

smagūs meaning “heavy,” heard in the utterance: diel parduosa liną sunkesnį | smagesnį Krš (DūnŽ 336). Thus, the old word has not yet faded from the speaker’s mind: it is used to express a particular thought, but because the speaker does not expect the interlocutor to understand a semantic dialect word used on its own, a standard-language word is inserted as well. Cf. also tas prė:kọs | pale:stə̂us kẽik mē.rgū: îr abđė:rbęs Jdr (Lėlenai village); primel̃a va | privepẽzuoje višā p Krš (DūnŽ 436); ravėjom nuvīn | be sustojima | nuplėšiem šava Krš (DūnŽ 226); pašōndzas tūokęs | blā:kas ā:udeklę Pvn (DūnŽ 247); pėlėšėja: onćē.ded Vieks̆naliai (Dūn Ž 252); pū'rū | kvī-cū: nabsie pi'mūsa Šv; pi'les niuor ōndē.ns | sāusā: ō:ntes nala:kki:si Jdr; tieva tariejē pi'leva | ešimtēne ešerāše'n Pvn; lī'n e lī'n | išpis upika: ištyinc nepārēisma Krš and many others. Such parallelism in speech is usually awkward; therefore, dialect speakers who are convinced that their interlocutor may not understand something begin to avoid using, in the presence of outsiders, characteristic words peculiar to a particular vernacular or dialect. Until quite recently, the dialect word perėnė “bathhouse” was commonly used around Pāvandėnė, Vieks̆naliai, Upyna (Telšiai district), and Vidsodis; as a cultural term, it was displaced by pirtis. Only various proverbs and witty sayings preserved the formerly used word perenė: kā:rštā kā: perēnė (Upyna), lūp sakīs | vė'rūn a perēnė sū'dege | a patē mē.re Pvn (DūnŽ 254). The same is true of the word lielė “throat,” now sometimes said in the idiom lėlė palēisti “to shout”: žēnā buobas | biškieli kas | palēid lī:le Pvn (cf. DūnŽ 175), etc. Every Lithuanian dialectologist encounters such things³ [Jonaitvtė A., 1967, 183—184]. This is the main condition and process underlying the decline of dialect words: once people start avoiding a word in conversations with strangers, they begin to stop using clear dialect words, or to use them less and less, even when speaking with fellow residents of their own village. Finally, as the standard language increasingly enters the everyday lives of a large proportion of rural people, the younger generation no longer adopts dialect words, and they effectively disappear from use. Thus, for example, in the vicinity of Kuršėnai this has happened to the words mėdė “forest,” ašvienis “workhorse,” rejā “threshing barn,” varstas “spring grain,” and others, which were used more actively (and then only in some villages) until the 1920s. Later, the words miškas | girė, jāuja, vasarōjus became established as cultural terms through schools, officials from local and county administrations, industrialists, itinerant craftsmen, and hired laborers. They may previously have existed here, in this peripheral Samogitian vernacular, as synonyms (arklys “horse” was probably used from long ago), but, being part of the standard language too, they came into general use. This process can affect a larger area of vernaculars: for example, mėdė is now remembered only passively in the vicinity of Užventis, Pāvandėnė, and Vieks̆naliai, and even around Tryškiai, although, as we know from the writings of Žemaitė and Lazdynų Pelėda, it was used quite actively there at the beginning of this century; there was even a name for an occupation (obviously used in colloquial speech), mēdininks “forester” // mē'dēni.nks, which was quickly forgotten after 1920, as the standard-language form giriniṅkas⁴ became firmly established. Sometimes people begin to avoid semantic dialect words when the same words are frequently used in the standard language with an almost opposite meaning: gerbti “to clean, tidy up”: gerb vaikā Krš—now even older people say: nėger vi'rešnū ju jaunī'je Krš; kamštis “a sweet treat placed in cloth for a child to suck”—now people often say būtele kamštis Krš, while young people no longer even know the dialect meaning. After 1920, the meaning “herdsman” of the word viršininkas began to disappear rapidly, since viršininkas in the standard language meant something else: “a person heading an institution.”

³Similarly, in the Lithuanian vernaculars of the Byelorussian SSR, words from Belarusian become established as the most frequently heard, official names for things and phenomena (see Vidugiris A., 1974, 123—124).

⁴ Medės arealą žr. Lietuvių kalbos atlasas. 1977, t. 1. 113 žem. (Komentarai, p. 191—192) (žr. dar Vitkauskas V., 1977, p. 58).

112

When lexical matters are “regulated” in this way in public life, it is generally difficult to identify the patterns according to which the vocabulary of vernaculars changes, and through which certain words disappear, are forgotten, or pass into passive use. Life has arranged things so that a considerable part of dialect vocabulary lives on as if in memory: from time to time, when a more precise description is needed or an older generation’s people wish to express something more vividly and unexpectedly, rarely used words and formations—carefully learned from their parents and ancestors, inherited from time immemorial—are drawn out as if from distant currents of the subconscious.

Sometimes a word in Lithuanian lexicography is marked only with a dotted line, or is recorded from just one particular vernacular; yet, when inquiries are made further afield, an exactly identical form is heard well beyond the known area of the word. For example, according to LKŽ, the word goštauta examined by A. Nepokupnis (1976, 185) belongs only to the western Highlander (along the Nemunas), eastern, and Dzūkian vernaculars, and certain conclusions are drawn from this. But in the summers of 1976–1977, when Kuršėnai women were asked quite by chance for the name of a little flower, they were heard to say: guoštauta· rauduoņa· ži·d | dau.k smułkų· ži·dėlių; daržūkuo guoštautas įsti· pusės. When other dialectologists (e.g., A. Jonait yte) recorded this word elsewhere too, the picture changed fundamentally: goštauta(s) is used in many parts of Lithuania, but somewhat passively, and is therefore recorded less often from spoken language. Every year, and each time one encounters any vernacular or sub-vernacular, one hears such and similar surprises, forms, and “new” stress patterns. This is a serious problem for our linguistics, because the passive vocabulary of our vernaculars and dialects can be brought to light only through longer periods of observation. Nor would it previously have occurred to anyone that words such as the following existed around Kuršėnai: švinė [Būga K., 1908, 174]: ta švinė “informer”; tig žmonės įied, šāryti “to eat greedily”; šėkštė “long pole”: tūokes šė·kštės iškė·ltas; šilūenti “to raise, fatten”: prašulė·nusi jau, paršūka; šlaptrydą “a person who likes watery, thin liquid”: tūoks šlaptrī·dā biėdū į biėdū; šliōparnis “slovenly person”: šluōparnis | apsilė·idusi; šnarva “someone who pokes their nose everywhere”: tūoks šnarva | kad biėda; tapnoti “to twist, sway”: ū·dega nulė·idis (bird) | tik tapnūo tapnūo snapėli; taškūs, -i “spendthrift”: taškė briūolieni | nieka netūr; tratūs, -i: uoį traũ bioba | pipirų melni·če; tūlas “crowd”: tū·la tuokį žmuonių; ži-bulys “a flashing object”: tuokų žubulūku prisakstīta į suknikį; žiurkšlynas “a place strewn with rubbish”: tuokį žurkšlinā· un skardže pri kuršėnų; žlábena “crybaby”: žlā·bena mā·uk sā·u | neįešk mūn niervų; isibā·isėti: isibā·isiejį ana·m tī· darbā and so on.

A considerable part of dialect vocabulary, under the influence of the standard language and changed living conditions, is disappearing: it is no longer used at all, is said occasionally by the elderly, but is not adopted by the younger generation⁶. It is very difficult here to identify any laws, as one can, for example, in phonetics and morphology. Vocabulary, as the aspect of language that best reflects life through its changes, even poses riddles. For instance, it is now difficult to explain why, in the eastern Varniai subdialect, as in many parts of Samogitia, words such as apėnt “again,” atmatā “fallow land,” atskalā “reserve,” aukštkaupais “in abundance,” blākštas “blow, strike,” dēinauti “to court a girl,” diginiūoti “to get ready, prepare,” drežti “to idle,” dūlbis “idler,” dumblūoties “to grow overcast,” kārdyti “to hinder,” krēistis “to be proud,” maigūs “sleepy,” mazīyti “to torment, vex,” preikšas “lover” [Vitkauskas V., 1972a, 438; 1972b, 82, note 13], and so on, are falling out of use. Whether this is due to internal processes of lexical development in the vernaculars or to some influence of the standard language is almost impossible to say today.

Since the vocabulary of vernaculars is only now beginning to be studied and the geographical distribution of words is being mapped, we do not yet have any comprehensive history of research into dialect vocabulary,

⁵ She recorded this word in the vicinity of Akmenė and Šakyna. A record of goštauta was found in dialectologists’ material collections from near Kelmė as well (Kuslėkiai village).

⁶ That dialect words are disappearing in other vernaculars too has already been noted in our linguistic literature (see Grinaveckienė E., 1967, 165—170; Vidugiris A., 1970, 255, and others).

8. Užs. Nr. 1554

113

we have no documented notes on how and when certain dialectal words began to disappear. Finally, the now greatly accelerated disintegration of dialect systems makes it difficult to trace any regular pattern in the loss of words or to determine which words are being forgotten and why.

Specialized systematic thematic dictionaries would help resolve much of this. They make it possible to examine a dialect system closely and better understand lexical differentiation. Such a detailed analysis of the lexicon reveals the composition of a dialect’s vocabulary, stylistic patterns of word use, and the particular features of its use over time. A good example would be the comprehensive thematic dictionary prepared by the Polish dialectologist M. Kucala (1957), with specialized lexical groups (based on the work of German, Swedish, and other linguists). Dictionaries prepared on similar principles to those of M. Kucala would help provide a thorough and detailed view of Lithuanian dialectal vocabulary and determine precisely which dialectal words are falling out of use. M. Kucala’s grouping of dialectal vocabulary into lexical groups and smaller subgroups (przyroda — praca — życie fizyczne człowieka — życie umysłowe i psychiczne — życie społeczne) [Kucała M., 1957, 340] shares many features with the scheme of the universal ideographic dictionary by R. Hallig and W. von Wartburg (cited according to Принципы, 1976, 340) and can therefore, without a doubt, help us understand the vocabulary’s distinctive features and essence in any dialect of any language, including our own, and might even make it possible to identify patterns in the disappearance of dialectal words. This requires extensive preparatory work, beginning at least with an ideographic dictionary of the standard language, which could be used to classify dialect vocabulary into particular groups. Alphabetical dictionaries merely present all or part of the lexical material.

Dialectal words (lexical, occupational, and accentual) are generally driven out of use by two such factors: 1) terms that come from the standard language, carry considerable authority, and are already used by the whole nation; 2) the disappearance of realia and various phenomena of life. These are axioms known to linguists of all nations and are readily confirmed through the study of any dialect or subdialect. Dialectal vocabulary is highly dependent on the standard language, so dialectal words are better preserved in dialects whose entire linguistic system differs greatly from the standard language and whose traditional character is generally maintained (the Kretinga North Samogitians, the western Varniškiai, and the Panevėžys dialects of the Eastern Aukštaitians). This is also shown by the material in Volume I of the “Atlas of the Lithuanian Language,” which clearly demonstrates that various lexical dialectal words kūlis, pūrā, pvlē, črulis and others (cf. Vitkauskas V., 1966, 155—168) have been well preserved in Western Samogitia. In general, names for phenomena, objects, and states that the standard language either lacks or that belong to a traditional domestic setting tend to be well preserved—various foods: patarmāsas “sauce,” putrā “a kind of porridge,” kastinys, spirgutis “hempseed fried with curds,” šližikai “a particular Christmas Eve dish” (although šautas “leaf soup” is already almost entirely forgotten, DūnŽ 366; meisa “meat” and kiaūšis “egg” are falling out of use—the latter word for other reasons, too: when an old woman going to market by car mangled the phrase nespā’usketes | trā’uketes | kaūšus su-trā’iški-ste, there was much laughter; next time, such an old woman will be afraid to say it that way and, willingly or not, will resort to the standard-language word, although many still use the forms kiaušynė “omelet,” kiaušpir kis “egg buyer,” kiaušininkas “likewise,” and kiauš-geris, -ė “one who drinks eggs”; cf. DūnŽ 134). Names of diseases remain in use: blusinės | blusiniai “measles,” krūopas “diphtheria,” diegliai “a certain horse disease,” gerstėklis “a rattling in the chest,” landuonīs | landuonė “whitlow (Panaritium),” liepėlė “a kind of abscess around the nail,” pārauga “boil,” sintis “asthma,” pūtminys “swelling,” slōgos “runny nose,” slūogtis “a slight cold,” vilkis “cataract” (but there are also words that are disappearing or have already disappeared: žibinkščiai “a childhood disease, mumps,” kādugas “convulsions,” kaškis “scabies”), and so on. Standard-language names are often not understood by dialect speakers; medicine and cookery call these things something entirely different, so the influence is weaker, although there are also cases of change. Of course, in such cases it is sometimes the word in a dialect’s synonym series that essentially coincides with the standard-language form that prevails. For example, these dialects have long used kaškis, šū.skis and ni’žas, žibinkštė | žib’iŋkštė· and kaulkes | kaulė.kes. The forms in these synonym series, based on the standard-language words niežas and kiaulytės, have now become universally established, while the others are used only by the older generation or more often occur-

114

in comparisons: prisikabina kap kažkis Krš, nanų sekretà’u kãp nu šọ.skę Pvn and the like.

Taking up the lexicon of the Eastern Varniškiai dialects (the northeastern Samogitian Dūnininkai) according to R. Hallig and W. von Wartburg’s universal lexical scheme, the discussion here will focus on only a few such subsections: the “Universe” section’s “Sky and celestial bodies,” with the branches “Sky and celestial bodies” and “Weather and winds,” as well as the “Human being” subsections “Parts of the body” and “Description of the human being (life) in general” (from the chapter “The human being as a living creature”).

Although dialectal words relating to the theme of “sky and celestial bodies” are not very diverse, they are fairly well preserved in the traditional dialect: sietnis “constellation,” grigo ratai “the Big Dipper,” aušros žvaizdė “morning star,” žvaizdės “stars.” The younger generation no longer adopts these forms and uses more standard-language forms, although nearly everyone uses names for the moon’s phases such as pilnijà “full moon,” tárpijos “the period between the old and new moon,” dėlčius “waning moon.” Names for atmospheric phenomena—dialectal words—vary considerably. Some are used by most speakers (áudra, brėkšma, brėkšti, drabna, graustinis, pėtvėjis, pašvīstė, vėšulas, žáibas / žėibas); others are beginning to vary (gydrė ir pagadà, orarykštė ir vaiorykštė / vaiorykštė); still others are gradually being forgotten (dujà “fine rain,” dujòti “to rain lightly,” gaidryties “to clear up,” apyžlėja, žlėja “to grow dim”).

Various dialectal words classified under the subsection “Parts of the human body” are holding up fairly well. Although medical workers can particularly influence a dialect in light of the expanded medical care available today, distinctive names for body parts have not fallen out of use. For example, although medical professionals often use the names žarnù, skraũdis, smilkinys, local words gròbas, pilvūkas, plónimas / plónyma remain firmly established; sometimes one hears only skrañdis, smilkýs (?), as well as the new organ name for rural people aklōji žarna (with altered stress). Words such as bùlė “one buttock,” čiùrnis “wrist,” dugnõlis “large intestine,” mómūnė “uvula,” nugárkaulis “spine,” smágenės / smágenys “brain,” kulkštinas “small bone in the leg,” kráuklas “rib,” stáibulas “arm bone,” and uõstai “moustache” are used firmly, even by younger speakers. Other stress patterns are retained in gerklė, gerklę, subinė; the stem is altered in dėlna “palm,” nósė “nose,” and kùlšė “thigh.” Particularly popular are vivid, humorous names for the head, mouth, eyes, throat, bones, and lips, used even by speakers of the interdialect in small towns and cities: krámė, mùržė, putrálakė, rùkė, veizolai, gamarinė, vėpšlos, žábtai, žióplos, piñkaulis, pyškaulis, stibýnas, stibýnkaulis “shinbones.” Phonetic features are somewhat “levelled”: giñsla is replaced by gysla, niñkštis (around Pãvandenė) by nykščiu (1), skingsrōbis by skygrobiù; the standard-language stem is selected in ausė — ausis, and so on.

Most words describing people, particularly vivid dialectal words, are well preserved. Many are still used even by speakers of the interdialect (Kuršėnai, Užventis): badvìšà “pauper,” bėbis, -ė “fool,” blérbynė “chatterbox,” cỹpynė “one who squeaks and giggles,” érgla “joker,” gàgris “fat, dull-witted person,” gargãras “one who is intrusive,” girmakšlỹs, -ė “boaster,” gribìšas, -ė, krùčas, -ė “thief,” išpėpa, ištìža “loser,” knėpšė “useless woman,” lėderga, lėrva “shameless, slovenly person,” mautùvas “one who eats a lot,” lùtis, -ė “short-legged person,” miegrágtis, -ė “sleepyhead,” mùgulis, šùtulis “one who behaves foolishly,” paližókas, -ė “bootlicker,” smùrglažė, snarglėda “brat,” snópa “simpleton,” stýpla “very tall person,” stumtùvas, šliaužtùkas / šliaužtùvas “one who does every kind of work,” šatrijà “wild woman,” šaválka “tramp,” škrãbalas “withered old person,” tepėrna “one who speaks slowly,” terliūzas “chubby person,” užmiršoklis, -ė “one who forgets everything,” vėbra “simpleton,” žlebérna “one who eats unwillingly,” and many others. The desire to speak-

⁷ Svyruavęs šio žodžio kamienas jau K. Donelaičio laikais (žr. Donelaitis K., 1977, 174; plg. Kabelka J., 1964, 120). Apie i-kam. perėjimą į ē-kamieną žr. Zinkevičius Z., 1966, 224—225.

8*

115

To speak vividly and piercingly, it seems, these lexical dialectisms do not allow one to forget, although some are now rarely used, e.g., lūbis, -ė “fool,” pludungis, -ė “libertine, profligate”; the phonetics are altered: malāgis, -ė – melāgis.

The situation is similar in many other semantic groups. Although in some places old dialectisms persist, the influence of the standard language is considerable: quite a few synonyms fall out of use, and word formation and irregular phonetics are replaced by standard-language equivalents. The words of old beliefs (gabija “sacred fire,” indėvė “evil spirit,” etc.), names for former crafts, various tools and objects, known nowadays only to the very oldest people or no longer used at all, are disappearing especially rapidly.

Thus the existence of dialectisms depends on many factors: the rise of culture, the establishment of the standard language in various spheres of life, and the internal processes or needs of a local speech variety or dialect. Particularly important—and something that must be recorded for the purposes of scholarship—is passive dialectal vocabulary, which, while rapidly disappearing along with the dying-out older generation in our villages, still survives when used expressively and with figurative meanings. For example, the Samogitian verb kaitėti “to worry” has disappeared from the speech varieties described here, but one of its forms has come to be used as a noun in the fixed expression kas ne kaitė “no wonder” (kas ne kāiti vi'nā buoba: gi'vėnti Krš DūnŽ 118⁸). With the link to the former verb severed, entirely incomprehensible forms arise: kas ne kāitra | ka miotin'na vai.kùs prīvė'iz DūnŽ 118. The word dóbstė “a torn, shabby garment” is now dying out, while the more frequent, vivid expression diopštį senį “a complete invalid” has emerged. Even the church has abandoned the rites and term for churching, yet a woman who has come for the first time easily says: pė'rma kārta | če mõ.na į'vedi'bas Pvn, če mūna į'vedi'bas | vešk par u.t.ra pūsi Krš. Apparently nobody beats brūžo anymore; in fact, neither the game nor the phraseological expression exists, yet when the subject turns to promiscuity, people often say mūša brūža su blėdi'nums į negražė' susi'ga Krš (Urkuvėnų village), dār vė'plšas pi'ni'utas | puo krū'mus brūža mūš Krš (Akminaičių village). Nobody beats ripkos anymore either, but the simile nūosi kā'p ripkas keini's “you’re worn out” can still be heard. Some words survive only in similes and proverbs: nelīka nieka ne spā'ga “not a bit” (for L. Ivinskis, however, this was a common noun meaning “a drop”), dọ kā'p vī'ne | kā'p saulā' brūolė' Pvn (DūnŽ 315), etc. In the past people used Lithuanian words such as mergvaikis “illegitimate child,” kalinys “prison,” skārda, mišlius | mišīnys “a kind of grain,” dvilinikės “blanket cover”; nowadays they most often use beikartas, turmā (often replaced by kalėjimas), blēka, miešānas, cikōlas. Here, too, the standard language can do nothing.

The functioning and disappearance of dialectisms in present-day speech varieties are not governed by any clear-cut laws. Much depends on the social and cultural life of the nation, the structure of the speech variety itself (differences are disappearing even faster in varieties that come into contact with ones closer to the standard language), and, finally, speakers’ need to speak dialectally (expressive vocabulary survives longer). One thing is clear: all of us, linguists, must now turn our attention to dialectal vocabulary, which must be recorded at a rapid pace.

Literatūra

Būga K. Aistiški studijai. Peterburgas, 1908.

Donelaitis K. Raštai. V., 1977.

Grinaveckienė E. Lietuvių literatūrinės kalbos ir tarmių sąveika. — Kn.: Lietuvių kalba tarybiniais metais. V., 1967.

Grinaveckis V. Žemaičių miestų interdialektų fonetinės ypatybės. — Lietuvos TSR Mokslų Akademijos darbai. Serija A, 1974, t. 1 (46).

Jonaitienė A. Tarmių sąveikos ir niveliacijos reiškiniai šiaurės vakarų aukštaičių šnektose. — Kn.: Lietuvių kalba tarybiniais metais. V., 1967.

Kabelka J. Kristijono Donelaičio raštų leksika. V., 1964.

Kučala M. Porównawczy słownik trzech wsi Małopolskich. Wrocław, 1957.

^⁹ Paulausko J. (1977, 117) padaryta veiksmažodžio forma: kas ne kaitėja, bet tai jau išvertimas į bendrinę kalbą, o ne transponavimas: kaitėja šnektoje skambėtų *kā.atie.

116

Paulauskas J. Lietuvių kalbos frazeologijos žodynas. K., 1977.

Vidugiris A. Dainavos šalies žmonių tarmė. — Kn.: Merkinė. V., 1970.

Vidugiris A. Gervėčių tarmės leksiniai dialektizmai. — Lietuvos TSR Mokslų Akademijos darbai. Serija A, 1974, t. 1(41).

Vitkauskas V. Apie kai kurių žemaitiškių žodžių vartojimą. — Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai. V., 1966, t. 7.

Vitkauskas V. Pastabos dėl Žemaitės raštų kalbos. — Kn.: Žemaitė. V., 1972.

Vitkauskas V. Šnektų grupės žodyno sudarymo principai. — Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai. V., 1972, t. 13.

Vitkauskas V. Žodyno turtai žemėlapiuose (rec.) — Kultūros barai. V., 1977, Nr. 12.

Zinkevičius Z. Lietuvių dialektologija. V., 1966.

Непокупный А. П. Балто-славянские языковые связи. — Киев, 1976.

Принципы описания языков мира. М., 1976.

Филин Ф. П. Проект „Словаря русских народных говоров“. — М.—Л., 1961.

Филин Ф. П. Словарь русских народных говоров. Л., 1965, ч. 1.

Lietuvos TSR Mokslų Akademijos Lietuvių kalbos ir literatūros institutas

ВЛИЯНИЕ СОЦИАЛЬНЫХ ФАКТОРОВ НА ДИАЛЕКТНУЮ ЛЕКСИКУ

Резюме

В настоящее время литовские народные говоры быстро нивелируются. Ускоренными темпами из употребления выходят лексические, семантические и другие диалектизмы. Основные причины этого процесса: а) наплыв в говоры слов литературного языка; б) отмирание реалий, явлений. Как показывает лексический материал жемайтских говоров (окрестности Куршенай, Ужвянтис, Павандяне, Видсодис), относительно хорошо сохраняются в этих говорах названия специфических предметов, явлений, экспрессивная лексика, часто употребляемая даже представителями интердиалекта (г. Куршенай, г. Ужвянтис).