LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ

Vilnius University

LINGUISTIC HOMELAND PERCEPTIONS OF YOUNG WESTERN AUKŠTAITIAN KAUNIŠKIAI: THE LINGUISTIC (UN)RELATEDNESS OF KAUNAS, JURBARKAS, ŠAKIAI, AND MARIJAMPOLĖ

KEYWORDS: perceptual dialectology, Western Aukštaitian Kauniškiai, linguistic homeland, linguistic relatedness, hand-drawn maps.

INTRODUCTION

In studies of perceptual dialectology, linguistic homeland (English linguistic homeland) refers to an individual’s linguistic environment and is associated with the linguistic and spatial distances of that environment (Diercks 2002: 51; Aliūkaitė et al. 2017: 106–121). The images of their native surroundings established in the consciousness of ordinary members of a speech community are revealed by data from mental, or hand-drawn, maps of varieties (for a fuller discussion, see Preston 1999b: XXXIV–XXXV; Aliūkaitė 2009: 164–179)¹. According to Dennis Preston (1989: 1–23; 1993: 335), mental maps are the simplest way to determine what ordinary language users think about a place (see Aliūkaitė et al. 2017: 42).

Although studies in perceptual dialectology have become more numerous in Lithuania over the past decade, only a few have paid greater attention to perceptions of linguistic homeland. On the basis of material from the project The Place of Standard Language on the Mental Map of the Lithuanian Language², the relationships with linguistic homeland and attitudes toward neighboring areas emerging in maps drawn by young people from Šiauliai, Vilkaviškis, and other towns have been examined (Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė 2016: 89–120; Geržotaitė 2016: 121–142; Geržotaitė, Čepaitienė 2016: 84–100; Merkytė-Švarcienė 2016: 139–154; Aliūkaitė et al. 2017: 108). It was found that linguistic homeland as an area of dialectal expression, for example, in the view of Vilkaviškis schoolchildren, encompasses neighboring areas or almost coincides with the boundaries of the Western Aukštaitian Kauniškiai subdialect. Vilkaviškis, assigned to the area of the standard language, is inseparable from Marijampolė (Geržotaitė,

¹ In perceptual dialectology research, the concept of a mental map (English mental map) indicates what image of a place or group of places emerges in the minds of ordinary language users. This reveals the spatial-linguistic awareness of ordinary members of a speech community (Diercks 2002: 52; Aliūkaitė 2009: 166).

² The project was carried out with funding from the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language (Agreement No. K-5/2014). The project ran from 2014 06 02 to 2016 12 31; project leader: Prof. Dr. Daiva Aliūkaitė.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ. Jaunųjų vakarų aukštaičių kauniškių kalbinės gimtinės vaizdiniai: Kauno, Jurbarko, Šakių ir Marijampolės kalbinis (ne)giminiškumas | 2

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.05

Čepaitienė 2016: 84–100). Tokie rezultatai gauti susisteminus žemėlapių, kuriuose tiriamieji lokalizavo tarmės ir bendrinės kalbos arealus, duomenis.

Relevance and novelty. Studies of the perceived kinship of linguistic homelands with other localities, which show ordinary members of a speech community’s ability to distinguish the linguistic expression of their own environment, have only just begun in Lithuania (Geržotaitė 2018: 76–101). An analysis was conducted of the linguistic homeland perceptions of Šiauliai secondary-school students from the Western Highlanders of Šiauliai subdialect area, according to the classification of Lithuanian dialects proposed by Zigmas Zinkevičius and Aleksas Girdenis. It revealed a fairly precise system of isoglosses in the way local respondents perceive the variant of their linguistic environment. From this perspective, the attitudes of young people in localities within the area of the subdialect closest to Standard Lithuanian—the Western Highlanders of Kaunas—have not yet been investigated.

The aim of this article is to examine, on the basis of the methodology and principles of perceptual dialectology and using drawn maps, the linguistic homeland perceptions of students at secondary schools in Kaunas, Jurbarkas, Šakiai, and Marijampolė, that is, the (non-)kinship of their linguistic home environments with other zones and the possible linguistic expression in those zones. The subject of the article is the linguistic homeland perceptions of students at secondary schools in Kaunas, Jurbarkas, Šakiai, and Marijampolė. The respondents are young people aged 15–18 studying at four city secondary schools (see table).

TABLE. Characteristics of the respondents

Place of residence | Total respondents | Total girls | Total boys | Know the dialect | Do not know the dialect | Speak dialectally | Do not speak dialectally | Frequency of dialectal speech | Kaunas | 45 | 23 | 22 | 7 | 38 | 3 | 12 | 3 | 100.00% | 51.11% | 48.89% | 15.56% | 84.44% | 6.67% | 26.67% | Jurbarkas | 50 | 28 | 21 | 10 | 40 | 10 | 8 | 4.36 | 100.00% | 56.00% | 42.00% | 20.00% | 80.00% | 20.00% | 16.00% | Šakiai | 47 | 29 | 18 | 29 | 17 | 27 | 4 | 3.92 | 100.00% | 61.70% | 38.30% | 61.70% | 36.17% | 57.45% | 8.51% | Marijampolė | 36 | 17 | 19 | 20 | 16 | 19 | 5 | 3.59 | 100.00% | 47.22% | 52.78% | 55.56% | 44.44% | 52.78% | 13.89%

The students surveyed can be assigned to a single age group. The study draws on Penelope Eckert’s view that age classification is based not on exact chronology but on stages. In terms of their linguistic, cultural, and social experience, as well as their adolescent identity stage, the respondents belong to the same generation (Eckert 1997: 151–167; Aliūkaitė 2007: 145).

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

LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ. Jaunųjų vakarų aukštaičių kauniškių kalbinės gimtinės vaizdiniai: Kauno, Jurbarko, Šakių ir Marijampolės kalbinis (ne)giminiškumas | 3

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.05

The research material consists of 178 questionnaires completed during the project The spread of regional varieties and purported standard language (quasi-standard) at the beginning of the 21st century: a perceptual study³ at Kaunas Jonas Basanavičius, Jurbarkas Antanas Giedraitis-Giedrius, Šakiai “Žiburys,” and Marijampolė Sūduva secondary schools⁴.

The questionnaire consists of four parts. The first and second record sociodemographic data: the respondent’s sex, age, place of origin and residence; they also include questions designed to determine dialect competence and frequency of use. The perceptual dialectology model is embodied in the third (marking linguistic homeland and standard-language areas on maps) and fourth (assessing and locating listened-to text stimuli on maps, etc.) parts of the questionnaire (for more on the questionnaire, see Aliūkaitė 2019: 72).

The following tasks were set: 1) to discuss data from questionnaire questions designed to determine linguistic behavior (code choice); 2) to present the objective, i.e. scientifically grounded, linguistic (non-)kinship of the localities under consideration with other zones; 3) to examine material from drawn maps that reveal the subjective, i.e. existing in the self-awareness of an ordinary member of the speech community, linguistic (non-)kinship of the localities under consideration with other zones; 4) to identify models of the (non-)kinship of linguistic homelands with other localities and summarize the linguistic homeland perceptions formed in young people’s self-awareness.

In total, the students visualized their attitudes on ten maps. The first task was to mark on a map where, in the students’ opinion, people speak similarly to those in their place of residence. On the second map, respondents were to mark where people speak the standard language. On the other eight maps, they located the areas associated with the language varieties, or text stimuli, they had listened to. The maps were provided with municipal boundaries and administrative centers indicated⁵.

This article examines the maps from the first task, which highlight the (non-)kinship of linguistic homelands with other localities. The responses recorded on them are summarized in two stages. First, the analysis considers which areas, and how frequently, representatives of all the respondent localities marked as linguistically close, less close, and distant from their linguistic homelands. Having identified models of the linguistic (non-)kinship of localities with other zones, an attempt was made to determine the boundaries of young language users’ linguistic homelands. On the basis of the perceptual-dialectology-based

³ The project is funded by the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language (Agreement No. K-2/2017). The project ran from 2017 06 to 2019 12; the project leader was Prof. Dr. Daiva Aliūkaitė.

⁴ The anonymous questionnaires Assessment of language varieties prepared and completed in 2017–2018 as part of the project are held at the Institute of Languages, Literature and Translation Studies of Vilnius University’s Kaunas Faculty.

⁵ In perceptual dialectology, the map technique (see Preston 1989; 1999a: 359–373; 1999b: XXIII–XL) involves presenting respondents with both blank maps (Evans 2002: 76–83) and, to facilitate orientation, maps showing the boundaries of the largest administrative-territorial units (see Long 1999: 178) and major cities (see Dailey-O’Cain 1999: 228).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ. Jaunųjų vakarų aukštaičių kauniškių kalbinės gimtinės vaizdiniai: Kauno, Jurbarko, Šakių ir Marijampolės kalbinis (ne)giminiškumas | 4

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.05

the methodology using data on dialect and standard-language maps of young people from diverse linguistic backgrounds, collected during the previously conducted project⁶, it was additionally investigated what linguistic forms are used in the areas defined as linguistic homelands by students from Kaunas, Jurbarkas, Šakiai, and Marijampolė.

As recent geolinguistic research shows, the study locations are situated in the area of the southern West Aukštaitian regiolect, a new local variety taking shape on the basis of one of the most vigorous traditional subdialects, West Aukštaitian Kauniškiai (Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė 2014: 261; Geržotaitė, Mikulėnienė 2014: XIII map and commentary). One of the locations included in the study—Marijampolė—is considered the center of the regiolect because of its high mental urbanization index (for more on the term, see Marshal 2004: 111) and greater dialectal value than the surrounding locations (see Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė 2014: 261). In the areas around the other two locations—Jurbarkas and Šakiai—smaller linguistic formations, or geolects, are distinguished. The Kaunas area, where people speak the local variety closest to Standard Lithuanian, is identified as the standard-language zone.

Thus, when young members of the speech community assess their linguistic environment and neighboring areas, the dimension of the standard language—or, more precisely, of an imagined standard language as a prestigious code—is undoubtedly important. It is likely that, for this reason, the surveyed students’ images of their linguistic homelands may differ from those that emerged in studies conducted in other regions of Lithuania.

1. (NON-)USE OF LANGUAGE CODES FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF YOUNG PEOPLE FROM KAUNAS, JURBARKAS, ŠAKIAI, AND MARIJAMPOLĖ

The data analysis shows that Kaunas high school students hear the least dialectal speech in their linguistic homeland (macro-environment). In these young people’s view, the dialect code is used very rarely both in their hometown (8.89 percent) and in their families, that is, in their micro-environment (13.33 percent) (see Fig. 1).

⁶ Plačiau apie projektą ir jo rezultatus žr. Aliūkaitė ir kt. (2017).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ. Jaunųjų vakarų aukštaičių kauniškių kalbinės gimtinės vaizdiniai: Kauno, Jurbarko, Šakių ir Marijampolės kalbinis (ne)giminiškumas | 5

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.05

FIG. 1. (Non-)use of the dialect code (TK) in the micro- and macro-environments, according to young people from the study locations

Thus, the frequency of dialect speech reported by these students is also below average—3 out of 7 (see table). Only 2 of the 8 young people living in Kaunas who rated their own dialect speech on the semantic differential scale come from an environment more strongly marked by dialect—Alytus (or the neighboring area of the Southern Aukštaitian subdialect). With the exception of those two cases, their grandparents also live in Kaunas. It should be added that those Kaunas students who do not think they speak dialect (and therefore did not rate the frequency of their dialect speech) could be more closely associated with a certain degree of dialectal speech, since they live not in the city itself but in its surrounding area (e.g., in the villages of Paparčiai and Giraitė). Some of their grandparents also live there.

In the other residential locations, the linguistic code used is perceived as closer to dialect, as the participants’ attitudes indicate (see Fig. 1). Although students from Jurbarkas, like those from Kaunas, said that they did not know how to speak dialect, they noted that dialectal (42 percent) and non-dialectal (44 percent) language varieties are used with similar frequency in their city (see Fig. 1). However, more than half of these young people’s families (56 percent) do not speak dialect. The above-average frequency of dialect speech among Jurbarkas high school students (4.36 out of 7) may indicate that the dialect code in their linguistic environment

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ. Jaunųjų vakarų aukštaičių kauniškių kalbinės gimtinės vaizdiniai: Kauno, Jurbarko, Šakių ir Marijampolės kalbinis (ne)giminiškumas | 6

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.05

is used much more intensively than indicated (see the table). Moreover, the participants live not only in the city itself but also in villages in its environs. Their grandparents also live in Jurbarkas and the neighboring Šakiai area. Earlier attitude studies show that the linguistic expression of Jurbarkas is fairly readily recognized by residents of the town and neighboring areas (Bakšienė 2015: 1–20).

A similar view of dialect use in different settings links the respondents from Jurbarkas and Marijampolė (see Fig. 1). The only difference is that a considerable proportion of Marijampolė pupils (38.89 percent) say they do not recognize dialect speech in their place of residence and its environs (where their grandparents also live). Accordingly, these respondents’ frequency of speaking dialect is lower than that of the Jurbarkas pupils (3.59) (see the table). Several reasons may account for these results. It may be that in Marijampolė people are trying to distance themselves from the dialect code. As studies have shown, it is also readily recognized, but evaluated more negatively than positively, not only by local residents but also by those in neighboring areas (Dabašinskienė, Dagilytė 2013: 114–117; Bakšienė 2016: 33–37; 2019: 7). It is highly likely that Marijampolė pupils say they do not recognize their own dialect because they believe that it is not only close to the standard language but is also the standard language (Dabašinskienė, Dagilytė 2013: 117–119; Bakšienė 2016: 35–37).

According to the participants, Šakiai is probably where the greatest degree of dialectal expression is found (see the table). More than half of the pupils surveyed in this town say they hear it both in their linguistic homeland (61.70 percent) and in their families (51.06 percent) (see Fig. 1). Nevertheless, the frequency of speaking dialect reported by the Šakiai pupils themselves (3.92) is only slightly higher than the frequency established on the basis of the task completed by the Marijampolė participants (see the table). It may be that some respondents from Šakiai (17.02 percent) also reported not recognizing dialectal expression in their surroundings because it differs only slightly from the standard language (Aliūkaitė et al. 2014: 150; Bakšienė 2015: 11; 2016: 33–37).

Thus, the attitude data from young people in Jurbarkas, Šakiai, and Marijampolė allow us to hypothesize that the participants identify a weaker or stronger degree of dialectal character in their linguistic homelands. However, some of them do not identify with this linguistic expression. In the images held by pupils in Kaunas, the linguistic code used there is apparently associated with a variety close to the standard language.

2. THE OBJECTIVE LINGUISTIC (UN)RELATEDNESS OF THE STUDY AREAS

According to the current classification of Lithuanian dialects presented by Z. Zinkevičius and A. Girdenis (Girdenis, Zinkevičius 1966: 139–147; Zinkevičius 1969: 365–380), the study areas of Kaunas, Jurbarkas, Marijampolė, and Šakiai fall within the area of the Western Aukštaitian Kauniškiai subdialect, which is closest to the standard language (see Fig. 2).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ. Jaunųjų vakarų aukštaičių kauniškių kalbinės gimtinės vaizdiniai: Kauno, Jurbarko, Šakių ir Marijampolės kalbinis (ne)giminiškumas | 7

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.05

FIG. 2. Study areas within the Western Aukštaitian Kauniškiai subdialect area

Like all Aukštaitians, the inhabitants of these environs pronounce intact ie, uo; like Western Aukštaitians, they retain unchanged an, am, en, em and the former nasal vowels ą, ę, o; like Kauniškiai, they do not retract stress and clearly distinguish long vowels in unstressed endings (Girdenis, Zinkevičius 1966: 139–147; Zinkevičius 1969: 365–380; LKTChr 2004: 39–44; VAKKKA 2005: 39). Greater linguistic variation occurs in some parts of this subdialect, and thus also in the speech of participants from some of the areas.

Works by dialectologists note that the Šakiai area is characterized by a circumflex accent realized with sustained articulation across both components of a diphthong or diphthongoid, along with other features (VAKKKA 2005: 60–62; GAT 2008: 14–28). On the basis of the pronunciation of vowels in unstressed endings, this area can be divided into two parts: a northern part that shortens these vowels, usually identified as the Šakiai subdialect (it corresponds to the northern part of the district), and a southern part that preserves these vowels intact (Bacevičiūtė 2004: 12–14; 2006: 12; LKTChr 2004: 38–41; VAKKKA 2005: 45, 60; Aliūkaitė et al. 2014: 151; Bakšienė 2015: 3).

According to researchers, the Šakiai and Jurbarkas areas, which lie on opposite sides of the Nemunas, are more similar than different (Sakalauskienė 2013: 17; Bakšienė 2015: 6). In the western part of the district traditionally associated with the Jurbarkas subdialect and in the areas farther east on the northern side of the Nemunas, as in the area around Šakiai on the river’s southern side, a sustained accent is pronounced and vowels in unstressed endings are shortened (Grinaveckienė 1957: 119–180; 1996: 88; VAKKKA 2005: 83–84; Sakalauskienė 2015:

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

LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ. Jaunųjų vakarų aukštaičių kauniškių kalbinės gimtinės vaizdiniai: Kauno, Jurbarko, Šakių ir Marijampolės kalbinis (ne)giminiškumas | 8

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.05

312, 317). Since the Jurbarkas area borders other dialects, a wider variety of features is recorded along the outskirts of the dialect area (Bacevičiūtė 2008: 5–18; 2010: 235–243; Bakšienė 2012: 19–23; 2015: 7; Sakalauskienė 2013: 17; 2015: 315–316).

In the southwestern part of the Western Aukštaitian Kaunas subdialect area around Marijampolė, as in the southern environs of Šakiai, long word-final vowels are not shortened. However, unlike the area around Šakiai, there is no continuous pitch accent here. The environs of Marijampolė are also distinguished by the use of the narrow, tense vowel e (VAKKKA 2005: 93; Bakšienė 2016: 27–28). The first components of falling diphthongs are lengthened there (VAKKKA 2005: 93–95).

The linguistic features discussed above, characteristic of the area under study, reflect the objective (scientifically substantiated) picture of this region. Some are characteristic of the entire Western Aukštaitian Kaunas subdialect area, and therefore of all the localities discussed in this article. According to other features, the Jurbarkas area (and the northwestern part of the Kaunas environs) and the environs of Šakiai may be considered more closely related. Linguistically, the southwestern part of the Kaunas subdialect area around Marijampolė (as well as Vilkaviškis) and other localities differ more from them.

3. THE SUBJECTIVE LINGUISTIC (NON-)RELATEDNESS OF THE LOCALITIES UNDER STUDY

The frequency of markings on the maps shows that secondary-school students from all localities tend to associate their linguistic homelands with 5–6 surrounding localities through the strongest ties of linguistic relatedness (see Fig. 3).

FIG. 3. Number of zones associated with linguistic homelands through different degrees of linguistic relatedness

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ. Jaunųjų vakarų aukštaičių kauniškių kalbinės gimtinės vaizdiniai: Kauno, Jurbarko, Šakių ir Marijampolės kalbinis (ne)giminiškumas | 9

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.05

Such markings account for 92 to 20 percent of all the questionnaires analyzed. For example, Kaunas pupils identified 6 zones as linguistically closest to their linguistic homeland (see Fig. 3). The largest share of map markings (75.56 percent) is for Kaunas. Some respondents did not mark their own city at all (such maps account for 24.44 percent of all maps submitted by Kaunas pupils)⁷. This should probably be explained by the wording of the questionnaire item: “Mark on the map where, in your opinion, people speak similarly to the way they do in your city.” Thus, although Kaunas was not marked on some maps, local young people associated it, directly or indirectly, with other nearby localities in linguistic terms. More than a third of the pupils in this city marked the Vilnius (46.67 percent) and Jonava (44.44 percent) zones as most similar to their linguistic homeland. A further fifth of Kaunas respondents considered Kėdainiai (22.22 percent), Kaišiadorys, and Klaipėda (20 percent each) to be such localities.

It is likely that, when identifying areas close to their linguistic homelands as similar, young people may have drawn on personal experience. Linguistically similar zones marked near their linguistic homelands (the geographically closest options) may have been the most familiar to the pupils. Thus, respondents may have recognized linguistic expression characteristic of themselves.

Moderately or relatively moderately strong ties connect the hometowns of all pupils, except those from Šakiai, with one or another more distant locality (such markings account for 18–11 percent of all questionnaires). Pupils tend to associate the zones located farther away geographically with their linguistic homelands least often (from 9 to 1 percent of all questionnaires). When identifying more distant localities with the linguistic expression of their home areas, the respondents apparently draw on both individual and collective experience (cf. Inoue 1999: 174; Aliukaitė et al. 2017: 122–124).

Thus, three models of linguistic (non-)relatedness between the students’ hometowns and other zones, emerging from the maps marked by the secondary-school students, can be distinguished and discussed in greater detail.

3.1. The (non-)relatedness of Kaunas linguistically to other locations

On the maps, Kaunas schoolchildren indicated the greatest number of locations whose linguistic expression was close to the code of their linguistic homeland (see Fig. 4).

⁷ This was also recorded on maps marked by young people from other towns. Such maps account for 36 percent of all maps marked by respondents from Jurbarkas, 41.67 percent of those from Marijampolė, and 14.89 percent of those from Šakiai.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ. Jaunųjų vakarų aukštaičių kauniškių kalbinės gimtinės vaizdiniai: Kauno, Jurbarko, Šakių ir Marijampolės kalbinis (ne)giminiškumas | 10

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.05

FIG. 4. Areas where, in the view of Kaunas schoolchildren, people speak similarly to the way they do in their linguistic homeland

As noted above, Kaunas schoolchildren linked their linguistic homeland—marked as such in 75.56 percent of all questionnaires completed by Kaunas participants—most strongly with the major cities (Vilnius – 46.67 percent, Klaipėda – 20 percent) and neighboring areas (Jonava – 44.44 percent, Kėdainiai – 22.22 percent, Kaišiadorys – 20 percent) (see Fig. 5, maps Kn_M07 and Kn_M12)⁸. Such attitudes may indicate that these schoolchildren identify their speech with the standard language, which previous studies have geographically associated with major cities and their surrounding areas (Vaicekauskienė, Čičirkaitė 2011: 55–74; Aliūkaitė, Merkytė-Švarcienė 2012: 155–177; Vaicekauskienė 2014: 1–31; Aliūkaitė et al. 2017: 266–267; Geržotaitė 2019: 1–18). It was precisely in this area that, in an earlier study of language attitudes, young people from Kaunas, Šiauliai, and other towns located the standard-language text stimuli presented for evaluation (Aliūkaitė, Merkytė-Švarcienė 2012: 167–171). The standard-language text stimuli were assigned to Marijampolė only a few times, presumably because schoolchildren associate Marijampolė more strongly with dialectal speech than with the standard language (Aliūkaitė et al. 2017: 256).

⁸The article uses the following codes: Kn – schoolchildren from Kaunas; Jrb – from Jurbarkas; Mrj – from Marijampolė; Šk – from Šakiai; the letters M and V indicate the participants’ gender, and the numbers indicate questionnaire numbers.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ. Jaunųjų vakarų aukštaičių kauniškių kalbinės gimtinės vaizdiniai: Kauno, Jurbarko, Šakių ir Marijampolės kalbinis (ne)giminiškumas | 11

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.05

Kn_M12

Kn_M07

Kn_V09

Kn_V12

FIG. 5. Examples of maps in which Kaunas schoolchildren marked the relatedness of their linguistic homeland to other locations

As less similar to the speech of their own town, the schoolchildren identified the linguistic code used in Prienai (17.78 percent), Kazlų Rūda (15.56 percent), and other locations (see Fig. 5, map Kn_V09). In the participants’ view, the weakest linguistic ties connect Kaunas with almost all other locations within the Lithuanian-speaking area. Among these, the Panevėžys, Šakiai (8.89 percent each), Šiauliai, Radviliškis, Kelmė (6.67 percent each), and other areas marked on the maps of more than one schoolchild are noteworthy (see Fig. 5, map Kn_V12). According to young people from Kaunas, there is no linguistic relatedness between their linguistic homeland and such locations in Western Lithuania as Skuodas, Kretinga, Plungė, and Rietavas. These are perhaps the only areas where the linguistic code in use is considered by schoolchildren to be entirely dissimilar to that of Kaunas.

Thus, the locations identified by young people from Kaunas as most similar to their linguistic homeland almost coincide with the area of the standard language identified by geolinguists in the second decade of the 21st century

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ. Jaunųjų vakarų aukštaičių kauniškių kalbinės gimtinės vaizdiniai: Kauno, Jurbarko, Šakių ir Marijampolės kalbinis (ne)giminiškumas | 12

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.05

(see Geržotaitė, Mikulėnienė 2014: map XIII and commentary). Almost all the zones that are less linguistically similar to Kaunas (with which the pupils associate medium-strength ties) are also located within its sphere of influence. These results may be related to the young people’s objective attitudes toward the language variety they use, which is very likely closer to the standard language (see Fig. 5, map Kn_M12).

3.2. Linguistic (Un)relatedness of Jurbarkas to Other Localities

The strongest ties in their linguistic homeland (a designation used in 64 percent of all questionnaires completed by participants from this city) were drawn by the pupils of Jurbarkas to Šakiai, located across the Nemunas (48.57 percent) (see Fig. 6). These assessments confirm the strong linguistic connections between Jurbarkas and Šakiai highlighted by objective studies (Bakšienė 2015: 6–7).

FIG. 6. Zones where, in the view of Jurbarkas pupils, people speak similarly to those in their linguistic homeland

In addition to Šakiai, the Jurbarkas high-school students marked the neighboring zones of Tauragė (37.14 percent), Raseiniai (34.29 percent), and Kaunas (28.57 percent) as the most linguistically similar to their city (see Fig. 7, map Jrb_M10).

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

LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ. Jaunųjų vakarų aukštaičių kauniškių kalbinės gimtinės vaizdiniai: Kauno, Jurbarko, Šakių ir Marijampolės kalbinis (ne)giminiškumas | 13

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.05

FIG. 7. Examples of maps marking the linguistic relatedness of Jurbarkas pupils’ linguistic homeland to other localities

The identification of Tauragė and Raseiniai—localities with transitional dialects that dialectologists have long regarded as belonging to the Southern Žemaitian Raseiniai subdialect—apparently indicates that Jurbarkas pupils identify more strongly with the standard-language code (Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė 2014: 260; Geržotaitė 2018: 94). It has been established that, in many phonetic features, speakers of the Raseiniai subdialect, especially around Eržvilkas and Raseiniai, are closest to Western Aukštaitian and standard Lithuanian. Dialect change processes are very intensive here, and therefore the dialectal reflexes ie and uo characteristic of this subdialect are particularly rapidly disappearing (Zinkevičius 2006: 232–233; Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė 2014: 260; Aliūkaitė et al. 2014: 145–146).

Such attitudes regarding the localities closest to one’s linguistic homeland were to be expected. Because of its geographical position, the Jurbarkas speech variety exhibits numerous features characteristic of neighboring Žemaitian and Western Aukštaitian Kaunas-area localities. Moreover, this area is not ethnographically homogeneous either

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ. Jaunųjų vakarų aukštaičių kauniškių kalbinės gimtinės vaizdiniai: Kauno, Jurbarko, Šakių ir Marijampolės kalbinis (ne)giminiškumas | 14

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.05

(Bakšienė 2012: 19–23; Sakalauskienė 2013: 13–14). Thus, the linguistic expression of localities assigned to several subdialects and most often associated with linguistic homeland is probably quite familiar to the young people surveyed.

From a linguistic perspective, according to the respondents, only the areas around Pagėgiai are considered more distant from Jurbarkas; these are located in the central part of the Klaipėda Region Highlander area (see Map 7, Jrb_V02). According to researchers, the characteristic features of this dialect are best preserved in these areas, as they are not subject to such intense influence from neighboring Samogitian and Highlander dialects (Bakšienė, Vaišnienė 2014: 41). Therefore, the language of Pagėgiai, unlike that of the Klaipėda Region Highlander areas closer to Jurbarkas, around Viešvilė and Smalininkai, may be heard less often by these young people and thus be less familiar and less strongly associated with their own.

School students most often associate Jurbarkas’s weakest linguistic kinship with some localities in central and western Lithuania, such as Klaipėda (7.14%), Kėdainiai, and Šilalė (5.71% each) (see Map 7, Jrb_M06). Such connections also link the linguistic homeland of young people from this city with Marijampolė. Thus, the linguistic code used in geographically more distant or very distant localities may be less familiar to young people from Jurbarkas. In their view, there is no linguistic similarity between Jurbarkas and localities in the far-off northern outskirts of Lithuania. In the opinion of Jurbarkas school students, the southern, southeastern, and eastern areas of the Lithuanian language are not linguistically related to their linguistic homeland.

Thus, Jurbarkas’s closest linguistic ties are with the nearest localities along the boundary between the Samogitian and Highlander dialects. The geography of the localities least closely associated with Jurbarkas apparently indicates respondents’ inclination to identify linguistically with Samogitians and ethnographically with the Žemaitija region.

3.3. The (non-)kinship of Marijampolė with other localities from a linguistic perspective

Marijampolė high school students indicated considerably fewer localities whose linguistic expression resembled that of their linguistic homeland on the maps (see Fig. 8).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ. Jaunųjų vakarų aukštaičių kauniškių kalbinės gimtinės vaizdiniai: Kauno, Jurbarko, Šakių ir Marijampolės kalbinis (ne)giminiškumas | 15

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.05

FIG. 8. Areas where, in the view of Marijampolė school students, people speak similarly to those in their linguistic homeland

As Figure 8 shows, strong ties link the linguistic homeland of young people from Marijampolė (marked on the maps by more than half of those surveyed—58.33%) to neighboring localities within the same subdialect area: Vilkaviškis (91.67%) (see Map 9, Mrj_M14), Kalvarija (83.33%), Kazlų Rūda (75%), Prienai (36.11%), and Šakiai (30.56%) (see Map 9, Mrj_V17).

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

LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ. Jaunųjų vakarų aukštaičių kauniškių kalbinės gimtinės vaizdiniai: Kauno, Jurbarko, Šakių ir Marijampolės kalbinis (ne)giminiškumas | 16

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.05

Mrj_M14

Mrj_V05

Mrj_V17

Mrj_V10

FIG. 9. Examples from maps showing the perceived linguistic kinship of Marijampolė school students’ linguistic homeland with other localities

Earlier perception studies confirm the linguistic links between Marijampolė and the neighboring city of Vilkaviškis (Geržotaitė, Čepaitienė 2016: 84–100). It was found that the area identified by young people from Vilkaviškis in their hand-drawn maps as, in their view, belonging to the Suvalkian dialect always included either both areas (Vilkaviškis and Marijampolė) or only one of them (Geržotaitė, Čepaitienė 2016: 90).

The results of studies conducted so far on subjective evaluations of the Western Aukštaitian Kauniškiai subdialect confirm the similarity of the code used not only in Marijampolė and Vilkaviškis, but also in neighboring Kalvarija and the somewhat more distant Šakiai, which is generally described as dialectal (Dabašinskienė, Dagilytė 2013: 111–112; Bakšienė 2016: 36–37; Geržotaitė, Čepaitienė 2016: 89)

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ. Jaunųjų vakarų aukštaičių kauniškių kalbinės gimtinės vaizdiniai: Kauno, Jurbarko, Šakių ir Marijampolės kalbinis (ne)giminiškumas | 17

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.05

(see Fig. 9, map Mrj_V05). It should be added that not only residents of Vilkaviškis, but also those of other surrounding localities tend to regard Marijampolė as more dialectal.

The only area identified by the high school students as linguistically more distant from Marijampolė was the Lazdijai zone, which is assigned to the neighboring Southern Aukštaitian dialect area (11.11%) (see Fig. 9, map Mrj_V10). It has been established that young people from Vilkaviškis, too, tend to extend the boundaries of their linguistic homeland as a dialect zone to include this locality (Geržotaitė, Čepaitienė 2016: 89). The weakest linguistic ties link Marijampolė, in the eyes of the city’s young people, with major cities (Kaunas and Vilnius) and several Southern Aukštaitian zones (Alytus and Trakai) (see Fig. 9, map Mrj_V10). No other area of Lithuanian is marked on these students’ maps, meaning that it has no linguistic kinship with Marijampolė. Thus, young people from Marijampolė tend to regard the linguistic code used across almost the entire Western Aukštaitian Kauniškiai subdialect area as most similar to the expression of their linguistic homeland.

3.4. The (non-)relatedness of the Šakiai dialect with those of other locations

The Šakiai high-school students marked the fewest locations resembling their linguistic homeland on the maps (see Fig. 10).

FIG. 10. Areas where, in the view of Šakiai students, people speak similarly to their linguistic homeland

As the most linguistically similar to Šakiai, young people mostly indicated the neighbouring areas of Vilkaviškis (61.70 per cent), Kazlų Rūda (57.45 per cent), Jurbarkas (42.55 per cent), Marijampolė (31.91 per cent) and Kaunas (29.79 per cent) (the markings account for 85.11 per cent of all questionnaires completed by students in this city; see Fig. 11, map refs. Šk_M02, M18, V09).

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

LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ. Jaunųjų vakarų aukštaičių kauniškių kalbinės gimtinės vaizdiniai: Kauno, Jurbarko, Šakių ir Marijampolės kalbinis (ne)giminiškumas | 18

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.05

Šk_M02

Šk_V09

Šk_M18

Šk_M20

FIG. 11. Examples from maps of Šakiai students’ markings indicating the relatedness of their linguistic homeland to other locations

Unlike those in Jurbarkas, Šakiai students tend to associate their linguistic homeland more with the areas of Vilkaviškis and Kazlų Rūda to the south than with Jurbarkas (see Fig. 11, map refs. Šk_M02, V09). According to the young people of Šakiai and Jurbarkas, a similar linguistic relatedness connects their linguistic homelands with Kaunas. The different attitudes of Marijampolė students discussed in this respect (their linguistic homeland is associated with Kaunas by the weakest ties) were apparently determined by both linguistic and non-linguistic factors (Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė 2014: 261). The linguistic homeland of Šakiai youth is associated by the weakest linguistic ties with several more distant locations in the same subdialect area (Kalvarija – 6.38 per cent, Prienai – 4.26 per cent) or in the neighbouring southern Žemaitian Raseiniai subdialect area (Tauragė – 8.51 per cent) (see Fig. 11, map ref. Šk_M20). Young people from Šakiai did not mark any other locations within the Lithuanian language area.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

LAURA GERŽŪTAITĖ. Jaunųjų vakarų aukštaičių kauniškių kalbinės gimtinės vaizdiniai: Kauno, Jurbarko, Šakių ir Marijampolės kalbinis (ne)giminiškumas

19

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.05

Thus, the places identified by Šakiai high school students as closest to their linguistic homeland differ very little from the zones marked on their maps by students from Marijampolė. Like Marijampolė, Šakiai is linguistically associated with most of the Western Aukštaitian Kauniškiai area. The difference is that, in the opinion of students from this city, the speech used in Šakiai is less similar to the Kalvarija and Prienai areas, which are geographically farther from their linguistic homeland but closer to Marijampolė. Conversely, in the view of young people from Marijampolė, the Jurbarkas and Kaunas zones near Šakiai are farther from (or entirely unrelated linguistically to) their linguistic homeland. Thus, the subjective linguistic relatedness of these places almost coincides with the objective one.

CONCLUSIONS

The study of linguistic-homeland representations in the localities of the Western Aukštaitian Kauniškiai subdialect area—Kaunas, Jurbarkas, Šakiai, and Marijampolė—conducted in accordance with the methodological principles of perceptual dialectology, confirms and supplements the picture of the subjective and objective region closest to Standard Lithuanian, as synthesized in earlier studies.

Analysis of the data shows that respondents from the central localities of the subdialect under study—Šakiai and Marijampolė—are more inclined to associate their linguistic homelands with dialectal speech. It is likely that, because of the distinctiveness of the variety, that is, its small difference from Standard Lithuanian, some of them do not recognize their own linguistic code. By viewing the linguistic homeland as a zone of both dialectal and non-dialectal speech, students from Jurbarkas, or the subdialect’s peripheral zone, confirm the existence of several speech varieties in this zone. The linguistic code used in Kaunas is apparently associated by local young people with a variety close to Standard Lithuanian. These attitudes of the surveyed respondents almost coincide with the objective linguistic markedness of their home surroundings.

Similar results emerged from three models of (un)relatedness between linguistic homelands and other zones, identified on the basis of the hand-drawn maps marked by the students. These show that the places identified by respondents from Šakiai and Marijampolė as linguistically closest to their linguistic homelands scarcely extend beyond the boundaries of the Western Aukštaitian Kauniškiai subdialect. According to young people from Jurbarkas, the strongest linguistic ties link Jurbarkas with localities in the border area of the same and neighboring Samogitian dialect. The zones identified by young people from Kaunas as most similar to their linguistic homeland almost coincide with the area of the Standard Lithuanian norm delineated by geolinguists in the second decade of the 21st century.

Verbalized and visualized attitudes reveal young language users’ relationship with the objective linguistic variation not only of their home localities and surrounding areas, but also of the Lithuanian language area as a whole. It is likely that the areas surrounding the linguistic homelands (except for Kaunas and its environs) that are

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ. Jaunųjų vakarų aukštaičių kauniškių kalbinės gimtinės vaizdiniai: Kauno, Jurbarko, Šakių ir Marijampolės kalbinis (ne)giminiškumas | 20

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.05

linguistically close to them are more readily identified by students with dialectal speech. The localities spanning almost the entire Lithuanian language area that young people associate (or do not associate) with their linguistic homelands through the weakest or no linguistic relatedness are probably associated with a speech variety closer to Standard Lithuanian.

LITERATŪRA

Aliūkaitė D. 2007: Tarminis kalbėjimas ir bendrinė kalba: objektyviųjų ir subjektyviųjų skirtumų kultūrinė vertė. Daktaro disertacija, Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas.

Aliūkaitė D. 2009: Perceptyviniai dialektų tyrimai: mentalinis žemėlapis. – Respectus Philologicus 15(20), 164–179.

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

Aliūkaitė D., Bakšienė R., Jaroslavienė J. ir kt. 2014: Punktų tinklo tankis geolingvistinės skirties aukštaičiai: žemaičiai požiūriu. – XXI a. pradžios lietuvių tarmės: geolingvistinis ir sociolingvistinis tyrimas (žemėlapiai ir jų komentarai). Sud. D. Mikulėnienė, V. Meiliūnaitė, Vilnius: Briedis, 129–196.

Aliūkaitė D., Merkytė-Švarcienė E. 2012: Bendrinės kalbos regionai jaunųjų lietuvių kalbos bendruomenės narių požiūriu: kompetencija ir vaizdiniai. – Kalbos kultūra 85, 155–177.

Aliūkaitė D., Mikulėnienė D. 2014: Geolektų ir regioninių dialektų formavimosi ypatumai Lietuvoje. – XXI a. pradžios lietuvių tarmės: geolingvistinis ir sociolingvistinis tyrimas (žemėlapiai ir jų komentarai). Sud. D. Mikulėnienė, V. Meiliūnaitė, Vilnius: Briedis, 257–262.

Aliūkaitė D., Mikulėnienė D. 2016: Perceptyviosios dialektologijos instrumentai ir tyrimų kryptys: variantų arealai mentaliniuose žemėlapiuose (Biržų atvejis). – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 74, 89–120.

Aliūkaitė D., Mikulėnienė D., Čepaitienė A., Geržotaitė L. 2017: Kalbos variantiškumas ir jo vertinimas perceptyviosios dialektologijos požiūriu: variantų ir vietų vaizdiniai, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla.

Bacevičiūtė R. 2004: Šakių šnektos prozodija ir vokalizmas, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ. Jaunųjų vakarų aukštaičių kauniškių kalbinės gimtinės vaizdiniai:

Kauno, Jurbarko, Šakių ir Marijampolės kalbinis (ne)giminiškumas | 21

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.05

Bacevičiūtė R. 2006: Šakių šnektos tekstai, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla.

Bacevičiūtė R. 2008: Tarmių sąveikos požymiai Klaipėdos krašto „suvalkietiškajame“ idio lekte. – Baltu filoloģija 17(1/2), 5–18.

Bacevičiūtė R. 2010: Lietuvių kalbos žemaičių tarmės ypatybės vakarų aukštaičių kauniškių šnektose. – Respectus Philologicus 18(23), 235–243.

Bakšienė R. 2012: Klaipėdos krašto aukštaitiškosios dalies naujosios tarmės formavimasis. – Žmogus ir žodis 1, 19–23.

Bakšienė R. 2015: Tarminio kalbėjimo savivertė ir gyvybingumas: XXI a. pradžios Šakių ir Jurbarko šnektos. – Lietuvių kalba 9. Prieiga internete: http://www.lietuviukalba.lt/index.php/lietuviu-kalba/article/view/174.

Bakšienė R. 2016: Vakarų aukštaičių kauniškių priegaidės: Marijampolės šnekta, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

Bakšienė R. 2019: Tarminio kalbėjimo vertinimas Paprūsėje: XXI a. pradžios Vištyčio arealo tyrimas. – Lietuvių kalba 13. Prieiga internete: http://www.lietuviukalba.lt/index.php/lietuviu-kalba/article/view/267/199.

Bakšienė R., Vaišnienė D. 2014: Klaipėdos krašto aukštaičiai: tekstai ir kontekstai, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

Dabašinskienė I., Dagilytė E. 2013: Suvalkiečių išskirtinumas: būdo savybės ar kalbėjimas? – Miestai ir kalbos 2. Moksl. red. M. Ramonienė, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla, 105–123.

Dailey-O’Cain J. 1999: The Perception of Post-Unification German Regional Speech. – Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology 1. Ed. D. Preston, Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 227–242.

Diercks W. 2002: Mental Maps. Linguistic-Geographic Concepts. – Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology 2. Ed. D. Long, D. Preston, Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 51–70.

Eckert P. 1997: Age as a Sociolinguistic Variable. – Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Ed. Florian Coulmas, Oxford: Blackwell, 151–167.

Evans B. 2002: Attitudes of Montreal Students towards Varieties of French. – Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology 2. Ed. D. Long, D. Preston, Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 71–93.

GAT 2008: Grīškabūdžio apylinkių tekstai. Sud. R. Bacevičiūtė, V. Sakalauskienė, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2008.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ. Jaunųjų vakarų aukštaičių kauniškių kalbinės gimtinės vaizdiniai: Kauno, Jurbarko, Šakių ir Marijampolės kalbinis (ne)giminiškumas | 22

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.05

Geržotaitė L. 2016: Jaunųjų šiauliškių ir panevėžiškių tarminė savimonė: ribos mentaliniuose žemėlapiuose. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 74, 121–142.

Geržotaitė L. 2018: Šiaulių jaunuolių kalbinė gimtinė mentaliniuose žemėlapiuose. – Kalbos istorijos ir dialektologijos problemos 5. Sud. R. Bakšienė, N. Morozova, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 76–101.

Geržotaitė L. 2019: Bendrinės lietuvių kalbos vaizdinių kalbinio standarto plote tyrimas: vienos Kauno rajono gimnazijos atvejis. – Lietuvių kalba 13. Prieiga internete: http://www.lietuviukalba.lt/index.php/lietuviu-kalba/article/view/278 (žiūrėta 2019 09 27).

Geržotaitė L., Čepaitienė A. 2016: Vilkaviškio jaunuolių kalbinė gimtinė: ribos, taisyklingumo ir patrauklumo vertės. – Verbum 7. Prieiga internete: http://www.zurnalai.vu.lt/verbum/issue/view/889.

Geržotaitė L., Mikulėnienė D. 2014: Geolectų ir regiolectų formavimasis Lietuvoje: žemėlapis ir komentarai. – XXI a. pradžios lietuvių tarmės: geolingvistinis ir sociolingvistinis tyrimas (žemėlapiai ir jų komentarai). Sud. D. Mikulėnienė, V. Meiliūnaitė, Vilnius: Briedis.

Girdenis A., Zinkevičius Z. 1966: Dėl lietuvių kalbos tarmių klasifikacijos. – Kalbotyra 14, 139–147.

Grinaveckienė E. 1957: Mituvos upyno tarmės fonetika. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 1, 119–180.

Grinaveckienė E. 1996: Jurbarkiškių šnekta. – Jurbarkas: istorijos puslapiai. Ats. red. A. Piročkinas, Vilnius: Pradai, 88–98.

Inoue F. 1999: Subjective Dialect Division in Great Britain. – Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology. Volume 1. Ed. D. Preston, Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 161–176.

LKTChr 2004: Lietuvių kalbos tarmių chrestomatija. Sud. R. Bacevičiūtė, A. Ivanauskienė, A. Leskauskaitė, E. Trumpa, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla, 2004.

Long D. 1999: Geographical Perception of Japanese Dialect Regions. – Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology 1. Ed. D. Preston. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 177–198.

Marshal J. 2004: Language Change and Sociolinguistics: Rethinking Social Networks (Palgrave Studies in Language Variation), Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Merkytė-Švarcienė E. 2016: Tarmių mentalinio žemėlapio (ne)tikslumo veiksniai: tarmės vartojimas vs. nevartojimas. – Respectus Philologicus 29(34), 139–154.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

LAURA GERŽŪTAITĖ. Jaunųjų vakarų aukštaičių kauniškių kalbinės gimtinės vaizdiniai: Kauno, Jurbarko, Šakių ir Marijampolės kalbinis (ne)giminiškumas | 23

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.05

Preston D. 1989: Perceptual Dialectology: Nonlinguists’ Views of Areal Linguistics, Dordrecht: Foris.

Preston D. 1993: Folk Dialectology. – American Dialect Research. Ed. D. Preston, Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 333–377.

Preston D. 1999a: Introduction. – Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology 1. Ed. D. Preston, Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, XXIII–XL.

Preston D. 1999b: A Language Attitude Approach to the Perception of Regional Variety. – Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology 1. Ed. D. Preston, Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 359–373.

Sakalauskienė V. 2013: Jurbarko apylinkių tekstai, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

Sakalauskienė V. 2015: Jurbarko šnekta – žemaitiško ir aukštaitiško arealų susikirtimo vieta. – Leksikografija ir leksikologija 5, 309–329.

Vaicekauskienė L. 2014: Didmiestis ir sostinė geriausios lietuvių kalbos percepcijoje. – Taikomoji kalbotyra 6, 1–31. Prieiga internete: https://taikomojikalbotyra.lt/ojs/index.php/taikomoji-kalbotyra/article/view/52

Vaicekauskienė L., Čičirkaitė R. 2011: Vilniaus klausimas bendrinės lietuvių kalbos sampratose: metalingvistinių vilniečių komentarų tyrimas. – Darbai ir dienos 56, 57–76.

VAKKKA 2005: Vakarų aukštaičiai kauniškiai ir Klaipėdos krašto aukštaičiai. Lietuvių kalbos tarmės mokyklai. Sud. R. Bacevičiūtė, D. Mikulėnienė, V. Salienė, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

Zinkevičius Z. 1969: Apie lietuvių kalbos tarmių skirstymą. – Lietuvos TSR mokslų akademijos darbai. A serija 3(31), Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla, 365–380.

Zinkevičius Z. 2006: Lietuvių tarmių kilmė, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

Gauta 2019 10 10

Priimta 2019 12 18

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ. Jaunųjų vakarų aukštaičių kauniškių kalbinės gimtinės vaizdiniai: Kauno, Jurbarko, Šakių ir Marijampolės kalbinis (ne)giminiškumas | 24

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.05

IMAGES OF THE LINGUISTIC HOMELAND OF THE YOUNG WESTERN AUKŠTAITIANS OF KAUNAS: THE LINGUISTIC (NON)AFFINITY OF KAUNAS, JURBARKAS, ŠAKIAI, AND MARIJAMPOLĖ

Summary

The article is concerned with an analysis of a research of images of the linguistic homeland of young people from the locations of the Western Aukštaitian Subdialect of Kaunas: Kaunas, Jurbarkas, Šakiai, and Marijampolė. The subject material constitutes the data from a research conducted under the principles of perceptual dialectology.

The images of the linguistic homeland embedded in the consciousness of the respondents can be uncovered through a discourse of the frequency of choice of linguistic codes and an analysis of the drawn (mental) maps of the tendencies of the localisation of the (non)affinity between the linguistic homeland and other locations.

The analysis of the data has revealed that it is the subjects from the central locations of the area covered (meaning Šakiai and Marijampolė) who tend to associate their linguistic homelands with dialectal expression. It is likely that, owing to the singularity of a particular variation (the low degree to which it differs from the standard language), some of them are unable to recognise their own linguistic code. In recognising the existence of dialectal and non-dialectal expression in their linguistic homeland, subjects from Jurbarkas, a border zone of a subdialect, potentially confirm a coexistence of several linguistic variations in it. The linguistic code used in Kaunas most probably connects in the images of local school youth with a variation that approximates the standard language.

Drawn maps show that, as far as linguistic affinity is concerned, local young people associate Šakiai and Marijampolė with the major part of the area of Western Aukštaitian Subdialect of Kaunas. The neighbouring border areas of Aukštaitians and Samogitians are considered linguistically closest to Jūrbarkas. The locations specified by Kaunas respondents as being closest to their linguistic homeland almost mirror the area of the standard language as identified in the second decade of the 21st century.

The images of variation revealed by the attitudes of the young language users mirror the objective linguistic variation both of the subjects’ linguistic homeland and its surroundings, and of the entire area of the Lithuanian language to an almost exact degree.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ. Jaunųjų vakarų aukštaičių kauniškių kalbinės gimtinės vaizdiniai: Kauno, Jurbarko, Šakių ir Marijampolės kalbinis (ne)giminiškumas | 25

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.05

KEYWORDS: perceptual dialectology, Western Aukštaitian subdialect of Kaunas, linguistic homeland, linguistic affinity, drawn maps.

LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ

Vilniaus universiteto Kauno fakultetas

Muitinės g. 8, LT-44280 Kaunas

[email protected]

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204