Go to originalLocalized version was produced by AI. It may contain inaccuracies.
Preparing document pages…
Page 1
Acta Linguistica Lituanica 2026, vol. 94, pp. 1–19 Contents link / Contents link ISSN 2669–218X (electronic / online)
THE IMAGE OF THE SOUTHERN SAMOGITIAN VARNIŠKIAI LOCAL LANGUAGE VARIANT: NOMINATIONS AND EVALUATIONS
Perceptions of the Native Language Variant among South Samogitians: Naming and Evaluation
DIANA DAMBRAUSKIENĖ Institute of the Lithuanian Language E-mail: [email protected] ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0346-8421 Research areas: geolinguistics, perceptual dialectology, sociolinguistics.
https://doi.org/10.35321/all94-03
ABSTRACT
Based on the methodologies of geolinguistics and perceptual dialectology, the article analyzes the nominations and evaluations of the Southern Samogitian Varniškiai local language variant. Recognition of the local language variant is based on an analysis of the dialect competence (English: dialect competence) and dialect image (English: dialect image) of the ordinary member of the speech community. Dialect competence encompasses stereotypical characteristics of the language variant or its user formed subconsciously, while the dialect image is determined by stereotypical similarities and (or) differences between linguistic features.
According to the respondents, the main and distinctive feature of the Southern Samogitian Varniai variety, dünininkavimas, is characteristic only of the speech of the oldest members of the speech community; young people and newcomers from other localities speak either the standard language (or the equivalent Highland dialect) or a language variety mixed with other Samogitian subdialects mixed. The most characteristic feature by which the local language variety is recognized is identified as the shortening of endings.
Geographical (spatial) distances are among the most important factors influencing the nomination of the local language variant: usually, the Varniškiai use either the name of the place of residence or the name of the administrative or municipal center to which people migrate.
Both the view of the older and oldest generations of Varniškiai that young people do not speak dialectally and the tendency of younger-generation respondents to bring the image of the local language variant closer to the standard language may indicate convergence between the dialectal and standard language of the Samogitian Varniškiai, while the descriptions and nominations indicate the linguistic heterogeneity of the dialect area.
KEYWORDS: perceptual dialectology, linguistic attitudes, Southern Samogitian Varniškiai, dünininkai, local language variant.
ANNOTATION
This article focuses on the nominations and perceptions of one’s own linguistic variant within the Southern Samogitian subdialect of Varniai, which are analysed using geolinguistic and perceptual dialectological methodologies. Recognition of one’s own linguistic variant is based on the study of dialect competence and dialect image displayed by regular members of the speech community. Dialect competence encompasses all stereotypical characteristics of the language variant and its user formed within one’s subconscious, while dialect images result from stereotypical similarities and/or differences between linguistic features.
According to the subjects analysed, the process of replacing the Standard Lithuanian pronunciation of uo or o for ū (dūnininkavimas), which is the main and distinctive characteristic of the Southern Samogitian subdialect of Varniai, is reflected only in the language of the very oldest members of this speech community. Younger generations and individuals who have arrived here from other parts of the country are perceived as using a variant mixed with either Standard Lithuanian (or the Aukštaitian dialect identified with it) or with other Samogitian subdialects. Reduced endings are seen as the most typical feature which helps to identify one’s own linguistic variant.
Geographical (spatial) distance is one of the main factors affecting the nomination of one’s own linguistic variant. Speakers of the Varniai subdialect typically assign to their variant the name of their residential area or the administrative (municipality) centre they are migrating to.
The study also shows that older and oldest generation speakers of the Varniai subdialect believe that young people do not use the dialect, while the image of their own variant prevalent amongst the younger generation is closer to Standard Lithuanian. Both of these findings suggest a convergence of dialectal and standard language within the Varniai subdialect, with characterisations and nominations pointing towards the linguistic heterogeneity of this dialectal area.
KEYWORDS: Perceptual dialectology, language attitudes, Southern Samogitian subdialect of Varniai, dūnininkai, own linguistic variant.
1. INTRODUCTION
A reassessment of the dialectal situation a decade ago showed that the area of the Southern Samogitian Varniškiai subdialect falls within the zone of the Samogitian regiolect forming around Telšiai; therefore, the local people’s language should be characterized by a certain stability, determined both by a strong traditional dialect and by relatively stable Samogitian geolects¹ (Plungė in the northern part and Tauragė in the southern part) (Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė 2014b: 257, 260). The data showed that, as a common regiolect forms, the Varniškiai will in the future “tend to resemble their northern neighbors” (Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė 2014b: 260).
Traditional Varniškiai and the neighboring Northern Samogitians (Telšiškiai and Kretingiškiai) have both phonetic similarities and differences. They are distinguished from their northern neighbors, as well as from their southern neighbors, the Raseiniškiai, by dūnininkavimas—the realization of the stressed diphthongs ie, uo as monophthongs [iː], [uː] or as diphthongoids [i̯e̯], [u̯o̯] (e.g.: [²ʲi̯e̯ns] šienas; [²ʲu̯o̯ks] juokas)—and from the Raseiniškiai by the pronunciation of the diphthongs an, am, en, em as [ɔ̃n], [ɔ̃m], [ɛ̃n], [ɛ̃m] / [ʌn], [ʌm], [ɛ̃n], [ɛ̃m] (e.g.: [¹¹kʲɔnd], [¹¹kʲɔnd] kanda; [¹ʲbɔ̯mb], [¹¹bɔ̯mb] bamba; [gʲi̯ˈu̯ɛnˈtʲi̯] gyventi; [¹ʲpʲɛ̯mʲpʲi̯] pémpė) (Zinkevičius 1966: 13, 14, 85–86, 101–102, 503 (map no. 58, 67, 68), 505 (map no. 60), 512 (map no. 67, 68); 1994: 106–107; Girdenis 1970: 143–145; LKA II 77–78, 80, 83, 84, 86, 87, maps no. 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71; Bukantis 1984: 93–94; LKTCH 2004: 206, 222–223, etc.). A feature shared with other Samogitians is the diphthongization of the long vowels e, o in stems and stressed endings (e.g.: [¹ʲdʲi̯e̯tʲi̯] dėti; [bʲi̯e̯ʲu̯tʲi̯] begioti) (Zinkevičius 1966: 73, 74, 473 (map no. 28), 475 (map no. 30), 476 (map no. 31), 479 (map no. 34), 483 (map no. 38), 485 (map no. 40); 1994: 90; LKA II 45, 48, 51, 53, 56, 57, maps no. 27, 33, 35, 39; LKA II 45, 48, 51, 54, 57, maps no. 28, 31, 33, 36, 39; Salys 1992: 36; LKTCH 2004: 223, etc.).
In addition to the features mentioned above, the Varniškiai have other phonetic features: universal retraction of stress; widening of the first component of the short vowels u, i and the diphthongs ul, ur, il, ir, as well as the diphthong ui (e.g.: būvo [ˈbʊ̯ɔ], [ˈbɔ̯ɔ]; miškas [ˈmʲɪʲks], [ˈmʲɛ̯ks]; pulti [ˈpɔ̯lʲtʲi̯ɛ]; kurti [ˈkʊ̯rˈtʲi̯], [ˈkɔ̯rˈtʲɛ]; girtas [ˈgʲi̯rts], [ˈgʲɛ̯rts]; muilas [²ˈmʊ̯ɪls], [²ˈmɔ̯ls]); shortening of vowel endings (e.g.: kampas [²ˈkampˢ]); monophthongization of the diphthongs ai, ei (e.g.: vyrai [ˈvʲi̯ˈraː]; rasė [raˈʲɛ̯ɛ]); in some forms, the consonants t, d occur instead of the affricates č, dž (e.g.: jaučio [¹ˈjaʊ̯stʲɛ]; medžio [ˈmʲɛ̯dʲɛ], but jaučių [¹ˈjaʊ̯stʲu̯]; medžių [ˈmʲɛ̯dʲu̯]) (Zinkevičius 1966: 32–
¹ Geolects are heterogeneous language variants formed on the basis of a traditional subdialect and lacking strict geographical boundaries, whereas regiolects are language variants that emerged when the standard language influenced geolect(s) and (or) regional language varieties (Hoppenbrouwers 1983: 1–25; Auer 2005: 7–42; Taeldeman 2010: 355–374; Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė 2014a: 41–44). In the Northern Samogitian area, stable geolects are forming around Skuodas, Mažeikiai, Kretinga, and Plungė; in the Southern Samogitian area, around Tauragė, while transitional ones are forming around Kelmė and Raseiniai (NTA 2014 (maps no. 13, 14); Mikulėnienė 2014: 20; Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė: 2014a: 260).
In recent years, because of changes in the sociocultural and socioeconomic environment (the reorganization and optimization of various institutions), the Southern Samogitian Varniškiai, or dünininkai, have become increasingly mobile and their social ties have expanded. At the same time, as their attitude toward the local language variant, called the local language variant in this study, presumably changes, their linguistic behavior also changes (cf. Jaworski et al. 2004: 5; Garrett 2010: 19–36; Ramonienė 2022: 11–13, etc.).
Studies of linguistic attitudes based on the principles of perceptual dialectology have been conducted in various localities of Lithuania (Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė 2016a; 2016b; Geržotaitė, Čepaitienė 2016; Aliūkaitė et al. 2017; 2020; Geržotaitė 2019a; 2019b; 2019c; Brazaitienė 2024, etc.). However, in the dünininkai area, attitudes toward the local language variant have so far been studied in detail only in the area of the Southern Samogitian Raseiniškiai subdialect; in this respect, the Varniškiai have not previously received much attention from researchers². Studies of the Raseiniškiai confirmed that both objective causes (convergence and leveling) and subjective causes (the attitudes of ordinary language users) influence members of the speech community’s attitude toward the local language variant: the nomenclatural values of traditional dialectal features and their realization change (Dambrauskienė 2021: 107–124; cf. Hickey 2003: 351; Mikulėnienė 2020: 3, etc.). The linguistic situation of the Raseiniškiai and the pursuit of a “more prestigious” variant prompt a review of the previously unstudied Varniškiai attitudes toward the local language variant (Dambrauskienė 2020: 228; 2021: 77–79)³.
The object of this study is the nominations and evaluations of the Southern Samogitian Varniškiai local language variant⁴. The aim is to clarify the nominations and evaluations of the Southern Samogitian Varniškiai local language variant.
To achieve this aim, the following objectives were set: 1) to analyze the respondents’ metalinguistic comments and clarify the nominations of the Varniškiai local language variant; 2) on the basis of subjective extralinguistic data, to identify the features characteristic of the local language variant and determine the evaluations of the local language variant; 3) to investigate the image of the local language variant established in the consciousness of the Southern Samogitian Varniškiai and assess the possible scenario of linguistic change in the Varniškiai subdialect.
The study draws on empirical material collected and recorded on a dictaphone in January–February 2025 from the area of the Southern Samogitian Varniškiai by the article’s author and Dr. Simona Vyniautaitė, a researcher at the Geolinguistics Centre of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language, from 11 points of the Atlas of the Lithuanian Language (LKA 1977; 1982; 1991; hereafter LKA⁵): Kuršėnai (LKA 102), Varniai (LKA 191), Užventis (LKA 193), Tverai (LKA 220a), Laukuva (LKA 254), Švėkšna (LKA 285), Kvėdarna (LKA 288), Kaltinėnai (LKA 290), Pajūris (LKA 322), Šilalė (LKA 323), and Žemaičių Naumiestis (LKA 355); see Figure 1.
² For more on studies of the Southern Samogitian Raseiniškiai, see Vaitmonienė 2017; Dambrauskienė 2020; 2021.
³ The term local language variant is chosen in the article because it accurately reflects the concept of both the respondents themselves and the language variant used in their place of residence. This term was used in studying the attitudes of the Southern Samogitian Raseiniškiai (see Dambrauskienė 2020; 2021: 77–81). In Lithuanian geolinguistic studies, the usual term is local language variant, which has the English equivalent vernacular (English: vernacular) (see Labov 1972a: 208–209, 222–224; 1972b: 87–91; Trudgill 1974: 17–19, 32–35; Chambers, Trudgill 1980: 3–6, 12–14, etc.).
⁴ The terms attitude and stance are used synonymously in the article.
⁵ Since the point numbers coincide in all three volumes of the LKA, the volumes of this publication are not indicated below in the article.
3
Page 4
Figure 1. Survey points of the Southern Samogitian Varniškiai in the LKA (map fragment from Aliūkaitė et al. 2014: 143, Figure 75)
In total, conversations with 44 respondents were recorded, with a total duration of 22 hours 12 minutes 23 seconds. To investigate the linguistic situation in the Southern Samogitian Varniškiai area as objectively as possible in real time, a non-probability sampling method⁶ was applied to the sample, i.e. people encountered randomly who agreed to participate in the research were interviewed. This resulted both in a heterogeneous sample of respondents in terms of sociodemographic data (see table) and in different recording durations (see Appendix 2).
Table. Sociodemographic characteristics of the respondents
Number of respondents | Respondents by generation | Sex | Men | Women 10 | Younger generation | 2 | 8 19 | Middle generation | 3 | 16 15 | Oldest generation | 3 | 12 44 | Total | 8 | 36
6 The non-probability sampling method is suitable when the sample of respondents is not large and survey data are used in exploratory (or pilot) research (for more, see Gaižauskaitė, Mikiėnė 2014: 36–37).
4
Page 5
The respondents’ metalinguistic comments were recorded during the conversations (for example, attitudes toward their own language variant, evaluations of their own and other language variants, etc.), sociodemographic characteristics (sex, age, place of residence), and other data.
The research material consists of the metalinguistic comments of 44 respondents about the local language variant and other language variants⁷. The respondents’ attitudes were studied according to the methodological principles of perceptual dialectology and refined by analyzing evaluations of the comprehensibility, attractiveness (beauty), and correctness of the local language variant. The respondents’ age is important for comparing the data by generation.
2. METHODS AND METHODOLOGICAL APPROACHES
The foundation of this study is empirical data on the perception and evaluation of the local language variant, collected by combining survey and in-depth interview (conversation) methods. Combining conversation and survey methods is useful when various types of data are needed not only about the respondent and their attitudes, but also when their speech must be recorded and the audio recording used to register and study linguistic data (Aurrekoetxea, Ormaetxea 2006: 157–162; Schilling 2013: 66–133). A combination of semi-structured and in-depth interviews was used in conversations with respondents (cf. Rupšienė 2007: 65; Kardelis 2017: 257 and the literature cited there, etc.)⁸.
Conversations with respondents were conducted using the questionnaire-structuring methodology, whose essence is flexibility: although the questionnaire was prepared in advance, its questions were not necessarily used in the order or wording in which they appeared, and the respondents’ developing thoughts were taken into account⁹. The questionnaire was based on the perceptual questionnaire questions selected by the authors of the collective monograph Language Variants from the Perspectives of the Researcher and the Ordinary Member of the Speech Community and adapted for the study analyzed in this article (see Aliūkaitė et al. 2020: 301–306) (see Appendix 1). The interviewers completed the questionnaires during the conversations. This method of collecting material is a reliable part of qualitative research methodology that ensures high data quality (Gaižauskaitė, Mikėnė 2014: 61). Control of the conversation makes it possible to collect language data for quantitative analysis of language data (e.g. for calculating dialectality indicators).
The questionnaire questions covered objective data (the respondent’s place of residence, age, sex, education, mobility, etc.) and subjective data (geolinguistic competence, attitudes toward the local language variant, evaluations of the local language variant). To establish the objective data, respondents were asked closed-ended questions, while open-ended questions and a semantic differential evaluation scale were used to collect subjective data¹⁰. Responses to the open-ended questions were intended to clarify the respondents’ geolinguistic competence and linguistic attitudes, while the semantic differential scale data made it possible to determine the evaluative scores for the comprehensibility, correctness, and attractiveness of the local language variant, supplementing and refining the respondents’ attitudes (see Appendix 1).
In scholarly discourse, geolinguistic competence is defined as the ability of an ordinary language user to recognize language variants and locate them in geographical, social, and cultural space (Preston 1989: 4; 1999: xxii–xxiv; Diercks 2002: 52–53; Aliūkaitė,
⁷ Comments were marked with codes containing information about the respondent: place of residence, age, sex, and sequence number within the point (four capital letters—the first letters of the LKA point name; digit 1—a person under 35, 2—36–55, 3—over 56; vyr—male, mot—female; final digit—sequence number), for example, the code for a comment by a female representative of the younger generation from Kuršėnai is KURŠ1_mot2).
⁸ In-depth semi-structured interviews for collecting linguistic data are usually applied in qualitative studies based on sociolinguistic methods; for example, this method was used to study the sociolinguistic panorama of Lithuania and the horizontal and vertical variability of the Southern Samogitian Raseiniškiai (cf. Dambrauskienė 2021: 14; Ramonienė 2022: 15–18, etc.)
⁹ For more on the questionnaire-structuring methodology and other forms of qualitative interview, see Gaižauskaitė, Valavičienė 2016: 18–22.
¹⁰ The semantic differential evaluation scale is common in studies evaluating the correctness and attractiveness of term variants (for more, see Preston 2013: 170). For more on the use of the semantic differential scale in research, see Dikčius 2011: 59.
5
Page 6
Mikulėnienė 2016a: 92, etc.). Studies of linguistic attitudes are particularly important for research on geolinguistic competence: they reveal the links between ordinary language users’ imagined language variants and the sociocultural identity of their users, and show that the variability of language variants is influenced both by ideologically constructed images of the dialect and by stereotypical characteristics of the language variant formed subconsciously (cf. Chambers, Trudgill 2004: 28; see also Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė 2016b: 17–30; Geržotaitė 2019c: 1; Mikulėnienė 2019; Dambrauskienė 2021: 76, etc.). The criterion of language-variant attractiveness is regarded as one of the most important components in perceptual studies; on the basis of ordinary language users’ metalinguistic comments, the aesthetic value of the language variant is conceptualized (Aliūkaitė 2007: 212–213 and the literature cited there).
The attitudes of the Southern Samogitian Varantiškiai toward the local language variant are analyzed on the basis of the methodologies of perceptual dialectology, which provide “additional dimensions for the inventory, understanding, and evaluation of language variability in the broad sense, and for a prognostic view of language variability (change and development), legitimizing the category of the variant image as an important unit in research on language variability” (Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė 2016b: 18; cf. Inoue 1999: 157–158). The image(s) of the local language variant is/are refined by examining the evaluative scores for comprehensibility, correctness, and attractiveness, which detail its aesthetic value.
This article continues research on perceptual-dialectology attitudes based on the methodology of geolinguistics (regional variability).
3. NOMINATIONS AND CONCEPT OF THE LOCAL LANGUAGE VARIANT
First, respondents were asked to name the language variant used in their place of residence. Almost two-thirds of the respondents (64%) gave the local language variant the name of a particular city or town; these nominations can be classified into three groups: 1) a language variant nominated by the name of the place of residence; 2) a language variant nominated by the name of the administrative and (or) municipal center to which people migrate for public (e.g. to the municipality or eldership), economic (e.g. to shops or the market), medical, or other reasons, hereinafter called the name of an administrative-territorial locality; 3) a mixed language variant; see Figure 2.
Figure 2. Nominations of the local language variant and their distribution
6
Page 7
The local language variant is most often nominated by the name of the place of residence by respondents from Varniai (LKA 191), Tverai (LKA 220a), and Šilalė (LKA 323), e.g.: locals—Varniškiai (VARN2_mot4), Tveriškė (TVER2_mot1), Šilalė dialect (ŠILA1_mot2), the Šilalė language (ŠILA2_mot3), Šilalė dialect, Šilalė dialect (ŠILA2_mot5)¹¹. The name of the place of residence is often supplemented by the name(s) of the administrative-territorial locality (localities) to which people migrate, e.g.: the Varniškiai are somewhat similar to Plungė (VARN2_vyr2); similar to Telšiai, perhaps only the endings differ (VARN3_mot1), Varniai and Telšiai do not differ (VARN3_mot3); Tverai people, Laukuva people, Varniškiai—they speak alike (TVER3_mot2); Tauragė, Šilutė—the same (ŠILA2_mot5). The latter names belong to the third group of nominations.
Nominations associated only with an administrative-territorial locality are most often given by respondents from Kuršėnai (LKA 102), Kėdainiai (LKA 288), Kaltinėnai (LKA 290), and Pajūris (LKA 322), e.g.: Šiauliai language (KURŠ1_vyr1); The local dialect <...> is attributed to Šiauliai (KURŠ3_vyr3), Šilalė-like language (KVĖD2_vyr1), the Šilalė people’s language (KVĖD2_mot4), Šilalė region (KVĖD1_mot5); Šilalė people (KALT1_mot1); Šilalė speech, tending toward the language of the Telšiai side (KALT1_mot2); Šiauliai language (KALT1_vyr4).
Nomination of the local language variant by the name(s) of the place(s) of residence implies the respondents’ view that the language variant used in their place of residence is characterized by linguistic expression specific to that place alone. The local language variant named after an administrative-territorial locality is presumably associated with the language variant used in the district center or a larger city, which has an image of higher prestige. The names in the mixed nomination group not only link the names of the local language variant of the place of residence and of the administrative-territorial locality, but also show that the Varniškiai identify and (or) compare their local language variant with a more prestigious language variant formed in their consciousness and used in a geographically nearby locality.
Responses to the question “How would you describe the language of your place of residence?” were divided into three groups: 1) Samogitian / dialectal / dünininkai; 2) non-Samogitian / mixed; and 3) non-dialectal / literary. Responses in the non-Samogitian / mixed language group represent an intermediate variant between the opposition of the first and third groups, dialectal versus non-dialectal. Almost two-thirds of the respondents gave responses assignable to more than one group, driven by respondents’ insights that differentiated the image of the local language variant by generation¹². While descriptions of dialectal and mixed language were distributed relatively evenly in percentage terms (68% and 72%, respectively), non-dialectal language accounted for less than one-quarter (23%) of all responses¹³.
Representatives of the younger and middle generations more often call the local language variant Samogitian / dialectal / dünininkai (70% and 73% of responses, respectively), while the middle and oldest generations call it non-Samogitian / mixed (89% and 73%). However, in the consciousness of a considerable proportion of young Varniškiai (40%), the local language variant is non-dialectal or close to the standard language; see Figure 3.
¹¹ In the article, respondents’ metalinguistic comments are transcribed in the respondents’ original language and have not been corrected.
¹² For example, the comment by UŽVĖ2_mot3, The old ones, those in their eighties and older, have retained their dialect; the younger ones are mongrels, belongs to groups 1 and 3.
¹³ Percentages were calculated from the number of responses in each group.
7
Page 8
Figure 3. Descriptions of the local language variant
It should be emphasized that although more than two-thirds of the respondents called the language of their place of residence dialectal, Samogitian, dünininkai language, nearly all of them (90%) believe that only the oldest local residents speak dialectally, e.g.: Only the very, very old speak dialectally; even people in their fifties and sixties do not say “dūna,” “pyns.” Kuršėnai is a village; everyone speaks like that (KURŠ1_vyr1); Grandparents occasionally say “dūnikės,” “pynuką”; younger people no longer say that (KURŠ1_mot2); No one speaks dialectally or in the local speech anymore. No one here understands the Samogitian language, and no one speaks it either. Only some old people, those over 70–80. Young people say they are ashamed to speak Samogitian; they do not want to be Samogitians (UŽVE3_mot2); The old people speak more Samogitian: they cut off the endings, bite off the endings, say “vyna dūnas” (one [loaf] of bread), the stresses are different, placed elsewhere. Young people speak more like Highland Lithuanians, especially those who leave for the cities; when they return, they speak more like Highland Lithuanians (LAUK2_mot1).
Non-Samogitian / mixed language variants are divided into 3 groups: 1) mixed with the standard / literary language or with the Highland dialect identified with it (62 percent of responses); 2) mixed with Northern Samogitian subdialects (23 percent of responses); 3) mixed both with the standard language and with other Samogitian subdialects (15 percent of responses). Nevertheless, all three groups are linked by the perception of non-Samogitian / mixed language, which is determined by comparing one’s own language variant with the “true” Samogitian dialect established in consciousness, e.g.: ours is mixed, sometimes we speak Samogitian, sometimes we do not, somewhat Samogitian, broken, simple (KALT1_vyr4); Neither one thing nor the other, not genuine, you cannot call it Samogitian <...>. Close to the standard language, but not quite (KURŠ3_vyr3); Literary language is spreading, overcoming dialects, children are immersed in the internet environment and will learn at school. Others are ashamed; the school does its work. Perhaps the speech of peasants is unfashionable (LAUK2_mot4); No one here has ever spoken purely Samogitian; only some old words remain. We are among the Samogitians. Compared with the people of Telšiai, we are not Samogitians. If we do not speak Samogitian, then we speak Lithuanian (ŠVĖK2_mot4); Normal Lithuanian speech, unremarkable, neither Highland nor Samogitian—we speak Lithuanian, ordinary Lithuanian; it is becoming closer to the standard language (ŠILA2_mot3); Mixtures, hybrids, from the land of clogs, mixed—we use words from all Samogitian varieties, catching everything. They speak the same way in Šilutė (PAJŪ3_mot1); We ordinary people speak this way—not very Samogitian. On television they speak as in Šilalė. If we are Samogitians, then we should speak Samogitian—we do not speak Samogitian (ŠILA2_mot4).
The non-dialectal language variant opposed to the dialectal one is most often attributed by the respondents to representatives of the younger generation and/or to educated residents and those who have returned from elsewhere, e.g.: For young people—there are no dialects anymore—everyone is Highland, literary [language]; they do not want to hear about the dialect. Only a few children speak dialectally; everyone speaks literary language. Parents also speak literary language with their children (TVER2_mot1); Young people speak less dialectally, perhaps more in the standard language; the influence of English is often noticeable—they translate sentences from English. The dialect is unfashionable (ŠVĖK1_mot3); Young people speak more like Highlanders, especially those who leave for cities; when they return, they speak more like Highlanders
8
Page 9
(LAUK2_mot1); Educated people speak more correctly and clearly; the uneducated use different words. It is not the Samogitian language, but resembles the standard language. Young people speak differently—they say things quickly. My son returned from abroad and speaks the same way (ŽENA3_mot4). This attitude correlates with the descriptions expressed by representatives of the younger generation: proportionally, most of them characterized their own language variant as non-dialectal (ŽENA1_mot3), literary (ŽENA1_mot3).
In summarizing the evaluations of one’s own language variant, it can be concluded that, in the Varniškiai’s view, only the oldest Southern Samogitian Varniškiai still speak dialectally, or use dūnininkavimas, whereas the language of other residents, especially young people and those returning from other cities, is mixed with the standard / literary language or with the Highland dialect identified with it. Only in the western part of the subdialect, in Žemaičių Naumiestis (355), located near the nearly extinct Western Samogitians, do all respondents state that their language is one of the most correct (ŽENA2_mot1), more or less correct (ŽENA1_mot2), literary (ŽENA1_mot3), similar to the standard language, except that we remove the endings (ŽENA3_mot4)¹⁴. Both the older and oldest generations’ attitude that young people do not speak dialectally and the younger generation’s effort to identify their own language variant with the non-dialectal variant may indicate an ongoing change in the traditional Varniškiai subdialect—the abandonment of the use of the most easily recognizable salient dialectal features, especially the monophthongization of the diphthongs ie, uo.
4. EVALUATIONS OF THE LOCAL LANGUAGE VARIETY
On the basis of evaluations of one’s own language variant, the evaluations of the language variant used in the respondents’ locality of residence were examined according to three categories: 1) comprehensibility; 2) correctness; and 3) beauty (attractiveness). The data were collected using a seven-point semantic differential rating scale. During the interview, respondents had to evaluate all three categories from the most positive (7) to the most negative (1). A score from 5 to 7 is considered positive, 4 neutral, and from 1 to 3 negative.
Almost all Varniškiai (93 percent) believe that the language of their locality is easily understood by everyone (see Figure 4), because incomprehensible language is usually perceived as the use of unusual lexical units with a distinctive meaning, e.g.: I do not use strange words—it is understandable to everyone (VARN3_mot3); I speak the standard language because I think others may not understand; sometimes I insert my own words (UŽVĖ3_mot1); true Samogitians... some words are unclear (UŽVĖ3_mot2); dialect words are different (LAUK2_mot1); our language is understandable to everyone, most expressive in its Samogitian character; we have no specific words (LAU2_mot4); it is difficult to converse with another Samogitian; some of their words are different (LAUK3_mot2); grandparents and parents used to have distinctive, different words (gonkos, alkieruks), but we no longer speak that way (ŠILA2_mot3). Only the respondents from the town of Tverai (LKA 220a), located near the boundary with the Northern Samogitian Kretingiškiai, are convinced that the language variant used in their locality is difficult for representatives of other dialects to understand, e.g.: Highlanders and Dzūkians—it is very difficult; visitors ask us to translate (TVER2_mot1); Highlanders do not understand; they say that we cut off the endings (TVER2_mot3).
¹⁴ For the fate of the Western Samogitian subdialect, see Zinkevičius 1994: 123; Bukantis 2002: 12–13; 2007: 196; LKTCh 2004: 222 and elsewhere. Regarding Žemaičių Naumiestis (355), it has been considered that this entire point should be assigned to the Southern Samogitian Varniškiai, because, being Raseiniškiai and located on the border of the Varniškiai area, the residents of Žemaičių Naumiestis and its environs, like the Raseiniškiai, preserve the diphthongs am, an, em, en intact (Janavičienė, Zinkevičius 1983: 102). Žemaičių Naumiestis (LKA 355) is assigned to the Southern Samogitian Raseiniškiai in the publication Lithuanian Dialects at the Beginning of the 21st Century: A Geolinguistic and Sociolinguistic Study (Maps and Their Commentaries) in the map published there (Aliūkaitė et al. 2014: 143). However, in Appendix 7 of the same publication, Žemaičių Naumiestis (LKA 355) is included in the list of optimized LKA points of the Southern Samogitian Varniškiai (NTA 2014: 442). Since research on this speech variety is lacking, “the classification of dialects by Z. Zinkevičius and A. Girdenis is still followed” (PŽVmk 2017: 55).
9
Page 10
Figure 4. Evaluations of the comprehensibility of one’s own language variant
Regarding correctness, the respondents expressed some doubts, and none evaluated their own language variant with the highest score (see Figure 5), because they compare it (their own language variant) with the standard / literary language or with the Highland dialect identified with it. Respondents typically mentioned phonetic differences (most often the reduction of endings), differences or similarities in stress and vocabulary, e.g.: we cut off the endings, peasant speech <...>, similar to the standard language and Highland, speaks clearly, stresses words differently (ŠVEK3_mot2); we cut the endings, but we are moving closer to the literary language (ŠVEK3_mot5); the local language—the Šilalė dialect—is different from Samogitian, somewhat orderly, we cut off the endings a little, the word “a little.” Representatives of the Šilalė dialect are somewhat lost people. The manner of speaking is simple; our word basket is narrower, while Highlanders have more word meanings (ŠILA1_mot2); the local language seems correct, beautiful, easily understood; there are no archaic words—it is Lithuanian speech, Šilalė speech; we only cut off the endings (KVĖD2_vyr1).
Figure 5. Evaluations of the correctness of one’s own language variant
10
Page 11
Phonetic, lexical, and other differences from the standard language create in the respondents’ consciousness an image of one’s own language variant as not entirely correct. The most likely explanation for this result is public norms, that is, the alleged superiority of the standard language is “imposed” through education and/or the media (cf. Bezooijen 1997: 30). Therefore, any deviation from the standard language, or standard, may create an image of an incorrect language variant in the consciousness of the ordinary language user. The image of the correct language variant established in the Varniškiai’s consciousness—the standard language or the Highland dialect identified with it—may be regarded as a certain “standard language ideology,” in which only one language variant is correct (see Keturakienė, Vaicekauskienė 2016: 32 and the literature cited there).
But correctness does not always correlate directly with attractiveness (beauty). Often the opposite is true: a particular language variant or dialect may be evaluated as incorrect but attractive (Kuiper 1999: 256; Aliūkaitė 2006: 571 and elsewhere). Varniškiai hold a similar view: twice as many respondents are convinced that their own language variant is beautiful as those who believe that the local language variant is correct; cf. Figures 5 and 6.
Figure 6. Evaluations of the beauty (attractiveness) of one’s own language variant
When evaluating their own language variant as attractive, Varniškiai emphasize both solidarity with the locality and its similarity to the language variant commonly used in the public sphere, which is close to the standard language, e.g.: I cannot imagine any difference from what is on television, we only cut off the endings. I would be the biggest scoundrel if I said it was ugly (KVĚD3_vyr3); beautiful own language (LAUK3_vyr3); the local language is beautiful (PAJŪ2_mot2); the local language is the most beautiful, but others say it is ugly (PAJŪ2_mot3). The metalinguistic comments supplementing the attractiveness evaluations show that for the respondents, the attractiveness of their own language variant is determined by the solidarity factor, associated not only with the dialect but also with regional and cultural identity in general (cf. Aliūkaitė 2007: 212, 214).
In summarizing the aesthetic evaluations of the Southern Samogitian Varniškiai, it can be stated that the comprehensibility and correctness of one’s own language variant are determined by the similarity of one’s own language variant to the standard language: the closer one’s own language variant is to the standard language (phonetically, accentologically, and lexically), the more comprehensible and correct it is. As for attractiveness
11
Page 12
(beauty), the most important factor in its evaluation is solidarity with the place of residence and its cultural environment. Thus, for Varniškiai, their own language variant is fairly beautiful and almost universally comprehensible, but more incorrect than correct.
5. SUMMARY
The analysis of nominations and evaluations of one’s own language variant, conducted across 11 LKA points in the Southern Samogitian Varniškiai area, showed that:
– one’s own language variant is fairly beautiful for Varniškiai; the most important criterion determining the respondents’ positive evaluations of their own language variant’s attractiveness (beauty) is the factor of regional solidarity;
– in evaluating the comprehensibility and correctness of their own language variant, Varniškiai compare it (their own language variant) with the standard / literary language: phonetic, lexical, and other similarities and/or differences from the standard language create in the respondents’ consciousness an image of a language variant that is comprehensible to almost everyone, but not entirely correct;
– Varniškiai attribute dūnininkavimas to their own language variant, or the realization of the diphthongs ie, uo as the monophthongs [iː], [uː] and/or diphthongoids [iːi], [uːu]; other features characteristic of the traditional Southern Samogitian Varniškiai are not emphasized;
– during the period under study, the most characteristic feature by which one’s own language variant is recognized is, in the Varniškiai’s view, the shortening of endings;
– according to the respondents, dūnininkavimas has survived only in the speech of the oldest Varniškiai, while younger residents, especially the youngest generation and those who have moved in from other localities, speak either a language variant with the standard language (equated with the Highland dialect) or a language variant mixed with other Samogitian subdialects;
– Varniškiai identify the nominations of their own language variant with localities associated with geographical (spatial) distances and assign either the name of the place of residence or that of the administrative or municipal center to which people migrate; this cautiously allows us to state that the northeastern part of the Varniškiai area is linguistically closer to the Western Highland Šiauliškiai, the northwestern part to the Northern Samogitian Telšiškiai, and the western part to the urban Klaipėda language variant, which is close to the standard language;
– both the older and oldest generations of Varniškiai’s attitude that young people do not speak dialectally and the younger generation’s bringing of the image of their own language variant closer to the standard language may indicate convergence between the dialectal and standard language used by the Samogitian Varniškiai, while the descriptions and nominations may indicate the linguistic heterogeneity of the dialect area.
LITERATŪRA
Aliūkaitė Daiva 2006: Tarminio kalbėjimo kultūrinis aspektas [Cultural Aspect of Speaking a Dialect]. – Acta Baltico-Slavica 30, 567–583.
Aliūkaitė Daiva 2007: Tarminio kalbėjimo estetinė vertė: nuostatų tyrimas [Aesthetic Value of Dialectal Discourse: Approach Analysis]. – Tekstai ir kontekstai 1, 211–223.
Aliūkaitė Daiva, Bakšienė Rima, Jaroslavienė Jurgita, Judžentytė Gintarė, Leskauskaitė Asta, Lubienė Jūratė, Meiliūnaitė Violeta, Pakalniškienė Dalia, Ragaišienė Vilija, Rinkauskienė Regina, Švambarytė-Valužienė Janina, Urbanavičienė Jolita, Vaišnienė Daiva 2014: Punktų tinklo tankis geolingvistinės skirties aukštaičiai: žemaičiai požiūriu [The Density of the Point Network in the Case of the Geolinguistic Difference Between the Aukštaičiai and the Žemaičiai]. – XXI a. pradžios lietuvių tarmės: geolingvistinis ir sociolingvistinis tyrimas (žemėlapiai ir jų komentarai), sud. D. Mikulėnienė, V. Meiliūnaitė, Vilnius: Briedis, 129–197.
Aliūkaitė Daiva, Mikulėnienė Danguolė 2014a: Geolingvistika: ideologija, teorija ir metodai. Pagrindinės sąvokos [Geolinguistics: Ideology, Theory, and Methods. Basic
12
Page 13
Concepts]. – XXI a. pradžios lietuvių tarmės: geolingvistinis ir sociolingvistinis tyrimas (žemėlapiai ir jų komentarai), sud. D. Mikulėnienė, V. Meiliūnaitė, Vilnius: Briedis, 29–47.
Aliūkaitė Daiva, Mikulėnienė Danguolė 2014b: Geolektų ir regioninių dialektų formavimosi ypatumai Lietuvoje [Peculiarities of Formation of Gelects and Regional Dialects in Lithuania]. – XXI a. pradžios lietuvių tarmės: geolingvistinis ir sociolingvistinis tyrimas (žemėlapiai ir jų komentarai), sud. D. Mikulėnienė, V. Meiliūnaitė, Vilnius: Briedis, 257–262.
Aliūkaitė Daiva, Mikulėnienė Danguolė 2016a: Perceptyviosios dialektologijos instrumentai ir tyrimų kryptys: variantų arealai mentaliniuose žemėlapiuose (Biržų atvejis) [Perceptual Dialectology Instruments and Directions for Research: Areas of Variants in Mental Maps (Case of Biržai)]. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 74, 89–120.
Aliūkaitė Daiva, Mikulėnienė Danguolė 2016b: Lietuvos gimnazistų požiūris: išsilavinimas Lietuvos gimnazistų vaizdiniuose [Lithuanian High School Students’ Approach: The Reflection of Education in Standard Language Images]. – Verbum 7, 17–33.
Aliūkaitė Daiva, Mikulėnienė Danguolė, Čepaitienė Agnė, Geržotaitė Laura 2017: Kalbos variantiškumas ir jo vertinimas perceptyviosios dialektologijos požiūriu: variantų ir vietų vaizdiniai [Language Variation and its Evaluation from the Perspective of Perceptual Dialectology: Images of Variants and Locations], Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla.
Aliūkaitė Daiva, Mikulėnienė Danguolė, Čepaitienė Agnė, Geržotaitė Laura 2020: Lietuvių kalbos variantai: tyrėjo ir paprastojo kalbos bendruomenės nario perspektyvos [Lithuanian language variants: perspectives of researcher and ordinary member of language community], Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla.
Auer Peter 2005: Europe’s Sociolinguistic Unity, or: A Typology of European Dialect/Standard Constellations. – Perspectives on Variation. Sociolinguistic, Historical, Comparative, eds. N. Delbecque, J. Van der Auwera, D. Geeraerts, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 7–42.
Aurrekoetxea Gotzon, Ormaetxea Jose Luis 2006: Research Project – “Sociogeolinguistic Atlas of the Basque Language”. – Euskalingua 9, 157–162.
Bezooijen Renée 1997: Normen met betrekking tot het Standaardnederlands. – Taal en Tongval 10, 30–48.
Brazaitienė Laura 2024: Jaunųjų rytų aukštaičių – anykštėnų, kupiškėnų ir uteniškių – tarminės kalbos vaizdiniai: ribos ir objektyvusis tarmiškumas [Dialect Images of the Young Eastern Aukštaitians of Anykščiai, Kupiškis and Utena: Borders and Objective Dialecticity]. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 91, 198–223.
Bukantis Jonas 1984: Fonologija južnožemaitiško Varnajškojo guovora: filologijos mokslų kandidato disertacija [Phonology of the Southern Žemaitian Subdialect of Varniai: PhD Thesis in Philology], Vilnius: Vilniaus valstybinis universitetas.
Bukantis Jonas 2002: Žemaičių kalba šiandien ir jos išlikimo perspektyvos [The Žemaitian Language Today and Its Prospects for Survival]. – Žemaičių žemė 2, 12–13.
Bukantis Jonas 2007: Vakarų žemaičių tarmės ypatybės [Characteristics of the Western Žemaitian Dialect]. – Tautosakos darbai 34, 194–206.
Chambers Jack K., Trudgill Peter 1980: Dialectology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chambers Jack K., Trudgill Peter 2004: Dialectology, 2nd edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13
Page 14
Dambrauskienė Diana 2020: Pietų žemaičių raseiniškių tarmių nominacijos ir įverčiai [Dialect Nominations and Evaluations in the Area of the Southern Samogitian of Raseiniai]. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 83, 227–247.
Dambrauskienė Diana 2021: Pietų žemaičių raseiniškių kalbinis pereigiškumas: horizontalusis ir vertikalusis variantiškumas: daktaro disertacija [Transitional Position of the Southern Žemaitian Subdialect of Raseiniai: The Horizontal and Vertical Variation: Doctoral Dissertation], Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.
Diercks Willy 2002: Mental maps. Linguistic-Geographic Concepts. – Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology 2, eds. D. Long, D. Preston, Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 51–70.
Dikčius Vytautas 2011: Anketos sudarymo principai [Principles for Compiling the Questionnaire]. Prieiga internete: https://www.spssanalyze.lt/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Anketos_sudarymo_principai.pdf [žiūrėta 2026-01-12].
Gaižauskaitė Inga, Mikenė Svajonė 2014: Socialinių tyrimų metodai: apklausa [Social Research Methods: Survey], Vilnius: Mykolo Romerio universitetas.
Gaižauskaitė Inga, Valavičienė Natalija 2016: Socialinių tyrimų metodai: kokybinis interviu [Social Research Methods: Qualitative Interview], Vilnius: Mykolo Romerio universitetas, VĮ Registrų centras.
Garrett Peter 2010: Attitudes to Language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Geržotaitė Laura 2019a: Jaunųjų rytų aukštaičių – kupiškėnų ir uteniškių – kalbinės gimtinės vaizdiniai [Images of Linguistic Homeland of the Young Eastern Aukštaitians of Kupiškis and Utena]. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 81, 175–198.
Geržotaitė Laura 2019b: Jaunųjų vakarų aukštaičių kauniškių kalbinės gimtinės vaizdiniai: Kauno, Jurbarko, Šakių ir Marijampolės kalbinis (ne)giminiškumas [Images of the Linguistic Homeland of the Young Western Aukštaitians of Kaunas: The Linguistic (Non)Affinity of Kaunas, Jurbarkas, Šakiai, and Marijampolė]. – Bendrinė kalba 92, [1–25].
Geržotaitė Laura 2019c: Bendrinės lietuvių kalbos vaizdinių kalbinio standarto plote tyrimas: vienos Kauno rajono gimnazijos atvejis [Research of the Images of Standard Lithuanian in an Area of the Standard Language: The Case of Kaunas district Gymnasium]. – Lietuvių kalba 13, [1–19].
Geržotaitė Laura, Čepaitienė Agnė 2016: Vilkaviškio jaunuolių kalbinė gimtinė: ribos, taisyklingumo ir patrauklumo vertės [The Linguistic Homeland of the Young People Living in Vilkaviškis: Borders, Correctness and Attractiveness]. – Verbum 7, 84–100.
Girdenis Aleksas 1970: Ką turi dūnininkai vietoj literatūrinės kalbos ie, uo [What do the Dūnininkai Have Instead of the Literary Language ie, uo]. – Baltistica 6(2), 143–146.
Hickey Raymond 2003: How and Why Supraregional Varieties Arise. Insights into Late Modern English, eds. M. Dossena, Ch. Jones, Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Hoppenbrouwers Cor 1983: Het genus in een Brabants regiolect [The Genus in a Brabant Regional Dialect]. – TABU, Bulletin voor Nederlandse Taalkunde 13, 1–25.
Inoue Fumio 1999: Classification of Dialects by Image: English and Japanese. – Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology 1, ed. D. R. Preston, Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 147–160.
Janavičienė Janina, Zinkevičius Zigmas 1983: Žemaičių Naumiesčio šnekta socialinės lingvistikos požiūriu [The Dialect of the Locality of Žemaičių Naumiestis (the District of Šilutė) in a Socio Linguistic Aspect]. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 23, 102–106.
14
Page 15
Jaworski Adam, Coupland Nikolas, Galasiński Dariusz 2004: Metalanguage: Social and Ideological Perspectives, Berlyn: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kardelis Kęstutis 2017: Mokslinių tyrimų metodologija ir metodai: edukologija ir kiti socialiniai mokslai [Research Methodology and Methods: Educology and Other Social Sciences], 6-asis patais. ir papild. leid., Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos centras.
Keturakienė Miglė, Vaicekauskienė Loreta 2016: Lietuvių kalbos mokytojai standartinės kalbos ideologijos nelaisvėje: nuostatos, praktikos, pasekmės [Lithuanian Language Teachers in the Captivity of Standard Language Ideology: Attitudes, Practices, Consequences]. – Darbai ir dienos 65, 31–52. Prieiga internete:
Kuiper Lawrence 1999: Variation and the Norm. Parisian Perceptions of Regional French. – Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology 1, Amsterdam: Philadelphia, 243–262.
Labov William 1972a: Sociolinguistic Patterns, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Labov William 1972b: Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English Vernacular, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
LKA I: Lietuvių kalbos atlasas 1: Leksika [Atlas of the Lithuanian Language 1: Lexicon], ats. red. K. Morkūnas, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1977.
LKA II: Lietuvių kalbos atlasas 2: Fonetika [Atlas of the Lithuanian Language 2: Phonetics], ats. red. K. Morkūnas, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1982.
LKA III: Lietuvių kalbos atlasas 3: Morfologija [Atlas of the Lithuanian Language 3: Morphology], ats. red. K. Morkūnas, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1991.
LKTCH 2004: Lietuvių kalbos tarmių chrestomatija [The Anthology of Lithuanian Language Dialects], sud. R. Bacevičiūtė, A. Ivanauskienė, A. Leskauskaitė, E. Trumpa, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.
Mikulėnienė Danguolė 2020: Tarmiškumas kaip išmatuojamas dydis [Dialecticism as a Measurable Value]. – Lietuvių kalba 15, 1–11.
NTA 2014: XXI a. pradžios lietuvių tarmės: geolingvistinis ir sociolingvistinis tyrimas (žemėlapiai ir jų komentarai) [Modern Geolinguistic Research in Lithuania: the Optimization of Network Points and the Interactive Dissemination of Information (Maps and Commentaries)], sud. D. Mikulėnienė, V. Meiliūnaitė, Vilnius: Briedis.
Preston Dennis R. 1989: Perceptual Dialectology: Nonlinguists’ Views of Areal Linguistics, Dordrecht: Foris.
Preston Dennis R. 1999: Introduction. – Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology 1, ed. by D. R. Preston, Michigan: John Benjamins Publishing Company, xxii–xxiv.
Preston Dennis R. 2013: Language with an Attitude. – The Handbook of Language Variation and Change, ed. by J. K. Chambers, N. Schilling, Blackwell: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 157–182.
PŽVmk 2017: Pietų žemaičiai varniškiai: mokomoji knyga [Southern Žemaitians, Varniai: Textbook], sud. G. Judžentytė, V. Marcišauskaitė, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.
Ramonienė Meilutė 2022: Kalbinės nuostatos ir jų tyrimai [Linguistic Attitudes and Their Research]. – Sociolingvistinė Lietuvos panorama. Gyventojų kalbinės nuostatos ir kalbinis elgesys, moksl. red. M. Ramonienė, Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas, 11–23.
15
Page 16
Rupšienė Liudmila 2007: Kokybinių tyrimų duomenų rinkimo metodologija [Methodology for Collecting Qualitative Research Data], Klaipėda: Klaipėdos universitetas.
Salys Antanas 1992: Raštai. Lietuvių kalbos tarmės [Writings. Lithuanian Language Dialects] 4, Roma: Lietuvių Katalikų Mokslo Akademija.
Schilling Natalie 2013: Sociolinguistic Fieldwork, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Taeldeman Johan 2010: Linguistic Stability in a Language Space. – Language and Space. An International Handbook of Linguistic Variation 1: Theories and Methods, ed. by P. Auer, J. E. Schmidt, Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter, 355–374.Trudgill Peter 1974: Sociolinguistics: An Introduction, Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Vaitmonienė Diana 2017: Lietuvos tarmių vaizdiniai pietų žemaičių raseiniškių mentaliniame žemėlapyje [Image of Lithuanian Dialects on the Mental Map of the Young and Middle-Aged Generation of PŽR (pietų žemaičių raseiniškiai)]. – Perspectives of Baltic Philology III. The Apocalypses of the Baltic Worlds, Poznan: Wydawnictwo Rys, 345–365.
Zinkevičius Zigmas 1966: Lietuvių dialektologija [Lithuanian Dialectology], Vilnius: Mintis.
Zinkevičius Zigmas 1994: Lietuvių kalbos dialektologija [Dialectology of the Lithuanian Language], Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla.
PRIEDAI
1 priedas. Perceptyvinės anketos klausimyno pavyzdys, sudarytas straipsnio autorės pagal Aliūkaitė ir kt. 2020: 301–306
16
Page 17
2 priedas. Garso įrašų registras
Eil. Nr. LKA punktas Tiriamojo kodas Tiriamojo gyvenamoji vieta Įrašo trukmė 1. Kuršėnai (102) KURŠ1_vyr1 Kuršėnai 1 val. 33 min. 16 sek. 2. KURŠ1_mot2 Kuršėnai 48 min. 47 sek. 3. KURŠ3_vyr3 Kuršėnai 35 min. 43 sek. 4. Užventis (193) UŽVE3_mot1 Junkilai 20 min. 53 sek. 5. UŽVE3_mot2 Junkilai 1 val. 52 min. 49 sek. 6. UŽVE2_mot3 Užventis 2 min. 21 sek. 7. Laukuva (254) LAUK2_mot1 Bilon iai 20 min. 46 sek. 8. LAUK3_mot2 Bilon iai 1 val. 9 min. 27 sek. 9. LAUK3_vyr3 Bilon iai
17
Page 18
10. LAUK2_mot4 Bilioniai 2 val. 6 min. 33 sek.
11. Švėkšna (285) ŠVĖK2_vyr1 Švėkšna 12 min. 43 sek.
12. ŠVĖK3_mot2 Švėkšna 22 min. 22 sek.
13. ŠVĖK1_mot3 Švėkšna 10 min. 40 sek.
14. ŠVĖK2_mot4 Švėkšna 30 min. 11 sek.
15. ŠVĖK3_mot5 Švėkšna 1 val. 27 min. 27 sek.
16. Šilalė (323) ŠILA3_mot1 Šilalė 18 min. 2 sek.
17. ŠILA1_mot2 Šilalė 18 min. 17 sek.
18. ŠILA2_mot3 Dirkintai 16 min. 6 sek.
19. ŠILA2_mot4 Šilalė 10 min. 53 sek.
20. ŠILA2_mot5 Šilalė 29 min. 34 sek.
21. ŠILA3_mot6 Šilalė
22. Kvėdarna (288) KVĖD2_vyr1 Kvėdarna 28 min. 16 sek.
23. KVĖD2_mot2 Kvėdarna 7 min. 27 sek.
24. KVĖD3_vyr3 Kvėdarna 13 min. 4 sek.
25. KVĖD2_mot4 Kvėdarna 14 min. 32 sek.
26. KVĖD1_mot5 Kvėdarna
27. Kaltinėnai (290) KALT1_mot1 Kaltinėnai 20 min. 23 sek.
28. KALT1_mot2 Kaltinėnai 20 min. 4 sek.
29. KALT2_mot3 Kaltinėnai 21 min. 27 sek.
30. KALT1_vyr4 Kaltinėnai 22 min. 39 sek.
31. Pajūris (322) PAJŪ3_mot1 Pajūris 38 min. 29 sek.
32. PAJŪ2_mot2 Pajūris 10 min. 15 sek.
33. PAJŪ2_mot3 Pajūris 7 min. 51 sek.
34. Žemaičių Naumiestis (355) ŽENA2_mot1 Žemaičių Naumiestis 10 min. 6 sek.
35. ŽENA1_mot2 Žemaičių Naumiestis 6 min. 54 sek.
36. ŽENA1_mot3 Žemaičių Naumiestis 10 min. 26 sek.
37. ŽENA3_mot4 Žemaičių Naumiestis 20 min. 27 sek.
