Pritarimas pašnekovui žemaičių kasdienybės diskurse: funkcijos ir raiška (remiantis XX a. II pusės šaltiniais)

JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ Lietuvių kalbos institutas APPROVAL OF THE INTERLOCUTORS IN THE DISCURSE OF THE ZEMAITIS DAILY LIFE: FUNKCIJOS IR RAIŠKA (REMIANTIS XX A. II PUSĖS ŠALTINIAIS) ANNOTATION The article presents an exploratory study aimed at identifying the elements of expression of support for the interlocutor and their frequency distribution in three-dimensional Žemaitijos discourse (in ordinary language, narratives and telephone conversations). Several sources published in the second half of the 20th century Northern Samogitian speaking heritage was used for the research. On the basis of illustrative material presented in lexicographic sources (see Aleksandravičius 2011, Vanagienė 2014–2015), the subjective assessment of the perception of proper communication for Žemaičiai, most often related to the pursuit of harmony, is discussed. The distribution of the elements of the expression of approval and their relative frequency in the real Zemgalish speech is assessed by analyzing the data of the collection of authentic everyday speech texts of the Northern Zemgalish Telšiai Thus speak tirkliškiai (see Girdenis 1996). KEY WORDS: everyday language, spontaneous dialogue, acceptance of the interlocutor, repetition. INTRODUCTION The existence of the Samogitians as an ethnic group is based on 1 the experience of speaking, not writing. Comparing the peculiarities of the oral common Lithuanian language and the Žemaitic language, the latter has a number of distinctive features, which are related to both phonological differentiations of linguistic systems and different cultural standards of communication models, as well as to the uneven concept of normativity of syntactic structures of Lithuanian and Žemaitic languages. Studies 2 of spoken common Lithuanian are usually initiated in order to “statistically justify the differences 3 between spoken and written language, which are often only recorded by observation” (Dabašinskienė 2009: 14). The differences in the expression of the Žemaičių and Lithuanian language communication patterns determined by observation are related to 1 For the efforts and realities of creating the Samogitian script system, see Highlights 2017. 2 On the difference between language and dialect and the concept of language as an area encompassing dialect areas, cf. Aliūkaitė 2013: 4; The structural peculiarities of the Žemaičių kalba, which include the dialects that tarmes ir šnektas, suvokimą žr. Pabrėža 2017: 47–48. 3 make it up, determine the nature of its research and highlight special non-linguistic features, cf. 2009: 14th. reikalavimus, tokius kaip būtinybė atsižvelgti į pokalbio situaciją, dalyvius, jų skaičių, temą ir kitus lingvistinius ir JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ. Pritarimas pašnekovui žemaičių kasdienybės diskurse: funkcijos ir raiška (remiantis XX a. II pusės šaltiniais) | 2 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.14 BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 and the idea of the exploratory study presented here (a comparison of the sentence variants of the aforementioned linguistic systems based on a more serious analysis would also be quite conditional, since the available transcriptions of the Samogitian speech and the sentence (oral) 4 common language texts, representing the private communication model, present presentations of different periods and speech situations). 5 The article aims to review one of the characteristic features of Žemaičių dialogas, quickly noticed by native speakers of common Lithuanian language, who have become texts of transcriptions of liudininkais, taip pat ryškiai krentančiu į akis ir pažindinantis su autentiško žemaičių kasdienybės Žemaičių conversational discourse (both dialogue and polylogue). It is an expression of approval of the dialogue partner (or partners). In everyday conversations in Žemaitija, it is usual that the 6 participant in the discourse who takes the position of a passive listener reacts to the active – speaking or telling – member of the discourse with a fairly frequent and variedly expressed approval. This feature of the discourse is usually not automatically transferred to the common Lithuanian language when the Samogitians change the language code. Since this is not self-explanatory, in certain situations this approval can be considered as a necessary element of communication culture, for which the Žemaites do not find a suitable equivalent in common language. It is possible that the inability to correctly interpret silence or the lack of knowledge of how to properly replace pauses, which arises precisely due to such or similar cultural differences, creates the impression of an unfruitful conversation and at the same time strengthens the image of a silent Zemgalian. When a natural user of common language becomes a witness of Žemaičių dialog, the frequently repeated or constant expression of approval appears as excessive and worthy of ridicule. The frequent and varied expressions of support for the interlocutor in Žemaičių diskursas can be linked to the strongly expressed and traditionally desired pursuit of communicative consistency (cf. Edwards 2008: 335) or to models of realization of desired interpersonal recognition (cf. Weigand 2010: 232), which are related to the understanding of politeness in a particular community and the realization of the principle of tact. Pragmatics of courtesy allows to explain two contradictory implications of silence: depending on the situation of the conversation and the composition of its participants, silence can be perceived as an expression of desired courtesy 7 associated with a certain lower (age, social) status and as a kind of outrage (cf. Leech 1999: 141). In ordinary conversation situations (when the social status of the dialogue, polylogue participants is similar, and communication is frequent and 4 For the possible synonymy and difference between the concepts of oral language and colloquial language, when oral language is understood more broadly, and colloquial language can be associated with the everyday language style, see Nauckūnaitė 2003: 79–80; Kamandulytė2014: 1. 5 For example, the data presented in the Spontaneous Private Speech section of the Textbook of Oral Lithuanian can be considered as short passages of everyday speaking. 6 This is to avoid the interaction with the host. About the elocutive acts of approval and opposition as related to a certain position in the conversation (they are possible only as a reaction to the previous statement of the interlocutor) žr. Satkauskaitė 2011: 56–57. 7 For vertical (hierarchical) and horizontal social distancing, see. Leech 1999: 126. JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ. Pritarimas pašnekovui žemaičių kasdienybės diskurse: funkcijos ir raiška (based on sources from the second half of the 20th century) | 3 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.14 BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 the desirable) need to avoid silence and maintain communication with the discourse partner is related to the communal – fairy – function of language (see Leech 1999: 141). Dialogue theoretician Edda Weigand, who perceives language as dialogue (see Weigand 2009) and dialogue as a multi-faceted game (see Weigand 2010), states that dialogue-based communication is realized on the basis of certain execution principles, which the speaker consciously or unconsciously chooses in order to achieve a relationship between both the conversation initiating and the response reactions, which allow to perceive the whole of the conversation and to participate effectively in it (see Weigand 2010: 113). It is the executive principles that determine the ways of participating in the dialogue and can become strategies (when the speaker seeks to turn the flow of the dialogue in a certain direction). Such strategies allow to change the conversational sequence, the assessments and the expression of emotions, allow to avoid or cover up something, or reveal the speaker’s willingness to cooperate or resist (see Weigand 2010: 113, 118). In the course of dialogue, people can adapt to the interlocutor (cooperative strategy) or choose opposition (confrontational strategy), and sometimes even a neutral position, usually without even consciously realizing it (Weigand 2010: 121–122). With such an unconscious choice of adaptation to the interlocutor and the pleasure of participating in a common conversation, showing it with a certain reaction, is most related the Žemaičių modeling of the expression of approval, when favor to the interlocutor and the current flow of the conversation can be expressed not only by the usual positive confirmation, but also 8 by the repetition of certain interlocutor’s phrases or their passages, by paraphrases or even by interjection into the constructed sentence, accepting this as the norm of normal (non-offensive) communication. The diversity of the elements of expression of support for the interlocutor characteristic of Žemaičių dialogas and their relative frequency (or relative distribution of use among each other) in the variants of Žemaičių pokalbis (dialogue and polylogue) are discussed in this article on the basis of the Žemaičių kalbos heritage published in several sources. It consists of several transcribed compilations of natural and/or somewhat provoked Žemaičių speaking (being), recording the everyday speaking (being) situations of the Northern Žemaičiai (the people of Telšiai and Kretinga) in the second half of 9 the 20th century. The texts of the book “So speak the Tyrklish: texts in the northern Samogitian dialect of Telšiai with commentaries” (Girdenis 1996, hereinafter – TDT), which are authentic polylogues and dialogues, are particularly helpful for examining the expression of approval. reprezentuojamo telefoniniu pokalbiu, perrašai 10 . Žemaitišką tinkamo kalbėjimosi suvokimą 8 On the fact that cooperation in dialogue does not necessarily have to coincide only with the usual positive affirmation, and confrontation – not only with a negative response, see. Weigand 2010: 122. 9 For the distribution of the Žemaičių dialect and the characteristics of the Northern Žemaičių language, see Zinkevičius 1994: 85–87; about the fundamental difference between the northern Žemaites and the Kretingians, based on the change of u, i // ọ, ẹ in non-terminal syllables, see Zinkevičius 1994: 85–87. Zinkevičius 1994: 114. 10 In the book of dialect texts “So speak the Tyrkliškiai: texts of the northern Žemaičių Telšių dialect with commentaries” are presented conversations of Alex Girdenis’s householders and neighbors who lived in the Tyrkliai area of Mažeikiai district, recorded with a hidden microphone between 1968 and 1985. Some of them are telephone. A telephone conversation can be described as a non-standard communication situation (cf. Girdenis JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ. Pritarimas pašnekovui žemaičių kasdienybės diskurse: funkcijos ir raiška (based on sources from the second half of the 20th century) | 4 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.14 BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 1996: 142) for various reasons (e.g., unusualness related to the existence of translating descriptions in the Kretinga dialect dictionary (Aleksandravičius 2011, hereinafter – KTŽ) and in the North-West Žemaičių dictionary: 11 Ylakių, Lenkimų, Mosėdžio, Skuodo, Šačių neighborhood schnektos A–O, P–Ž (Vanagienė, 2014–2015, hereinafter – ŠVŽZ I, II). It is very important to emphasize that the illustrative material presented in the cited sources is both 12 authentic and very typical. This harmony of authenticity and typicality allows a Zemgallian who has left the Zemgallian environment, reading TŠT, KTŽ or ŠVŽZ, to feel as if he has returned to past times. In the article, the phrases of the Žemaitian language are recorded in order to repeat the transcription of the sources as closely as possible (selected sources use transcription models that differ in certain nuances) by presenting a section of the Žemaitian language close to transposition in common language next to the transcription. 13 The Žemaitian perception of appropriate speech and its educational models Before examining the characteristics of the expression of approval in the Žemaitian dialogue, it is worth discussing that the attitude towards the Žemaitians can be contradictory – they can be viewed as shouting noisemakers or as silent ones. This contradictory assessment is koks pokalbis žemaičiams atrodo esąs tinkamas 14 . Paprastojo kalbos bendruomenės nario probably due to the different circumstances of the speaking situations. Being with native speakers, it is usually not 15 typical for the Zemgale people to speak neither quietly nor culturedly (e.g., ka prãded v s lal nọ, because of the inability to visually assess the interlocutor, and because of the need to speak very clearly), but it is precisely in this that the necessity of expressing approval is very clearly revealed, which in a real conversation is usually realized by gaze, 16 waving, which cannot be recorded by transcription. 17 11 The illustrative material of the KTŽ is characterized by the authentic, dialogical speaking of the Northern Žemaites of Kretinga, carefully recorded by the author of the dictionary for about 60 years (the archive was collected from the mid-1940s to 2004, and the dictionary was started to be prepared from 2006, cf. Aleksandravičius 2011: 4; Mikulėnienė 2011: XII; Vaišnienė 2011: XX). For more information on the interpretation possibilities of the material provided by KTŽ, see 2018b; 2019. 12 This dictionary is rich in everyday Žemaičių discourse (in 1960–1990 Birutė Vanagienė regularly recorded conversations of her immediate environment) and conversation material recorded during dialectological expeditions in 1989–1996 (see Subačius 2014: XII; XIV–XVII), which also has a considerable layer of representative speech. 13 For the transcription of TST, see Girdenis 1996: 8–10; the transcription model used by A. Girdenis is explained in more detail in the compilations of transcriptions of the Northern Samogitian language Žemaičių dzūkai and Šiaurės žemaičių Skuodo zona, cf. Girdenis 1996: 8–10; 2008: 17tt; 2012: 21st on the CCI, see Aleksandravičius 2011: 17–18, Vaišnienė 2011: XXIII– XXIX; for HFCS, see Vanagienė 2014: XXVIII. 14 For the perceptual appropriateness models of dialectal speech and their recognition, see Aliūkaitė 2019; Mikulėnienė 2019. 15 For the evaluation of dialectal characteristics based on the perception and concept of the common language artifact, see Aliūkaitė 2019: 87; about the evaluation of the ordinary member of the language community as subjective dialectism see Aliūkaitė 2019: 66, 67. 16 Example: między sàyìs rọkộujamôos gmtọ kàlb (we speak our native language among ourselves) ŠVŽŽ I 218; b va pr gmtà ta kàlbà (that language was native) ŠVŽŽ I 186. 17 This is also shown by the abundance of drastic (uncut) replies left by TST (cf. Girdenis 1996: 8). JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ. Pritarimas pašnekovui žemaičių kasdienybės diskurse: funkcijos ir raiška (based on sources from the second half of the 20th century) | 5 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.14 BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 negãl ni apsẹklaus tẹ ‘when everyone starts to laugh, it is not possible to listen’ (ŠVŽŽ I 369). They usually associate silence or inability to communicate with shyness and being in an unusual 18 environment where they have to behave and speak in an unusual way (usually in a foreign language). Therefore, the simplicity and success of the conversation the Žemaites tend to associate with the identical ethnicity of themselves and the conversation partner (cf. the saying žemãi ộu su žèmãi ta rũodà jộu krmt ‘to a Žemaitis with a Žemaitis it shows him 19 (‘better’) falls’). II 152). In everyday life, the people of Žemaitija are not always noisy either. In certain situations (for example, when listening to an authoritative narrator), they may be extremely quiet, exceptionally attentive participants in the discourse. The attention of the listener(s) of long stories as the ability to participate in the story of another person in silence is also shown in the TST texts, which contain long narratives marked with the abbreviation M. This model of narration and listening to it is 20 recognized as characteristic of the Žemaitija environment (probably not only as a past, but also as still present), when the elder or older authoritative narrator (for example, mother, grandmother, aunt, and perhaps more rarely – father, grandfather, uncle) tells stories of the past. Such stories are listened to in concentration and silence. 21 The provision prohibiting meaningless disturbance and silent attention are cultivated from a young age by the people of Žemaitija. The dictionaries containing excerpts of everyday language in Žemaitija also contain phrases where a child is forbidden to interfere with or interrupt an adult’s conversation; similar remarks may also be made to adults, e.g. : (1) for the tabib, it is a sign of a broken heart! // KTŽ 188 (being still a kritneš, don’t go into the ‘talk’ of the great ones) (2) our smallest and most dear treasure! // KTŽ 422 (don’t get into the ranks of the great) (3) nọ bet ka t ũškiši, nèbišẽit mūms n ‿kũok rũodà ŠVŽŽ I 308 (well, but when you insert (‘interfer’), it doesn’t work for us anymore) On the other hand, silence can also be viewed as unfavorable and even equated with disability, e.g. : (4) a‿nbelis ès / ka‿narọkuj s ẹ‿n eka mộn nasakâ // KTŽ 253 (are you dumb, that you do not cry and do not tell me anything) 18 For example, in a phrase addressed to a non-native speaker (a speaker from a different linguistic environment), mè ned dlê jãu r odl v (we are not very talkative) ŠVŽŽ II 153. 19 rodà (sl.) – ‘talk, conversation, conversation’ KTŽ 347. 20 These are stories by Bronislava Gedgaudaitė-Girdienienė, which are usually not interrupted or disturbed by any comment or interjection of the listener(s). Plg. TŠT titles Marriage, death, life TŠT 95-105, Hanger, unbaptized, infanticide TŠT 116-127 and Ponai vargdieniai TŠT 155-163 named the only performer of the narratives. 21 This model represents the dual – horizontal and vertical – definition of social distance. JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ. Pritarimas pašnekovui žemaičių kasdienybės diskurse: funkcijos ir raiška (remiantis XX a. II pusės šaltiniais) | 6 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.14 BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 In the aforementioned sources there are also other presentations of conversational appropriateness, for example, the requirement to look into the interlocutor’s eyes while participating in a conversation – speaking and listening, cf. : (5) rọkudamûos veiz ek t isê ‿ak s / vọ‿nanair kis ‿šal s // KTŽ 249 (when you are 22 handcuffing, look directly into the eyes, not into the sides) 23 (6) s‿an u rũodas naẹšv si / ànũo nãir mûos vệns // KTŽ 249 (with anuo (‘his’) it seems impossible to navigate, [from] ano nairymasis alone) 24 (7) rọkujẹntệis rẽk ‿ak s veiz nọ / vọ‿na‿žva g tệis // KTŽ 348 (when rokuing, one must look into one’s eyes, not look around) For the members of a community based on oral tradition, communicating is the most important way of communicating with one another, therefore attitudes are cultivated from an early age, requiring not only clear and appropriate articulation (see examples 8–10), but also attention to the content, meaning and mood of speech (see examples 11–16), cf. : (8) ko‿t âuzgi / rọkộukis kˆ žm og s // KTŽ 256 (what do you do, act like a man) (9) sak k âiškê, nemōrm ek ŠVŽŽ I 455 (say clearly, do not die) (10) k o‿t pōrslúoj s / ka‿pàsakûoji? // KTŽ 327 (what do you splash 25 when you tell) (11) ko‿t ‿čè úomâuji tûo us n ekùs! // 26 KTŽ 265 (why are you talking about such nonsense) (12) tọ‿žèbe ôoji tûo us n ekùs / papàsakûok kũ‿nûors r mta // KTŽ 497 (you are a fool, tell me something serious) (13) nataršk ek n eku // KTŽ 441 (don't tell me nothing) (14) ni ruodas / ni pasakas su tou makalu // KTŽ 224 (nei rodos, nei pasakas su tuo makalu) (15) s‿pẹjuok k p‿dọrn / nẽ rũodas / nẽ p sakas // KTŽ 347 (su pijoku kaip [su] durnu neither appears, nor fairy tales) (16) k‿t ‿p ūmpi n ekùs/ gèṯãu papàsakûok / këp g ven // KTŽ 308 (what you niekus, geriau papasakok, kaip gyveni) 22 Plg. rokãvimos (hibr.) – ‚kalbėjimasis‘ KTŽ 347. 23 nairties, na ros, na rės – ‚sukinėtis, dairytis iš paniūrų, padilbų‘ KTŽ 249. 24 pluumpi na rymos –,turning, looking’ KTŽ 249. 25 purslóti, ~ója, ~ójė – ‘to sprinkle with saliva’ KTŽ 327. 26 ómauti,~auja, ~avo – ‘to speak nonsense, to scream’ KTŽ 265. JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ. Pritarimas pašnekovui žemaičių kasdienybės diskurse: funkcijos ir raiška (based on sources from the second half of the 20th century) | 7 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.14 BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 The autoperceptual confirmations in the sources selected for the study show that the Žemaites base their uniqueness on the uniqueness of language and customs. That native (natural) language of the Žemaites can be described as ugly, but nevertheless clean, characterized by a clear and easy pronunciation (see the phrase is not smudged), e.g.: (17) nọ žemãitê – kàlbà sk ras, pàprotẽ sk ras ŠVŽŽ II 20 (well, the Žemaites – the language is different, the customs are different) (18) vũo nègraž kàlbà r žemãi u ŠVŽŽ I 252 (vo, the ugly language is Žemaičių) (19) žemãi u k lbà n er pisv lọsi // KTŽ 403 (the Žemaičių language is not p[r]isvilusi) The Žemaičiai often associate their (ethnic) speech with straightforwardness as a norm (e.g. say straight, pakrâuti – ‘say straight into the eye’), e.g.: (20) žemãitê s ka stàtê / pakrâun / ‿ganà // KTŽ 389 (the Žemaičiai say straight, pakrâun and gana) However, in personal statements one tries to highlight someone’s self-defense and uprightness as inappropriate qualities, therefore persons who recklessly prove their truth are liked to be described as ignorant and unspeakable and it is emphasized that one must be able to agree with another person, cf. : (21) ns n ‿kuo ũos nùvûokas natộr rọkudamûos s žmuog / tùjãu ižeidìn e / pr šingàujẹs // KTŽ 263 (not having any meaning when talking to a person, you are already insulting, opposing) (22) jê nûori / rọkộukis kõh žm og s / vọ‿nakàbẹn ekis // KTŽ 137 (if you want, rokooki like a man, not a cabínakis) (23) s‿narav žm og ni‿pas rọkộusi dúorã / ni‿sọsẹtãrsi // KTŽ 251 (with narav 27 man[mi] neither will I choose fairly nor agree) (24) àš ni‿sọ‿vệinọ žm og nanûoṯọ pr klītệis// KTŽ 320 (I do not want to be attached to any man) 28 (25) rẽk prisitâik ma, jê nûori sọgi.vêntẹ SZVŽŽ II 99 (need adaptation if you want to live together) narãvas, ~à (sl.) – ‘obstinacy, quick to get upset’ SZVŽ 251. 27 28 pr klytis, ~ijas, ~ijės (sl.) – ‘to hurt, to be angry, to disturb others’ KTŽ 320. JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ. Pritarimas pašnekovui žemaičių kasdienybės diskurse: funkcijos ir raiška (based on sources from the second half of the 20th century) | 8 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.14 BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 Not only the declared positions, but also the manner of conversation itself indicate that one of the simplest ways to reveal one’s favour for the dialogue partner is to be attentive and tai parodyti įvairiais būdais išreiškiamu pritarimu. attentive in the conversation. Expression of approval in ordinary everyday discourse In ordinary dialogue, when the interlocutor is in front of the eyes, the expression of approval for him can be simpler: attention, shown by constant eye contact and a certain – reckless, but not obscuring – body posture and nod or modest gesture, is enough. In the compilations of fragments of Žemaičių kalbos speech there can be found certain hints about the ways of realization of such approval and their meanings, e.g. : (26) àš, sãka, bepakinknûojau, bet àš <...> n eka nesakėâu ŠVŽŽ I 303 (I, he says, bepakinknûojau (‘only hinked’), but I <...> said nothing) (27) jê kinknûoji gâlva / šẽt / ka‿s tink // KTŽ 162 (if you hink your head, go out, that you agree) (28) túo ãu stuov edâms ns mộn m rktẹl ejeed // ẹr‿aš‿v skû sọpratâu // KTŽ 239 (while still standing, ans blinked at me, and I understood everything) (29) pamuosẹk va s ‿rọnk ẹ‿v el sọs rệit i‿kamūlâti // KTŽ 242 (blinked with his hand and again pressed into the ball) In the lexicographic sources of the Samogitian language, there are elements of voiced – verbal – expression of approval. It is usually a short approval statement, where the same element is repeated one or more times. For example, to confirm the propositional content of the speaker’s statements and to promote the continuity of the narrative itself, the particles with the meaning ‘yes, so’ may be used ahà, jè, jėių; jó (cf. ahà KTŽ 22; ŠVŽŽ I 3; jè or jè jè KTŽ 131, j e, j e ŠVŽŽ I 235; jó KTŽ 132), expressions of approval ái, nù (ái KTŽŽ I 3; n; nọ n ŠVŽŽ I 477; KTŽ 261), adverbs of confirmation áiškê KTŽŽ I 4), tikra (tkrã KTŽŽ II 343) and other similar units of language related to the coordination of the conversation in terms of content and rhythm, e.g.: (30) jó / tẽp ẹ‿rēk es padar tẹ // KTŽ 132 (yo, it will have to be done that way) (31) j e j e, vãsaras lãik n e tẽ(p) bl ogã // ŠVŽŽ I 235 (jė jė, it is not so bad in summer time) (32) ái, b va gèrũ ž du, àmện! KJV I 3 (oh, there were good Jews, amen (‘very’)!) (33) nọ n, ka·p t k j dộm pa ọmerọ ŠVŽŽ I 477 (no no, kap tik judum (‘judviem’) pačiu mieru (‘pats tas’)) JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ. Pritarimas pašnekovui žemaičių kasdienybės diskurse: funkcijos ir raiška (based on sources from the second half of the 20th century) | 9 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.14 BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 The texts of the compendium of presentations of the entire Samogitian discourse Tak šneka tirkšliškiai show that in the usual Samogitian discourse there is support not only by small words with this meaning (emoticons, particles, adverbs), but also by repeating certain passages of the interlocutor’s sentences or phrases or by paraphrasing them, cf. : (34) V. nọ‿ju ‿tẹkė tèrẽkė žv rblienê // sak sās jau‿kàlūtsēs ·rās / adb eg(a)‿jau / pàsās‿mùn(i) // M. nọi‿n iēj // TŠT 77 (V. Now, that's all Žvirbliene needs, she'll say that the year is already faulty – she's already gone to me. M. Nui nui.) (35) E. <...> kumet‿nũerr(i)sä bọu‿mšẹsệisė an d(ọ) en M. b.uŭ b.uŭ // TŠT 67 (E. <...> whenever she had fought with this. M. It was.) (36) M. <...> vàkũŭ‿sa.k / a‿dèš mt sā ·rā // <...> D. ·rā ·rā! // tu‿vàkùj jẹ···ruŭ m ri (ẹ) / kēik‿ànũŭ ·rr! // M. ·rr ·rr panâutskûoks // E. àās ve ’ žn(a)ējs / kàsēs‿anu ž ·nējs // V. kẹik‿tu‿panâutuū ·rr / a‿ve ’sēs anu‿ž ·nējs // TŠT 77 (М. <...> children, says, a[r] dozen yr[a] <...> D. Yr[a] yr[a]! Of those children, Jėr[a]u Maria, how many yr[a]! M. Yr[a] and the servant (‚mergautinis‘) koks. E. O vel[nias] žino, kas aną žin[o]. V. Kiek tų panautų yr[a], o velnias know it.) (37) M. nêek ọn(s)‿s (k)/ kọr‿aš‿ẽ (ọ)ių // da.‿msl sää ka‿àšė kãlŭts‿es(ọ) / k(a)‿aš‿ẽ (ọ)iū // V. a škê⭛! // pa kau‿pagalwûosꜛ / kad⁀àš⭛ kãlts! // TŠT 77 (M. Ne, an(s) sako, wherever I go, I still think that I am guilty when I go. V. Clearly! Then they will think I'm guilty.) (38) J. <...> n en‿ẹr‿ën(n)s / at iiek(ẹ)ė / pàsän‿mun / tuoks‿nusim n(ẹ)sän tuoks‿nusim n(ẹ)sän <...> // K. tukârteerd irrà ën bọvâu // J. bòvâen bòvâen // <...> TŠT 109 (J. <...> now and ans came to me, so upset, so upset <...> K. At that time I was. J. You were <...>) (39) J. nebmûokė tẹi‿žmũenn(i)s tuo‿pũenn(a)ė karà âuė bōidûot(ẹ) // M. nebmũekkė nebmûokė // J. i‿nebmûokė i‿nebnûorė // M. n bännûorė! // J. pamat s(ẹ)ted i‿d ẽ(a) bûs / b usm ẽën šim t // M. j ën j ën // TŠT 110 (J. Those people don't know how to sing the Lord King. M. They don't know, they don't know. J. And they don't know how to sing, and they don't want to sing. M. They don't want to sing! J. You'll see, and God's punishment will be this year. M. Yeah yeah.) Sometimes, while repeating a section of the interlocutor’s phrase, sentences of a not quite standard model – double authorship – are created, when the participant of the discourse who 29 has just been a listener invades the structure of the interlocutor’s sentence as part of the repeated phrase, cf. : 29 For more on these sentences, see 2018a (2018a). JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ. Pritarimas pašnekovui žemaičių kasdienybės diskurse: funkcijos ir raiška (based on sources from the second half of the 20th century) | 16 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.14 BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 Zinkevičius Z.1994: The dialectology of Lithuanian language. Vilnius: Vilnius University Press. Received 10/12/2019 Adopted on 30 December 2019 JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ. Pritarimas pašnekovui žemaičių kasdienybės diskurse: funkcijos ir raiška (remiantis XX a. II pusės šaltiniais) | 17 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.14 BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 AGREEMENT WITH INTERLOCUTOR IN SAMOGITIAN DAILY DISCOURSE: FUNCTIONS AND EXPRESSION (BASED ON THE SOURCES OF THE 2ND HALF OF THE 20TH CENTURY) Summary In the context of Samogitian interpersonal communication one interlocutor’s agreement with another in terms of the content of speaking and/or emotional support is mostly concerned with familiarity and the social – phatic – function of language. The study made use of the collections that record the Samogitian language of the 2nd half of the 20th century. The material provided by the collections of passages illustrating Samogitian authentic speaking shows the link between the appropriateness of communication and the favourable attitude towards the interlocutor (if permitted by a communicative situation and content). The proper expression of attentiveness is associated with the universal attitudes of appropriate (tactful) communication, which are realized by a calm body posture, eye contact, attention to the interlocutor’s behaviour, and the content of speaking. Samogitians tend to perceive the favourable approach towards the interlocutor’s content of speaking and its way of presentation as politeness and try to show it by varied expression of agreement. The analysis of the discourses of three types contained in the collection of texts illustrating Samogitian authentic speaking Taip šneka tirkšliškiai (cf. Girdenis 1996) reveals different practices of the listener’s agreement with the speaker. The narration of a true or fictitious but interesting story is usually not interrupted by the listener. In a usual conversation of several individuals the agreement of one interlocutor with another (providing new information) is more commonly expressed by the repetition of the interlocutor’s phrase or its part (~65%) rather than the short words expressing agreement (~35%). The structure of phone conversations demonstrates a considerably more frequent usage of elements of agreement with the interlocutor, which is explained by the inability of the interlocutor’s visual evaluation. In the phone conversations under analysis agreement was relatively more commonly expressed by the short words of agreement, which were pronounced by utilizing different voice modulations (~78%), compared to the repetition of the interlocutor’s phrases (~22%). JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ. Pritarimas pašnekovui žemaičių kasdienybės diskurse: funkcijos ir raiška (based on sources from the second half of the 20th century) | 18 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.14 BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 KEYWORDS: Samogitian daily language, spontaneous dialogue, agreement with the interlocutor, repetition. JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ Lietuvių kalbos institutas Petro Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius [email protected]