28 –oji tarptautinė mokslinė Jono Jablonskio konferencija – „Kalba ir laikmetis: asmens, kartos, visuomenės reprezentacijos kalboje‟

LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ Institute of the Lithuanian Language ORCID id: orcid.org/0000-0003-2196-8937 RESEARCH AREAS: morphosyntax, valency, semantics, typology. DOI: doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2023.96.13 The 28th International Scholarly Conference of Jonas Jablonskis Language and the Times: Representations of the Individual, Generation, and Society in Language The Centre for Standard Language Research at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and the Department of Lithuanian Language at the Institute of Applied Linguistics of the Faculty of Philology at Vilnius University invited everyone to the traditional scholarly conference of Jonas Jablonskis, held at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language on 21–22 September 2023 and supported by the Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Lithuania, with contributions from Go Vilnius. This year’s 28th Jonas Jablonskis Conference was interdisciplinary. Presentations were delivered by linguists, literary scholars, and historians. Participants and attendees from Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland, and Ukraine gathered for the international interdisciplinary conference and heard 48 presentations delivered in plenary and closing sessions and in 9 sections. Dr Albina Auksoriūtė, Director of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language (LKI), welcomed the many attendees and participants who had gathered for the conference. Wishing them continued creative work, a greeting was also delivered by Assoc. Prof. Dr Gintarė Judžentytė-Šinkūnienė, Vice-Dean for Studies of the Faculty of Philology at Vilnius University (VU). After the ceremonial opening and welcoming speeches, the first day of the conference began with a plenary session, where three invited speakers delivered presentations and shared their expertise: Prof. Habil. Dr Ina Druviete (University of Latvia), Prof. Dr Birutė Klaas-Lang (University of Tartu), and Prof. Dr Ihoris Koroliovas (Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, TSNUK). I. Druviete presented on the languages of the Baltic countries in the era of new multilingualism. She raised the question of whether language policy guidelines need to be reconsidered and drew attention to the challenges facing language policy-makers in Latvia and Lithuania. B. Klaas-Lang continued the plenary session with a presentation devoted to language policy at the University of Tartu LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ. 28-oji tarptautinė mokslinė Jono Jablonskio konferencija Kalba ir laikmetis: asmens, kartos, visuomenės reprezentacijos kalboje 237 … discussed. Noting that in recent years the number and proportion of international staff and doctoral students at the University of Tartu have grown very rapidly, the speaker discussed the academic staff’s attitudes toward language and how they are changing, as well as how language policy is implemented at the University of Tartu. I. Koroliovas concluded the plenary session with a discussion of various depictions of refugee crises on English-language, Ukrainian, and Lithuanian media websites, in visual art, and in poetry. According to the speaker, the media and the arts construct a multimodal, transtextual image of refugee crises, associated with the dynamic creation of meaning. The work and scholarly discussions then continued in parallel sessions. The session devoted to questions of reality construction and language opened with a presentation by Danguolė Mikulėnienė (LKI) on post-war Lithuanian linguistics. The speaker discussed the varying degrees of ideologization in linguistics publications issued in the post-war period, manifested through certain linguistic clichés, and noted that attempts had even been made to simplify the meaning of a word by assigning it political content. Aurelija Gritėnienė’s (LKI) presentation examined the image of Lithuania in the corpus of the ideological narrative of modern identity. Analyzing examples of Soviet-era journalism, the researcher revealed how the ideal of a good, happy life was created for people of that time. Dangiras Mačiulis (Lithuanian Institute of History) then discussed what prompted surname Lithuanization campaigns in interwar Lithuania, the role played by the authorities in Lithuanizing surnames, and the role of the political and cultural elite in making a surname evidence of national identity. Aušra Martišiūtė-Linartienė (Institute of Lithuanian Literature and Folklore) concluded the session with a discussion of the creation of the Lithuanian world in Aušroje. The session on the linguistic and cultural integration of immigrants and national minorities opened with a presentation by Laura Vilkaitė-Lozdienė (VU) on easy-to-understand language. Raising questions about whether easy-to-understand language is needed by all language users and what the difference is between language that everyone can understand and easy-to-understand language, the speaker presented the results of a survey of the general public and target groups, conducted in 2020–2022 as Vilnius University and its international partners carried out the Perlsi project. The survey investigates how often and in what situations respondents report encountering difficulties when trying to understand the information they need. Angelica Peccini (VU), who spoke next, discussed how immigrants understand Lithuanian identity. Drawing on the results of a sociolinguistic study involving 20 adults who had come to Lithuania from various countries around the world, she explained that, for them, Lithuanian identity means having deep roots in Lithuania, traditions and shared values, preserving freedom, and, to some extent, speaking the state language. The presentation was delivered remotely by Yevheniia Starodub and Maria Inmaculada De Potestad (Kaunas University of Technology). They described how Venezuelans living in Lithuania assess the Lithuanian-language teaching programme intended to support their linguistic integration in Lithuania, and discussed the linguistic integration challenges they have encountered in Lithuania. The next two presentations in this session focused on the language and identity of national minorities in schools. Aurelija Tamulionienė (LKI) drew attention to the expression of personal identity in language. Presenting the findings of a 2021–2022 study involving students in grades 3–8 attending national-minority (Polish- and Russian-language) schools in Lithuania, the speaker discussed students’ linguistic attitudes toward the use of Lithuanian in various communicative situations, the relationship between motivation to learn Lithuanian and linguistic attitudes, and the influence of family, society, and school on the formation of students’ attitudes toward the value of Lithuanian. Sonata Vaičiakauskienė (LKI) continued the discussion of teaching in national-minority schools with a presentation on the challenges in teaching Lithuanian faced by teachers of Lithuanian working in these schools. Drawing on the results of a teacher questionnaire conducted in the 2021–2022 academic year, the speaker stated that the greatest difficulty students still face in learning Lithuanian is their inadequate vocabulary—their vocabulary resources are particularly limited—while one of the greatest challenges for teachers is students’ lack of motivation to learn Lithuanian. 238 BENDRINĖ KALBA | 96 Based on these results, she said that, for them, Lithuanian identity means having deep roots in Lithuania, traditions and shared values, preserving freedom, and, to some extent, speaking the state language. The presentation was delivered remotely by Yevheniia Starodub and Maria Inmaculada De Potestad (Kaunas University of Technology). They described how Venezuelans living in Lithuania assess the Lithuanian-language teaching programme intended to support their linguistic integration in Lithuania, and discussed the linguistic integration challenges they have encountered there. The next two presentations in this session focused on the language and identity of national minorities in schools. Aurelija Tamulionienė (LKI) drew attention to the expression of personal identity in language. Presenting the findings of a 2021–2022 study involving students in grades 3–8 attending national-minority (Polish- and Russian-language) schools in Lithuania, the speaker discussed students’ linguistic attitudes toward the use of Lithuanian in various communicative situations, the relationship between motivation to learn Lithuanian and linguistic attitudes, and the influence of family, society, and school on the formation of students’ attitudes toward the value of Lithuanian. Sonata Vaičiakauskienė (LKI) continued the discussion of teaching in national-minority schools with a presentation on the challenges in teaching Lithuanian faced by teachers of Lithuanian working in these schools. Drawing on the results of a teacher questionnaire conducted in the 2021–2022 academic year, the speaker stated that the greatest difficulty students still face in learning Lithuanian is their inadequate vocabulary—their vocabulary resources are particularly limited—while one of the greatest challenges for teachers is students’ lack of motivation to learn Lithuanian. The afternoon work on the first day of the conference also continued in two parallel sessions. In the session devoted to the language of the media—propaganda, myths, and reality—Andrejus Veisbergas (University of Latvia) gave the first presentation. Examining Latvian, Russian, and English vocabulary used in propaganda, he discussed fascism and liberalism in political narratives. Agnė Aleksaitė (LKI) then considered, from a stylistic perspective, the 44 commentaries Rimvydas Valatka published in 2022 about the war between Russia and Ukraine. According to the speaker, these texts mainly use conventional and occasional phraseological units, expressive verbs, neologisms, and dysphemisms, while slang, foreign-language insertions, metaphorical and expressive nouns, irony, comparisons, interjections, onomatopoeic words, swearwords, and other stylistic devices are unproductive. Velga Polinska and Dite Liepa (Institute of Latvian Language, University of Latvia, hereafter LU LKI) LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ. 28-oji tarptautinė mokslinė Jono Jablonskio konferencija Kalba ir laikmetis: asmens, kartos, visuomenės reprezentacijos kalboje 239 revealed how the image of people with disabilities is constructed in the Latvian media and what that image is. Linda Lauzė (Liep text … drew attention to the fact that it remains important not to leave the quality of public language to self-regulation. Discussing the development of Lithuanian-language education policy from the restoration of the Lithuanian state to the Soviet occupation, and from the restoration of independence to the present day, Nida Poderienė (LKI) examined how education policy for Lithuanian and other languages reflects the ideologies that shape education, which in turn form the content and values of Lithuanian as an object of teaching and learning, shape state identity, and drive sociocultural change in society. The speaker assessed the changes in language education policy established over the past few years and noted trends in Lithuanian-language education policy. Violeta Meiliūnaitė’s (LKI) presentation examined the paradox of language “experts”: while declaring Lithuanian a value to be preserved and cherished, they seek to change its structure in accordance with models from other languages that are, in essence, structurally entirely different. The speaker described how the opposition between language and its speakers takes shape in contemporary Lithuanian society, how it is realized in practice, and sought answers to how to resolve the paradox of fighting against the very values one proclaims—against the Lithuanian language. Kazimieras Garšva (LKI) concluded the session with a presentation on language policy and self-regulation, examining the transcription of proper names from foreign languages into Lithuanian. In the session on the interaction of language varieties, Nijolė Tuomienė (LKI) revealed the multilayered identity of the inhabitants of southeastern Lithuania. She discussed when and why an identity boundary is drawn between “local” and “non-local” inhabitants of southeastern Lithuania, and what language the “locals” use there. Dovilė Tamulaitienė (LKI) then drew on questionnaire materials from Žemės vardų to discuss which phonetic and morphological features of place names were considered dialectal by the teachers and foresters who completed the questionnaires in the 1930s, which principles they applied when recording place names in the standard language, and what factors may have determined their choices. Simona Vyniautaitė (LKI), having analyzed sound recordings made in 2011–2019 with residents of Skuodas, Mosėdis, Telšiai, Plungė, and Rietavas using methods of dynamic and perceptual dialectology, presented the dialectal differentiation of Northern Samogitian from the perspective of speakers from the transitional area between the Kretinga and Telšiai subdialects. The speaker revealed that informants most readily notice dialectal lexical and phonetic features. Asta Leskauskaitė (LKI) concluded the session with a presentation on the Žasliai, Paparčiai, and Kaugonys speech varieties. Applying the method of dialectometry, she demonstrated which regiolects these transitional varieties should be assigned to based on certain phonetic, morphological, and other features. LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ. 28-oji tarptautinė mokslinė Jono Jablonskio konferencija Kalba ir laiki̇metis: asmens, kartos, visuomenės reprezentacijos kalboje 241 Anželika Gaidienė (LKI) opened the all-day session devoted to discussing the semantic level of language in contemporary society. Comparing lexicographic sources in English, Russian, and Lithuanian, the speaker showed how the meanings of the Lithuanian verb spekuliuoti are changing and what is influencing this change. Discussing around two hundred lexemes from various Lithuanian lexicographic sources, Žydrūnė Šalaviejūtė (LKI) revealed the diversity of naming and motivation for terms for a hen, chick, and rooster, not only from onomasiological and semasiological perspectives, but also from an ethnolinguistic one. Later, drawing on the results of an association experiment involving nearly 300 students from Šiauliai and Vilnius, Silvija Papaurėlytė-Klovienė (LKI) discussed the highly varied associative field of the word dukra, which provides valuable information about the content of the concept DAUGHTER in the Lithuanian linguistic worldview. The morning session concluded with a presentation delivered remotely. Svitlana Hrycenko (KTŠNU) presented the linguocultural component of Ukrainian equivalents in the bilingual Lietuvių–ukrainiečių kalbų žodyne. According to the speaker, the dictionary’s compilers, emphasizing the specific nature of the linguocultural component of the Ukrainian language, focus on the statics and dynamics of Ukrainian. During the break between the morning sessions, two poster presentations were given. The presentation by Inesė Indričāne and Solveiga Čeirane (LU LKI) discussed the quality of obstruents in Latvian, while the presentation by Justina Mandravickaitė, Danguolė Kalinauskaitė, Danguolė Kotryna Kapkan, and Eglė Kankevičiūtė (VDU) presented the initial results of an ongoing project aimed at developing a methodology for the automatic simplification of administrative texts in Lithuanian. In the afternoon, the session devoted to the semantic level of language in contemporary society continued with Evija Lipartė. She presented the linguistic means and aspects through which conceptual metaphors revealing dehumanization—HUMAN BEING – RAW MATERIAL (FOOD)—are realized. Later, drawing on survey data from Latvian translators working in European Union institutions and in the Latvian domestic market, Evelina Kirsakmenė (University of Latvia) discussed the misinterpretation of idioms in translations from English and French into Latvian. The conference’s largest session concluded with Veslava Čižik-Prokaševa (LKI). Drawing on 365 examples from the Corpus of Contemporary Lithuanian, she discussed the image of a Latvian woman, which, according to the speaker, is neither comprehensive nor entirely clear. At the afternoon session, which examined issues across various levels of language, Jolita Urbanavičienė (LKI) presented a perceptual study of Lithuanian sonorants— 242 BENDRINĖ KALBA | 96 —in which sonorants are recognized solely on the basis of the spectrum of the consonant itself. According to the speaker, palatalization, adjacent vowels, and the speaker’s gender are factors that affect the perception of sonorants. L a r y s a T a r a n e n k o (Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute of the National Technical University of Ukraine, hereafter UNTU KISPI) delivered a presentation remotely. Drawing on 42 English folk legends about King Arthur, she discussed the prosodic devices and features of the legends that can persuasively influence the addressee’s subconscious and convey the text’s emotional and pragmatic force. The speaker emphasized that the predominance of falling rather than rising tones in the legends helps addressees better understand what they have heard, while the isochronous pronunciation of adjacent intonational groups ensures the legends’ effect on the subconscious. Remote presentations continued with O l h a I s n i u k (UNTU KISPI). Drawing on prohibitions collected from 115 scenes in the sitcom Auklė, she described the linguistic means through which interlocutors from different sociocultural groups express the speech act of prohibition in English. The speaker showed that members of the middle and lower sociocultural strata, unlike those of the upper sociocultural stratum, tend to issue prohibitions directly. In a remote presentation, M a r i j a B o i c h e n k o (UNTU KISPI) proposed communication strategies and hierarchical complexes of verbal and nonverbal means that help a charismatic speaker maximize the pragmatic potential of language in invariant communication situations: conveying their vision and message to an audience, influencing it, and establishing an emotional connection with it. Among the remote presentations in this session, a presentation by a group of researchers—Jurgis Pakerys (VU), Virginijus Dadurkevičius (VDU), and Agnė Navickaitė-Klišauskienė (VU)—on productivity in word formation was delivered in person. Drawing on data from the Joint Corpus of the Lithuanian Language and discussing realized, potential, and developmental productivity, the presenters paid particular attention, among other verb derivatives, to Lithuanian agent nouns with the suffixes -toj-, -ėj- and -ik-. The afternoon session Language and Identity opened with a presentation by D a i v a A l i ū k a i t ė (VU) and A i d a Č i ž i k a i t ė (Lithuanian University of Health Sciences). Drawing on the methodology of perceptual dialectology and data on the linguistic attitudes of 180 students in non-humanities degree programs, as well as their perception of three stimulus texts, they discussed whether (and how) a major city changes perceptions of dialect. D i a n a D a m b r a u s k i e n ė (LKI) showed the size of the South Samogitian Raseiniai-speaking communities and their stability or dynamism L O R E T A V A I Č I U L Y T Ė - S E M Ė N I E N Ė. 28-oji tarptautinė mokslinė Jono Jablonskio konferencija Kalba ir laikmetis: asmens, kartos, visuomenės reprezentacijos kalboje 243 correlation with the development of settlement infrastructure, and noted that linguistic change is influenced not only by the size or stability of the South Samogitian Raseiniai communities, but also by the sociocultural and socioeconomic environment of the place of residence and by the reasons for community mobility. Later, Aidas Gudaitis (LKI) gave a paper on competition between Polish and Lithuanian from the early 20th to the early 21st century. The speaker presented the results of a quantitative study of more than 4,300 gravestone inscriptions in the Dieveniškės area and stated that the prestige of Lithuanian there gradually increased from the early 20th to the early 21st century, accelerating particularly after 1990, when the percentage of gravestone inscriptions in Lithuanian rose considerably. Recently, it has accounted for more than 30 percent. Drawing on dialect material, Žydrūnas Šidlauskas (LKI) introduced the audience to a reconstructed area of the subdialect and presented the dialectal distinctiveness and dynamism of the flooded Nemunas valley, now the bed of the Kaunas Lagoon. Danutė Valentukevičienė (LKI) concluded this session with a paper on the Varėna geolect. Drawing on Jérôme-Frédéric Josserand’s identity model and research material collected through semi-structured interviews with 47 informants from three generations, the speaker discussed the changing (current) and fundamental (collective) identities of users of the South Aukštaitian subdialect in the Varėna geolect area, concluding that dialect users’ identity is one of the most important conditions for the vitality of the South Aukštaitian subdialect. The second day of the conference, during which a total of 28 papers were presented in person or remotely, culminated in a closing session that brought everyone together from the separate sections. Invited guest Dr Małgorzata Kasner (Institute of Slavic Studies of the Polish Academy of Sciences) spoke about the principal (identity, heritage, and memory) narratives of Lukiškės Square that constitute its social world. This was followed by a very engaging discussion, moderated by Nida Poderienė, that held the audience’s attention for a long time: Language shaping today’s reality: connections, distinctions, trends. Participants included Dr Małgorzata Kasner, Prof. Dr Aušra Martišiūtė-Linartienė, Habil. Dr Rita Miliūnaitė, and Assist. Dr Audrius Valotka. Received 2023 11 21 LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ Institute of the Lithuanian Language Petro Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius [email protected] 244 BENDRINĖ KALBA | 96