Lietuvos etninių sričių gyventojų charakterio bruožai kalbos pasaulėvaizdyje

SILVIJA PAPAURĖLYTĖ KAZIMIERAS ŽUPERKA Šiauliai University CHARACTER TRAITS OF RESIDENTS OF LITHUANIA’S ETHNIC REGIONS IN THE LINGUISTIC WORLDVIEW INTRODUCTION The aim of this article is to determine which character traits are attributed in the Lithuanian linguistic worldview to the residents of ethnic regions (ethnographic regions), i.e., Aukštaitians, Samogitians, Dzūkians, and Suvalkians. The research material (both short sayings and proverbs, and longer texts—jokes, short stories, etc.) was collected over several years from various sources of written (primarily) and spoken language: periodicals, fiction, colloquial speech, dictionaries; in addition, contexts containing the adjectives aukštaitiška(s), žemaitiška(s), dzūkiška(s), suvalkietiška(s) were selected from the Corpus of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language. These adjectives in various ways describe the character traits and ethnic stereotypes of people belonging to the ethnic groups. In identifying traits attributed to the stereotypes, contexts describing representatives not of ethnic regions but of subdialects, dialects, and local varieties were also taken into account (e.g., dūnininkai, kapsai, kupiškėnai, zanavykai). The conclusions based on the results of linguistic analysis are supplemented and refined by an association experiment. Research into ethnic stereotypes is relevant because stereotypes associated with ethnic groups influence people’s behavior and reflect the worldview and attitudes toward other people characteristic of a particular community. This topic is discussed by dialectologists and other linguists, ethnologists, and psychologists. The distinctive character of Samogitians is considered to have been discussed most comprehensively (Bliumas 1998; Pakalniškis 2001; Kalnius 2002, 2006, 2007; Nakienė 2007). The most reliable conclusions can be obtained only by comparing the results of research in several disciplines. Etninėmis sritimis (LKE 2008: 539), „etnografinėmis sritimis, etnografiniais regionais ar etnoregionais įprasta vadinti Aukštaitiją, Žemaitiją, Dzūkiją, Suvalkiją, Mažąją Lietuvą (Klaipėdos kraštą)“ (Tumėnas 2007: S. PAPAURĖLYTĖ, K. ŽUPERKA. Lietuvos etninių sričių gyventojų charakterio bruožai kalbos pasaulėvaizdyje 185 128)1. The collected material contained only a few contexts highlighting some characteristic of residents of Lithuania Minor; therefore, the article discusses only how the character of Aukštaitians, Samogitians, Dzūkians, and Suvalkians is reflected in the linguistic worldview. Of the terms listed, the expression used in the Encyclopedia of the Lithuanian Language, ethnic region (the term commonly used in ethnologists’ works is ethnographic region), was chosen. Furthermore, in the absence of more precise terms, we use the expressions residents of ethnic regions and members of ethnic groups synonymously, although, of course, a member of any ethnic group may live outside their own ethnic region. The article seeks to reveal the heterostereotypes of ethnic regions recorded in the linguistic worldview, that is, the attitudes toward the character of residents of ethnic regions recorded in examples of language use. For comparison, some findings from ethnologists’ analyses are presented—the autostereotypes based on the opinions of Samogitians, Suvalkians, and Dzūkians about the distinctive character of their own ethnic groups2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK It is well known that the areas of the major Lithuanian dialects “almost coincide with the areas inhabited by the main ethnic groups—Samogitians, Suvalkians (Kaunas [dialect]), Dzūkians (southern Highlanders [dialect]), and eastern Highlanders” (LKE 2008: 539). Linguists have drawn a dividing line between the Highlander and Samogitian dialects, but it is still debated whether people whose self-identification is Highlander or Samogitian can in fact be distinguished in this way. It is concluded that “for contemporary Samogitians, the most important indicator when identifying themselves and distinguishing themselves from non-Samogitians is not the territory they inhabit, nor the supposed historical Samogitia, but a different language. <…> Taking the linguistic boundary established by linguists as a line of orientation, the isophone of self-identification fluctuates on either side of it within a total zone almost 40 km wide” (Kalnius 2006: 116). It is also said that “contemporary Highlander culture is defined by language” (Savoniakaitė 2007: 180). The names of dialects used in everyday speech coincide only partly with the classification proposed by dialectologists. In both cases, Samogitians refers to the same group of people, but speakers of other dialects are defined in various ways. Highlanders usually refers only to those who, in the scholarly classification, are assigned to 1 For a discussion of differing views on the name Suvalkija (and, correspondingly, on Suvalkians), see Župerka 2006: 178. 2 In the work of Petras Kalnius (2002), which is used as a basis for describing stereotypes, only the autostereotypes of Samogitians, Suvalkians, and Dzūkians are presented, alongside other information. 186 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 83 those assigned to the eastern Highlanders or the Šiauliai western Highlanders, while other speakers of the major Highlander dialect are described as Dzūkians or Suvalkians. It is impossible to know with complete certainty what a person had in mind—dialectologists’ classification, ethnic divisions, or how all this is understood in everyday speech—when describing a character trait as Highlander; therefore, it must be acknowledged that the unresolved problem of naming makes this study somewhat imprecise. How the inhabitants of Lithuania are classified also depends on the point of reference or perspective. For example, “ethnic Samogitians understand only the category ‘Highlander,’ which Samogitians use to refer to all inhabitants of Lithuania who are not Samogitians” (Pakalniškis 2001: 199). When analyzing combinations of the word aukštaitiškas with names of character traits, it must be taken into account that it may describe not only, for example, eastern Highlanders, but also, if the author of the text is Samogitian, inhabitants of other ethnic regions of Aukštaitija. According to psychologists, character is the sum of a person’s enduring behavioral characteristics, expressing their relationship with other people, themselves, and their own actions. “Typical character traits depend on the general social circumstances of a person’s life and the social experience they acquire. The individual distinctiveness of character is shaped by the physiological prerequisites of an individual’s development <...>, as well as by the unique situations in which a person is socialized and brought up.” (PŽ 1993: 47). A person’s socialization and upbringing depend directly on their environment, the system of values instilled in them, and examples of behavior to follow. The character of inhabitants of distinct ethnic regions is generally marked not by some exceptional traits that cannot be attributed to inhabitants of another region, but by different degrees of expression of those traits or by different combinations of them. The formation of the character of a person who lives in the same place throughout their life is partly predetermined: if there is a sound basis for assuming that people from different ethnic groups behave at least somewhat differently in the same circumstances, it can be argued that a child most often sees examples of similar behavior and similar worldviews, and grows up surrounded by the same autostereotypes and heterostereotypes. Moreover, this process resembles a closed circle, since if one sees only certain kinds of behavioral examples throughout one’s life, it is hard to imagine acquiring combinations of traits associated exclusively with another ethnic group. It is rightly argued that “the autostereotypes and heterostereotypes of Lithuania’s regional groups have origins dating back several centuries, <...> their continuity in the mindset of today’s Highlanders, Samogitians, Suvalkians, and Dzūkians” (Kal- S. PAPAURĖLYTĖ, K. ŽUPERKA. Lietuvos etninių sričių gyventojų charakterio bruožai kalbos pasaulėvaizdyje 187 nius 2002: 47). Kalbos pasaulėvaizdyje užfiksuotų per daugybę metų susiklošiusių nuostatų dėl kitaip kalbančių (kitoje etninėje Lietuvos srityje gyvenančių) gyvybingumas palaikomas ir žiniasklaidos priemonių. Stereotipai iš principo gali kisti, bet kitimas yra labai lėtas. RESEARCH RESULTS The corpus texts contain the most information about the character of the Aukštaitians3. The Samogitians are also described in detail, while somewhat less information is given about the Dzūkians and Suvalkians. A few character traits are associated not with people from a single ethnic region (or a single dialect). The texts record that the Aukštaitians, Dzūkians, Suvalkians, and Samogitians—that is, people from all of Lithuania’s ethnic groups—are hard-working; the Aukštaitians and Samogitians are persistent; the Aukštaitians, Samogitians, and Dzūkians are open; the Aukštaitians, Samogitians, and Suvalkians are reserved; while the Samogitians and Suvalkians are dignified. Such similar descriptions do not prove that the character of people from these groups is perceived in the same way. Clearly, naming the same trait allows us to say that at least partly similar things are being discussed; however, essential differences are defined not only by descriptions such as Aukštaitian, Samogitian, Dzūkian, Suvalkian. When describing the character of residents of different ethnic regions using the same words, it is necessary to take into account all the meanings of a polysemous word. The examples collected make it possible to form a general picture of which character traits the Lithuanian linguistic worldview attributes to the Aukštaitians, Samogitians, Dzūkians, and Suvalkians. Residents of all the ethnic regions can also be described very concisely, when abstract words for temperament, character, mentality, nature, disposition are qualified by descriptions indicating regional affiliation. Expressions such as Aukštaitian temperament, Aukštaitian character, Aukštaitian disposition; Samogitian temperament, Samogitian character, Samogitian disposition; Dzūkian character, Dzūkian nature, Dzūkian temperament; Suvalkian temperament, Suvalkian character, Suvalkian mentality, Suvalkian disposition are reader-oriented, linking the words Aukštaitian, Samogitian, Dzūkian, Suvalkian not merely with geographical affiliation. These words are the names of the corresponding categories; in the language user’s mind, they should already be associated— 3 It is likely that this could have given rise to the aforementioned Samogitian tradition of calling all those who are not Samogitians Aukštaitians. 188 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 83 ted with certain information. Far more informative are the word combinations in which these expressions are qualified by other descriptions: a warm Aukštaitian character4; a fiery Aukštaitian temperament; a forceful, straightforward, thoroughly Aukštaitian temperament; Ah, that accursed Aukštaitian disposition. First you act, then you think; a hard Samogitian temperament; at least the character is certainly very Samogitian—quite [rather] unpleasant; a wonderfully warm, distinctive Dzūkian character; with a good Dzūkian character; an active Suvalkian character. Nearly all the words that qualify the character descriptions clearly express an evaluation of the subject—positive or negative. A neutral description would hardly be possible when one wishes to convey the whole essence of a character in just one or two words. The Aukštaitians are attributed lyricism in the texts. This is a distinctive trait of the Aukštaitians: How much of that Aukštaitian—or, more precisely, Selonian—lyricism there is in the verse; A mysterious nugget of pure Aukštaitian lyricism has remained for my generation; V. Račickas’s deliberately restrained tendency to become lyrical in an Aukštaitian way. Lyricism is primarily associated with poetry. Literary scholars often emphasize the elegiac poignancy of songs from Eastern Aukštaitija and of the works of lyric poets from Eastern Aukštaitija (especially Jonas Aistis). Lyricism is associated with sentimentality, sadness, and nostalgia. In the poem “Lithuania” (1888), Maironis offers this concise characterization of an Aukštaitian: Though firm in character, slow in speech, / Affectionate, heartfelt, though seemingly cold. <...> He takes little pleasure in people’s merrymaking, / More deeply than joy he feels sorrow, / On his sad face you see the stamp of grandeur / Imprinted, and deep feeling Mair 311. Although such an emotional state is usually caused by some kind of lack or loss, Aukštaitian sadness can be counted among positively evaluated abstract phenomena: he combines the profound layer of his soul—bright Aukštaitian sadness—with irony and glimmers of a smile; R. Vanagas’s story “My Childhood Candy,” based on childhood memories, is imbued with a romantically Aukštaitian nostalgia. The dominance of tenderness and sensitivity also encompasses other traits that describe in the texts the Aukštaitians’ relationship with the world and with other people: At the heart of these Vilnians’ character lie purely Aukštaitian traits: openness, sincerity, simplicity, stronger ties with nature, a greater sense of community, tenderness; in J. Biliūnas’s works we sense Aukštaitija: a higher, clearer sky, a brighter forest (pinewoods), and a different kind of people: more lyrical, gentler, more talkative, more open Dauj LL 107; But an eternal Aukštaitian sorrow remains in our blood Strielk TV 66. It should be noted that similar conclusions have been 4 Examples without source references are taken from the Corpus of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language (http://donelaitis.vdu.lt). S. PAPAURĖLYTĖ, K. ŽUPERKA. Lietuvos etninių sričių gyventojų charakterio bruožai kalbos pasaulėvaizdyje 189 This was also done by ethnologists who studied the customs and way of life of the people of Aukštaitija. According to Vida Savoniakaitė (2007: 174), “all the Aukštaitians encountered were connected by their relationship with their surroundings and nature. Aukštaitians of different ages and with better education poetically express their love for their native land.” Alongside sadness and lyricism, Aukštaitians nevertheless retain a positive attitude toward people and life in general. Such traits help them persevere: Hold on, Untaniuk, never lose your Aukštaitian optimism; Romas had money and treated others with genuine Aukštaitian hospitality. It should be noted that tendencies toward essentially opposite behaviors have also been observed: Aukštaitian bluntness and roguishness are mentioned. The texts record that Aukštaitians are not merely lyrical dreamers. Their attitude toward work, which enables them to achieve their goals, is noteworthy: <...> a great lover of nature who, with Aukštaitian industriousness and perseverance, managed to put his ideas into practice. Aukštaitian reserve prevents emotions from being expressed freely: His manner is characteristically reserved for an Aukštaitian; he says little about himself and does not complain much, but is generous with songs. The poet Henrikas Čigriejus speaks thus of the interplay of sadness and laughter in the character of the people of his native Biržai–Pasvalys region: “The calm people of my region—they are great jokers, too. They are sorrowful and jokers at the same time. And even before death, they like to crack jokes. From childhood on, I saw this kind of wild duality: if you’re sad, you’re sad, but how long can you stay sad here? Well, let’s sing now, they say; now let’s really get going, let’s sing our hearts out!” (Čigriejus 1993: 12). Thus, it can be concluded that the observations about Aukštaitians recorded in the texts are contradictory; their characterization is quite varied. The Samogitians are described in a completely different way. Their distinctive character is conveyed precisely and vividly by emphasizing their toughness. On the basis of the textual material, it can be argued that the essential character trait of the Samogitians is stubbornness. This word occurs in most of the examples concerning the distinctiveness of Samogitian behavior and attitudes toward life. The contexts suggest that stubbornness is viewed positively: it not only helps people overcome everyday challenges, but also enables them to do things that seem impossible: I think the most important thing I can be proud of is Samogitian stubbornness; add a little talent to it, and you can quickly get the bicycle pedals turning; Samogitian stubbornness and an immense desire to live worked a miracle—the illness went away. Stubbornness is related to perseverance. These character traits are often mentioned together in the texts: What our prime minister certainly has plenty of is perseverance and stubbornness. 190 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 83 There’s nothing to be done—he’s a Samogitian ŠN 1992 05 14; It was only thanks to such perseverance and Samogitian stubbornness (= only thanks to such perseverance and Samogitian stubbornness), and careful management of the meager finances of “Sakalas,” that Kniūkšta succeeded. Perseverance differs from stubbornness in that it is guided more by reason than by emotion: stubbornness can sometimes be groundless, whereas perseverance is associated with clear goals: Samogitian perseverance in his character was cemented by freedom, hope, and a strong belief in the rebirth of the Lithuanian state; Yet his perseverance was Samogitian. He diligently honed his chosen profession and traveled east for consultations. Not only Samogitian stubbornness and perseverance, but also other Samogitian character traits (Samogitian frankness, Samogitian honesty) can be understood in the Lithuanian linguistic worldview as helping a subject perform certain actions: We wish our colleague continued purposeful work in the chosen direction, with Samogitian stubbornness; J. Švedas pursued his goals in various fields of activity with his characteristic Samogitian stubbornness and perseverance; The chairman of the Chamber of Agriculture elaborated with complete Samogitian frankness; Napoleon carried out that task with Samogitian honesty until he stepped on a landmine. It should be clarified that what the texts call Samogitian frankness—unlike Aukštaitian (and especially Dzūkian) openness and outspokenness—does not mean a person’s inclination to confide, but rather the habit of speaking plainly; in other words, this trait could be termed directness. Samogitian stubbornness is inseparable from their dignity and sense of self-worth. According to the textual material, this trait is expressed not by elevating one’s own importance, but simply by adhering to certain standards of decency: The teachers who had checked the work left for home carrying one single flower each: long live Samogitian dignity!; But her Samogitian dignity would not allow her to see us off while lying in bed. Dignity provides a basis for Samogitian reserve: We grew up listening to our grandparents—the smugglers and book carriers—tell stories that were Samogitian in their restraint, yet very ingenious. What has been said here about the Samogitians can also be supplemented with material from ethnologists’ analyses. Based on survey data, it is asserted that “Samogitians rate themselves exceptionally highly, and what makes them better is simply Samogitian identity. It is an entirely positive and high-quality value. <...> Particularly ‘better’ traits are attributed to the Samogitian in order to emphasize his moral qualities. <...> Positive self-evaluation presupposes a sense of Samogitian superiority” (Pakalniškis 2001: 204–205). Ethnologists argue that various historical circumstances may also have reinforced some Samogitian character traits. The need to defend themselves, to continually repel S. PAPAURĖLYTĖ, K. ŽUPERKA. Lietuvos etninių sričių gyventojų charakterio bruožai kalbos pasaulėvaizdyje 191 Repelling enemy attacks cultivated Samogitian patriotism, Samogitian patience. This is the name given to a person's capacity to endure a great deal, though it is acknowledged that even this capacity can come to an end: Samogitian patience, perseverance, and immense love for their homeland helped them withstand the Teutonic Knights' centuries-long incursions; In February, my Samogitian patience finally ran out, and I demanded the manuscript be returned. Some of the examples analyzed mention Samogitian character traits that are often viewed negatively by outsiders. The already-mentioned hard temperament, as well as the importance attached to one's word, may provoke an unfavorable reaction from others: In the surroundings of B. Buračas's homestead one senses Samogitian toughness and stubbornness; When Samogitians strike, when they cut, there aren't even words in one's mouth to answer back LR 2001 03 30. The fact that it can sometimes be difficult to get a Samogitian interested in new things, or simply to change their mind, can also be expressed through associations with inanimate objects: He is not interested in any other topics. He is a real Samogitian stump. Such inflexibility and slowness hinder adaptation to change: Only the most conservative people, thrifty in the Suvalkian manner or slow-thinking in the Samogitian manner, will have to change their tickets twice; [Journalist:] Do you feel your Samogitian nature? [Poet Algimantas Mikuta, a native of Mažeikiai:] Yes, I can't boast of being flexible. A certain sluggishness, rigidity, slow reaction Dlg 1999 12 24. Anecdotal situations, especially those emphasizing that Samogitians are taciturn and slow-speaking: Two Samogitians, a father and son, are cutting trees in the forest. It is winter, and cold. They hurry, in silence. Around noon, the son looks around and says: / “Beautiful weather.” / In the late afternoon, having loaded the firewood onto a sled, they head home. The father says: / “Yes.” Analysis of examples of language use is connected with the Samogitian autostereotypes mentioned in ethnologists' works. Samogitians themselves say that they are “more hot-tempered and more easily offended, angrier, rougher, slower, more envious, less tidy, more reserved and, finally... the most stubborn” (Kalnius 2002: 37). Cf.: We Samogitians don't look in books; we speak plainly LKŽ XIII 719; Samogitian roughness5 finds its rightful place in me. Moreover, Samogitians consider themselves sincere, friendly, hospitable, persevering, resilient, and hardworking (see Kalnius 2002: 37). Apolinaras Petras Bagdonas, an émigré writer who published works written in Samogitian, praises the Samogitians: I do not wish to recount the whole history of Samogitia here; I only wish to emphasize that through their courage, perseverance, and love of their native land, the Samogitians surpassed the other Baltic tribes Bagd MP 8. 5 For the use of the adjective grubus in the sense ‘impolite, coarse’, see Drukteinytė V. On treating the adjective grubus as a semanticism. – Res humanitariae 6, Klaipėda: Klaipėda University Press, 2009, 42–55 (and the literature cited there). 192 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 83 Among the character traits of Dzūkians recorded in the texts, none is particularly dominant; Dzūkian sincerity is mentioned more often. Based on examples of usage, it may be regarded as a distinguishing characteristic of Dzūkians: A single woman raised her son Eduardas and daughter Evelina, instilling in them the innate traits of Dzūkian industriousness and sincerity; He and the people of Alytus were sincerely thanked by <...> participants in the LASS Days “Meetings,” who had experienced Dzūkian sincerity and fertility. This Dzūkian character trait is reinforced by other descriptions expressed through words and phrases with similar meanings: Dzūkians love to talk about themselves Sigitas Geda (Mt 1997 11 106); with a heart full of Dzūkian openness, she revealed her secret; the people of Balbieriškis, although they are “Dzūkians mixed with Suvalkians,” are very talkative and hospitable LL 2004 20 22; with all the candor characteristic of Dzūkians, he preached a sermon to the slow-witted Zanavykai; It is hard to find a greater “person of the soul” than a Dzūkian, and Dzūkian songs are the most eloquent mirror of that “soul” TVa 2005 07 23–29. Aloyzas Gudavičius includes the saying a Dzūkian is a cheerful and kind-hearted person among Lithuanian stereotypes (see Gudavičius 2009: 216). The emotional element brings Dzūkians closer to the ethnic Aukštaitians: members of both groups are attributed with emotionality, though, of course, the modifiers of the abstractions differ, serving as general descriptions of the essence of the ethnic group's character—the descriptions Dzūkian and Aukštaitian: I remember how Vytautas Bubnys and I were astonished by the special atmosphere of the evening, which lasted late into the night, and by its Dzūkian emotionality. In addition, Dzūkians are described as people who do not attach undue importance to material things: In general, Dzūkians are people with very poetic souls. They live like birds. Such little song-thrushes. They are a special Lithuanian tribe. Their outlook has an interesting existentialism. They live for today and do not accumulate wealth Jonas Jurašas (Mt 1997 11 106). The distinctive Dzūkian understanding of pride and honor is expressed by the foreign word unoras6: Perhaps all Dzūkians are as small as—well, how can I put it—and I haven't offended your Dzūkian unoras. Dzūkian industriousness is driven by Dzūkian energy. This suggests that members of this ethnic group are not merely passive, emotional observers: We will add some Dzūkian energy, too. In Vytautas Rimkevičius's humorous short story “The Devil's Temptations” (about the inhabitants of Lithuania's four ethnic groups), the Dzūkian is portrayed as attached to his homeland and saddened when away from it (“The sun is hotter in Dzūkija”); friendly, talkative, and interested in his neighbors' lives (he says to the devil: “<...> I need nothing more, as long as we can have a nice chat!”; “So we are practically related!”); 6 The dialect form onaras (onoras, unaras, unoras) is used in the sense ‘an exaggerated sense of self-worth, pride, vanity, ambition’ (LKŽ VIII 1004, 1005; LKŽ XVII 450, 458). S. PAPAURĖLYTĖ, K. ŽUPERKA. Lietuvos etninių sričių gyventojų charakterio bruožai kalbos pasaulėvaizdyje 193 quick to anger, but just as quick to try to make peace (“We must all live in harmony, like good relatives. <...> all God’s creatures are good to me, if they do not make me angry”); sensitive to another’s misfortune and suffering; what matters most to him is girls, dancing, and songs (“There is nothing better on earth than a girl!”). Ethnologists have recorded that Dzūkai themselves imagine that they are sincere, friendly and fertile, hardworking and open, while one of the most frequently mentioned negative traits in autostereotypes is frivolity (see Kalnius 2002: 35). The character traits of Suvalkiečiai recorded in the texts vary (in this case, several examples of the use of the word zanavykas were also considered). Descriptions of the Suvalkiečiai’s relationship to material things and wealth are more common. In addition to thrift, which is essentially regarded as a positive quality, undesirable traits—stinginess and greed—are also attributed to members of this group; cf.: With Suvalkietian thrift, V. Kazakevičius dedicates his book to “Marijampolė residents scattered throughout the world”; Ah, that Suvalkietian thrift; Because of my Suvalkietian stinginess, I receive guests terribly rarely; and red caviar with vodka from a bird-shaped goblet quite justifiably sticks in the throat of one greedily coveting another’s goods in Suvalkietian fashion. Even without mentioning any of these character traits, a text may encode the idea that Suvalkiečiai are practical and pragmatic, inclined to count everything and profit from it: Seeing Swedish buffets piled high with food, from which one can eat as much as one likes, compatriots of Suvalkietian nature do not forget for a second that “they have paid for everything” and set about polishing off incredible quantities of food; People often wondered that our names were the same [Kazys Bradūnas on his and his wife’s names]. “I’ll answer in the Suvalkietian way, like a real ‘nagas’,” the poet joked. “When there are two Kazyses, you need only one name-day party a year” R 1999 01 30. No other ethnic group besides the Suvalkiečiai is associated in the texts with prudence and cunning: last year, 900,000 litas was distributed as dividends from 4 million litas in profits, while all the rest was prudently allocated in Suvalkietian fashion to new technologies; being cunning in the Suvalkietian way, he took care that an unserious company would not damage his image. In Vytautas Rimkevičius’s aforementioned story “The Devil’s Temptations” (incidentally, the author hails from near Šakiai, and is therefore a Sūduvian, a Suvalkietis), the following traits of a Suvalkietis emerge: insensitive (the devil’s thoughts: “the psyche of the Suvalkiečiai resembles my hoof”); dutiful only when it benefits him; distrustful; dislikes wasting time or talking idly if conversation offers no tangible, direct benefit (“We can talk a bit; it doesn’t cost money”); not hasty in making decisions, inclined to think things over (the devil: “I have great respect for the analytical Suvalkietian mind”); orderly, thrifty 194 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 83 (he tells the devil: “<...> move aside, you can see the dew is here; I’ll get my shoes wet”) (Rimk 165–169). The Suvalkiečiai’s restraint and sense of moderation are emphasized: On this occasion, with inborn Suvalkietian moderation, one can also wet one’s lips with a celebratory shot; The experience of togetherness, of quietly being with loved ones, was also something the future writer took from home, although his family was restrained in the Suvalkietian way. Only one example was found in which the Suvalkiečiai are described as poetic people: The programme is now drawing to a close, and it is being led so beautifully by the Sūduvians (Suvalkiečiai), who splendidly disprove the old injustice (thank God, now crumbling at its foundations) that the people of this region are unpoetic Vladas Braziūnas (LM 1983 12 24). According to ethnologists, Suvalkiečiai consider themselves sincere, friendly, hospitable, hardworking, and thrifty. Petronėlė Orintaitė (an émigré writer, originally from near Šakiai) particularly emphasizes the industriousness of Zanavykai in her memoirs about Jonas Jablonskis: Zanavykai are especially distinguished by their forthright character and energetic industriousness Orint KLL 172; he [a Zanavykas] is not afraid to shoulder a double burden, but patiently carries it through to the end Orint KLL 175. Among negatively evaluated traits, Suvalkiečiai themselves also mention stinginess and selfishness, envy (see Kalnius 2002: 35). The character traits identified in the texts as associated with the inhabitants of the respective ethnic regions are presented in Table 1. 1 TABLE. Character traits of inhabitants of ethnic regions (from collected examples) Aukštaičiai | Žemaičiai | Dzūkai | Suvalkiečiai | lyrical (4) | stubborn (41) | sincere (4) | thrifty (4) | open (3) | tenacious (22) | open (2) | hardworking (3) | tearful (3) | patient (4) | big-hearted | slow (3) | sad (2) | slow (3) | hardworking | restrained (3) | awkward (2) | patriots (3) | people of soul | awkward types (3) | tenacious | coarse (2) | elegant | slow-speaking (2) | communal | inert (2) | energetic | dignified (2) | hardworking | brave (2) | good-natured | cold (2) | emotional | dignified (2) | proud | stingy (2) | argumentative | calm (2) | emotional | wealthy (2) | talkative | restrained (2) | sensitive | hospitable (2) | hot-tempered | capricious | talkative | analytical-minded | frivolous | open | fiery-tempered | tenacious | slow-speaking | hardworking | lyrical | irascible | affectionate | proud | poetic souls | speak loudly S. PAPAURĖLYTĖ, K. ŽUPERKA. Lietuvos etninių sričių gyventojų charakterio bruožai kalbos pasaulėvaizdyje 195 Aukštaičiai (Highlanders) Žemaičiai (Samogitians) Dzūkai (Dzūkians) Suvalkiečiai (Suvalkians) gentler in temperament taciturn sincere optimists simple patriots calm serious romantic moderate reserved strong-tempered roguish warm-hearted whole-hearted talkative gentle straightforward strong-willed reserved hospitable hot-tempered hard-tempered slow-spoken few-spoken naïve inflexible unpleasant in character unhurried ungentle rarely speaking witty honest blunt stubborn strong-willed determined sluggish settled curious hospitable warm-hearted talkative smooth-tongued hospitable loud-voiced coarse greedy clever enduring patient nail7 unopen-hearted insensitive ill-mannered insincere distrustful unhurried (to decide) unswift simple steady envious moderate self-controlled somewhat rough straightforward lazy orderly active broad-hearted a crack in the bark you could put them on a wound lives for today likes to unburden themselves attached to their homeland a crack in the bark does not amass wealth profit-seeking The table first lists descriptions found more than once in the examples (the number next to a word indicates how many times it was used to describe someone in this way). Descriptions used only once are then listed alphabetically. At the end are idioms and other expressions whose first word is not the main element of the characterization. In identifying the traits of residents of the ethnic regions, an effort was made to preserve the words used in the examples. The number of nouns and adjectives has been standardized: plural forms are given throughout. For an adjectival characterization (e.g., stubborn), instances of derived forms—that is, nouns derived from the same root as the adjective (e.g., stubbornness)—were also counted. The descriptions considered likely characteristics of ethnic groups are shown in boldface— 7 LKŽ VIII 499 gives the 15th meaning of nagas: figuratively of a miser. 196 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 83 character trait dominants. It must be said that the article’s authors did not themselves formulate traits based on texts of this kind (anecdotes, short stories, etc.) in which ethnic character is not explicitly described in words. A different case is, for example, the characterization of the Samogitian’s speech in the aforementioned poem by Maironis (Continuing, he speaks little, and rarely Mair 311), where he is explicitly called – taciturn, sparing of words. To determine how closely the information recorded in the texts corresponds to the worldview recorded in language users’ minds, a free-association experiment was conducted. In June 2009, 105 students from the extramural programme of the Faculty of Social Welfare and Disability Studies at Šiauliai University were surveyed. The respondents were between 20 and 50 years old. The experiment participants were asked to write the first word, sentence, or phrase that came to mind beside the words Aukštaitian, Samogitian, Dzūkian, Suvalkian. An analysis of the results showed that the amount of information obtained about Aukštaitians, Samogitians, Dzūkians, and Suvalkians varied. Samogitians and Suvalkians were described most comprehensively, Dzūkians somewhat less so, while only a few traits were associated with Aukštaitians. The same character traits recurred only minimally in descriptions of all four ethnic groups: the abstract term good was used to describe Aukštaitians, Samogitians, and Dzūkians; the words stingy (= miserly) and stinginess (= miserliness) were associated not only with Suvalkians but also with Samogitians and Dzūkians. Aukštaitians and Dzūkians were linked by the word lovely, and Samogitians and Suvalkians by generous. Since Samogitians and Suvalkians were described most fully, it is possible to identify what predominates among the many character traits. Samogitians are considered stubborn: among the responses to the stimulus were the associates stubbornness, stubborn. Thrift is inseparable from Suvalkians. This is reflected in the many responses associated with this trait: the nonstandard form stingy (a hybrid form, skūpuolis), thrifty (sometimes further intensified by the words especially, excessively), miser, skinflint, and the occasionalism gailikas (a children’s word?). In descriptions of Dzūkians, the word dundukas occurred three times; its connection with the stimulus may be motivated by phonetic association. In conclusion, it is difficult to determine which region’s inhabitants were assigned the greatest number of positively evaluated traits by the participants in the association experiment, since the same character traits may be evaluated differently in different circumstances. It is likely that Aukštaitians tend to be viewed most positively. Positively evaluated traits include good (3), an aesthete, lovely, calm and slow, agreeable, just; negatively evaluated traits include arrogant (2). Samogitians, Dzūkians, and Suvalkians were evaluated negatively far more often. Samogitians are not only generous, good, strong, fertile, and persistent, but also stubborn, loudmouths, vulgar, and ill-tempered. S. PAPAURĖLYTĖ, K. ŽUPERKA. Lietuvos etninių sričių gyventojų charakterio bruožai kalbos pasaulėvaizdyje 197 Dzūkians are lovely, good, cheerful, but are also called old women, stupid, ugly. Even more negative traits are attributed to Suvalkians. In addition to stinginess, envy is also mentioned, or it is emphasized that a Suvalkian is a very bad person, a person with a difficult character. It cannot be ruled out that the informants’ own origins partly influenced these experimental results: a considerable proportion of Šiauliai University students come from the Šiauliai district and the Šiauliai and Panevėžys regions, that is, from the part of Lithuania whose inhabitants consider themselves Aukštaitians. The character traits of Aukštaitians, Samogitians, Dzūkians, and Suvalkians mentioned by the association experiment participants are presented in Table 2. 2 TABLE. Character traits of inhabitants of ethnic regions (based on the results of the association experiment) Aukštaitian Samogitian Dzūkian Suvalkian good (3) arrogant (2) aesthete lovely calm and slow agreeable just stubborn (23) strong (2) fierce persistent generous good goat ill-tempered loudmouth ×stingy fiery hospitable vulgar of Samogitian temperament dundukas (3) ×stingy (2) ugly old woman stupid good miser cheerful lovely thrifty quiet, calm ×stingy (48) thrifty (13) miser (3) skinflint (2) envious (2) bad person generous ×foolish gailikas person with a difficult character CONCLUSIONS Based on the analysis of usage examples and the free-association experiment, it can be argued that the Lithuanian linguistic worldview records the view that members of ethnic groups have a distinctive outlook on the world, other people, and themselves. Some character traits are attributed to more than one ethnic group: for example, industriousness is recorded in the descriptions of all groups, while only the Dzūkai are not characterized as blunt. 198 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 83 The experiment’s results can be linked only partly to the conclusions drawn from the analysis of linguistic material. The experiment participants provided far fewer traits than appeared in the texts. There were also quite a few qualitative discrepancies. Essentially, only the dominant traits in the descriptions of the Samogitians and Suvalkiečiai coincide: the Samogitians’ stubbornness is emphasized, while the Suvalkiečiai are said to be extremely thrifty, greedy, and miserly. The results of the association experiment do not reveal a more prominent dominant trait for the Aukštaičiai, but the descriptions available point to the same common denominator as the analysis of the linguistic material: the inhabitants of this ethnic group are calm and peaceful people. The texts attribute more positive character traits to the Dzūkai, whereas the experiment results include more negative ones. In general, compared with the characterizations based on texts, the free-association experiment participants’ answers give rise to much more negative stereotypes of ethnic groups, with the exception of the Aukštaičiai. This difference can be explained by several factors. The textual examples were collected from public written language, their authors are known, and they are well acquainted with the people of the ethnic group they discuss. The association experiment participants’ answers were anonymous (which reduces accountability for one’s words); the respondents had only secondary education, and some of their opinions about members of ethnic groups (especially other groups, rather than their own) may have been arbitrary, influenced by colloquial expressions in which another, different person (of another nation, speaking another language or dialect, or following different customs) is regarded as a stranger and viewed unfavorably. In conclusion, it can be said that both respondents’ reactions to stimulus words and the character traits attributed in texts to inhabitants of ethnic regions are not necessarily determined by direct interpersonal experience or an objective assessment of reality. Some responses are likely shaped by entrenched stereotypes and the image constructed by the media; however, it must be acknowledged that stereotypes contain some truth—they reflect a fragment of the worldview recorded in language and influence interactions among Lithuanians from different ethnic regions. ŠALTINIAI Bagd MP – A. P. Bagduonis. Medviegale pasaka, Čikaga, 1997. Dauj LL – V. Daujotytė. Lietuvių literatūra: XX a. pr. ir I pusė. Vadovėlis XI kl., Kaunas, 1996. Dlg – Dialogas (savaitraštis). LKŽ – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 1–20, Vilnius, 1941–2002. S. PAPAURĖLYTĖ, K. ŽUPERKA. Lietuvos etninių sričių gyventojų charakterio bruožai kalbos pasaulėvaizdyje 199 LL – Laisvas laikraštis. LM – Literatūra ir menas (savait­raštis). LR – Lietuvos rytas (dienraštis). Mair – Maironis. Raštai 2, Vilnius, 1988. Mt – Metai (žurnalas). Orint KLL – P. Orintaitė. Ką laumės lėmė. Liepalotų medynuose. Atsiminimai, apybraižos, Vilnius, 1993. R – Respublika (dienraštis). Rimk – V. Rimkevičius. 27 išpažintys, Vilnius, 1975. Strielk TV – J. Strielkūnas. Tik vienąsyk, Vilnius, 1998. ŠN – Šiaulių naujienos (dienraštis). TVa – TV antena (žurnalas). LITERATŪRA Bliumas R. 1998: Etninės psichologijos įvadas, Vilnius: Lietuvos informacijos institutas. Čigriejus H. [interviu]. – Literatūra ir menas, 1993 03 06. Gudavičius A. 2009: Etnolingvistika (Tauta kalboje), Šiauliai: Šiaulių universiteto leidykla. Kalnius P. 2002: „Kitokie“ tarp „savų“: Lietuvos etnografinių grupių stereotipai. – Lietuvos etnologija 2 (11), Vilnius: Lietuvos istorijos instituto leidykla, 23–52. Kalnius P. 2006: Aukštaitijos ir Žemaitijos paribio vietinių gyventojų savimonė. – Lietuvos etnologija 6 (15), Vilnius: Lietuvos istorijos instituto leidykla, 95–119. Kalnius P. 2007: Žemaičių etniškumas: esamas ar konstruojamas? – Tautosakos darbai 34, 15–32. LKE 2008: Lietuvių kalbos enciklopedija. Sudarė Kazys Morkūnas, redagavo Vytautas Ambrazas. 2-as patiksl. ir papild. leidimas, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Nakienė A. 2007: Žemaičių savimonės paieškos internete. – Tautosakos darbai 34, 214–220. Pakalniškis V. 2001: Žemaitiškumas globaliame pasaulyje. – Lietuvos etnologija 1 (10), Vilnius: Lietuvos istorijos instituto leidykla, 199–216. PŽ 1993: Psichologijos žodynas. Redaktoriai Rimvydas Augis, Rimantas Kočiūnas, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Savoniakaitė V. 2007: Bendra, bet sava: apie šiuolaikinius aukštaičius. – Lietuvos kultūra: Aukštaitijos papročiai. Sudarytojas Žilvytis Šaknys, Vilnius: Lietuvos istorijos instituto leidykla, 169–208. 200 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 83 Tumėnas V. 2007: Konvencionalūs, klasifikaciniai ir interpretaciniai regioninės tapatybės aspektai ir sąsajos su tautodaile. – Lietuvos etnologija 7 (16), Vilnius: Lietuvos istorijos instituto leidykla, 125–156. Župerka K. 2006: Tarminės šnekos komentavimas nelingvistiniuose tekstuose. – Acta humanitarica universitatis Saulensis. Mokslo darbai, Šiauliai: Šiaulių universiteto leidykla, 178– 191. Gauta 2010 09 29 CHARACTER TRAITS OF LITHUANIAN ETHNIC GROUPS IN LINGUISTIC REALITY Summary The article presents a study of Lithuanian character traits attributed to people who represent different ethnic and cultural subgroups, i. e. aukštaičiai, žemaičiai, dzūkai and suvalkiečiai. The material was collected from mass media, fiction, spoken language, dictionaries and the electronic corpus of contemporary Lithuanian (Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos tekstynas). The findings of the linguistic analysis have been supplemented with experimental data from an association test. The results suggest that aukštaičiai (Highlanders) are poetic and emotional, their character is a combination of sadness and gaiety. The most prominent feature of žemaičiai (Samogitians) is stubbornness which is inseparable from persistence, straightforwardness, dignity and self-esteem. Dzūkai are most often referred to as sincere, open, sensitive people with a special code of honour. People coming from Dzūkija do not attach much importance to material things yet material wealth, as established by this study, is utterly important to suvalkiečiai. This subgroup is described as miserly, thrifty, orderly and smart. Certain traits of character may be attributed to more than one ethnic subgroup but not a single trait has been established as a common feature of all subgroups. SILVIJA PAPAURĖLYTĖ KAZIMIERAS ŽUPERKA Šiaulių universitetas Povilo Višinskio g. 38, LT-76352 Šiauliai [email protected] [email protected] S. PAPAURĖLYTĖ, K. ŽUPERKA. Lietuvos etninių sričių gyventojų charakterio bruožai kalbos pasaulėvaizdyje 201