Autorinis tarminis grafolektas ir jo percepcijos galimybės

48 GENERAL LANGUAGE | 95 DAIVA ALIŪKAITĖ, VIOLETA MEILIŪNAITĖ Lithuanian Language Institute doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2022.95.09 AUTHOR'S TALTE GRAPHOLOCATION AND THE POSSIBILITIES OF ITS PERCEPTION KEY WORDS: dialect grapholects, perception, dialect transcription. ANNOTATION The article presents a study of written dialects. The aim of the study was to evaluate the author’s grapholects in terms of the presentation and writing solutions of the verbal dialects. The basis of the dialectological discourse are the Facebook posts of one of the representatives of the eastern Altay people from Panevėžys, published in dialectic grapholects. The article first analyzes the orthographical decisions of the author-informant to convey the distinctive features of the eastern Altay people of Panevėžys, then presents a study of the perception of dialectic grapholects, analyzes how ordinary members of the linguistic bend are read and understood the text written in dialectic grapholects. ABSTRACT This article discusses a study of written dialecticism, conducted in order to assess how the authorial grapholect conveys oral dialecticism and to analyse the spelling choices made by the author. The dialectal discourse used for this study consists of a number of Facebook posts published in a dialectal grapholect by a female informant. The first part of the article focuses on specific orthographic decisions made by the author-informant to convey the distinct features of her native Eastern Aukštaitian subdialect of Panevėžys. The second investigative section of the article examines the perception of a dialectal grapholect, looking closely at how ordinary language users read and understand texts written in it. INTRODUCTION Dialectologists, in order to measure the vitality of dialectal codes, to assess their continuity, still focus mainly on the spoken word. Efforts to distinguish between authentic expressions and more dialectical vs. less dialectical simulations encourage researchers to diversify monitoring principles and techniques for (regional) variants. DAIVA ALIUKAITĖ, VIOLETA MEILIŪNAITĖ. The author’s dialectic grapholects and their perception possibilities 49 nologies (see methods of direct and indirect observation, incognito technique, etc.). Of course, the inventory approaches of the study material (verbal word) ensure both more diverse and more accurate studies of regional variability. Nevertheless, despite the fact that in the 21st century dialect and dialectic knowledge are multidimensional, and this means not only access to dialectic data collection, but also the recognition of dialectic per se in general (see Mikulėnienė 2019: 60–61), the observation of the verbal word alone is insufficient for the development of a precise (how accurate can a secondary discourse about a word be in general) dialectological narrative. Walter J. Ong has suggested that writing gives grapholects a power far exceeding that of any oral dialect (Ong 2002: 8). Thus, there is no doubt that the studies of written dialecticity can not only legitimize a new layer of dialectological data, but also provide new perspectives, firstly, to evaluate the role of the ordinary member of a specific community in the history of the vitality of a particular dialect code, secondly, to clarify the relevant features of dialect codes from the point of view of the members of the community themselves, thirdly, to evaluate to funkcionalumą, kitaip – naujų grafolektų perspektyvą ir komunikacinę vertę bendruomenėje. Taigi, šiame straipsnyje sutelkiamas dėmesys į rašytinį tarmiškumą, t. y. pristatomas autorinio tarminio grafolekto tyrimas. dialectic grapholectics in general.The aim of the presentation of the study is twofold: firstly, to evaluate the author’s grapholectics from the point of view of the presentation and notation of verbal dialecticity and, secondly, to evaluate it from the point of view of perception, i.e. to what audience is claimed by writing in dialectic grapholectics. The research material is Facebook posts of Danutė Montvilaitė, one of the representatives of the eastern Altay people from Panevėžys, published in dialect grapholects. Danutė Motvilaitė – born in the village of Paežeris te biologiją studijavusi, vėliau Joniškėlyje biologiją dėsčiusi, o paskui grįžusi į Panevėžį rašytoja. Bendrine kalba yra publikavusi pora autobiografi- (Panevėžio r.), author of Vilnius University booklets (Pakelių žydėjimo šviesa, 2018; Prisiminimai apie Bernotus; Prie ežerėlio, 2010), actively writes on topical topics of social and cultural life, celebrations in the facebook group Suskalbėjimai. It can be argued that such an author-informant1 meets the characteristics of a so-called indigenous contributor (see Chambers 2000: 181, also see Aliūkaitė et al. 2014: 57). Except for the years of study, the informant spent her entire life in the subdivision area. In the absence of additional information 1 Siekiant tarmėtyrinio diskurso nuoseklumo, straipsnyje vartojami tiek paskiri terminai autorius, informantas, tiek ir autorius-informantas. 50 COMMON LANGUAGE | 95 about her parents’ origin and place of residence, the informant’s regionality index 2000: 178–181) can be summarized as 1–3, otherwise – it is a member of a community having the status of true locals. (angl. regionality index; dėl regioniškumo indekso daugiau žr. Chambers A direct observation technique invariant was used to collect the material. It must be acknowledged that in the studies of regional variantity, the direct method and the indirect method of observation in one way or another (cf. in (angl. indirect method) skirtis, pažymint tyrėjo vaidmenį kaupiant medžiagą the first case – the direct performer, in the second – the risks to it (cf. in the tikro medžiagos kaupimo instrumento (anketos, užduotyno) kūrėjo ir labiau tyrimo vadybininko2), įvertinant medžiagos autentiškumo abiem atvejais first case – the inclusion of the observer’s paradox3 factor, in the second case – the reliability of dialectal data recording, etc.) are conceptualized based on the idea of the observation of the dialectal dialectality. However, the researchers’ own search for non-standard spelling texts, obtaining primary taip pat kaip ir tarminių kodų atstovų kalbinimas, interviu įrašymas, siekiant dialectological material, would correspond to direct observation access. Thus, focusing on written dialects even expands the concept of direct observation method in this aspect, i.e. such a method of accumulation of material foresees not only the accumulation of spoken but also written material. The study material was collected between January and September 2022. During this time, 39 records were published by the author-informant of the dialect grapholects. The recording material (see examples in table 1) is the basis for developing a critical discourse on dialectal representation and writing solutions. The second layer of the research material is the data of the perception task of the author’s dialect grapholects. Such material is valuable in order to expand the evaluation of written dialecticity and at the same time to tarminio grafolekto funkcionalumo. Žvalgomoji autorinio tarminio grafolekto percepcijos užduotis sukonstruota metodologiškai pasiremiant Marbegin to develop the discourse about the idea of indirect observation method raised by Georg Wenker, the founder of the Burg school of linguistic medžiagą atlasui (Sprachatlas des Deutschen Reichs), parengė 404 sakinių geography. G. Wenker, in order to collect 2 For methods see. : Seiler 2010: 502–506; Van Keymeulen 2018: 49–50. 3 For the deadline, see 2006: 86. 4 It should be added that Wenker, when studying dialects in Northern Germany (Prussian Rhineland) in 1876, first used 42 sentences. In 1881 he purified the 40 sentences, which are still used to this day primarily for the study of German dialects not only in Germany. DAIVA ALIUKAITĖ, VIOLETA MEILIŪNAITĖ. Author’s dialect grapholects and their perception possibilities 51 TABLE 1. Examples of author's dialect grapholects Recording time 2022 09 04 Recording Record transcription "Naturt sukėtė su mumis pasidžiaugti, iš palungva". Record time 2022 05 22 Record Record transcription BARAVYKS. It was visible untr summer half. He had a few years of experience, but he didn't speak a word. The story is simple. Aunt loves mushrooms. If he's not there, he'll run out of the woods. That forest looked like a mile away, maybe a little bit more. He asked to go a few times, but he didn't let the fat mushroom dava, sakydava - da ne tau tinai grybaut. Mūsų miškė mišrūs, šlap, žulėt, sunk vaikščiut. Pask tik pavargs, nebepais, bus bėd hunters. <...> they say - cow keep cow, but don't get used to it. 52 GENERAL LANGUAGE | 95 Standard German (e.g. 1. In winter, the dry leaves fly around in the air; 2. Es hört gleich auf zu schneien, dann wird das Wetter which the informants had to translate into native dialects. Without going into more detail on the research of G. Wenker and his followers, it should be wieder besser; 3. Tu Kohlen in den Ofen, damit die Milch bald zu kochen anfängt) (žr.: Chambers, Trudgill 2004: 15–16; Schrambke 2010: 88–90), noted that the idea of this translation. Only, unlike the tasks of the representatives of linguistic geography (or later – dialectologists in autorinio grafolekto percepcijos užduočiai parengti reikšminga pati dialekgeneral), the perception of the author’s grapholects is to translate cases of dialecticity into common language, otherwise – to translate dialectic užduotis paprastiesiems kalbinės bendruomenės nariams yra išversti rašygrapholects into the code of common language (see the example of the completed task in Figure 1). Pakėlo galvo pažiūrėt a da dauk unt medže likė Percepcijai teikti du rašytinio tarmiškumo atvejai: Nu i ronkij tuos ubalėls. (Nu i rankioj(a) tuos obuoĮrašo laikas 2022 01 22 ĮrašasĮrašo redagavimas lėlius. Pakėliau galvą pažiūrėt(i), ar dar daug ant medžio likę) iš 2022 m. Mūsų kaimyns Ladze turėje baužo karvė. Nurėje parduot. Abud su bubel jo gerokė septinto dešimty. Pincijėls gaun, kam jiem tas klapats. Kasdien liuobt, melžt, niekur neatsitraukt. Užteks, viska krautuvė nusipirks. Su saul negivens. Nu i skelbe skelbe, turgavoje turgavoje. Kupčė vis važiava. Ale pasižiūr i We didn't have a lot of tucks, but we didn't have a lot of fashion, used clothes. And leave. Yesterday Ladziena met in the street. He asked if his cow was sold. They say - it's not the cows that are the problem, buva. Karve sveik, piening, nesen. Kas iš ta fasona, grože, kad but the reasonable profit from buying goats. But a fool won't get a spoon. We'll stay until spring. Maybe unt fresh grass will appear razumnesnių kupčių. DAIVA ALIUKAITĖ, VIOLETA MEILIŪNAITĖ. The author's dialect grapholects and their perception possibilities 53 tra viss mets labjaus laukiam. Maybe not all rugpjūčio 24 d. autorės-informantės feisbuko įrašo; Gyvenam tam laiki kayear, but all life (We live in the time that we are waiting for all year longer. Maybe not all year, but all life) from the Facebook post of the author-informant dated June 12, 2022) (see Figure 1). They not only translate and transcribe the subjects’ common language, but also evaluate them according to the parameters of dialect code evaluation typical of the tradition of perceptive dialectology (see Preston 1999: XXXIV– XXXV): comprehensibility, aesthetics and regularity. As shown in Figure 1, a five-point semantic score scale was used to explain the dialect code parameters. Relatively simple fragments of dialectic grapholects were selected for perception, secondly, the selection of sentences was considered to represent distinctive features of Eastern Highlands (e.g., the non-retention of the doubled an, am, en, em and the nasal vowels ą, ę), as well as the characteristics of the dialect (e.g., the reduction of terminal vowels). Twenty students (21–28 years old) participated in the perception study of author’s dialect grapholects. The homogeneous group of subjects was formed purposefully, it pagrindas pirminėms vertinamosioms įžvalgoms formuluoti. Be jau užsimintų elementų, percepcijos duomenims svarstyti yra svarbūs ir tarminio kodo kompetencijos įsivertinimo ir aplinkos žymėtumo įvertinimo klausimų-užduočių atsakymai (žr. 2 pav.) is expected that the perception results of the homogeneous group will be 1 PAV. Example of translation of author's dialect grapholects 54 GENERAL LANGUAGE | 95 The analysis of the author’s grapholects presented in the article is qualitative-exploratory. It is expected to establish general principles – whether the author’s dialect grapholects are consistent and formed (or forming) as a coherent orthographic system, and whether such grapholects can be successful from a communicative point of view. When evaluating the investigativeness of the object of research – written dialects in the broad sense – it must be acknowledged that the tradition of consistent analytical discourses in Lithuanian dialectology is only beginning to form, therefore the present study should be assessed not as final, but rather as a presentation of a model – how material of written dialects, even of a specific author (or in dialectological terminology – informant), can be included in dialectological analysis, why such material should be included, what are the risks of generalizing such an object, etc. Among the researches carried out, we can mention the works of Violeta Meiliūnaitė (2015: 248–258; also 2019), in which the researcher, in assessing some inaccuracies in the written texts of Antanas Baranauskas, has discussed the specifics of the writing of spoken language. It is therefore possible to admit that the question of dialectic grapholectics has been raised. Other researchers have also provided some insights into the autofixation of dialectal code (Balčiūnienė et al. 2019). The authors of this article have initiated a more coherent critical discourse on contemporary written dialects. 2000: Analyzing Eastern Altay texts, 2 PAV. Fragment of the test instrument DAIVA ALIUKAITĖ, VIOLETA MEILIŪNAITĖ. The author’s dialectic grapholects and the possibilities of their perception 55 published in the almanacs „Budanti versmė“ (2013, 2014), examined whether written dialecticity is an indication of the vitality and continuity of dialectic codes, as well as reviewed the dialectic grapholects as a means of overteimiškumo and its value for the tradition of kiamos skiriamosios rytų aukštaičių ypatybės (Aliūkaitė, Meiliūnaitė 2022). Galima teigti, kad šiuo – autorinio tarminio grafolekto – tyrimu tęsiamas pradėtas diskursas, tiek plėtojant konceptualias įžvalgas dėl rašytinio tardialectological research, both by confirming certain methodological provisions and by evaluating the author’s dialectic grapholects through the perspective of perception, otherwise – from a communicative point of view. 1. FROM THE STANDARD WRITING UP TO NON-STANDARD WRITTING SOLUTIONS 1.1. Recording solutions Researchers point out that the essential condition of non-standard writing is ortografijos egzistavimas (plg. Bowdre 1964: 8). Taigi, viena vertus, pozicionuojant dialektus, nukrypstama nuo standartinės ortografijos, kita vertus, the new grapholects created by the standard. Thus, it is a meaningful destructiveness, although in the discourses of researchers it occurs that cases of non-standard orthography are referred to as misspelling or an ‘illiterate’ spelling, both in fiction and in electronic discourse (cf. Leech, Short 2007: 135). As will be seen in the analytical part of the article, such categorization has grounds at first glance, especially if we evaluate non-standard orthography through the perspective of perception. But about tai kiek toliau straipsnyje. Analizuojant tiek regioninių, tiek socialinių variantų perteikimo nestandartinės rašybos sprendimus, dažniausiai taikoma Dennis R. Preston’s 1985 introduction of a tripartite typology of speech notation, i.e. so-called allegro speech, eye (visi- (Preston 1985: 328–329; see masis) dialektas (angl. eye-dialect) ir dialekto perraša (angl. dialect respelling) Aliūkaitė, Meiliūnaitė 2022). The first type – allegro speech – is associated with word abbreviation, word or syllable conjugation, and retransmission (see Beal 2006: 84). The second type, as accurately conveyed by the name eye dialect, only visually creates the illusion of difference from the standard orthography. For example, ‘sez’ corresponds to ‘says’ (lit. sako), vadinasi, akių dialektu užrašytos formos jokios fonologinės skirties 56 COMMON LANGUAGE | 95 The dialect transcription, unlike the eye dialect, is based on the representation of actual differences. Extending the neperteikia, taigi akių dialektas yra labiau neraštingumo pozicionavimas stilistiniais ar kitais sumetimais (plg. Adamson 1999: 600). Trečiasis tipas – metaphorical terminology, one could say that the dialect transcription corresponds to the dialect of the ear, i.e. after reading the dialect transcription text, the ear hears (and recognizes) the differences (cf. Preston 1985: 328–329; the impression that the pronunciation is non-standard, taip pat žr. Aliūkaitė, Meiliūnaitė 2022). Taigi, akių dialektas tik perteikia and the variant recorded by ear dialect (dialect transcription) is de facto different. Since non-standard orthography is a comprehensive subject, associated not only with grapholects of regional variants, researchers have distinguished other types of writing. In addition to the already mentioned types of misspelling or illiterate spelling (see Leech, Short 2007: 135), researchers distinguish semi-phonetic spelling and regionalisms (see Beal 2006: 84). Jannis K. Androutsopoulos’s study of German fanzines5, which presents one of the most detailed typologies of non-standard writing, deserves special mention. In the analysis of fanzines, six types of non-standard spelling are distinguished: phonetic spellings, interlingual spellings, homophone spellings, which involve lexical substitutions (see Androutsopoulos 2000: 521–522). Due to the specificity of the genre, of course, not all strategies used in fanzine texts mosios kalbos rašyba (angl. colloquial spellings), regiolektinė rašyba (angl. regiolectal spellings), prozodinė rašyba (angl. prosodic spellings), tarpkalbinė can be valuable for the analysis of written dialects. This is true, for example, of homophonic spelling. In the case of lexical substitution, homophonic words or digits are written instead of substitutions) ir grafemų substituciją (grafemų pakaitalus; angl. grapheme certain words or segments of words, for example, in German the digit 1 replaces the syllable /ain/ in the word ‘Eintritt’ – 1-tritt (lit. entry) (Androutsopoulos 2000: 522). However, some elements of such a methodological approach may be valuable in reviewing the author’s dialectic grapholects. Of course, it is necessary to add that when comparing the trinar of D. R. Preston and the hexanar of J. K. Androutsopoulos with non-standard writing systems6, the substantive correspondence should also be noted, cf., the so-called dialect transcription has connections 5 Fanzinai – this is a specialized press of various subcultures (cf. 6 J. K. Androutsopoulos, like D. R. Preston, only presented systems, but these are not their authorial models, the researchers summarized the traditions of research and cases. DAIVA ALIUKAITĖ, VIOLETA MEILIŪNAITĖ. Author's dialect grapholects and their perception possibilities 63 3 PAV. The possibilities of dialect code usage and perception experience are particularly noteworthy for the regularity estimates. It is necessary to acknowledge a certain methodological error in formulating this task. The subjects were not asked whether they were asked to assess the correctness of the spelling, so in particular this assessment can be linked both to the principle of the dialect code in general and to the provision of non-standard spelling. Thus, it is possible only 64 COMMON LANGUAGE | 95 In the words of Geoffrey Leech, Mick Short (Leech, Short 2007: samprotauti, kad tiriamosios taip kritiškai vertinti tekstus galėjo ir dėl, 135), unlettered writing. Continuing the article Although the discourse on the readability and comprehensibility of texts written in dialectic grapholects, which was initiated in chapter 2.1, must be acknowledged, the dialectic transcription that conveys dialecticity is only partially overcome by people with no experience of dialectic code or with little perceptual experience. Of course, as Gladis Massini-Cagliari has observed, “[E]very speaker is necessarily a ‘polyglot’ of his native language (Massini-Cagliari 2004: 16)8. However, while the meaning of the sentences is understood from a holistic point of view, translations from dialect to common language are not entirely accurate (see Table 2). The accuracy vs. inaccuracy of dialect translation was assessed through the perspective of some distinctive and characteristic features of Panevėžys dialect (see table 3). Thus, in the translated sentences we observed a variant reconstruction of dialect transcription into common language. 8 This is what a researcher who has studied the linguistic situation in Brazil writes after kitų gyvuojančių kalbelių (tarp kurių 170 vietinių kalbelių-dialektų) santykius: kiekvienas gimtakalbis, išmokęs savo kalbą, išmoksta skirti ir kalbos variantus, kiekvienas kalbėtojas būtinai yra gimtosios kalbos „poliglotas“, be to, gimtakalbis žino, kurie posakiai priklauso jauniems asmenims, kurie tinka tik neoficialioms situacijoms ir t. t. (Massini-Cagliari 2004: 3–23). analysing Portuguese and 200 4 PAV. Evaluation of texts written in dialect grapholects DAIVA ALIUKAITĖ, VIOLETA MEILIŪNAITĖ. Author's dialect grapholects and their perception possibilities 65 TABLE 2. Dialect translations into common language The first fragment. Go get those little ones. He raised his head to look at a da dauk unt medže likė (Nu i rankioj(a) those apples. I raised my head to see if there was much left on the tree). The second fragment. We live in a time when we are in the field every year. Maybe not all year, but all life (We live in the time that we are waiting for all year longer. Maybe not all year, but all life). 1. 2. 3. ADG_M01 I'm picking apples. I raised my head to see if there was much left on the tree. We live in a time when every year we are more and more waiting. Maybe not a year, but a lifetime. ADG_M02 Well, and collect those apples. He raised his head to see if there was much left on the tree. Gyvenam tame laike, kurio visus metus labiausiai laukiam. Gal ne visus metus, o visą gyvenimą. ADG_M03 Well, I'm picking those apples. I raise my head to see if there is much left. We live in a time when every year we are more and more waiting. Maybe not all the years, but the whole life. ADG_M04 Well, you collect those bugs. Pakėlė galvą pažiūrėti, ar dar daug ant medžių likę. We live in the time that we have been waiting for all year long. Maybe not all year, but all life. ADG_M05 Now take those apples in your hand. He raised his head to see if there was much left on the tree. We live in a time where all metus labiausiai laukiam. Gal ne visus metus, o visą gyvenimą. ADG_M06 Go pick those apples. Raise your head, see if dar daug ant medžio likę. We live in a time when we wait for tomorrow all year. Maybe not all the years, but the whole life. ADG_M07 I raised my head to see if still a lot left on the tree. that's We live in the time, of which there is what we've been waiting for the most. Gal ne visus metus, o visą gyvenimą. ADG_M08 Well, I'm picking those apples. Pakėliau galvą pažiūrėt ar dar daug ant medžio liko. We live in a time where we are waiting all year long. Maybe not all the years, but the whole life. ADG_M09 Well, he is picking up the lius. Pakėliau galvą pažiūapples or many still on the tree. We live in a time where we are waiting for the year more and more. Maybe not all the time, but all the life. 66 GENERAL LANGUAGE | 95 1. 2. 3. ADG_M10 Well, grab those apples. He raised his head to see if there was much left on the tree. We live in that time every day ADG_M11 Well, metus labiausiai laukiam. Gal ne visus metus, o visą gyvenimą. those apples are ripe. I raised my head to see if we are living in the dar daug ant medžio liko. time we are most looking forward to. Maybe not all the time, but all my life. ADG_M12 Well, you pick those apples. He raised his head to see if there was much left on the tree. We live in a time when we are always waiting for something. Maybe not all year, but all life. ADG_M13 Well, you pick those apples. Lift your head and see if there's a lot left on the trees. We live in a time where we are more and more waiting for years (?) Maybe not all the years, but all the life. ADG_M14 Well and collect those apples. He raised his head to see if there was much left on the tree. We live in the time that we have been waiting for all year long. Maybe not all year, but all life. ADG_M15 Well, I have that piece in my hand. We live Pakėliau galvą pažiūrėt ar dar daug ant medžio likę. in that time, all year we wait more. Maybe not all year, but all life. ADG_M16 Well, and collected apples with it. We live in a certain time, Pakėlė galvą pažiūrėti, ar dar daug ant medžio likę. which we look forward to all year long. Maybe ADG_M17 I picked that ne visus metus, o visą gyvenimą. apples. I raised my head to look, We live in the time that we wait for all dar daug ant medžių likę. year long. Maybe not ADG_M18 Well and collects (picks) to see if there visus metus, o visą gyvenimą. is still much left on the tree. obuolėlius. Pakėlė galvą Gyvenam tame laike, kurio visus metus labiausiai laukiame. Gal ne visus metus, o visą gyvenimą. ADG_M19 Na ir renku tuos obuolėlius. Pakėliau galvą pažiūto see if there's much left on the tree. We are living in the time that we are most looking forward to all ne visus metus, o visą gyvenimą. year long. Maybe ADG_M20 Well, and collecting those apples. He raised dar daug ant medžio likę. his head to see if We live in the time that we are waiting for all ne visus metus, o visą gyvenimą. DAIVA ALIUKAITĖ, VIOLETA MEILIŪNAITĖ. Author’s dialect grapholects and their perception possibilities 67 3. Perception and translation of distinctive characteristics expressed by the author’s dialect grapholects Tiriamoji ronkij ← rankioj(a) galvo ← year long. Maybe the head likė ← likę viso gyvenimo ← visą gyvenimą viss mets ← visus metus ADG_M01 I pick the head left all life all years ADG_M02 I pick the head left all life all all years years ADG_M03 I'm collecting of years years the head left a lifetime ADG_M04 collects the life all all years years head for the rest of his ADG_M05 hand head left for life all all years years ADG_M06 pick the head years left for life all all years ADG_M07 – head left for years life all years all of years ADG_M08 I collect the years years head left for life all all ADG_M09 grabs his head for the rest of his life years all the time ADG_M10 hold your head all all years years for the rest of your life ADG_M11 mature head left times for life all all times all ADG_M12 collecting heads remaining for life always (?) all the time ADG_M13 collecting head all year years left all life more and more ADG_M14 collect the head years years remaining for life all all ADG_M15 hand head left all life all all years year head 68 GENERAL LANGUAGE | 95 Tiriamoji ronkij ← rankioj(a) galvo ← likė ← likę viso gyvenimo ← visą gyvenimą viss mets ← visus metus ADG_M16 collected the all all years years head remaining for life ADG_M17 I picked my head years left all my life all all years ADG_M18 collects (ranmetthe head left us year for life all all kioja) ADG_M19 I collect the all all years years head remaining all my life ADG_M20 collects the all all years years head for the rest of life It can be summed up that the distinctive features of the eastern Highlanders – the diphthong an of the Panevėžys dialect – were accurately translated into the common language by three subjects. More precisely – ADG_M09 investigator, re-writing; ADG_M18 wrote with specification: renka (rankioja). When evaluating ADG_M10’s writing of rankiok, it can be added that, although the reconstruction of the response on did not seem difficult, due to the unrecognized verb form written in dialectic grapholects, the subject understood the sentence somewhat inaccurately. It is believed that the reconstructive variants ranką (ADG_M05) or rankoj (ADG_M15) also indicate the exact reading of the response an→on, but the notation ronkij for those who are not representatives of the investigated dialect code is insurmountable. It has been mentioned that when writing in dialectic grapholects, it is expected that the addressee will be sufficiently competent, and if not, the reading is somewhat incorrect. It is believed that this is also the case here. From the point of view of comprehension, the variants renku, renki, rinkti are not considered as wrong, it is assumed that this is a matter of more holistic perception, the word is recognized as a whole. The author-informant of the grapholects uses the graphems o and ė to express dialectal responses – narrowed sounds. In the sentences presented for perception, the subjects had to understand and translate the common language using the following words: galvo, likė and viso gyvenimo. All the participants in the study reconstructed ą from the dialectal variant o – galvą←galvo. 65% of the subjects reconstructed accurately – the rest, 35% of the subjects wrote remained. 95 percent also accurately recorded the general DAIVA ALIUKAITĖ, VIOLETA MEILIŪNAITĖ. The author’s dialectic grapholects and their perception possibilities 69 The subject did not understand the second kalba visą gyvenimą, tik viena tiriamoji paliko viso gyvenimo. ADG_M13 evaluated fragment at all (see tables 2–3). The cases of vowel reduction were accurately restored into the common language by 55% of the subjects (tables 2–3). It is believed that the other subjects lacked some prominence. It can be assumed that in cases where the writing system of the common language can be relied on consistently, the dialectic grapholects are understood more accurately, which cannot be said about the cases of the reduction of the extremities. Nevertheless, in general evaluation, it must be recognized that from a communicational point of view, the fragments of the author’s dialect grapholects were informative for the subjects. CONCLUSIONS After conducting a study of the author’s dialectic grapholects from the point of view of the presentation and notation of sentence dialecticity and perception, the following summarizing insights can be formulated: The dialect grapholect of the author-informant of the eastern highland Panevėžys dialect is quite systematic – it is rewritten mostly based on the principu, morfologiniu principu remiamasi tais atvejais, kai kalbama apie pozicinius kiekybinius balsių pokyčius; atskirose žodžio formose atsirandantis įvairavimas rašte nėra fiksuojamas. Autorė-informantė remiasi bendrinei kalbai būdingu grafemų inventoriumi – specifiniams panephonetic system of the Panevėžys dialect. 2.In the author-informant’s native language, the retraction of the accent is often one of the reasons for the reduction of the endings, but when neither the accent nor the palatalization of the consonant remaining after the fall of the vowel is marked in the writing, it becomes too difficult for the reader, especially representing another variant of Lithuanian language (dialectal or common language), to clearly determine which grammatical form the author-informant has fixed. This was also revealed by the perception study. For the participants of the study of the perception of the author’s dialectic grapholects, assessing their sociolinguistic portraits, the dialectic code is more foreign than their own from the point of view of active use, but there were opportunities to acquire the perceptual experience of the verbal dialectic code. However, although the author’s dialectic grapholects were understood by them from a holistic point of view, it was not possible to translate them into common language completely accurately. Dialect transcriptions (both first and 70 GENDRINĖ KALBA | 95 and the second examined fragment) reveals the communicative limitation of the written dialect. It is necessary to emphasize that this is not a critical evaluation of the author’s dialectic grapholects, because communicational limitations have not only disadvantages but also advantages. Dialectal grapholects distinguish, in other words, ununderstood or partially understood dialectal grapholects outside the community of the variant, in the community functions (can function) as a full-fledged code, which is even characterized by a kind of self-regulation. Of course, in this aspect, the study of written dialects should be expanded and deepened. 3.The case study can be used as a basis for insights into the role of the ordinary member of a given community in the history of the dialect code. By a certain orthographical decision of the author-informant “created stingdytas“ panevėžiškių tarmiškumas, reprezentuojąs ir skiriamąsias, ir būdingąsias ypatybes, nebūtinai yra stebimojo laiko tarminio kodo gyvybingumo paliudijimas, nors tokį vertinimą grįstų tame pačiame disdialectal and non-dialectal features coexisting in the fragment, because it is written as it is pronounced, but pronounced differently. In any case, it must be recognized that local, i.e., accessible in the community (even to some of its members), in the case studied – reading on Facebook, “conservation” of dialectal characteristics, unlike any dialect dictionaries, can have an effect on the spread of characteristics. Of course, more extensive studies are needed to confirm such assumptions. LITERATūRA Adamson Sylvia 1999: Literary Language. – The Cambridge History of the English Language 4, ed. S. Romaine, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 589–692. Aliūkaitė Daiva, Jaroslavienė Jurgita, Meiliūnaitė Violeta 2014: Theoretical foundations of material collection. Principles of compiling questionnaires. – Lithuanian dialects of the early 21st century: geolinguistic and sociolinguistic research (maps and their commentaries), edited by D. Mikulėnienė, V. Meiliūnaitė, Vilnius: Briedis, 49–62. Aliūkaitė Daiva, Meiliūnaitė Violeta 2022: Tarminiai grafolektai XXI amžiaus pradžioje kaip tarminių kodų gyvybingumo ir tęstinumo apresolution. – Verbum 13, 1–15. Androutsopoulos Jannis K. 2000: Non-Standard Spellings in Media Texts: The Case of German Fanzines. – Journal of Sociolinguistics 4, 514–533. DAIVA ALIUKAITĖ, VIOLETA MEILIŪNAITĖ. 71 Balčiūnienė Asta, Meiliūnaitė Violeta, Rinkauskienė Regina 2019: The Schnecks of the Kupiškėn, Uteniškis and Panevėžys Borders in the 21st Century, Klaipėda: Klaipėdos universiteto leidykla. Barton David 2007: Literacy: An Introduction to the Ecology of Written Language, 2nd ed., Oxford, UK: Blackwel. Beal Joan C. 2006: Language and Region, London, New York: Routledge. view of Blanchet Philippe, Armstrong Nigel 2006: The Sociolinguistic Situation of ‘Contemporary Dialects of French’ in France Today: An OverRecent Contributions on the Dialectalisation of Standard French. – French Language Studies 16, 251–275. Bowdre Paul Hull Jr., 1964: A Study of Eye Dialect: daktaro disertacija, Florida: University of Florida. Chambers Jack K. 2000: Region and Language Variation. – English WorldWide 21, 169–199. Chambers Jack K., Trudgill Peter 2004: Dialectology, 2nd ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Girdenis Aleksas 2001: All in Lithuanian! – Language Studies 3, Vilnius: Institute for Publishing of Science and Encyclopedias, 456–469. Inoue Fumio 2022: Style, Prestige, and Salience in Language Change in Progress. – Handbook of Japanese Sociolinguistics 8, eds. Y. Asahi, M. Usami, F. Inoue, Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, 113–149. Labov William 2006: The Social Stratification of English in New York City, 2nd ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Leech Geoffrey, Short Mick 2007: Style in Fiction: A Linguistic Approach. – Groups and Environments: Interdisciplinary Research Papers 1, Kaunas: Vytautas Didysis University Press, 199–220. gualism and Linguistic Prejudice. – Language Policy 3, troduction to English Fictional Prose, 2nd ed. Harlow: Pearson Longman. Liubinienė Neringa 2009: Metalo muzikos gerbėjų fanzinai: subkultū3–23. Meiliūnaitė Violeta 2015: Antanas Baranauskas’ dialect texts – a chrestomacy of quasi-authentic texts. – Problems of Language History and Dialectology 4, Massini-Cagliari Gladis 2004: Language Policy in Brazil: Monolinedited by V. Ragaišienė, V. Meiliūnaitė, Vilnius: Lithuanian Language Institute, 248–258. Meiliūnaitė Violeta 2019: Dimensions of the vitality of dialects at the beginning of the 21st century. – Res Humanitariae 26, 50–59. Mikulėnienė Danguolė 2019: Nomenclature of dialectal features: from dialectal features to dialectal marks. – Respectus Philologicus 35(40), Ong 51–62. Walter J. 2002: Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word, London, New York: Routledge. 72 GENERAL LANGUAGE | 95 Preston Dennis R. 1985: The Li’l Abner Syndrome: Written Representations of Speech. – American Speech 60(4), 328–336. Preston Dennis R. 1999: Introduction. – Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology 1, ed. D. R. Preston, Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, XXXIV–XXXV. Redling Erik 2006: “Speaking of Dialect”: Translating Charles W. Chesnutt’s Conjure Tales Into Postmodern Systems of Signification, Würzburg: Königshausen. Sankoff Gillian 2006: Age: Apparent Time and Real Time. – Elsevier Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics 1, ed. K. Brown, 2nd ed., Oxford: ography. – Elsevier, 110–116. Schrambke Renate 2010: Language and Space: Traditional Dialect GeLanguage and Space. An International Handbook of Linguistic Variation, Volume 1: Theories and Methods. HSK Handbücher zur Sprachund Kommunikationswissenschaft, eds. P. Auer, J. E. Schmidt, Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter, 87–101. Seiler Guido 2010: Investigating Language in Space: Questionnaire and Interview. – Language and Space: An International Handbook of Linguistic Variation 1: Theories and Methods. HSK Handbücher zur Sprachund Kommunikationswissenschaft, eds. P. Auer, J. E. Schmidt, Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter, 512–527. Unseth Peter 2005: Sociolinguistic Parallels Between Choosing Scripts and Languages. – Written Language & Literacy 8(1), 19–42. of Dialectology Van Keymeulen Jacques 2018: The Dialect Dictionary. – The Handbook (Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics), eds. Ch. Boberg, J. Nerbonne, D. Watt, Hoboken NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 39–56. Gauta 2022 11 25 Adopted 30 December 2022 DAIVA ALIŪKAITĖ, VIOLETA MEILIŪNAITĖ THE AUTHORIAL DIALECT GRAPHOLECT AND THE POSSIBILITIES OF ITS PERCEPTION Summary This article discusses a study of written dialecticism, conducted in order to assess how the authorial grapholect conveys oral dialecticism and to analyse the spelling choices made by the author. The dialectal discourse used for this study consists of a number of Facebook posts published in a dialectal grapholect by a female