Sociolingvistinis tarminių kodų taisyklingumo tyrimas

D. ALIŪKAITĖ, E. MERKYTĖ. Sociolinguistic study of the correctness of dialect codes 259 DAIVA ALIŪKAITĖ Vilniaus universiteto Kauno humanitarinis fakultetas ERIKA MERKYTĖ Vilniaus universiteto Kauno humanitarinis fakultetas SOCIOLINGUISTICAL DIALECT CODE CORRECTNESS STUDY INTRODUCTORY REMARKS The concept of language correctness is primarily associated with general language. In linguistics, this is determined by one of the relevant characteristics of common language – codification (for more on relevant and irrelevant characteristics of common language see Pupkis 2005: 16—19). It should be noted that in the theory of the Lithuanian common language the criterion of correctness is not completely purified – some researchers understand this criterion as compliance with language laws or codified rules (cf. Girdenis, Pupkis 2000 [1978]: 109; Kniūkšta 2001 [1979]: 65); others formulate the definition of regularity by specifying its independence, for example, Jonas Šukys distinguishes two main parts of the criterion of regularity – purity and systematicity (see Šukys 2003: 19). Such theoretical clarifications are of little relevance to the question raised in this article, since it is clear, in any case, from the definitions of correctness that this concept is relevant only in the context of a codified code, 1 since only codification involves the possibility of error. Dialects are natural systems. They testify to the continuous development of language, reveal the peculiarities of usage, etc.2 1 As Ronald Wardhaugh argues, code, unlike dialect, style, standard language (=common language), pidgin or creole, is an emotionally neutral term (see Wardhaugh 2006: 88). That is why the term code is often used in this article. For text consistency or stylistic reasons, the terms common language versus code and dialect versus code are used interchangeably. 2 It must be said that, in part, common language could also be evaluated in this way, but when speaking about common language, the relationship of conscious influence on language and spontaneous language development should not be forgotten (see the illustrative picture by Rita Miliūnaitė, depicting the development of common language 260 LANGUAGE CULTURE | 82 foreign language systemic things, the latter do not make dialect irregular3. Thus, based on the aforementioned definitions of regularity, it can be said that such assessment – a criterion of regularity – is not suitable for dialects in principle. However, as evidenced by the experience of researchers from other countries, the researches of perceptive dialectology4 are primarily meant here – it is customary to evaluate dialectal codes according to the criterion of (un)regularity5. Almost every study that follows the principles of perceptual dialectology includes questions about the correctness of the codes in question among the speech assessment tasks presented to the subjects – members of linguistic communities. Such an approach – to evaluate and rank codes6 is justified. Even a few so-called language myths reveal people's tendency to classify speech variants into grades according to various characteristics. In Myths of Language (Bauer, Trudgill 1998), linguists use scientific arguments to refute the false beliefs of individual linguistic communities or even universal beliefs, common among speakers of different languages, about language variants or features and their value7. However, there is no doubt that the scientific discourse, which emerges as a response to, let’s say, the linguistics of the sense of language, operates only in certain strata of society (of course, primarily among philologists), while the attitudes of ordinary language users arise, spread and change without obeying either the laws of grammar or the reality of language. scheme of functioning in society – Miliūnaitė 2009: 17); therefore, it cannot be underestimated that in some cases the language experience is somewhat artificially created, which is not the case with dialects. 3 As R. Miliūnaitė points out, “it makes sense to talk about errors only in the context of common language, and not in the context of dialects or sociolects, although in the latter there may be phenomena that are not characteristic of them” (Miliūnaitė 2008: 155). 4 For the principles of perceptual dialectology, see Preston 1988: 373-395; 1989; 1999: xxiii-xl; also Aliūkaitė 2006a: 88–89; 2006b: 567–583; 2007: 52–61. 5 Research: American English (Preston 1989: 51–70); Dialects of German (Dailey-O‘Cain 1999: 229–231); French dialects (Kuiper 1999: 243–262); Turkish dialects (Demirci, Kleiner 1999: 263–282); French variants in Quebec (Canada) (Evans 2002: 83–86); English variants in Canada (McKinnie, Dailey-O’Cain 2002: 282–284) and others. 6 Not necessarily according to the criterion of regularity. 7 In Language Myths, Ray Harlow debunks the myth that some languages are not good enough; Edward Carney – that English pronunciation is catastrophic; Lars Gunnar Andersson – that some languages are more complex than others; Howard Giles and Nancy Niedzielski – that Italian is beautiful and German is ugly, etc. (see. Bauer, Trudgill 1998: The subject of this article is the regularity of dialectal codes. It is 9–14; 32–40; 50–57; 85–93). D. ALIŪKAITĖ, E. MERKYTĖ. 261 It can be argued that the attitudes of the members of the linguistic community are influenced by various stereotypes, and in part this may also be influenced by school knowledge (more or less objective). It is believed that the linguistic security (or insecurity) factor is also involved in the formation of different attitudes to different codes, which is undoubtedly related to the social security and self-esteem of community members. Sometimes, as evidenced by the experience of researchers, the study of attitudes may reveal that there is also a complex of dialect inadequacy in the community8, which can be linked to both linguistic preferences and linguistic attitudes. The study of Joniškėlis on linguistic attitudes by Meilutė Ramonienė is worth mentioning. The researcher’s insights allow us to reasonably assume that the complex of dialect inadequacy exists also among the representatives of other dialects. In presenting the research data, the researcher notes that in Joniškėlis respondents also view dialect as an incorrect linguistic variant (“in school you need to speak correctly, not dialectically”, “our dialect is especially incorrect” (see more Ramonienė 2006: 144)). There is no doubt that, for example, linguistic identity affects not only linguistic behaviour but also attitudes (see Aliūkaitė 2005: 101– 108). In view of this, it becomes clear that the question of the correctness of the dialect code is at least formulable. Whether the value of regularity is measurable is another problem. important to emphasize that, based on the data of the perception study, the correctness of dialectal codes is described not from the point of view of the researcher, but from the point of view of the language user, i.e. the perceiver (evaluator). In order to scientifically justify the notion of the regularity of dialect codes, it is necessary to distinguish the aspects of the determination of regularity. Although, as A. Girdenis and A. Pupkis point out, “the norm of each dialect taken separately is often even stricter than that of the general language” (Girdenis, Pupkis 2000 [1978]: 98), the relevant feature of dialect codes – non-codification – makes such considerations meaningless. It can only be considered that the evaluation of the spread of distinctive dialectal features in a particular dialectal expression could have some validity, but these would not be the requirements of the regularity of dialectal speech. Thus, it must be admitted that the scientific language of the facts vertinimas ir paprastų kalbinės bendruomenės narių nuostatos yra skirtingi dalykai. 8 For more on the concept of Takeshi Sibata’s dialect inadequacy, see Inoue (1999: 148). 262 LANGUAGE CULTURE | 82 NUOSTATŲ TYRIMAS: TARMINIO KALBĖJIMO (NE)TAISYKLINGUMAS The summary insights on the notion of regularity are formulated on the basis of the October and December 2008 reports. The study of dialectal speech perception and evaluation in Kaunas and Šakiai districts. The study – text-stimulant text and questionnaire – was prepared in accordance with the theoretical requirements of perceptive dialectology. It should be said that most of the perceptual dialectology studies are based on the analysis of attitudes as reactions to a certain linguistic stimulus (see Şen, Baykal 2004). Undoubtedly, the user’s (reviewer’s) relationship with a particular variant is best revealed by hearing an example of that variant. In order to clarify the language community members' opinions on the correctness of dialect codes, a set of 6 texts-stimulants was created. For this short text, five excerpts of texts lasting about one and a half minutes have been selected from LKTCH (2004) and LT second part (2005): Text A9 – from the northern Žemaičių Telšių Tirkšlių point (LKTCH 2004: 251); Text B – South Highlander Varena point (LKTCH 2004: 91–92); Text D – Eastern Highland Vilniškiai (LT 2005); Text E – Karklėnai point of the northern Samogitian Kretingians (LKTCH 2004: 266–267); Text F – from the eastern Alytaus Anykščiai Verksnioniai point (LKTCH 2004: 147). The compilation of texts-stimulants takes into account not only the requirements of perceptive dialectology. Partly based on the principle of the so-called mask test10 developed by Wallace Lambert and his colleagues (see Swann 2003: 149), a common language text (C) is inserted among the dialect texts. Considering that the stimulus text of common language C was taken from the publication Lietuvių kalbos bendrinė tartis (2004: 65) prepared by Antanas Pakerius and Aldonas Pupkis, intended to teach regular pronunciation, the subjects were partially mislead – the non-dialectal text was proposed to be evaluated as dialectal, but on the other hand, the subjects were offered a deduction for regularity (which they could use or not!). However, given that the narratives of all texts differ, 9 texts selected for the study were encoded. Researchers behave differently, in some cases the text is encoded, in others – the subjects know which regions of texts they are listening to. The openness or secrecy of the research is related to the specific objectives of the researchers: for example, naming a place in the tasks may lead to the possibility of social stereotypes – when evaluating texts-stimulants of a certain place, evaluators will be biased in one way or another. It can be said that local knowledge determines not only the ratings of the listened text, but also the ratings of the representatives of the region. The regional anonymity of text-stimulants, it is assumed, ensures the possibility to record the dialect competence of the subjects. 10 Angl. matched-guise technique. D. ALIŪKAITĖ, E. MERKYTĖ. The sociolinguistic study of the correctness of dialect codes 263 and informants11, the idea of W. Lambert’s mask test for the methodological solution of the spoken research was only supportive. The subjects had to evaluate the stimulus texts according to the criteria of difference from common language, (un)correctness and (un)attractiveness12 and describe their choice in a few words. This article discusses the regularity of dialectal speech, so other data are included in the analysis only as arguments or background insights13. When performing a perceptual survey, it is important to choose the appropriate way of presenting the questionnaire tasks. The subjects were offered a typical seven-point14 semantic differential evaluation scale15. They had to express their opinion by marking a number from 7 (not different from bk; completely correct; very beautiful language) to 1 (nothing like bk; completely incorrect; very ugly language) (see Figure 1). 1 PAV. Semantic Differential Assessment Scale 11 It does not meet the requirements of the mask test. 12 These are typical criteria used in perceptual dialectology studies (see Preston 1999: xxxiv–xxxv). 13 In addition, the participants had to write down and mark on the map of Lithuania (the map is presented with the municipalities’ boundaries and centres marked) the places where, in their opinion, the speakers are from. At the end of the questionnaire, respondents were asked to describe a dialect speaker in their own words, but the data of the mind map and dialect conceptualization tasks will be discussed in another article. 14 Other scales, such as 5, 6, 9 points, may be used in the surveys (see Table 1). Al-Hindawe 1996: [1–9]). 15 For more on the use of the semantic differential scale, see the linguistic studies (Wray, Trott, Bloomer, Reay, Butler 2005: 174–176). 7654321 very beautiful language very ugly 7654321 language is not different from bk has nothing in common with bk 7654321 absolutely correct absolutely incorrect 264 LANGUAGE CULTURE | 82 Vertinimai parodo respondentų reakciją į girdimą tekstą. Tokia vertinimo skalė neleidžia kilti jokioms tiriamųjų spėlionėms, kad, pavyzdžiui, tyrėjas pageidauja kuo aukštesnio įverčio. Reikia pridurti, kad Charleso E. Osgoodo 1957 m. pasiūlyta semantinio diferencialo technika (Al-Hindawe 1996: [1–9]) is one of the most common linguistic assumptions in studies, but perceptual dialectologists often combine this principle with open questions – and in this study the subjects were asked to explain their chosen assumptions. For the text-stimulant task, the sample had to be formed in such a way that it was possible to assess whether the linguistic environment of the respondents affects the evaluation of dialectal discourse, i.e. text-stimulant. Two approximately equal quotas of participants were established: 1) KauMi16 group subjects assigned to the first group (46 in total); urban residents whose linguistic environment is (probably) closest to the common language. 2) LukGr subjects in the second group (40 in total); These are provincial inhabitants, whose linguistic environment (probably) has more pronounced features of the western Kaunas dialect. The provisions for young people aged 14-18 (i.e. students in grades 9-12) were clarified. The subjects are representatives of one age group. It is the future generation – its attitudes towards the correctness of the dialect code (and in general all the attitudes that emerged in the study) should be considered as indicators of the linguistic and cultural awareness of one generation. Another criterion has been taken into account when determining the quotas for investigators. It is believed that gender may also have an influence on the respondents’ preferences for dialectal speaking. As noted in the works of perceptual dialectology, gender determines not only speech, but also attitudes towards other variants (see Demirci 2002: 41– 50). Thus, it was tried to make the samples of both respondents and respondents similar: KauMi – 41.3% of respondents and 58.7% of respondents; LukGr – 50% of respondents and 50% of respondents. In summary, it can be said that the groups of students were formed on the basis of three assumptions – attitudes and dialect competence can be determined by the students 16 Abbreviations of the study groups used in the article: KauMi – students of Kaunas Milikoniai secondary school (assisted by teachers A. Babajan and R. Sventkauskienė), LukGr – students of Lukšių Vinco Grybo secondary school (assisted by teacher A. Urbaitienė). D. ALIŪKAITĖ, E. MERKYTĖ. Sociolinguistic study of the correctness of dialect codes 265 linguistic environment, age and gender of the subjects17. It should be added that the distinctive value of age would be best understood in comparative studies, i.e. with data from several generations, so in this case it is only possible to formulate insights into the tendencies of the speaking generation. In general, given the small sample of participants, it should be noted that the results of the study should be considered as assumptions for further research18. Before analyzing the data of the present study, it should be noted that in the works of scientists who have studied the evaluation of correctness empirically or at least theoretically, the tendency to associate this evaluation with other dialect code evaluations is evident. First of all, the regularity of the variant is linked to the social-cultural connotation of the variant (cf. Dailey-O’Cain 1999: 227–242; Benson 2003: 307–330). The researchers emphasize that the so-called linguistic origin19 factor also plays a role in assessing the regularity of the code, i.e., there is a tendency to consider one’s own region or code more regular (cf. Diercks 2002: 51–70)20. Furthermore, language studies show that variants more similar to the common language are more favorably assessed (Aliūkaitė 2007: 152). The value of the correctness of the text-stimulants was calculated by adding the scores of the texts and dividing the resulting sum by the number of evaluators. In order to accurately present the obtained data, the general estimates of the text-stimulus regularity of KauMi and LukGr groups were calculated. In order to highlight the influence of gender on the estimates of the correctness of the dialect code, the estimates of respondents and respondents of each group were calculated separately (see Figures 2 and 3). 17 Such assumptions are also taken into account in other studies of perceptive dialectology carried out in Lithuania (see Aliūkaitė 2007: 143–146). 18 On the other hand, the works of perceptual dialectology are characterized by an inductive principle: after the study, the characteristics of the part (i.e. the members of the community studied) are transferred to the whole (i.e. the whole community), thus the values of the variants are summarized as tendentious, reflecting the attitudes of the whole community (see Preston 1989: 25–49; Dailey-O’ Cain 1999: 227–242; Kuiper 1999: 243–262; Demirci 2002: 41–50). However, it should be noted that the researchers formulate generalizations as tendencies, rather than as unequivocal conclusions, thus maintaining the nature of assumptions. This is also the case in this article. 19 Angl. linguistic homeland. 20 Of course, the factors of linguistic insecurity or dialectal incompleteness cannot be overlooked. 266 LANGUAGE CULTURE | 82 2 PAV. KauMi M67 questionnaire part (correctness estimates) D. ALIŪKAITĖ, E. MERKYTĖ. Sociolinguistic study of the correctness of dialect codes 267 3 PAV. Part of the LukGr V32 questionnaire (correctness estimates) 274 TALBOS KULTŪRA | 82 terion of grammatical well-formedness is in principle unsuitable for dialects. However, the experience of researchers from other countries has shown that evaluating dialectal codes in terms of grammatical well-formedness in the framework of perceptive dialectology is usual practice. The present investigation focuses on the grammatical well-formedness of dialectal codes. Considering the data of perceptive research, the paper aims at defining the well-formedness of dialectal codes from the user’s/receiver’s (evaluator’s) point of view rather than the researcher’s. The concluding remarks on the wellformedness of dialectal codes are based on a research conducted in October-December of 2008 in the districts of Kaunas and Šakiai and focusing on the perception and evaluation of dialectal speech by secondary school students in their 9-12 year at school (aged 14-18). The research materials covered a corpus of 6 textstimuli and a questionnaire; both were prepared in accordance with the requirements of perceptive dialectology. To conclude, young respondents adhere to a certain prototype of a well-formed expression. For them, well-formedness is primarily concerned with standard language. However, in this context a natural question could arise: is well-formedness related with the school students’ actual experience or confined to the knowledge received at school that language is a well-formed system and that it serves (or can serve) as a reference to evaluate another expression? Since dialects are usually discussed in the framework of general requirements applicable to standard language, they are usually treated as ungrammatical rather than grammatical. A major factor determining the well-formedness of a dialectal code is its affinity to standard language: the more similar the dialectal code is to standard language, the more grammatical it is. Young respondents consider the well-formedness as a major factor of communicative success: if the text is difficult to understand, it is also more or less ungrammatical. Different evaluation of the dialectal codes of Highlanders (aukštaičių) and Lowlanders (žemaičių) provides basis for further research that dialectal codes of Highlanders are treated as more grammatical than Lowlanders. DAIVA ALIŪKAITĖ Vilniaus universiteto Kauno humanitarinis fakultetas Muitinės g. 8, LT-44280 Kaunas, Lithuania [email protected] ERIKA MERKYTĖ Vilniaus universiteto Kauno humanitarinis fakultetas Muitinės g. 8, LT-44280 Kaunas, Lithuania [email protected]