JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

AGREEMENT WITH THE INTERLOCUTOR IN EVERYDAY SAMOGITIAN DISCOURSE: FUNCTIONS AND EXPRESSION (BASED ON SOURCES FROM THE SECOND HALF OF THE 20TH CENTURY)

ABSTRACT

The article presents an exploratory study intended to identify the elements expressing agreement with an interlocutor and the distribution of their frequency in three types of Samogitian discourse (ordinary speech, narratives, and telephone conversations). The study draws on the heritage of North Samogitian speech from the second half of the 20th century, published in several sources. Based on illustrative material in lexicographic sources (see Aleksandravičius 2011, Vanagienė 2014–2015), the article discusses Samogitians’ understanding of appropriate communication, founded on subjective evaluation and most often associated with the pursuit of harmony. The distribution of agreement-expression elements and their relative frequency in actual Samogitian speech is assessed by analyzing data from the collection of authentic everyday speech texts by Telšiai North Samogitians, Taip šneka tirkšliškiai (see Girdenis 1996).

KEYWORDS: everyday Samogitian, spontaneous dialogue, agreement with an interlocutor, repetition.

INTRODUCTION

The existence of the Samogitians as an ethnic group is grounded in the experience of speaking rather than writing¹. Compared with the features of spoken Standard Lithuanian, Samogitian speech has many distinctive characteristics, associated both with phonological differentiation between linguistic systems and with different cultural standards for communication models, as well as with differing conceptions of the normativity of the syntactic structures of Lithuanian and Samogitian² languages³. Studies of spoken Standard Lithuanian are generally initiated in order to “provide statistical support for differences between spoken and written language often recorded only through observation” (Dabašinskienė 2009: 14). The differences in the expression of Samogitian and Lithuanian models of linguistic communication identified through observation are related to

¹ Apie žemaičių kalbos rašto sistemos sukūrimo pastangas ir realijas žr. Pabrėža 2017.

² For the distinction between language and dialect and language as a concept encompassing dialect areas, cf. Aliūkaitė 2013: 4; for an understanding of Samogitian, encompassing its constituent dialects and subdialects, based on its differences from the standard language and other dialects, see Pabrėža 2017: 47–48.

³ The structural distinctiveness characteristic of spoken language determines the nature of its study and gives rise to specific requirements, such as the need to take into account the conversational situation, the participants and their number, the topic, and other linguistic and non-linguistic features; cf. Dabašinskienė 2009: 14.

JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ. Agreement with the interlocutor in the everyday discourse of Samogitians: functions and expression (based on sources from the second half of the 20th century) | 2 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.14

and the idea behind the exploratory study presented here (a comparison of the spoken varieties of the aforementioned language systems based on more rigorous analysis would also be rather tentative, since the available transcripts of Samogitian speech and texts of spoken (colloquial)⁴ standard language, representing a private communication model,⁵ present data from different periods and speaking situations).

The article aims to survey a feature characteristic of Samogitian dialogue, readily noticed by native users of standard Lithuanian who have witnessed a Samogitian conversation, and also strikingly apparent when becoming acquainted with transcripts of authentic everyday Samogitian discourse (both dialogue and polylogue). This is the expression of agreement with a dialogue partner (or partners)⁶. In everyday Samogitian conversations, it is customary for a discourse participant in the passive role of listener to respond to the active—speaking or narrating—discourse participant with frequent and variously expressed agreement. When Samogitians switch language codes, this discourse feature is generally not automatically transferred to standard Lithuanian. Since it is not something that can simply be translated, in certain situations this agreement may be considered an essential element of communication culture for which Samogitians find no suitable equivalent in the standard language. It may be that, in standard-language communication, precisely such or similar cultural differences lead to an inability to interpret silence correctly, or not knowing how to appropriately replace pauses, creating an impression of awkward conversation for Samogitians and at the same time reinforcing the image of the taciturn Samogitian. To a native user of the standard language who witnesses a Samogitian dialogue, frequent or constant expressions of agreement often seem excessive and worthy of ridicule.

Frequent and varied expressions of agreement with an interlocutor in Samogitian discourse may be linked to a strongly expressed and traditionally desired pursuit of communicative balance (cf. Edwards 2008: 335) or to models for realizing the desired interpersonal recognition (cf. Weigand 2010: 232), which are associated with a community’s understanding of politeness and the enactment of the principle of tact. Pragmatics allows politeness to explain two contradictory implications of silence: depending on the conversational situation and the composition of its participants, silence may be understood both as an expression of desired politeness associated with a certain lower (age or social) status⁷ and as a kind of affront (cf. Leech 1999: 141). In ordinary conversational situations (when the social status of dialogue or polylogue participants is similar, and communication is frequent and

⁴ On the possible synonymy and distinction between the concepts of spoken language and colloquial language, where spoken language is understood more broadly and colloquial language may be associated with the everyday style of language, see Nauckūnaitė 2003: 79–80; Kamandulytė-Merfeldienė 2014: 1.

⁵ For example, the Spoken Lithuanian Corpus section Spontaneous Private Speech provides data that can be viewed as short stretches of everyday-style speech.

⁶ This discussion sets aside expressions of reactions that contradict the interlocutor. For an account of the illocutionary acts of agreement and disagreement as associated with a particular position in conversation (they can only occur as reactions to the interlocutor’s preceding utterance), see Satkauskaitė 2011: 56–57.

⁷ Apie vertikalųjį (hierarchinį) ir horizontalųjį socialinį nuotolį žr. Leech 1999: 126.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ. Agreement with the interlocutor in the everyday discourse of Samogitians: functions and expression (based on sources from the second half of the 20th century) | 3 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.14

(desired) need to avoid silence and maintain communication with a discourse partner is associated with the communal—phatic—function of language (see Leech 1999: 141). The dialogue theorist Edda Weigand, who understands language as dialogue (see Weigand 2009) and dialogue as a multifaceted game (see Weigand 2010), argues that dialogue-based communication is realized according to certain operative principles, which speakers choose consciously or unconsciously in order to connect both conversation-initiating and responsive reactions, thereby enabling them to apprehend the conversation as a whole and participate in it effectively (cf. Weigand 2010: 113). It is precisely these operative principles that determine the ways of participating in dialogue and can become strategies (when speakers seek to steer the course of dialogue in a particular direction). Such strategies allow conversational sequences, evaluations, and emotional expression to be altered; they allow speakers to avoid or conceal certain things, or reveal their wish to cooperate or resist (see Weigand 2010: 113, 118). In the course of dialogue, people may adapt to their interlocutor (

cooperation strategy) or choose confrontation (confrontation strategy), and sometimes a neutral position, most often without even consciously realizing it (Weigand 2010: 121–122). Samogitian patterns of expressing agreement are most closely associated with this unconscious choice to adapt to the interlocutor and with the pleasure of participating in a shared conversation, conveyed through a particular response. In these patterns, goodwill toward the interlocutor and the ongoing conversation may be expressed not only through conventional positive confirmation⁸, but also by repeating certain phrases or stretches of the interlocutor’s speech, paraphrasing them, or even interjecting into a sentence being constructed, with this treated as a customary and non-offensive norm of communication.

This article discusses the variety of elements used to express agreement with an interlocutor that are characteristic of Samogitian dialogue, and their relative frequency (or relative distribution of use among them) across varieties of Samogitian conversation (dialogue and polylogue), drawing on Samogitian speech heritage published in several sources. This heritage consists of several collections of transcribed accounts of natural and/or somewhat elicited Samogitian speech, documenting everyday speaking situations in the second half of the 20th century among Northern Samogitians (Telšiai and Kretinga speakers)⁹. Particularly useful for examining expressions of agreement are the authentic polylogue transcripts and dialogue transcripts representing telephone conversations¹⁰ in the book Taip šneka tiršliškiai: šiaurės žemaičių telšiškių tarmės tekstai su komentarais (Girdenis 1996, hereafter TŠT). The Samogitian understanding of appropriate speech

⁸ For the point that cooperation in dialogue need not be limited to conventional positive confirmation, and confrontation need not consist solely of a negative response, see Weigand 2010: 122.

⁹ For the classification of the Samogitian dialect into Northern Samogitian linguistic features, see Zinkevičius 1994: 85–87; for the essential difference between Northern Samogitian Telšiai and Kretinga varieties, based on the alternation u, i // o, ę in non-final syllables, see Zinkevičius 1994: 114.

¹⁰ The dialect-text collection Taip šneka tiršliškiai: šiaurės žemaičių telšiškių tarmės tekstai su komentarais presents conversations recorded with a hidden microphone between 1968 and 1985 among the family members and neighbors of Alekso Girdenio, who lived in the Tirkšliai area of Mažeikiai district. Some of them are telephone conversations. A telephone conversation may be described as a non-standard communication situation (cf. Girdenis 1996: 142) for various reasons (e.g., its unusualness, associated with

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351–7204

JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ. Agreement with an interlocutor in everyday Samogitian discourse: functions and expression (based on sources from the second half of the 20th century) | 4 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.14

perteikiančių apibūdinimų esama Kretingos tarmės žodyne (Aleksandravičius 2011, toliau – KTŽ)¹¹ ir Šiaurės vakarų žemaičių žodyne: Ylakių, Lenkimų, Mosėdžio, Skuodo, Šačių apylinkių šnektos A–O, P–Ž (Vanagienė, 2014–2015, toliau – ŠVŽŽ I, II)¹². Labai svarbu pabrėžti, kad nurodytuose šaltiniuose pateikta iliustracinė medžiaga yra ir autentiška, ir labai tipiška. Ši autentiškumo ir tipiškumo darna leidžia iš žemaitiškos aplinkos išvykusiam žemaičiui, skaitančiam TŠT, KTŽ ar ŠVŽŽ, pasijusti tarsi sugrįžusiam į praėjusį laiką.

In the article, phrases from Samogitian speech are transcribed with the aim of reproducing the source transcriptions as closely as possible (the selected sources use transcription conventions that differ in certain nuances¹³); alongside the transcription, a passage of Samogitian speech approximating a transposition into the standard language is provided.

THE EXPRESSION OF AGREEMENT IN EVERYDAY SAMOGITIAN CONVERSATIONS

Samogitian perceptions of appropriate speech and models for its development

Before beginning to examine the features of agreement expression in Samogitian dialogue, it is appropriate to discuss what kind of conversation Samogitians consider suitable¹⁴. An ordinary member of the speech community’s view¹⁵ of Samogitians may be contradictory: they may be regarded as significant noisy talkers or as quiet people. This contradictory perception is most likely due to the differing circumstances of speaking situations. When together with their own people (speaking native (inherited) language¹⁶), Samogitians are generally not inclined to speak either quietly or courteously¹⁷ (cf.: when they start, they really let loose⁑,

because they cannot assess their interlocutor visually, and because they need to speak exceptionally clearly), but it is precisely in such conversation that the need to express agreement becomes particularly evident; in actual conversation, it is usually conveyed through eye contact and nods, which cannot be captured in a transcript.

¹¹ The illustrative material in KTŽ is characterized by authentic, dialogic speech of the Kretinga subdialect of Northern Samogitian, meticulously recorded by the dictionary’s compiler over a period of about 60 years (the card file was collected from the mid-1940s through 2004, and work on the dictionary began in 2006; cf. Aleksandravičius 2011: 4; Mikulienė 2011: XII; Vaišnienė 2011: XX). For more on the possibilities for interpreting the material presented in KTŽ, see Pajėdienė 2018b; 2019.

¹² This dictionary contains abundant material both from everyday Samogitian discourse (from 1960 to 1990, Birutė Vanagienė regularly recorded conversations among people in her immediate circle) and from conversations documented during dialectological expeditions conducted in 1989–1996 (cf. Subačius 2014: XII; XIV–XVII), including a substantial layer of representative speech.

¹³ Apie TŠT transkripciją žr. Girdenis 1996: 8–10; kiek išsamiau A. Girdenio vartotas transkripcijos modelis yra paaiškintas šiaurės žemaičių kalbėjimo perrašų sąvaduose Žemaičių dzūkai ir Šiaurės žemaičių Skuodo zona, žr. Girdenis 1996: 8–10; 2008: 17tt; 2012: 21tt; apie KTŽ – žr. Aleksandravičius 2011: 17–18, Vaišnienė 2011: XXIII–XXIX; apie ŠVŽŽ – žr. Vanagienė 2014: XXVIII.

¹⁴ For perceptual models of appropriate dialect speech and their recognition, see Aliūkaitė 2019; Mikulėnienė 2019.

¹⁵ For perceptions of the standard-language artifact and the evaluation of dialect features based on conceptualization, see Aliūkaitė 2019: 87; for evaluations by ordinary members of the speech community as subjective dialectality, see Aliūkaitė 2019: 66, 67.

¹⁶ Cf.: we talk among ourselves in our native language (we talk among ourselves in our native language) ŠVŽŽ I 218; that language was native (that language was native) ŠVŽŽ I 186.

¹⁷ Tai rodo ir TŠT paliktų (nekupūruotų) drastiškų replikų (plg. Girdenis 1996: 8) gausa.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351–7204

JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ. Agreement with an interlocutor in the everyday discourse of Samogitians: functions and expression (based on sources from the second half of the 20th century) | 5 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.14

negãl ni apseklaušit^e, when everyone starts chattering, it is impossible even to hear oneself thinkⁱ ŠVŽŽ I 369). They usually associate quietness or reticence¹⁸ with shyness and being in an unfamiliar environment, where one must behave and speak in an uncustomary manner (most often in a non-native language). Therefore, Samogitians tend to associate ease and success in conversation with the speaker and conversational partner sharing the same ethnicity (cf. the saying žemaičių su žemait^ôta rūod^dj^ôu krimt^t ‚a Samogitian with a Samogitian, that conversation¹⁹ comes more (“better”) naturallyⁱ ŠVŽŽ II 152). In everyday life, Samogitians are not always noisy either. In certain situations (for example, when listening to an authoritative storyteller), they can be exceptionally quiet, remarkably attentive discourse participants. The attentiveness of the listener (or listeners) to long stories, as a capacity to participate in another person’s storytelling by remaining silent, is also shown in TŠT texts, which include long narratives marked with the abbreviation M.²⁰ This storytelling-and-listening model is recognized as characteristic of the Samogitian setting (probably not only as something that existed in the past, but also as something that still exists), when an older or senior authoritative storyteller (for example, a mother, grandmother, aunt, and perhaps somewhat less often a father, grandfather, or uncle) tells stories about the past. Such stories are listened to attentively and in silence²¹. Samogitians seek to foster from an early age an attitude that prohibits pointless interruptions and encourages quiet attentiveness. Dictionaries presenting samples of everyday Samogitian speech also contain phrases forbidding a child to interject in or interrupt adults’ conversation; similar remarks may also be directed at adults, for example:

(1) tabibūdāms krėtnėsis/ nakėškis į_dėdijų rūoda! // KTŽ 188 (while you’re still a little one, don’t butt into the grown-ups’ conversation)

(2) našmaižūokis į_dėdijų târpa! // KTŽ 422 (don’t squeeze into the grown-ups’ midst)

(3) no bet ka tò užkišiⁱ, nebīšeit mūms ni_kuokⁱ rūod^à ŠVŽŽ I 308 (well, but when you butt in (‘interject’), we can’t get a word in)

On the other hand, silence may also be judged unfavorably and even equated with a disability, for example:

(4) a_nėbelis ėsi / ka_narokõujīs e_nieka môn nasakā // KTŽ 253 (are you mute, that you don’t converse and don’t say anything to me?)

¹⁸ Cf. the phrase addressed to a non-local interlocutor (‘someone from a different linguistic environment’) mės nedėdlė jau rūodlīv (we are not very talkative anymore) ŠVŽŽ II 153.

¹⁹ rodà (dial.) – ‘speech, conversation, chat’ KTŽ 347.

²⁰ These are the stories of Bronislava Gedgaudaitė-Girdienė, which are usually not interrupted or disturbed by any comment or interjection from a listener (or listeners). Cf. the sole performer of the narratives titled Marriage, death, life TŠT 95–105, Hangmen, the unbaptized, infanticidal women TŠT 116–127, and Gentlemen and paupers TŠT 155–163.

²¹ This model represents the dual expression of the aforementioned social distance—horizontal and vertical.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ. Agreement with the interlocutor in the everyday discourse of Samogitians: functions and expression (based on sources from the second half of the 20th century) | 6 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.14

The sources mentioned above also record other prescriptions for appropriate conversation, for example, the requirement, when taking part in a conversation—as both speaker and listener—to look the interlocutor in the eyes; cf.:

(5) rokóudamúos veiżėk tēisē į akis / vo̜_nan̄airikis į šalìs // KTŽ 249 (when conversing, look straight into the eyes, and do not glance around²²)²³

(6) sò_an̄ų rūodas naēšvėsi / ànuo nāirimùos vēns // KTŽ 249 (with that one (“him/her”) you won’t get anywhere by talking; [from] that one, only glaring²⁴)

(7) rokóujentēis rēk į_akis veiżēte / vo̜_na_žvalgītēis // KTŽ 348 (when conversing, one should look into the eyes, not look around)

For members of a community grounded in oral tradition, communication is the most important means of sharing information with one another. Therefore, from an early age, they are taught to observe certain norms, requiring not only clear and appropriate articulation (see examples 8–10), but also attentiveness to the content, meaning, and tone of speech (see examples 11–16); cf.:

(8) kūo_tọ niauzgi / rokóukis kāp žmúogòś // KTŽ 256 (why are you mumbling? Speak like a person)

(9) sakīk aiškē, nemormiek ŠVŽŽ I 455 (speak clearly, don’t mumble)

(10) kūo_tọ poršloújīs / ka_pasakúoji? // KTŽ 327 (why are you spluttering²⁵ when you tell a story?)

(11) kūo_tọ čē uomáuji tūokus niekus! // KTŽ 265 (why are you talking such nonsense here²⁶)

(12) you’re babbling such nonsense; tell me something serious // KTŽ 497 (you’re babbling such nonsense; tell me something serious)

(13) don’t prattle nonsense // KTŽ 441 (don’t prattle nonsense)

(14) neither sense nor stories with that fool // KTŽ 224 (neither sense nor stories with that fool)

(15) with a joker like a fool, there’s neither sense nor stories // KTŽ 347 (with a joker like [with] a fool, there’s neither sense nor stories)

(16) why are you spouting nonsense? Better tell me how you’re getting on // KTŽ 308 (why are you spouting nonsense? Better tell me how you’re getting on)

²² Cf. rokāvimos (hybrid form) – ‘conversation’ KTŽ 347.

²³ nairyties, naīros, naīrēs – ‘to turn around, to peer about from under a hood or from beneath lowered brows’ KTŽ 249.

²⁴ naīrymos – ‘turning around, looking about’ KTŽ 249.

²⁵ purslōti, ~ōja, ~ōjē – ‘to spray with saliva’ KTŽ 327.

²⁶ ómauti, ~auja, ~avo – ‘to talk nonsense, to shout’ KTŽ 265.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204

JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ. Agreement with the interlocutor in Samogitian everyday discourse: functions and expression (based on sources from the second half of the 20th century) | 7 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.14

The autoperceptive confirmations found in the sources selected for the study show that Samogitians ground their distinctiveness in the uniqueness of their language and customs. That innate (native) Samogitian language may be described as ugly, yet clean, characterized by clear and easy pronunciation (cf. the phrase not slurred), e.g.:

(17) no žemaitê – kālbᵃ skẽras, pàprotê skẽras ŠVŽŽ II 20 (well, Samogitians—the language differs, the customs differ)

(18) vūo nègraži kālbᵃ īr žemãičiu ŠVŽŽ I 252 (well, the Samogitians’ language is ugly)

(19) žemaitiu kālbà nìer pisvẹ̇ləsi // KTŽ 403 (the Samogitian language is not slurred)

Samogitians often associate their own (ethnic) way of speaking with directness as a norm (cf. to speak bluntly, to lay it on – ‘to say it straight to someone’s face’), cf.:

(20) žemaitė sāka statē / pakrāun / ẹ̇_gand // KTŽ 389 (Samogitians speak bluntly, lay it on, and that’s enough)

Nevertheless, in personal statements, someone’s hostility and bluntness are presented as undesirable traits; therefore, a person who insistently argues for their own truth is often described as obtuse and intransigent, and it is emphasized that one must be able to get along with another person, cf.:

(21) ọns ni̇ kuokūos nùvūokas natọ̇r rokọudamūos sọ žmuogọ / tūjau ižeidẽnẹ / prišingàujes // KTŽ 263 (he has no sense at all when talking with a person; he immediately insults them and argues back)

(22) jė nūori / rokọukis kāp žmuogọs / vo nakābenėjekis // KTŽ 137 (if you want to talk, talk like a person, and don’t nitpick)

(23) sọ naravọ žmuogọ ni pasẹrkọusi duorā / ni sosẹtārsi // KTŽ 251 (with a quarrelsome person, you can neither talk properly nor come to an agreement)

(24) àš ni sọ vẹino žmuogọ nanūorọ prẹklītės// KTŽ 320 (I don’t want to get involved with a single person)

(25) rēk prisitāikīmᵃ, jė nūori sogi.vēntᵉ ŠVŽŽ II 99 (you need to adapt if you want to get along)

²⁷ narāvas, ~à (dial.) – ‘stubborn, quick to become irritated’ KTŽ 251.

²⁸ prīklītis, ~ijas, ~ijes (dial.) – ‘to quarrel, get angry, bother others’ KTŽ 320.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ. Agreement with the interlocutor in the Samogitian everyday discourse: functions and expression (based on sources from the second half of the 20th century) | 8 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.14

Not only stated attitudes, but also the very manner of speaking shows that one of the simplest ways to demonstrate one’s goodwill toward a dialogue partner is to be attentive while speaking and to show this through agreement expressed in various ways.

Expression of agreement in everyday discourse

In an ordinary dialogue, when the interlocutor is face to face, agreement can be expressed more simply: attentiveness is enough, shown through continuous eye contact and a certain—neither indifferent nor overpowering—posture, as well as through a nod or restrained gesturing. Compendia of Samogitian speech excerpts contain some clues about ways of realizing such agreement and their meanings, for example:

(26) aš, sąka, bepakinknūojau, bet aš <...> niėka nesakâu ŠVŽŽ I 303 (I, he says, was just nodding (,only nodding‘), but I <...> said nothing)

(27) jē kinknūoji gālva / ēšēt / ka_šotinki // KTŽ 162 (if you nod your head, it means you agree)

(28) tuólâu stuoviedāms õns mõn mīrktelēje // ēr_aš_vēškū supratau // KTŽ 239 (continuing to stand there, he winked at me, and I understood everything)

(29) pamuosekāva sõ_ronkō ē_viel sosērēite į_kamūlāti // KTŽ 242 (waved a hand and curled back up into a little ball)

Samogitian speech sources compiled for lexicographical purposes also record elements of audible—spoken—agreement. Most often these are brief agreement utterances, in which the same element is repeated once or many times. For example, to confirm the propositional content of an interlocutor’s statements and encourage the continuation of the narrative itself, particles meaning ‘yes, indeed’ may be used: ahà, jè, jē; jó (cf. ahà KTŽ 22; ŠVŽŽ I 3; jè or jē KTŽ 131, jie, jiē ŠVŽŽ I 235; jó KTŽ 132), agreement interjections ái, nò (ái ŠVŽŽ I 3; nò; no nò ŠVŽŽ I 477; KTŽ 261), adverbs conveying confirmation áiškiai (áiškē ŠVŽŽ I 4), tikrai (tèkra ŠVŽŽ II 343), and other similar linguistic units related to content and rhythm in the coordination of conversation; cf.:

(30) jó / tēp ē_reikēs padarīte // KTŽ 132 (yes, that’s how it will have to be done)

(31) jie jie, vāsarās laikē nie tė(p) bluogā // ŠVŽŽ I 235 (yeah, yeah, in summer it isn’t that bad)

(32) ái, bōva gerù žīdu, àmėn! ŠVŽŽ I 3 (oh, there were good Jews, amen (,very much‘)!)

(33) no nò, ka-p tik jòdòm pačōmėr ŠVŽŽ I 477 (no, no, just as we two were going, it was exactly right (,just right‘))

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ. Agreement with the interlocutor in the everyday discourse of Samogitia: functions and expression (based on sources from the second half of the 20th century) | 9 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.14

The texts in the collection of continuous Samogitian discourse samples Taip šneka tiršliškiai show that in ordinary Samogitian discourse, agreement is expressed not only with words that carry this meaning (interjections, particles, adverbs), but also by repeating or paraphrasing certain stretches of the interlocutor’s sentences or phrases; compare:

(34) V. nǫ jug_teiȓek tērēk žvīrblienê // sakîs jau_kãlts īr / adbîeg⁽ᵃ⁾_jau / pas̩u_mun⁽ⁱ⁾ // M. nǫi_nǫi\ // TŠT 77 (V. Well, there’s plenty for Žvirblienė to do, they’ll say he’s already guilty—he’s already run off to me. M. Nui nui.)

(35) E. <...> kumet_nuõr⁽ⁱ⁾sı bọu_mọšes̩ist anọd⁽ᵒ⁾ M. bọ.u bọ.u // TŠT 67 (E. <...> when those two had fought once. M. Yes, they had.)

(36) M. <...> vãkũ_sa.k / a_dèšimtèst īr // <...> D. īr īr\! // tu_vakũt jeːru] m̄ari⁽ᵉ⁾ / keik_ànũt īr\! // M. īr īr panãuts kũokes // E. àt vel̩ žēn⁽ᵃ⁾\ / kàst_anu žēn // V. keik_tu_panãutur īr / a_vel̩’st_anu_žēn // TŠT 77 (M. <...> children, they say, there are about ten <...> D. Yes, yes! Those children—dear Mary, how many there are! M. There’s a bastard („illegitimate child“) too. E. Well, the devil knows who that one is. V. How many bastards there are, and the devil knows who that one is.)

(37) M. nê on(s)_sã(k)/ kor_aš_ēiš⁽ᵒ⁾\ // da._mislīst ka_aš̀ kãlts_es⁽ᵒ⁾ / k⁽ᵃ⁾_aš_ēiš⁽ᵒ⁾\ // V. aiškē\! // paskau_pagalvũost / kad`aš\ kãlts! // TŠT 77 (M. No, he says, where am I going, he’ll still think I’m guilty when I leave. V. Exactly! He’ll think afterward that I’m guilty.)

(38) J. <...> nọ̀_er_ǫ⁽ⁿ⁾s / atèi⁽ᵉ⁾ / pas̩u_muni / tuoks_nusimén⁽ᵉ⁾s̩ tuoks_nusimén⁽ᵉ⁾s <...> // K. tõukãrt ir_àš̩ bọvâu // J. bòvât bòvâu // <...> TŠT 109 (J. <...> well, he came to me looking so downcast, so downcast <...> K. I was too then. J. Yes, you were <...>)

(39) J. nebmuok] tei_žmũon⁽ⁱ⁾s tuo_puõn⁽ᵃ⁾t karãliaus̩ geidũot⁽ᵉ⁾ // M. nebmuok] nebmuok // J. i_nebmuokt i_nebnũor // M. nębnũor\! // J. pamati⁽ˢ⁾⁽ᵉ⁾t i_dė̃u⁽ᵃ⁾ bũs / bãusmė̃ šimēt // M. jė jė // TŠT 110 (J. Those people can’t sing for that Lord King. M. Can’t, can’t. J. And they can’t, and they don’t want to. M. They don’t want to! J. You’ll see, God’s punishment will come this year. M. Yes, yes.)

Sometimes, when a stretch of the interlocutor’s phrases is repeated, sentences of a somewhat nonstandard pattern—of double authorship²⁹—are also created, in which the discourse participant who had just been a listener, through the repeated portion of the phrase, intrudes into the interlocutor’s sentence structure; compare:

²⁹ Daugiau apie tokius sakinius žr. Pajėdienė (2018a: 94).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ. Agreement with an interlocutor in the everyday discourse of Samogitians: functions and expression (based on sources from the second half of the 20th century) | 10 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.14

(40) K. <...> tujau_trīlekts atligēnęms\ velnõp išēš // J. ka_pāpul⁽ⁱ⁾ parāsi // TŠT 113 (K. <...> tuojau tryliktas atlyginimas velniop išeis, J. kai papuoli paras (,gauni parų [nuovadoj atbut']).)

Usually this way of speaking is accepted as the norm, while from the outside it looks like a game, in which interlocutors pass the initiative in speaking back and forth as they construct a narrative from short phrases strung together. Interestingly, when an interlocutor’s aside disrupts the structure of one participant’s intended complex sentence—for example, when it is deliberately used to emphasize the duration of a surprising event—the first speaker can calmly continue the narrative, describing the endpoint of the action and the result achieved, while also bringing the sentence to grammatical completion; cf.:

(41) G. no_jug_v̇ēsᵃ žẽimᵃ // kūoriês e_kūoriês // M. v̇ēsᵃ↑ žẽimᵃ\ // G. kõl_tik / išekūorę // TŠT 202 (G. Well, you courted and courted all winter (,kept proposing and proposing‘), M. All winter! G. until you finally got her to agree (,got her to accept‘).)

The data presented in Table 1 show that in ordinary everyday dialogue or a conversation among a larger group, Samogitians most often signal agreement with an interlocutor by repeating a portion of the interlocutor’s recently spoken phrase or paraphrasing their utterance. On average, such instances account for ~65 percent of the overall expression of agreement in the selected TŠT polylogues. Positive brief confirmations, uttered once or repeated, are also used relatively frequently to express agreement, jė, jie and no, noi, noje type particles (their overall relative frequencies of use are ~15 percent and ~9 percent, respectively).

TABLE 1. Absolute and relative frequency of agreement markers in three TŠT polylogues Supjaustė Žvirblį, pp. 66–81, Alų geria, pp. 81–95, Girtuokliams beveik geriau, pp. 105–116

Agreement markers | SŽ, TŠT 66–81 | Count in units | Relative frequency | Ag, TŠT 81–95 | Count in units | Relative frequency | Gbg, TŠT 105–116 | Count in units | Relative frequency | SŽ, Ag, Gbg conversations | Count in units | Relative frequency | aha; a | 2 | 2% | 3 | 4% | - | - | 5 | 2% | jė; jie | 12 | 14% | 11 | 14% | 8 | 19% | 31 | 15% | mhm; m | 2 | 2% | 2 | 2% | 1 | 2% | 5 | 2% | no; noi; noje | 6 | 7% | 11 | 14% | 2 | 5% | 19 | 9% | ne | 2 | 2% | 2 | 2% | – | – | 4 | 2%

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351–7204

JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ. Agreement with an interlocutor in the everyday discourse of Samogitians: functions and expression (based on sources from the second half of the 20th century) | 11 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.14

tep tep 2 2% 1 1% – – 3 2% aiško; aiške 4 5% 2 2% – – 6 3% Repetition of the interlocutor’s phrase (paraphrase) 58 66% 49 61% 31 74% 138 65% Total 88 100% 81 100% 42 100% 211 100%

Expression of agreement in non-standard private communication situations

The most prominent Samogitian agreeing (supportive) discourse responses in telephone conversations with a familiar interlocutor³⁰. In such communication situations, which are nevertheless characterized by their non-standard nature,³¹ elements expressing agreement are used more abundantly than usual, most likely because, in telephone conversations, Samogitians seek to replace the usual elements of appropriate communication—quiet attentiveness and visual attention—with audible agreement elements that serve as demonstrations of evident rapport with the interlocutor. The expression of agreement may vary depending on context (and may even take the form of negative particles; see the sequence ne ne and the context in which it occurs in example 43), cf.:

(42) <...> E. nǫ̇jè̇ / veršìs elʹìst palėktôm { M. nǫ̇jè_nǫ̇jèŁ // E. kàt_i_bìšʹ(kʹ) / pègàut gaúsêm / bet_vęstęi̇̂k_jug / nǫ̇jè // M. tėpt tėp\ // a yà̀ // paršėlė̇n / gèrè̇? // E. gėrè̇ / àug // dàbāt jau_jǫudà // M. jǫudà\ jàu // E. dār / ìpėlǫ / kuokę_pavērėnusʹ vėralʹn tėn } M. a yà̀ a yà̀ // E. bet jėdt / jėzàu\! // ka àugt šūksnės\ // M. a rėgì\! // E. a yà̀ / <...> TŠT 181 (<...> E. Nuje, the piglet would remain. M. Nuje nuje. E. Even if we get it a bit cheaper, still, nuje. M. Right right, aha. Are the piglets good? E. Good, they’re growing, and now they’re really black (,well/very‘). M. Really black now. E. I still pour in some kind of boiled mash there. M. Aha aha. E. But it eats, Jesus! It’s growing by leaps and bounds. M. Do you see! E. Aha. <...>) (43) E. Well, we’d bring those beds here. M. Nui nui. E. But now you can’t buy beds, you won’t throw that away, right? M. No, no. E. You won’t make another one. M. Yeah. E. Nui, let it be sent (,so be it‘). M. Yeah.) TŠT 179

³⁰Here, non-standard private communication situations are understood to include telephone conversations between interlocutors from a very close social circle (for example, a mother and daughter).

³¹For further discussion of the standardness of conversational situations, see also footnote 10.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351–7204

JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ. Agreement with the interlocutor in everyday Samogitian discourse: functions and expression (based on sources from the second half of the 20th century) | 12 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.14

In the transcripts of three telephone conversations presented in TŠT (see Early spring TŠT 137–146, Flu and other unpleasant things TŠT 177–184, and Bronelė has died TŠT 277–281), the expression of agreement between the two interlocutors is more intensive and different from that found in transcripts of ordinary dialogues and group conversations in TŠT (cf. the data presented in Tables 1 and 2). Quantitative analysis of the agreement elements in the telephone conversation texts in TŠT shows that the relative frequency of ordinary agreement markers and repetitions (including paraphrases) of parts of discourse phrases uttered by the interlocutor is distributed quite similarly across all three conversations. In an ordinary, peaceful (non-conflictual) Samogitian conversation, the response to speech is more often expressed by repeating or paraphrasing part of a particular interlocutor’s phrase (such units account for ~65 percent of all expressions of agreement), whereas in a telephone conversation, the interlocutor is agreed with and encouraged, and it is shown that they are heard and understood, by means of short affirmative acknowledgments. In the transcripts of the selected conversations, these account for ~78 percent of all audible expressions of agreement (in group conversations, short agreement tokens account for ~35 percent). Examination of the relative distribution of agreement elements in the telephone conversations studied shows that, in Samogitian dialogue, the most common way of agreeing with an interlocutor is through short affirmative markers of three types: no; no; noje (~20 percent), aha; a; ai (~20 percent), and jė; jie; ėję; ajei (~17 percent), which can be uttered either as isolated elements or as doubled or tripled sequences. Parts of a particular interlocutor’s phrase were repeated with a very similar relative frequency (from ~21 percent to 24 percent) in the telephone conversation texts studied. The study shows that the speaking situation itself can also affect the frequency of agreement expressions. Comparing the specific counts of agreement expressions shows that in a conversation associated with a stressful situation, in which especially new and unexpected information is received (see the data for the conversation Bronelė has died, TŠT 277–281), agreement expressions are used significantly less frequently than in ordinary conversation.

TABLE 2. Absolute and relative frequency of agreement elements in three telephone conversations in TŠT: Early spring, pp. 137–146, Flu and other unpleasant things, pp. 177–184, Bronelė has died, pp. 277–281

Early spring, TŠT 137–146 | Flu and other unpleasant things, TŠT 177–184 | Bronelė has died, TŠT 277–281 | In three conversations | Agreement expression elements | Quantity (units) | Relative frequency | Quantity (units) | Relative frequency | Quantity (units) | Relative frequency | Quantity (units) | Relative frequency | aha; a; ai | 25 | 22% | 31 | 24% | 6 | 9% | 62 | 20% | ė; ėhė | 4 | 4% | 3 | 2% | 3 | 5% | 10 | 3%

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ. Agreement with an interlocutor in the everyday discourse of Samogitians: functions and expression (based on sources from the second half of the 20th century) | 13 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.14

jė; jė; ėjė; ajei 13 12% 24 19% 14 21% 51 17% jo jo – – 1 1% – – 1 1% eik eik; eik to; to pamislyk 3 3% 3 2% 3 5% 9 3% mata; a regi!; veiziek 3 3% 4 3% 7 2% mhm; m 2 2% 1 1% 1 1% 4 1% no; noi; noje 19 17% 19 15% 24 37% 62 20% ne ne; ne – – 2 1% – – 2 1% tep tep 6 5% 5 4% – – 11 4% va; vo; vuo 9 8% 9 7% – – 18 6% Repetition of an interlocutor’s phrase (paraphrase) 27 24% 27 21% 14 22% 68 22% Total 111 100% 129 100% 65 100% 305 100%

SUMMARY

In Samogitian interpersonal communication, one interlocutor’s agreement with another regarding the content of speech and/or emotional support is most closely associated with conventionality and the communal—phatic—function of language. The material in the collections of authentic Samogitian speech excerpts selected for this study, documenting Samogitian speech from the second half of the 20th century, demonstrates a connection between communicative appropriateness and the goodwill shown to an interlocutor (provided the communicative situation and content allow it).

Appropriate displays of attentiveness are associated with universal principles of appropriate (tactful) communication, which are realized through a calm posture, eye contact, and attentiveness to the interlocutor’s behaviour and the content of their speech. Samogitians tend to perceive goodwill toward the content and manner of an interlocutor’s speech as politeness, and try to convey it through various expressions of agreement.

Analysis of the three types of discourse in the collection of authentic Samogitian speech texts Taip šneka tirkšliškiai reveals different practices by which listeners express agreement with a speaker. The telling of a true or fictional but interesting story generally elicits no audible listener interjections. In ordinary conversations involving several people, one interlocutor’s agreement with another (who is providing new information) is more often expressed by repeating or paraphrasing the interlocutor’s phrase or part of it (~65%) than by using short words expressing confirmation (~35%). In telephone conversations, elements expressing agreement with the interlocutor are used much more frequently, which is associated with the lack of visual opportunities to assess the interlocutor

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204

JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ. Agreement with an interlocutor in the everyday discourse of Samogitians: functions and expression (based on sources from the second half of the 20th century) | 14 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.14

of the interlocutor. In the telephone conversations examined, agreement was expressed relatively more often through short words denoting confirmation, spoken with various intonational variations and modulations (~78%), than through repetition of the interlocutor’s phrases (~22%).

ŠALTINIAI

Aleksandravičius J. 2011: Kretingos tarmės žodynas, sudarė Danguolė Mikulėnienė, Daiva Vaišnienė. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

Girdenis A. 1996: Taip šneka širklšiaiai: šiaurės žemaičių telšiškių tarmės tekstai su komentarais. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla.

Sakytinės lietuvių kalbos tekstynas³². Prieiga internete: http://sakytinistekstynas.vdu.lt.

Vanagienė B. 2014–2015: Šiaurės vakarų žemaičių žodynas. Ylakių, Len kimų, Mosėdžio, Skuodo, Šačių apylinkių šnektos, A–O; P–Ž, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

LITERATŪRA

Aliūkaitė D. 2013: Horizontalusis ir vertikalusis kalbos kontinuumo skaidumas: XXI amžiaus kalbėjimo variantai paprastojo kalbos vertintojo požiūriu. – Taikomoji kalbotyra 2, 1–27. Prieiga internete: https://taikomoji kalbotyra.lt/ojs/index.php/taikomoji-kalbotyra/article/view/23/14.

Aliūkaitė D. 2019: Objektyvusis tarmiškumas: požymiai ir vertė. – Respectus Philologicus 35 (40), 63–91.

Dabašinskienė I. 2009: Šnekamosios lietuvių kalbos morfologinės ypatybės. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 60, 1–15.

Girdenis A., 2008: Pratarmė. Įvadas. – Girdenis A., sud., Žemaičių dzūkai. Tekstai su komentarais. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 10–32.

Girdenis A., 2012: Pratarmė. Įvadas. – Girdenis A., sud., Šiaurės žemaičių Skuodo zona. Tekstai su komentarais. Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla, 13–38.

³² Morfologiškai anotuotas Vytauto Didžiojo universitete kaupiamas sakytinės lietuvių kalbos tekstynas, kurio kūrimą rėmė Lietuvos valstybinis mokslo ir studijų fondas (2006–2008 m.), Lietuvos mokslo taryba pagal Nacionalinę lituanistikos plėtros 2009–2015 m. programą (LIT-9-11) ir pagal Valstybinę lituanistinių tyrimų ir sklaidos 2016–2024 metų programą (LIP-085/2016).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351–7204

JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ. Pritarimas pašnekovui žemaičių kasdienybės diskurse: funkcijos ir raiška (remiantis XX a. II pusės šaltiniais) | 15 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.14

Edwards J. A. 2008: The Transcription of Discourse. – Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen, Heidi E. Hamilton, eds., The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Blackwell Publishing, 321–348.

Kamandulytė-Merfeldienė L. 2014: Pertarų dažnumas ir įvairovė sakytinėje lietuvių kalboje. – Bendrinė kalba 87, 1–10. Prieiga internete: www.bendrinekalba.lt.

Leech G. 1999: Principles of Pragmatics. London, New York: Longman.

Mikulėnienė D. 2011: Juozo Aleksandravičiaus lituanistinė ir pedagoginė veikla. – Kretingos tarmės žodynas, autoriaus Juozas Aleksandravičius, sudarė Danguolė Mikulėnienė, Daiva Vaišnienė. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, VII–XII.

Mikulėnienė D. 2019: Tarmiškumo bruožų nomenklatūra: nuo tarminių požymių prie tarmiškumo žymenų. – Respectus Philologicus 35(40), 51–62.

Nauckūnaitė Z. 2003: Loginiai ir lingvistiniai sakytinės ir rašytinės raiškos skirtumai. – Žmogus ir žodis: didaktinė lingvistika 5, 78–83.

Pabrėža J. 2017: Žemaičių kalba ir rašyba, Šiauliai: Šiaulių universiteto leidybos skyrius.

Pajėdienė J. 2018a: Santykinio laiko raiška prieveiksminiais laiko sakiniais šiaurės žemaičių telšiškių tarmėje. – Baltų filologija 27(1/2), 75–100.

Pajėdienė J. 2018b: Žemaitiškos tapatybės raiška: dėlionė iš Kretingos tarmės žodyno (2011) pavyzdžių. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 79, 64–104.

Pajėdienė J. 2019: Kretingos tarmės žodyne (2011) atsiskleidžiantys žemaitiško emocinio lauko kontūrai. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 80, 80–108.

Satkauskaitė D. 2011: Lingvistinė pragmatika. Mokomoji knyga aukštųjų mokyklų studentams. Kaunas. Prieiga internete: https://www.knf.vu.lt/dokumentai/failai/katedru/germanu/Satkauskaite_LINGVISTINE_PRAGMATIKA_elektronine.pdf.

Subačius G. 2014: Birutės Rokaitės-Vanagienės žodynas ir kiti darbai. – Vanagienė Birutė, 2014: Šiaurės vakarų žemaičių žodynas. Ylakių, Lenkimų, Mosėdžio, Skuodo, Šačių apylinkių šnektos, A–O, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, XI–XII.

Vaišnienė D. 2011: „Kretingos tarmės žodynas“: pagrindiniai medžiagos pateikimo principai. – Kretingos tarmės žodynas, autoriaus Juozas Aleksandravičius, sudarė Danguolė Mikulėnienė, Daiva Vaišnienė. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, XX–XXXVI.

Weigand E. 2009: Language as Dialogue, Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Weigand E. 2010: Dialogue – The Mixed Game, Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ. Pritarimas pašnekovui žemaičių kasdienybės diskurse: funkcijos ir raiška

(remiantis XX a. II pusės šaltiniais) | 16

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.14

Zinkevičius Z. 1994: Lietuvių kalbos dialektologija. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla.

Gauta 2019 12 10

Priimta 2019 12 30

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351–7204

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

AGREEMENT WITH INTERLOCUTOR IN SAMOGITIAN DAILY DISCOURSE: FUNCTIONS AND EXPRESSION (BASED ON THE SOURCES OF THE 2ND HALF OF THE 20^TH 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 2^nd half of the 20^th 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%).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ. Pritarimas pašnekovui žemaičių kasdienybės diskurse: funkcijos ir raiška (remiantis XX a. II pusės šaltiniais) | 18 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.14

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]

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204