Žagarės šnektos sintaksinės ypatybės (remiamasi 1998–2003 metų įrašais)

JANINA ŠVAMBARYTĖ-VALUŽIENĖ Institute of the Lithuanian Language Research areas: analysis of dialects in written sources, dialect lexicography and lexicology, sociolinguistics, syntax. DOI: https://doi.org/10.35321/all82-04 SYNTACTIC FEATURES OF THE ŽAGARĖ DIALECT (BASED ON RECORDINGS FROM 1998–2003) Syntactic Peculiarities of Žagarė Local Dialect (Based on the Records of 1998–2003) ANNOTATION In this article, the author completes the description of the Žagarė dialect. The article analyzes the syntactic phenomena of this dialect and discusses morphosyntactic constructions (the perficientive, the expression of necessity and condition, and the arthroid), which are also characteristic of another Baltic language—Latvian. The dialectal expression of the subject, object, time, place, and cause in the sentence is described. The linking of appended constructions and complex sentences used in the dialect is reviewed. Based on the Dictionary of Phraseology and the Dictionary of Comparisons, the dialect’s phraseology (traditional phraseological units and stable word combinations) and comparisons are characterized, and attention is drawn to the insightful use of the dialect’s expressive means. KEYWORDS: dialect syntax, morphosyntactic phenomena, phraseology, comparisons, language expressiveness. ANNOTATION By this article the author finishes the description of Žagarė local dialect. The article analyzes its syntactic phenomena and discusses morphosyntactic constructions (perficientive, expression of necessity and condition, arthroid), which can also be found in another Baltic language, i.e. Latvian. The article describes the dialectal expression of the subject, object, time, place and cause in the sentence. It reviews the linking words of dangling Straipsniai / Articles 71 JANINA ŠVAM­BARYTĖ-VALUŽIENĖ constructions and complex sentences used in the dialect. Based on Phraseological Dictionary and Dictionary of Comparisons, the article describes the dialect’s phraseology (traditional phraseological units and stable word phrases) and comparisons and draws attention to the insightfully applied expressive content in the dialect. KEYWORDS: dialect syntax, morphosyntactic phenomena, phraseology, comparisons, language expression. INTRODUCTION Individual morphosyntactic and syntactic phenomena of the Žagarė dialect have been noticed and described in articles by dialectologists Aldona Jonait ytė and Aušra Kaikarytė, or in joint publications by Aleksas Girdenis and Genovaitė Kači uškienė and by Aleksas Girdenis and Juozas Pabrėža. In dialectological scholarship, it was customary—one might say it was the fashion—to draw attention to what most clearly differed from the syntactic constructions or phenomena described in works on standard syntax (LKG III, and works by Jonas Balkevičius and Vitas Labutis). The author of this article did not escape this tradition (fashion) either. Reflecting on Viktorija Daujotytė’s book Text and Work (1998), Donatas Sauka quotes thoughts that a text is a construct of the mind determined by life experience associated with essential questions of a person’s existence: who am I, how do I see the world, how and what do I hear, why, and many other questions (quoted from the book Sauka 2019: 182). The recordings of the Žagarė dialect reflect the distinctive and firm (sometimes categorical) attitude of a person from the country’s borderland toward various questions of life, developed through observation, evaluation, reflection, comparison, and juxtaposition. The respondents’ insights are quite precise and contemporary, while their syntactic expression is subtle. Research material, aim, and methods. The article is based on recordings of the Žagarė dialect preserved in the Dialect Archive of the Geolinguistics Centre of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language (LKI GCTA)¹. The dialect recordings under study were made at the turn of the end of the twentieth and the beginning of the twenty-first century (in 1998–2003)². Sixteen cassettes of dialect recordings were made with respondents from the oldest generation, born between 1901 and 1936. The recorders ¹ The research material is described in greater detail in the author’s article; see Švambarytė-Valužienė 2018: 135–148. ² The LKI GCTA preserves recordings made in 2011–2013 of the older and younger generations. The author of the article does not rely on them for one reason—the respondents’ age. The oldest generation best reflects the traditional dialect, and most recordings of such respondents were made in the indicated years. The author does not aim to compare how the syntax of the dialect changes. In the author’s view, statistics or changes concerning individual syntactic phenomena have no significance until the syntactic features of the Žagarė dialect have been described. Problems of development and change remain an object of research and an incentive for other articles on this topic to emerge, based on the material of this article. 72 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXII Žagarės šnektos sintaksinės ypatybės (remiamasi 1998–2003 metų įrašais) (from school pupils to students and doctoral students), their unequal experience in interviewing respondents and recording dialect speech is reflected in the respondents’ answers to questions or in coherent narratives3. The aim of the article is to describe, for the first time, the (morpho)syntactic features of the Žagarė dialect, comparative and phraseological combinations, and the dialect’s expressive means. To achieve this aim, the following tasks were set: a) based on recordings of the Žagarė dialect, to describe (morpho)syntactic phenomena; b) to discuss the comparisons and phraseological units used by the respondents; c) to draw attention, for the first time, to the dialectal means of expression in the texts created by the respondents. The author employs descriptive and comparative methods. It is hoped that the syntactic phenomena observed in the article will encourage further attention from dialectologists as they observe their development and/or change. MORPHOSYNTACTIC AND SYNTACTIC FEATURES OF THE ŽAGARĖ DIALECT The author cannot describe the Žagarė dialect’s syntactic system in detail for several reasons: the limited size of the texts selected for study; the quality of the texts themselves (the lack of respondent questioning and continuous, spontaneously created text, and the structure of the respondents’ narratives (the limited range of topics narrated)); all this determines the fragmentary nature of the syntactic expression. The author holds that it is worthwhile to describe the observed (morpho)syntactic phenomena, which will help reveal the syntactic system of the Žagarė dialect only when the corpus of texts under study is larger (in terms of expression and time), has more suitable forms of expression, and contains more varied accounts of respondents’ life experiences. Structurally, this part of the article has three components: first, the observed morphosyntactic phenomena are discussed, then the syntactic phenomena, and finally the expressive means of Žagarė dialect speakers. Morphosyntactic phenomena. Among the morphosyntactic features of the Žagarė dialect, a phenomenon of the ternary aspect system is noticeable—the use of the perficientive (Girdenis, Kačiūskienė, 1986 = Girdenis 2000: 307–314; Įšpt 2001: 39; Lipartė 3 In 1998, A. Kaikarytė interviewed a man (b. 1928) and a woman (b. 1928), while students of Lithuanian studies S. Mickutė and S. Raicevičiūtė interviewed a man (b. 1930) and two women (b. 1914 and 1936). In 1999, texts were recorded from sixteen respondents born in 1901, 1902, 1909, 1911, 1912, 1914, 1915, 1918, 1920, 1921, 1923, 1926, 1927, 1928, 1929, and 1934, and from a respondent born in 1924; the recordings were made by A. Laurikėtytė, B. Balutytė, R. Vidmantaitė, J. Norkienė, and S. Raicevičiūtė. In 2003, pupils of the “Aušra” Gymnasium in Joniškis wrote down the narratives of respondents born in 1923 and 1925. Straipsniai / Articles 73 JANINA ŠVAMBARYTĖ-VALUŽIENĖ 2000: 144–152; 2000a: 151–179; Kaikarytė 2010: 26)⁴. Rolandas Mikulskas, relying on data from the card index of the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language preserved at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language, “draws and refines the distribution boundary of perficientive constructions used in the northern Lithuanian dialects.” It shows that northern Kupiškėnai and Uteniškiai must also be included in the area of distribution of perficientive constructions (Mikulskas 2003: 75–76; Kaikarytė 2010: 27; 2015: 169). A. Kaikarytė observed that “the inhabitants of Skaistgirys, and probably also those of Žagarė, most often use the postverbs lauka ‘outward’ and žemė ‘earthward’ to form perficientive constructions” (Kaikarytė 2015: 169)⁵. The linguist’s observation is insightful: Žagarė speakers tend to form the perficientive construction somewhat more often with the postverb lauka ‘outward’ or laukan, e.g.: paspá.udei tókį. knòpki. / jei̇gu par_švì.l̜i. ėin / prāded ji(š) švė̇lpt̄ / tai_ėin gā.rs lauka / tai_tāda jeu_gā-l palé.išt višùs rātùs / ka_jis [dampis] pradé.tu. sùkšt ta._mašina. kùlęma. (Vrš); jiė [žydai] deltó. nebėga lauka / ka_jiė netik [kad vokiečiai juos sušaudys] (Vrš); jei̇gu ran̜įkose jeuti / ka_lá.užes lauka pri_žemės ta_šakute / tai_tė įrà vanduõ (Vrš); [ėigulys] sâka / ėik̜i lauka iš miška (Žg); greitóji atvąž̌̌eva / reik nešt lauka [serganti kaimyną] (Dkš); i.silė.idi [į terbas sutarkuotus obuolius] i_sun̜i lauka (Žg); imdava lā.nkan ta(s)_sę̇menas (Žvlg)⁶. Somewhat less frequently, Žagarė speakers used the postverb žemė ‘earthward’ or žėmen, e.g.: nègaliu i.eit klebonijō. / kocs_mušk žemę [nedrąsu] (Žg); sālin [alų] / nu_i_nusālin tā_jeu / nu_i_lė.iš žemę / nȫr ka_brū.nz būtù. / tai_uškā.įtin raudonai ãkmenus / dą̄d i._ta._ãlu. / tén i._vidu. / tādā brū.nz [alus] / grāžus (Žg); vã.ik(s) sló.pst žė.mėn (Žvlg); alė pagã.lve nedóodava / galvà nudri.kusi žė.mėn (Žg)⁷. The Žagarė dialect also has variants of the perficientive construction; for example, the preposition prie and the genitive form of the noun žemė, prie žemės, are used as a postverb and understood in the sense ‘earthward’, cf.: tó.gz gė.rims / ka_nū / viršk prie_žemės (Žg)⁸. Incidentally, it seems that the postverb lauka is used more often by those Žagarė speakers whose parents or ⁴ The perficientive (“the ongoing action”). A. Girdenis and G. Kačiūskienė identify an intermediate category between the verbal aspect systems of progression and event, expressing the action’s approach toward completion (or, in general, toward a certain boundary), cf. the Latvian imperfective sist ‘to beat’, perfective nuost ‘to kill’, and perficientive sist nuõst (zemė) ‘to beat to death’ (Girdenis, Kačiūskienė 1986 = Girdenis 2000: 307–314; Įspt 2001: 39; Liparte 2000: 144–152; 2000a: 151–179; Kaikarytė 2010: 26). ⁵ For a more extensive discussion of perficientive constructions, see Liparte 2000: 144–152; 2000: 151–179; 2005: 50. ⁶ For the accent marks of Žagarė dialect diphthongs and diphthongal combinations, see Švambarytė-Valužienė 2018: 113. ⁷ According to R. Mikulskas, the true perficientive is the combination with žemėn. For more detail, see Mikulskas 2003: 71–96. The author of the article disagrees with this claim and believes that there are two reasons for the existence of the combination with the postverb lauka(n): it may reflect one of the language universals (cf. similar phenomena in Latvian and Estonian) and the internal development of Lithuanian, based on increasing concreteness of expression. ⁸ The postverb may be a combination of the preposition į and the accusative form of the noun žemė; see Mikulskas 2003: 71–96. 74 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXII Žagarės šnektos sintaksinės ypatybės (remiamasi 1998–2003 metų įrašais) grandparents are of Lithuanian origin, whereas Žagarė speakers of Latvian origin or with Samogitian roots choose the postverb žemėn. Since the phenomenon was noticed by Jānis Endzelīns (Jānis Endzelīns 1873–1961), who collected the examples from the works of Friedrich Kurschat (Frydrich Kurszat 1806–1884), August Leskien (August Leskien 1840–1916), and Karl Brugmann (Karl Brugmann 1849–1919), the hypothesis may be raised as to whether the expression of the construction in question was not more frequent in Lithuanian dialects with lauka(n) than with žemė(n). As A. Kaikarytė notes in describing the Skaistgirys dialect, the Žagarė speakers “use both types of participles extensively” (Jšpt 2001: 38; Kaikarytė 2015: 169). In conditional sentences with the conjunction jeigu, the expression of necessity is conveyed precisely by the third-person form of the past iterative tense verb and the passive participle (normally expressed by the verb reikėdavo with an infinitive and the accusative of a nominal), cf.: jeigu būdava pju.nami jēvai / pjōve jēvus / nupjōve / jeigu būva vežami / vežēi (Žg). Both forms of expression are used in the sentence kaž būva di.rbams / tā di.rbai / kaip_i_dabā / gi.veni anc_sāvęs.s / kā_reik / tā_di.rbi (Žg). To express purpose, the passive participle is used, placed before the object (nominal) or after the object, cf.: bū:dava dúonas kėpamas pė:čus / togz_di.delis (Žg); jé.uiez bū:dava tõkes ku.rė.namas (Žg). The expression of necessity by a passive participle, characteristic of the Joniškis dialects, has been discussed (Jšpt 2001: 38; Švambarytė 2002: 66–69; Švambarytė 2003: 197–199). This syntactic commonality of the Baltic languages has been preserved in the Žagarė dialect [cf. viena. kā.rta. tā.išomės / rūgei pjē.unami i.rà (Žg)], but it is now clearly influenced by the norms of standard Lithuanian, cf. o_cė rūgei pjē.unami / reik pjē.ut (Žg). The expression of the third person of the subjunctive mood, the so-called optative mood, in the Žagarė dialect by the particles lai / lei with the third person of the present indicative was mentioned earlier (Švambarytė 2019: 125). It seems that around Žagarė the aforementioned combination with lai is used less frequently, cf.: užr.ugdau pūoda. / i_lai_pūtoj (Žg); lai_tik tie_pėnciniṅkai nerėk pardąuk (Žg). The combination of the particle lei with the third-person present-tense form is much more popular; it should only be noted that other sentence constituents are always inserted into the construction (most often the subject with a dependent clause), cf.: gerāu lei tāva vā.ikāi pasivažinę̇j (Žg); lei jīñ pati ēin skū.stī́s pri valžō.s (Žg); lei_ānā viena pati ēin (Žg); lei_iē sprē.ñ3 / kaip jiē nôr / lei_jiē štūderuoj [figuring it out] (Žvlg). It could be inferred that lei here also performs the function of a modal (hortative) particle⁹. Morphosyntactic phenomena also include subordinate combinations ka(d) with the second or third person singular of the present or future tense, denoting a hypothetical action, e.g.: bičēu / ka_nepagul̃da da_i. ilgō.nine. [I am afraid that they might put me into ⁹ For more detail, see Valeckienė 1998: 190–193. Straipsniai / Articles 75 JANINA ŠVAMBARYTĖ-VALUŽIENĖ the hospital¹⁰ (Žg); mù.m reikė̇davo prižū.rė̃t tuos á.rklus / ka_kas kics ne-išvažiuõj [we had to look after those horses so that no one else would drive away; (a story about guarding the horses of Latvians who had come to the Žagarė market)] (Žg); nìbras añkščêu̯ ruoždavo / nibrùškas // teip_je̯u nebù.va / ka_nenu-eišu [Nibras used to prepare them earlier, nibruškas. It was not the case that I did not go] (Žg). In describing the Skaistgirys dialect, A. Kaikarytė noted that “the so-called arthroid—the demonstrative pronoun tas performing the function of a definite article—is highly characteristic of the Skaistgirys dialect, as it is of the neighboring Žagarė and Joniškis dialects” (Rosinas 1988: 59–67; Kaikarytė 2015: 168). Žagarė speakers use the arthroid only at the climax of a coherent narrative (text), generally created in simple sentences, e.g.: per_tą lį̇gùmą, tė̇k / añà nesraũni i.rà // ir krañtai žẽmi // mànà sèšuõ gi.vẽna / skaitos / jau_po_kãra // [...] ti.pavà-sareiz baišu.s pótvi.nei bùdava // krañtù. nė̇ ta_ˈľi̇elupė / krañtù. nebù.va // tai_išliedava // jau_čākārė / sùlig pãmatais // [...] nã.kti. jau kì.lst dẽl̇.või.sa pì.kta reik pasidė̇t žvė̇jù. bãtùs // pabùda / brãl̇ / ta_tróba šãltà / tóki kaškóki // graiba jis ma(t)_tuoz_bãtùs // tie_bã.tai mat_pakìla // tas_vanduõ pakėlė tuoz_bãtùs // [...] i_prisigė̇re tie_bã.tai (Žg). Sometimes the excessive use of the pronoun tas is also noticeable in individual sentences, usually when summarizing a narrative, but this expression is much rarer, cf. i_teip ta_ži.dė̇lka ižgė̇lbė̇je ta_ gi.vybe. (Žg). A review of morphosyntactic phenomena in the Žagarė dialect shows that they are characteristic of the grammatical categories of the noun (or the pronoun naming it) and the verb, and have counterparts in Latvian¹¹. Syntactic phenomena. The respondents’ narratives display distinctive (dialectal) expression of the subject, object, time and place, manner, and cause. In the Žagarė dialect, the agent, the principal part of the sentence, is expressed in various ways: the subject is traditionally denoted by the nominative case of a noun or a pronoun naming it (sometimes a combination of pronouns), cf.: į̇vakarė̇lei / i_šis / i_tàs [būdavo] (Žg); mẽs visi pamečùj ē̇sam (Žvlg); α_krikštìnas/ α_kàs / prikė̇bdava žà.sù. (Žg). Subject relations may be expressed by the dative: dàbà gir̃žù / vi(s)_šaũk / kiẽk už_rū.nkelus nė̇ra gã ve.pinigų / nu_iš_kur ta.m_žmõgui rei(g) gi.vė̇.nť? (Žg); dàbà dvi bakštìsis / ni_tã.i bus kǭ dìrpt / ni_tã.i (Žr). The so-called subject nebu vėlis identified by Jonas Jablonskis is also used in the Žagarė dialect, cf.: nė̇ra kã.m ateìt [there is no one to come] (Žg). Subject relations may be expressed by a combination of the preposition par and a noun in the accusative [par kùnigą / par vìškupą / par_dvasiškùs atlė̇.izdava [sins] (Žg). ¹⁰ Transposed examples are given in square brackets only when the sentence structure or meaning is unclear. ¹¹ For similar cases of linguistic expression in Latvian, see LVS 1989; Beitina 2009. 76 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXII Žagarės šnektos sintaksinės ypatybės (remiamasi 1998–2003 metų įrašais) The expression of secondary sentence parts in the Žagarė dialect is also quite distinctive: not only through cases, but also through prepositional and word-combination constructions. To denote object relations, Žagarė speakers use a construction consisting of the verb (ne)buvo ‘was/were not’ and the nominative of the pronoun kas ‘what/who’ with a third-person present-tense verb, cf.: jōkū. mašinu. nebūva kas nukerp [the sheep] (Žg); bū:dava kas jeu nūvel [the flax] (Žg); o_daugėū té.n bū:dava kas vėž i._*žagāre su_kānū [the milk] (Žvlg)¹². The object may be expressed by the dative of a noun or pronoun when the speaker emphasizes the object, cf.: já.m [for the steam] / mātai / vańduo bū:dava vidui (Vrṣ); taz_dī.žās visās taz_dālį(s) sūgdava tá.m kulėliui [for the threshing machine] (Vrš); višnu. sū.nka kvā.pa. pé.rmuš // nėra kvāpa samagōnui / já (Vrš); ta_žmōna já.m būva ligōnine (Žg); jé.i [for Umiastauskaitė] kū.nz dailūž / gražūs teip / tik ka prižiūve.s (Žg). Žagarė speakers widely use the noun’s dative¹³. In the dialect, possessive expression with būti ‘to be’ plus the dative of a nominal is very common, e.g.: māna tė.vu(i) jeu_būva tri.s vaikai / māma išė.ie už_našle (Žg); va_*žalōgienei māma našlė. būva / kėturi giktā-ra(i) iė.i būva žė.mez / dū va.ikái (Žr); māna tė.vui būva šė.še(s) sė.seri.s // jiė triž brōlei (Vrš); vi.rui būva sāva žė.me (Žvlg). In possessive constructions, the dative of the personal pronouns anas, aš, jis, ji, mes is used more often, e.g.: anā.m būva dvi­dešim(d) gektāru. žėmes (Žvlg); tas_kambarė.lis čė má.n i.rā / aplink_stāla. apeit mažūtis / i_viskas (Žg); má.n būva dū sū.nai (Žg); má.n ta_viena lovi.te būva / aš nieka neturė.ie­u (Žg); daugėū má.n tie_senė.lei išmire (Žg); má.(n) nebėbūva kur dė.t [postcards] (Žg); má.n tė.tā *šupī.luose / gruzdiėčiu. parāpijoj (Žg); má.n.jeau nebūva iš_kō. [to study] / má.n tėvė.lei nekaīb gi.vė.na (Žg); má.n tik_viena [daughter] (Žvlg); šeimi.nas má.n mažāi būva / va_tā va viena duktė. (Žvlg); oi kiek já.m dvarū. būva (Žg); já.m balšaz gėarz bū:dava // dainūodava jātau! (Žg); vaikū já.m būva daug (Žvlg); mūm ar žėmes i.r / keturōlika giktā·ru. (Žvlg); pririždavom vā.ntu. / mūm ar būva pirtis (Žg); būva mūm tok(s)_sklē.ps i._žėme. užmūri.cs (Žg); bū:dava dvi sė.nes [ewes] / i_kōkie šeši gėrūkai / jauniklūkai // tiėk mūm tū.[avių] būva (Vrš); mūm irā tikrai dū giktā·rai žėmes (Vrš). The interrogative-relative pronoun kas ‘what/who’ and the distinguishing pronoun kitas ‘other’ are rarer in possessive combinations, cf.: nebūva gālima par_mū.ītine. išnėšt // bū:dava kā:sos kā.m / ta(i)_išvi.nōdava / pažū.rėdava ka_kā nebūt i.sukta (Žg); kā.m daugėū to.(ž)_žėmes i.r / imdava / samdīdava tuo(ž)_žmōnes (Žvlg); gal.i i_būva kā.m daugėū to(s)_šeimō.s (Žg); o_tai_kita.i [for the daughter] vā.ikū. būva (Žg). The dative of a nominal is used with object meaning in the examples: pātį kaltą gi.vėnimui // galė.ie.u ir apsivėsti [I myself was to blame for life. I could have married too] (Žg); ta(i) iei má(n) namė.s irā ar mō­tina / ar tė̃vs / ta.i má.n ir i_tiems reik [to eat] [that is, if in my home there is either a mother or a father, then I and those people need [to eat] (Žg); ¹² This syntactic phenomenon is attributed only to dialects; for more detail, see LKG III 168. ¹³ For similar cases of expression in Latvian, see LVS 1989; Beitina 2009. Straipsniai / Articles 77 JANINA ŠVAMBARYTĖ-VALUŽIENĖ mother, or a father, then I and those people need [to eat] (Žg); the hole of the tub is curved [the tub’s hole is curved] (Žg); on his other side there were still homesteads [on the other side there were still his homesteads] (Žvlg); one woman had a dead husband [one woman’s husband was dead] (Žvlg); so around her cottage there used to be that garden [around her cottage there used to be that garden] (Žvlg). The accusative of a nominal and the accusative with prepositions are also used by Žagarė speakers to express the object. The noun’s accusative denotes a repeated action, also associated with the semantic feature of quantity, cf.: vìrai vā.n-deni. prinẽždava [the men used to carry a lot of water] (Žg); tètė visadà pasidari.dav(a) ã.lu. / verši. nusipìrgdava *jón iški. nuo_turgãus [father always made beer and used to buy a calf in Joniškis from the market] (Žg). The same case is retained when the nominal expresses a property, e.g., anc stipru. [beer] teip nedaridava / ka_teip nusigẽ.rtu. [he did not make such strong [beer] that one could get so drunk] (Žg)¹⁴. Object relations are also marked by the construction of the preposition par with the noun’s accusative [dúosu su_tuo_mėkštinų par_ãkis / par_gã.lva. (Žg); teip ir ẽ.ie par_pasã.uli. / kur_kampẽ.li. gã:va (Žvlg)]. Even comparison can be expressed by par with the noun’s accusative, cf. ú.kini.gz dĩ.rba ãr / dĩ.ks nestovẽ.ie / nebūva par_põna. [the farmer worked just as hard, he was not free, he was not like a gentleman] (Žg). This construction can also indicate the direction of an action, cf. ànà acikẽ.le / par_dūris / ir aš iš_paš kõ.s (Žg). Par can replace accusative combinations with the prepositions nuo, iš or the instrumental [par_dã.rba. / pa(r)-rū-pesti. visi tie_negerūmai [from / because of work, from / because of worry, all those troubles] (Žg); aš *lãt vijo.i ir_bandà. ganẽu / ir_par_bẽ.rna. tarnavau [I was in Latvia and herded a flock, and served as a farmhand] (Dkš). The construction po with the noun’s accusative also denotes the object [nu_rmãtoi / tẽtuks vienas išẽidava i_dã.rba / a_mãmã su_tais_žvaikais rū.pi.davos po_namūs]. The preposition pro with the noun’s accusative corresponds to the meaning of the preposition apie ‘about’, cf. niek(a) aš_jū.m negãliu papã.sakot pro_jeun i.ma. // nãmuose stõ.vu / nu_kã: gã.lu pasakīt? [I cannot tell you anything about the young people. I am at home, so what can I say?] (Žg). Žagarė speakers use the construction su + instrumental, characteristic of the Panevėžys dialect, with various meanings. Traditionally, this construction indicates the instrument or means by which an action is performed, e.g.: su_karazĩ.nka gã.udi.davau [the fish] (Vrš); su_dalgẽis pjẽ.un (Žg); tai_vien(s) su_peilū pradrõš / žū.rẽ.s / a_ne_iš_mẽže padĩ.rpta / kità su_dantĩm kã:zdava / tai_tadà padã.re uždara. karšta. [speaking about the remains of Barbora Umiastauskaitė] (Žg); su_rañkom viš ka. di.rb davam (Žg); keũlės ten šẽ.rdava su_pelãis (Žg). In other cases, the construction mentioned expresses object relations with additional semantic nuances of purpose or cause, cf.: višūs pã.snikus turẽ.dav(a) atlaikĩ.t su_silkẽ (Žr); jã / su_svi.rčẽ [the wells used to be] (Žg); gãl pavã.iš.ti su_kãva? / gã.l neva.lguses? (Žg); kẽ.lz būva išmatũocs / i_su_žvìru turẽiei žvi.rũot (Žvlg); ku.rẽ.ndavom su_mã.lkom (Žvlg); ¹⁴ The phenomenon has been studied and described; for more detail, see Švambarytė 1996; Vasiliauskienė 2008. 78 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXII Syntactic features of the Žagarė dialect (based on recordings from 1998–2003) iš_kapeiku. gi.vėnom / su_kapeikom važinė̇jom [about the value of money] (Žr); visādā su_šūvimū usi_ẽ̇mus / nebūva nė_nó ro / nė_laikó [to go to the evening parties] (Žg). The expression of place in the Žagarė dialect has distinctive forms of expression. For example, the construction of the genitive of the word laukas with the preposition ant is used with an entirely different meaning—that of a single farmstead (isolated homestead), e.g., ant laukų. [living in a single farmstead] galėtum jįem [žydams] i.taisįt a_virtuvūke. / a_kā. (Vřs). The Žagarė dialect also marks location by a construction of the genitive with the prepositions pri or tarp [jū̄s jāe.unas mergičkas / jeigu apsi̇vė̇ste / pri_tė̇.vui. negi.vė̇.nkit / ačkirai gi̇vė̇.nkit (Žg); i_mės taṛb_žmõ.nū gi̇vė̇.nom / i_patė̇.nkti / i_vīskas (Žvlg)]. Much more often, place is marked by the accusative with the prepositions į and pas. The prepositional construction į with the accusative of a noun denoting place also has an additional semantic feature of direction, cf.: jō [brolio] ne-uškabina / ni_i.̨ *šibira. veže / ni_i.̨ kalė̇jimą. kiša / niėka (Žg); būva mūm tok(s)_sklė̇ps i_žė̇mė. užmū̄ri.cs [we had such a cellar bricked up in the ground] (Žg); sė̇da i_̨-ąr̨kli. / i_nųazā.va [he mounted the horse and drove away] (Žvlg). Approximate location is marked by pas with the accusative of a noun, e.g.: kri̇žkėlē̇j / pa(s)_sāva ki̇ema. kai_stovė̇davom / tai_nuo_bažničės atrō̇da tokiė / kai_bąnga(ž) žmōnū. / daugi̇be suvaži̇odava iš visur i._tuos_*jū.odeikūs (Žvlg); pas_ti.lta. tė. vā.lge (Žvlg). The Žagarė dialect also denotes place by the less frequently used older prepositional construction sulig + instrumental, e.g.: ta_*li̇elupe / krąntū. nebū.va / tai_isiliedava /// jau_vąkarė / sulig pamatais (Vřs). Place is also expressed by the traditional locative, e.g., nąmuosė stō̇vu / nu kā.gālu pasakįt? (Žg). A. Kaikarytė has written that “the illative, as in the standard language, usually replaces the prepositional construction į + accusative. It should only be noted that in the Joniškis dialect the construction in question sometimes also expresses the inessive” (Kaikarytė 2010: 27). The Žagarė speakers likewise use the mentioned combination, e.g.: i_dąžine. slė̇pės [hid in the barn] (Vtč); o_i._čviduri. stō̇ tas mašins pats jau [and in the middle that machine itself was already standing] (Vřs); i._pi̇ena. užmį.nki.davom / pridė̇davom svi̇esto / taukū. [we kneaded it in milk, added butter and fat] (Žg). Time, a period of time, or a certain temporal span is expressed by Žagarė speakers through prepositional constructions. In dialects, duration is usually expressed by the construction of the preposition ligi and the genitive of a noun [jeigu lė̇izdava / tai_tik ligi_sāule.s laidos [we would stay at the evening party only until sunset] (Dkš); sekmā.dieni. šō̇kei bū̇dava ligi kė̇turū. ri̇ta (Vřs)]. The shortened prepositional construction lik with a numeral or noun, used to denote the limit of an action, is reinforced by the particle pat, cf.: šō̇kei bū̇dava lik_pāt dvīliktai vā.lndai / dvīlikta. jeu_prasi.ded gaų.ne (Žg). Duration may also be expressed by the preposition par with the genitive or accusative of a numeral and noun, cf.: māna vīrz bū̇va daųk senė̇snis / par_šė̇šo-lika beveik metų. (Žg); išā.izdava [the farmer] par_dvi savā.ites / atėidavau i._*žagā.re. [to my parents] (Žg). To indicate time, the construction of the preposition po with the instrumental is also used, e.g., *lietuvā kat_susitvė̇re po_kārū / lābāi blō̇.gai bū̇va // Straipsniai / Articles 79 JANINA ŠVAM­BARYTĖ-VALUŽIENĖ ū-kininkai nebesąmde / dá.rba nebėbūva // ka_nóret / ėikit pas_ūkininkus uš_pa-vã.lgi.ma. (Žg). To designate a certain period, the construction of the preposition pri with the noun’s genitive is popular, e.g.: stó.guž dė̇ge pri_rūsa / ir_piėvas pjé.udava (Žg); when was that? / nu_pri_rūsu. (Vr̃š). A certain stage of life is also reflected in the sentence pri_ví.ra bū̇va viši kambarei atskirai / o_dabà viškãs kaip_i_ne_šāva // šava namuose gi.venū / kaip_i_ne_šāva [while the husband was alive, all the rooms were separate, but now everything is as if not one’s own. I live in my own home as if it were not my own] (Žg). In the Žagarė dialect, the temporal reference point for comparison is marked by the preposition pagal and the noun’s accusative, e.g., pagal_màna vaikìšte. / dideli(s) ski.rtums (Žg). The instrumental of nouns is chosen to express manner, e.g., nebe-galė̇je jõs [I cannot read] laikìt dārų grābū (Žg). The Žagarė speakers also use the old construction of the preposition valug with the noun’s genitive, cf.: anū­kai ieu valug màmàs [the grandchildren already take after their mother: as the mother behaves, so do the children] (Žg). Manner is also expressed by an instrumental construction with the preposition su, cf.: dàbar kad ir tõkos põ-nõs / su_làbdarà apsirę̇.ngi (Žg); má.n su_ši.rže / bijó­davau sā.ules (Žg). Žagarė speakers express purpose by the noun’s genitive with the preposition dėl, e.g., lã.pu. dę̇.l pã.ršą pasiski.ni̇t [it was needed] (Žvlg). Attributive relations are probably influenced by Latvian, since not only the nominative and genitive, but most often the dative case is used to express them¹⁵. In describing a feature, Žagarė speakers choose a word order in which the attribute, usually an adjective in the nominative, is used prepositively, cf.: vìrs màna ã.ukščs / di.deliž būva (Žg); didelė vertė [there was a lot of money] (Žg). When the object needs to be emphasized, the attribute is used postpositively [aulìnei bã-tai gẽri / šẽši rùblei (Žg)]. To describe a feature, the instrumental with the preposition su is used, e.g.: su_ló-va tas_kã.lns [with a depression] (Žg); kãda senó­joj *žagã-rei dė̇ge bažnì.če / ti_šãka / ją atrã.da po_klė̃vais su_karštu (Žg). Most often, Žagarė speakers express attributive relations using the dative of a pronoun, cf.: vìrs mã.n būva par_dvi.dešimt mė.tu. vi.rėšnis už_màne [my husband was twenty years older than me] (Žvlg); mù.m būva tõkie krūmai / kol melerã-cie ne būva pra-ėjus [we had bushes until the land reclamation had passed] (Žg); vã.ika. krikštìie / i žmõ-na jãm būva nekrikšti.ta [the child was baptized, and his wife was unbaptized] (Žvlg); mã.n mãži vã.ikai [my small children] (Žg); tas vìrs jė.i mirė [that woman’s husband died] (Žg); vieną.i še.serėi dū bėrnai / bró.lui / bé.rns / kitã.i še.serėi dū bėrnai / o_ãš teip tu.mergū. nenorė̇jeu [two boys of one sister, a boy of my brother, two boys of the other sister, and I wanted those girls so much] (Žvlg); o_tam kū̃bului ¹⁵ See LVG 2013: 351 in more detail. 80 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXII Žagarės šnektos sintaksinės ypatybės (remiamasi 1998–2003 metų įrašais) būva keũrā apačē [the bottom of the tub was full of holes] (Žvlg); *bė.rtulis tėtēi būva lābai gẽrž draũks [Bertulis was father's good friend] (Žvlg). When transcribing texts from the Žagarė dialect, few forms of address were found. Only the endearment pupyt [pupì/ cheers up everything [about land reclamation] (Žg)] and the vocative bral ‘brother’, e.g., nu_ti_kur̃ tū / brɑ̃l (Žg); mìlšt / brɑ̃l / reik i_sveikà.tos / jà (VrŠ), were observed. Homogeneous sentence parts in the Žagarė dialect are linked by the conjunctions a (or), ni (nor), e.g.: α_ni_tokų karõ.lu. nebūva iš_õ. pìrktis / ni_tokũ. auškarũ. (Žg); aš / šá.ka / ẽsu našlà.ite // nei_mã.n tėva / nei_mõ.tinas nė.ra (Žg). Žagarians use homogeneous sentence parts to supplement a generalization, e.g.: kã/ tã [the hired worker’s wages] dìdele // bū.dava i_jėvũ. / i_drabužė (Žg); [they would collect] rudũokes / pìenes / ba-ravì.kus / kãtràs jeũ_ži.nomas (Žg); laukùs nuo_šakalũ. sá.ugoje // šakalai / jū(ž) žinot / nei_ũlkai / nei_šũni.s (Žg). Sometimes homogeneous sentence parts highlight the nature of an action [in anger you [the rebels] seized them / and burned the barn (Žg)]. Respondents use homogeneous sentence parts linked by the conjunction i(r) to indicate a continuing action, cf.: gẽri ir_nõ.ri / gẽri ir_nõ.ri / jà [about good beer] (Vrš). Žagarians frequently use appended constructions ir gan(a), ir viskas. The addition summarizes the foregoing (describing a state, the nature of an action, etc.), e.g.: gãvaũ par sprá.nda. / i_viskas (Žg); nenorėk / niẽka iš kar̃ta / ni_nã.ma nepasta-tĩs(i) iš kar̃ta / par laĩka reik / i_ganà [about the establishment of the restored independent Lithuania] (Žg); tas_kambarėlis čė mã.n i.rà / aplink_stã.la. apeĩt mažùtis / i_viskas (Žg); atrõ.da / ka_añč mẽigt / i_ganà (Žg); pã.skui bañda. vaĩ.ištai / i_gañ (Žg).¹⁶ The recordings contain the construction ar kas (or what, or which), which could be considered a form marking the nature of a rhetorical question with ellipsis or of an addition, e.g.: tik lá.ugdavau / ka_tėtė atvažiuotų. apsilankít / ar_kã. (Žvlg); α_sėnēau teĩ(b) būva / ka_mõ.tina. škrãuštu. / α_k.ã. (Žvlg); ar_aš eĩsu kur̃ kõks nó.rint apsilė.idė.lis / a_kã. [I would never work for a negligent farmer] (Žg); dã.ržũž α_kõkũs ravė́ie (Žg); galė́ie mamà p(a)-á.iškint / a_kã_.nebūt (Žg). In the Žagarė dialect, alongside pan-Baltic features, there are also features of syntactic expression resulting from dialect contacts, as A. Kaikarytė notes (Kaikarytė 2015: 171). It was observed that complex subordinate sentences are used much more frequently in dialect recordings than compound sentences. Complex compound sentences are generally linked by coordinating conjunctions a(r), i(r), cf. tigi išėdovai i_lauka. / α_jāvai piė.unami / α_rūgẽi rišami / tigi bė.rns pjõ.ve rūgūs / mergà riša iš_paskõs ¹⁶ This phenomenon is also frequent in the folklore recorded by Matas Slančiauskas and his assistants more than 170 years ago, in the writings of Marius Katiliškis (20th c.), and in the memoirs of Juozas Galkus (21st c.); see Švambarytė 2015: 243; 2017a: 155–171; Galkus 2018: 40. Straipsniai / Articles 81 JANINA ŠVAMBARYTĖ-VALUŽIENĖ (Žg); i̇.lé.ide spą̨ges ri̇.ŋk̃t / ni̇.nię́g draũde / ni̇.nię́g gai̇nó.je (Žvlg); grį̄ndas i̇ž-dažitas / i̇.lę̇nums išklõcs (Žg). Žagarians tend to link complex subordinate sentences with the subordinating words ka(d), kada, kas, kiek, koks, kur. Subject clauses are introduced by kad, kas [who drank / that person will drink / who stole / that person will pay back / thus they will work (Žvlg); it is not important / that my body no longer lives in that body (Žg)]. In addition to ka(d), kas, object clauses are also introduced by the subordinating words kiek, koks, e.g.: nu_ka_nó.ri / ka_bū.tu. stiprūs alūs / nu_tai_jō negé.rk // nepraiįm(k) kōki. pūse mė.tu. // nu_tai_tāda ižgérsi póra. stikliņu. / tai_buz_ganà (Vrš); žū.r / ka_jęu_tie mi.l̨tai įr suskilinę̇į / sā.ka / dúona rų̄kst (Vrš); nusisamdì.k / kàs tā.u žažis gā.na (Žvlg); viš̨ka. / kaz_būva dí.rbama / tā. turę́ei dí.rp̨t (Žg); kaž būva / tō. nelika / rō.dos / į.nięka něbereik (Žg); jęigu nó.ri ą_saldainu. švaistìt / tai_vęlnei žina / kiek jū.[pinigų] gāl̨i turę́t (Žg); kai viena z gi.veni / tąį – – / žinot / kokū. dabār kęutū. įra (Žg). Ka(d), kas introduce an attributive clause [it was difficult to write such a horse / that would cost a hundred rubles (Žg); not a true housewife / who would really understand that life [about the Lithuanian government] (Žg); that* Lithuania is such an unfortunate country / that everyone there grinds and grinds / tears and tears / but it emerges from beneath the earth / like a beetle still (Žg); what kind of mother, / such are the children (Žg)]. With the subordinating words ka(d), kada, kur, Žagarians form adverbial clauses of time, place, cause, and condition, e.g.: kādā lā.iks – nubę̇ksi / kādā nė. lā.iks – nenubę̇ksi [to pick mushrooms] (Žg); rų̄kštu. sų̄ri. sužō-vinai / pję̇uni / į_trūp // grā.uzī žiemā. / kādā mažāi piena bę̇ra (Žg); tōl mįj-ka su_kelō.kiais / ka_cę̇ prą̄kaicz bę̇g par ką̄kta. (Vrš); jis tę̄n važų̄oj / kur_per̨k / kur_nę̇ra parduotų̄vu. (Vrš); ka_pininga duōdi [to doctors] / tai_vaištūs išrą̄ša (Žg); tie_turtāi nerę́.įšk nięka / jęigu pró.ta nė. galvō. // są̄ka / kās iš_tāva gražų̄-mę̇le / jei_nę̇turi razumę̇le (Žvlg). The recordings of the Žagarė dialect show that respondents use both complex compound and various kinds of complex subordinate sentences, but subordinate object clauses predominate in discourse. Phraseology. Every dialect has its own expressive form. Indeed, some expressive phenomena are common and more widely used in Lithuanian. One such group consists of traditional idioms included in specialized dictionaries. Žagarians also use universally known traditional idioms, e.g.: kaip nuo_žąsies vanduo ‘about someone who pays no attention’ (Žg) [cf. kaip vanduo nuo žąsies ‘about someone who pays no attention’ FŽ 2001: 789]; mana tėte būva be_viena gāla skų̄pus ‘very, extraordinarily’ (Žvlg) [cf. be vieno galo ‘2. very, extraordinarily’ FŽ 2001: 181]; jiz be_mę̇.lės ę̇me / į.nebūva tos_mę̇.lės gi.vę̇nime / tęip į.gi.vę̇na kaip šūva su_katė ‘about people who do not get along’ (Žvlg) [kaip šuo su kate ‘about people who do not get along’ FŽ 2001: 733]; po_sįmčs velnū. / nį šę̇ip / nį_tęip išę̇in ‘uncomfortably, unpleasantly’ (Vrš) [nei šiaip, nei taip ‘4. uncomfortably, unpleasantly’ FŽ 2001: 665]; ba.įsei būva gražī / be_viena gāla ‘very’ (Žvlg) [cf. be vieno galo ‘2. very, extraordinarily’ FŽ 2001: 181]; gāl 82 Acta Linguistica LXXXII Žagarės šnektos sintaksinės ypatybės (remiamasi 1998–2003 metų įrašais) nėrvai kokiẽ susimẽte? ‘got nervous’ (Žg) [cf. nervos susikėlė ‘got nervous’ FŽ 2001: 451]. Some phraseological units are used by the Žagarė speakers with a distinctive meaning or are supplemented with terminological words, cf.: pulti viršuj ‘to scold, revile’ [niẽka negali pasakīt nį_ant_vã.ikų. / tuojẽus mã.rti púl viršuj (Žg), cf. viršum pulti ‘to threaten’ FŽ 2001: 842]; kalti į galvą ‘to explain, teach’ [ta_mõ.ki.toje iẽ.m ga.lã kã.lti i. gã.lva. / jis išẽie.(s) sava vẽl dã.ra (Žg), cf. į galvą įkalti ‘to teach’ FŽ 2001: 201]; svertima ranka žarijas maišyti ‘of an inattentive stranger and his poor-quality work’ [svẽtima rankà tig_žarijo(m) maišīt (Žg), cf. žarijas žarstyti svetimais nagais ‘to entrust an unpleasant or dangerous task to others’ FŽ 2001: 857]; ant kaklo ker(i)autis ‘to ask to live together’ [nenõ.ru da_vã.ikām an_ kã.kla krẽ.utis (Žg); ant kaklo užsikarti ‘to be supported’ FŽ 2001: 257]; gera valia ‘of someone agreeing to do something’ [jeĩgu jis ein gẽra vãlė / tai_gẽrai / o jei_ne / aš nẽturū tẽ.ises (about Vaitiekūnas’s eviction from his place of residence) (Žvlg), iš geros valios ‘without cause, spontaneously’ FŽ 2001: 785]; nuo vien vietos ‘about swearing’ [nu_vien vietos jis nepašnek ni_viena normãlau(ž) žõ.že / nu_i kąs jį isã.ukle.z dabà (Žg); nuo vietos ‘2. continuously, one after another’ FŽ 2001: 836]. Phraseological units with ašara, karas, uodega, maišas, plaukas, pyragas, ugnis are included in the Phraseological Dictionary, but the dictionary does not record those used by the Žagarė speakers; therefore, they may constitute an intermediate group between phraseological units and stable word combinations, cf.: grynos ašaros ‘said of someone unwilling to serve’ [ka_reikẽ.dava tarnã.ut / tai_grinas ãšaras (Žvlg)]; su durniais karą kelti ‘to quarrel, argue’ [o_aš / su_durnẽis / tai_neĩšu kã.ra kẽ.lt (Žvlg)]; už uodegos išmesti ‘to drive out of the house’ [dãba mãri gã.l už_uõ.dego.s irti ir_išmẽst (Žg)]; iš menko nieko [prasigyventi] ‘said of a hardworking person’ [aš iš_mẽnka niẽka [prasigyvenau] / nùdegẽm po_kãra / išẽiom / niẽka nebeturẽ.iom // i_padẽie *dẽvas // i_turẽieu visko // i_dabà netrūkstu niẽka (Žvlg)]; kaip maišą prarijus ‘of someone weak or unwell’ [aš nuo_uzgĩnina pùse.mẽtu. bùvau taip / kai_maiša. prarijus (Žvlg)]; pyragams dideliems, mažiems nebūti ‘of life during the prewar and postwar years’ [pi.rã.goi didẽli / mãži nebùva / čẽ / mãtai / tas kã.ra(s) sunarvã.va / čẽ.viska. (Žg)]; nei vienam žilam plaukui nekuštėti ‘not to think or have any idea’ [ni vĩen(ž) žil̃s plá.uks nekuštẽ.ie / ka ten *anìkš­čẽi bus / ka_pamatĩsu / tẽ.(n) nuvažiuõsu (Žvlg)]; vienos ugnys ‘fire’ [gã.vom izbẽ.kšt ta_vã.kara. / ta_visas kã.imz dẽ.ge / vienas ū.gni.s (Žg)]; užraukti kaip į maišą ‘to forbid, disallow’ [galẽ.ie. i laĩšvei užuõti i_*rĩga. / i_lã.tū. čẽ.pi.lna bùva / dãba_tik užrauke kaip_i_maiša. (Žg)]¹⁷. 17That language is an expression of a community’s creative powers is stated by Juozas Galkus: “The village also had distinctive words that one did not hear anywhere else [...]. When speaking, we used only phraseological units distinctive to our region.” See Galkus 2018: 39–40 for more detail. Straipsniai / Articles 83 JANINA ŠVAMBAR YTĖ-VALUŽIENĖ Of the traditional phraseological units mentioned, six have the meaning given in the Phraseological Dictionary, six have a meaning different from that indicated in this dictionary, and nine dialectal combinations are not mentioned at all in the Phraseological Dictionary. There are quite a few stable word combinations in the Žagarė local dialect¹⁸. Hypothetically, we could divide them into two types: individual ones, or those characteristic of the informant’s speech (the informant creates and uses them), and general ones, or those characteristic of speakers of the local dialect and used more broadly¹⁹. The following stable word combinations, often emotionally colored, may be assigned to the individual ones: šiaučius kriaučius ‘a skilled worker in various small jobs’ [tėtė b ūva šaėučus ḱraėučus (Žg)]; tiek to vaiko ‘said of a small [ãv.i̯s pī.rma namõ. / aš rė.gdama iṧpàško.s / žinãi / tiek té.n to_vaĩka (Žg)]; sriūpt ir pūpt ‘to fall down after drinking beer’ [tadà jeũ stiprùs ãlùs / srū.pɪ̃t / i̯ pó.pɪ (Dkš)]; nebe tos poros ‘to be divorced and live together again’ [mã:s ã:sam nebe_tõs põrõ.s / susi-ėĩ (Vrš)]; seni metai ‘a long time ago’ [negãliu pasakĨt / jeu_sėni mėtai / trizdėsim(d) / daugėeu (Žg)]; širdis stojasi ‘to be short of breath’ [*bronkiẽs / ši.rdi(s) stójės (Žvlg)]; tokių daiktų nežinoti ‘said of earlier times, antiquity’ [jū.s jeu tokių daiktų nežinot (Žg)]. The following combinations used in various places within the Žagarė local dialect may be assigned to the general stable word combinations: ne ačiū ‘said of an impolite person’ [nė.ã-čū. nepašã-ke (Dkš)]; katra pavasarį ‘everyone who (in spring)’ [*daugavã ar̃ baĩsei skẽnda // te.n *ri.gõ. daug rõ-tvi.nū. bū.dava // būvau nuvažẽvęs į_svečiùs // žu.rinė́jeu tuo(š)_šlū̃žus / bet_nėlabai supratau // o_teip_tai katra. pavãsari. tvina (Vrš)]; katras vienas ‘everyone’ [šėnėũ katrãs viens turė́je / būva žebė.rklai (Žvlg)]; katras vienas ‘everyone (individually)’ [gi.vėnom tai katrãs viẽns / aš latviškai nemukė́jeu / bet_suprãšt viską. / ką lātvis kalb / galė́jei (Žg)]; katrą dieną ‘every day’ [bró.le sù.nus katrą. diẽna. gí.rcs i_gí.rcs (Žvlg); mã:n negãlim ẽ.it katrą. diẽną. (Žg)]; katrą šeštadienį, sekmadienį ‘whoever, every Saturday, Sunday’ [*lãtu̇jo. ka_tarnãvai / tai_tė.n jeu_katrą. šeštadieni. kėbdava pi.rã.ga. lã.tvei (Žvlg); o_piningus a_rẽj(k) katrą. se-kmã.dieni.? (Žg)]; Lietuvos laike, Smetonos laikais ‘during the years of the First Lithuanian independence’ [*lietuvo.s laikė bū.dava muĩla / kõ.ke tik norė́je (Žvlg); *smetó.na laikaĩz bū.dava mašina taìkos (Žg); če_pã.t_uva / pas_kaimī.ne. / par_daržą. pãreīt / pienine būva / jeu_*lietuvo.s la.ike statīta / i_té.n gegužine pas_ta_pienine. (Žvlg)]; kolkozo laikais ‘during the years of Soviet occupation’ [jeu_kulkõza laikai būva (Žg)]; savaitės, karo laike ‘during a week, a war’ [nu_i_žinõ-k / savã.ites lã.ike jiñ pagìe (Žvlg); kã.ra la.ikė / skaĩ.tos / susi.rgа / acikartó.je ta_lìgà (Žvlg); vokiečių laike ‘during the years of the German occupation’ [pagalvó-k / vó-kečū. lã.ike pūse *žagãres ateidava i._tu(š) šókūs (Žvlg)]; eiti duona dirbti ‘to earn a living’ [(duonos) padali.i vi̇siẽm po_gabalūka. / tai_pirstū̃s čū̃lbdavom // o_mamã viena eídava duóna. dírpt (Žg)]; ¹⁸ For more on these, see Marcinkevičienė 2010. ¹⁹ These are terms chosen by the author; the hypothesis itself requires more extensive research. 84 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXII Žagarės šnektos sintaksinės ypatybės (remiamasi 1998–2003 metų įrašais) to take from Latvian ‘to have a Latvian accent, to speak with a Latvian accent’ [mẽs_jêu / žagarìẽčei / iš_lãtvu. / lãtviškai imam (Dkš)]. Case forms with prepositions also become fixed word combinations. One of them is po + genitive, cf. po alaus ‘to marry’ [[alus] bãčkà(s) sulã.užẽ / i_bûva po_ãlaus] jã. (Vrš)]. Verb and noun combinations, or adverb and verb combinations, tend to become fixed combinations, e.g.: kojoms būti ‘to be able to walk, to take a few steps’ [i_miška. važiuodavom / ir_ãpi.nũ. / ir_riešutù. / kol_jeu_bûva kójes (Žg); kaip stovi ‘with nothing (without berries, accumulated property)’ [i_parẽjė [iš miško] kaip_stó-v (Žg); išėjom taip / kaip_stó-vąm (Žg)]. The Žagarė speakers widely use various pronoun combinations niekur nieko, kokie norint, nė kaip reikiant to denote an impossible action, or to designate a certain characteristic, e.g.: dvi mãšinas irà i_dãbà / ni_susisũ-t negãli / ni_niẽkur niẽ-ka (Žg); dãrbinei bũ-dava pãprasti / lininei kokìe nó-rint (Žg); tók(s) su_protẽlu nė kaip reikiant (Žg). The syntactic construction with the comparative word kaip and the verb būti expresses the distinctiveness of being or existence [nebebûva kai(b) bebũ-t / palì.ka / viẽnu žõžù / pavojì.nga (Vrš)]. Combinations of the pronouns kas, niekas with būti are used in the meaning of the indefinite pronoun kažkas ‘something’ [o_sekmãdienéis / tai_kẽp / ta_kàs nebũ-t / ta_kãva (Žvlg)] or in the meaning of the adverb nieko ‘nothing’ [jẽigu nedì.rψsi / ta_nìẽks i_nẽbũs (Žg)]. Combinations of the pronoun kas (ko) and the adverb kur with nonts ‘at least, any’, norint(ais) correspond to the indefinite kažkas ‘something’, e.g.: rè.i(k) kã.nó-rintais susilõ.pi.t / nebẽmatau (Žg); gegužinės jeuni.ms pã-ti.s rũoždava kur_nó-rint / gražẽi / pri_kó.ke miškẽle (Žg); mãmà / duod dãbà ko_nõncs vã.lgi.t (Žg)²⁰. A combination of particles also constitutes a fixed word combination: dar jau dar ‘said about making a living’, cf.: mũ.m sėnem / mẽs peñčìez gã.unam / mũ.m dà jau_dã- (Žvlg). The recordings of the Žagarė local dialect contain 7 individual and 32 general fixed word combinations. In dialectal recordings, one or another swearword also slips out in more expressive narratives (po šimts velnių, tegu perkūnai, mat bala), e.g.: po_šim̃cs velnũ. / ni šẽip / ni teìp išein (Vrš); tegù perkũnai jũsu. šõ.kũs (Žg); mạt anã. balã / ãš kai_pàsmerktã esù / ta_tẽgù eì pas_mãnì gi.vẽ.nti (Žg). Comparisons. The recordings of the Žagarė local dialect show that comparisons are most often formed with the short variant kaip of the comparative word kai²¹. The basis of comparison is usually household objects or unusual objects (a bag, a kepėbla), ²⁰ Cf. Latvian: kaut kas ‘something’; kaut kāds ‘some kind of’; kaut kur ‘somewhere’ (LLŽ 1995: 310). See LFV 1–2 (1996) for more details. ²¹ The writer Marius Katiliškis, like the Žagarė speakers, compensates for the comparative context with the basis of comparison and the microcontext. See Švambarytė 2017: 132–134 for more details. Straipsniai / Articles 85 JANINA ŠVAMBAR YTĖ-VALUŽIENĖ domestic birds, livestock (rooster, cow’s milk), trees (linden), natural phenomena (waves), inhabitants of other countries (American), a certain state (dream). About things that are barely remembered, it is said [bìški. àšu gïrdėjies / kai_par_sâpna. (Žvlg)], while temperature is measured by a very unexpected comparison [lâ.uk / ka_palik-tu. [alus] / kai kâ.rve.s piẽn(s) šiltuma (VrS)]. Respondents describe a state or existence as follows: i_pragì.dau kai_taz gâ.idi.s / praděieu blã.ut (Žg); dri.psa kai_maĩšas (Dkš). The impression of a parish festival is poetically named [križkelėji / pa(s)_sâva kiẽma. kai_stovė.davom / tai_nuo_bažnìčes atròda tòkiè / kai_bañga(ž) žmonių. / daugì.be su-važiòdava iš_visur i._tuos_*ju.odeĩkus (Žvlg)] or a wish [*vaitekú.nien / bùz duktė. kai_liepa / aukštà / graži: (Žvlg)]. About those living luxuriously, it is said: gi.vẽna kai_amerikõ.ns (Žvlg). The people of Žagarė also use the comparative word as, but much less frequently, for example: da._mãšina. ta. pasistãčẽu as_kerėbla. kõke. [about a sewing machine] (Žg); dà-bà nėbė. tõkù. pūšnù. / as_sẽnẽu (Žvlg); tẽn ù.ždarbiz gerẽ.snis nėkaip *liẽ.tuov. (Žg)]²² Language expressiveness. Respondents do not avoid various sayings displaying linguistic aesthetics, expressiveness, or persuasiveness. For example, seeking to create a state of surprise or effect in the listener and to name a repeated action, the Žagarė speakers choose number variants, e.g.: benzìnai brã.ngu.s / rètai kãda atvažùoji (Žg); daugẽi i._mãškvas rã.se (Žg); mâtai kõkes mù.su. jeunì.sitez būva / ja (Žg). The intensifying genitive, particularly characteristic of the Joniškis dialects around Žagarė, is not very popular (Jšpt 2001: 39–40). Only one example was observed in the recordings: bū.dava srúogu. srúogas pritaìsi.tas / tàdà vẽrbdāvoum (Žg). Often, to intensify a feature of an action, some prefixed verb compound ap(si)-, iš-, su + būti is used, cf.: skã.pliereis visõ.keis apsikabinėjęs / apsibùve.s (Žg); tas_mergė.lkas išprievartã.ui iẽs / išbù-n tie_cigõ.nai (Žg); išpardavinė.je viska. / išbùva / o_palė.ide visùz bedarbùs [about privatization] (Žg); iš_*utenõ.s atẽidava / visâ.i nuskùre. / nubùve. / čè už_dì.ka. eìdava / pas_tuos tarnã.udava (Žg); tókõ. karštõ. kã.rve dúod i_duot par_aušì(s) šū_uõdega // dà.ùža višaš ausìs / pareinù tei ka(i)_iš pìrtė.s / raudõ.na / sukã.i-tus / sùbuvùs (Žg); pi.ršlì.(s) supažì.ndin tẽ.n / sùbù.n jeu (Žg). Seeking expressiveness, the Žagarė speakers repeat the same word or highlight it by adding an adverb, e.g.: kẽ.palus po_pẽčiui sùglaudai / sùglaudai / križù. dėdi pì.rma / i_važiuoji i._pẽčiū. (Žg); gi.vẽnims kõks mã.rgs / kõgz baisei mã.rks (Žg); reìgdava kiẽk reìg-dava [to pay for grinding grain] / ãle nebė to_prõ.ta / nebe-aci.menu (Žg); dà-bà ka_ti(g) greìčiau / čè pàgriebe / čè mẽ.te / čè pàgriebe / čè mẽ.te (Žr). Sometimes, to concretize or specify the action (or image) being created, a synonym is selected, ²² In the dictionary of comparisons of the Sinole dialect (a transitional dialect between the Central (Vidzeme) and Upper dialects) compiled by Latvian dialectologists, comparisons with kâ predominate, corresponding to Lithuanian kai(p). See Putnina and Timuška 2001 for more details. 86 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXII Žagarės šnektos sintaksinės ypatybės (remiamasi 1998–2003 metų įrašais) e.g.: [Strawberries] nuplá.unu / nùvalau (Žg); i̇.mažaz bùva làbai tìkus / rãmùs (Žg); jìz bùtu. pradė̇̀es kró̇kt i̇_blã.ut (Žr); čė / mataĩ / pri_rùbžėus tie_žmõ̇ni.s tòkìe netìkėlei irà / sulatù̇ė̇ / tõ̇lau tòkìe dorėsni švẽntesni žmõ̇ni.s (Žg); dì.rbau / keutà(š) šẽreu / kã.rȯes mì.lžau / vaĩkai / klàpatai / mró̇kslai (Žg). The Žagarė speakers also observe certain norms of linguistic aesthetics (possibly only when speaking with an unfamiliar interlocutor), e.g., dà.kã.rve prìde(t) tu._kepalùku. / tu._bli̇̃nu. / su_lencù̇gu kaĩp_eĩn / i_nešvãri žolė: palìek (Vš). Around Žagarė, a person unable to show respect to another or humble themselves is called a boor: an_tõ bùvaũ storžiėve [unable to kiss a priest’s hand] (Žg). Respondents also color their narratives with rhetorical questions, cf.: kuř tu rãsi teĩp / kaĩp_sàva? [about vegetables grown in one’s own garden] (Žg); tòkìe margìnùkai bùdava [skirts] / gã.lì bùdava par_duotùvėje.j / àle kuř tu._pìniĝu. tiẽ(g) gã.usì? (Žg). Dialectal expressiveness has not been studied in general, but in narrative it reflects the respondent’s capacities for linguistic self-expression. GENERAL REMARKS The recordings of the Žagarė dialect from the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, made in 1998–2003, are not coherent texts, because the recorders interrupted the authorial narrative with questions; therefore, the syntactic phenomena described in the article do not reflect a perfect system. Nevertheless, certain tendencies in the syntactic expression of the Žagarė dialect can be discerned. The morphosyntactic phenomena of the Žagarė dialect include the perficientive, the expression of necessity or purpose, the expression of the optative mood and subordinate constructions denoting a hypothetical action, and the use of the arthroid. The syntactic constructions mentioned are also somewhat distinctive, e.g., perficientive forms with the postverb lauka(n), nei žemė(n) are more frequent [nešti lauka(n) ‘take out’, leisti žemė(n) ‘let out’], or the optative is expressed by the particle lei and the third person of the present tense, rather than lai + pres. t. 3rd p. [lei ein(a) ‘let him/her go, teeinie’; lai rėk(ia) ‘let him/her shout, terėkie’]. Other morphosyntactic features are characteristic of the Joniškis dialects; their use is sustained by language contacts: similar constructions also occur in Latvian. In the recordings of the Žagarė dialect, that is, in discourse, as might be expected, there are distinctive ways of expressing the subject and object and various adverbials (of place, time, manner, and cause). Syntactically, the sentence parts mentioned are expressed by various cases or prepositional constructions. The dative of nouns, or the dative with the preposition ligi, and the accusative and prepositional constructions apie, į, pagal, par, pas, po, pro are most frequently used. Constructions with the genitive of a noun or the genitive with the prepositions ant, dėl, ligi, pri, tarp are somewhat less frequent. Distinctive prepositional instrumental constructions occur with the prepositions po, su, sulig. The Žagarė speakers use Straipsniai / Articles 87 JANINA ŠVAMBARYTĖ-VALUŽIENĖ additive constructions ir gan(a), ir viskas. They supplement simple sentences with homogeneous sentence parts connected by the conjunctions a(r), i(r). The same conjunctions also connect compound sentences. Subordinate clauses are most often introduced by the conjunction characteristic of Lithuanian ka(d). Other notable subordinating words include kada, kas, kiek, koks, kur. Besides subordinate clauses of subject, attribute, place, time, and other adverbial types, object clauses predominate in the dialectal recordings. The expression of Žagarė dialectal expressiveness through phraseological and stable word combinations, like that of every dialect, is quite distinctive, reflecting the capacities for innate experience, ingenuity, insight, and linguistic creativity of the respondents. Of the traditional dialectal phraseological units, 21 of which were discussed, as many as 15 are distinctive and are not included in the Phraseological Dictionary. Thus, as many as 71.4% of the phraseological units are used only by the Žagarė speakers. The abundance of stable word combinations, divided into individual and common types (as many as 39 were discussed), also demonstrates the vitality of the dialect. For comparisons formed with the comparative kaip(p), household items, birds, animals, and so on are chosen as the basis of comparison. Other syntactic expressiveness relies on changes in number or gender, word repetition, and the search for synonyms. The dialect’s innate syntactic expression, formed over centuries, provides individuals with freedom of self-expression. It is not without reason that the eloquent Lithuanian literary authors Marius Katiliškis (Albinas Vaitkus) and Juozas Žlabys-Žengė, who originated from the Žagarė area, are spoken of. ABBREVIATIONS Dkš – Daukšiai LKI GCTA – Dialect Archive of the Geolinguistics Center of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language Vr̄š – Versiai Vtč – Vy­taučiai Žg – Žagarė Žr – Žiūriai Žvlg – Žvelgaičiai LITERATŪRA FŽ – Frazeologijos žodynas, rengė I. Ermantytė, O. Kažukauskaitė, G. Naktinienė, J. Paulauskas, Z. Šimėnaitė, A. Vilutytė, redagavo J. Paulauskas, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2001. Galkus Juozas 2018: Šimkūnuos gyventi nenuobodu…, Vilnius: Joniškiečių draugija „Sidabrą“. 88 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXII Žagarės šnektos sintaksinės ypatybės (remiamasi 1998–2003 metų įrašais) Girdenis Aleksas, Kačiūnienė Genovaitė 2000: Paraleliniai reiškiniai latvių ir šiaurinių lietuvių veiksmažodžio sistemose. – Kalbotyra 37(1), 21–27 [= Girdenis A. 2000: Kalbotyros darbai 2, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 307–314]. Jonaitytė Aldona 1967: Latvių kalbos poveikis palatvės vakarų aukštaičių šnektų gramatinei sandarai. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 9, 171–182. Jonaitytė Aldona 1969: Palatvės vakarų aukštaičių šnektų būdvardis, skaitvardis, įvardis. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 11, 183–221. JŠPT – Joniškio šnektų pratimai ir tekstai, ats. red. J. Švambarytė, Šiauliai: J. K. Vasiliausko įmonė, 2001. Kaikarytė Aušra 2015: Skaistgirio šnektos ypatybės. – Kalbos istorijos ir dialektologijos problemos 3, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 150–173. LFV 1–2 – Latviešu frazeoloģijas vārdnīca 1 (A–M), 2 (N–Ž), red. A. Laua, S. Veinberga, A. Ezeriņa, Rīga: Avots, 1996. Liparte Evija 2000: Iliatyvo resp. prieveiksmio laukan reikšmės ir galimi sinonimai lietuvių kalbos tarmėse. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 43, 144–152. Liparte Evija 2000a: La. nost vs. malā vs. zemē un lie. žemėn vs. šalin semantiskās attiecības literārajā valodā un izloksnēs. – Linguistica Lettica 8, 151–179. Liparte Evija 2005: Dėl vokiečių kalbos sakinio rėmelio konstrukcijos atitikmenų baltų ir Pabaltijo finų kalbose. – 10–ojo tarptautinio baltistų kongreso „Baltų kalbų istorija ir tipologija“ pranešimų tezės, 2005 m. rugsėjo 23–24 d., Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla, 50. LKG III – Lietuvių kalbos gramatika 3: Sintaksė, red. K. Ulvydas, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1976. LKT – Lietuvių kalbos tarmės: Chrestomatija, sud. E. Grinaveckienė, A. Jonaitytė, K. Morkūnas, B. Vanagienė, A. Vidugiris, Vilnius: Mintis, 1970. LKTCH – Lietuvių kalbos tarmių chrestomatija, sud. R. Bacevičiūtė, A. Ivanauskienė, A. Leskauskaitė, E. Trumpa, moks. red. L. Grumadienė, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2004. LLV – Lietuviešu-latviešu vārdnīca, J. Balkevičs, L. Balode, A. Bojāte, V. Subatnieks, A. Sarkanis, Rīga: Zinātne, 1995. LVS – Latviešu valodas sintakse, L. Ceplītis, J. Rozenbergs, J. Valdmanis, red. L. Ceplītis, Rīga: Zvaigzne, 1989. Maigone Beitiņa 2009: Mūsdienu latviešu literārās valodas sintakse, Liepāja: LiePA. Marcinkevičienė Rūta 2010: Lietuvių kalbos kolokacijos, Kaunas: VDU leidykla. Straipsniai / Articles 89 JANINA ŠVAMBARYTĖ-VALUŽIENĖ Mikulskas Rolandas 2003: Postverbų pateikimo problema „Lietuvių kalbos žodyne“. – Acta Linguistica Lituanica 48, 71–96. Putniņa Maiga, Timuška Agris 2001: Sinoles izloksnes salīdzināmu vārdnīca, Rīga: LU Latviešu valodas institūts. PŽ – Palyginimų žodynas, sud. K. Vosylyte, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2014. Rosinas Albertas 1998: Baltų kalbų įvardžiai, Vilnius: Mokslas. Sauka Donatas 2019: Apie laiką ir save, Vilnius: Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas. Švambarytė Janina 1996: Apibrėžto ir neapibrėžto kiekio raiška, Šiauliai: Šiaulių universiteto leidykla. Švambarytė Janina 2002: Dėl kelių reikiamybės raiškos atvejų Joniškio šnektose. – Valoda – 2002. Valoda dažādu kultūru kontekstā 1, Daugavpils, 66–69. Švambarytė Janina 2003: About the System of Syntax in Subdialects (Joniškis, North Lithuania). – 4th Internacional Congress of Dialectologists and Geolinguists, Rīga, 197–199. Švambarytė-Valužienė Janina 2015: Mato Slančiausko ir jo pagalbininkų pasakojamosios tautosakos rinkinių leksika: Žodynas, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Švambarytė-Valužienė Janina 2017: Mariaus Katiliškio raštų palyginimai: kalbinė terpė ir nauja prasmė. – Acta Linguistica Lituanica 77, 129–143. Švambarytė-Valužienė Janina 2017a: Tarmės įtaka Mariaus Katiliškio raštų kalbai. – Acta Linguistica Lituanica 76, 155–172. Švambarytė-Valužienė Janina 2018: Žagarės šnektos ribos. – Acta Linguistica Lituanica 78, 135–148. Švambarytė-Valužienė Janina 2019: Fonetinės ir morfologinės Žagarės šnektos ypatybės (XX a. pabaiga–XXI a. pradžia). – Acta Linguistica Lituanica 80, 109–145. Valeckienė Adelė 1998: Funkcinė lietuvių kalbos gramatika, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Vasiliauskienė Virginija 2008: Lietuvių kalbos žodžių tvarka XVI–XIX a. Atributinės frazės, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Zinkevičius Zigmas 1966: Lietuvių dialektologija, Vilnius: Mintis. 90 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXII Žagarės šnektos sintaksinės ypatybės (remiamasi 1998–2003 metų įrašais) Syntactic Peculiarities of Žagarė Local Dialect (Based on the Records of 1998–2003) S U M M A R Y The third article dedicated to Žagarė local dialect discusses its morphosyntactic and syntactic peculiarities. The other articles published in this journal established the boundaries of Žagarė local dialect (Švambarytė–Valužienė 2018: 135–148) and described the peculiarities of morphology and word-formation; attention was also paid to the peculiar properties of vocabulary (Švambarytė–Valužienė 2019: 109–145). The study addressing the syntax of Žagarė local dialect was conducted on the basis of the dialectal records dating to the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century, which were made during the period 1998–2003 in Žagarė and its environs. The morphosyntactic phenomena found in Žagarė local dialect include perficientive (nešti laukan(n) ‘to take out’, leisti žemė(n) ‘to let out’), the expression of necessity or purpose (rugiai pjaunami ‘rye needs to be reaped’), the use of the optative mood (lei ein(a) ‘may he go’; lai rėk(ia) ‘may he scream’), subordinate clauses expressing an imagined action (bijau, ka nepaguldo į ligoninę ‘I am afraid that I may be put to hospital’) and arthroid (demonstrative pronoun tas). The above peculiarities of the dialect are to a certain extent original and also characteristic of other local dialects of Joniškis. Their usage is supported by language contacts: similar constructions can also be found in Latvian. As it can be expected, the records of Žagarė local dialect, i.e. discourse, demonstrate the original cases of expression of the subject, the object and various adverbial modifiers (place, time, manner, cause). Syntactically, the abovementioned parts of the sentence are expressed by various cases or prepositional constructions. The nominal dative or the dative with the preposition ligi or the accusative and the prepositional constructions apie, į, pagal, par, pas, po, pro are most commonly used. The nominal genitive or the combinations of the genitive and the prepositions ant, dėl, ligi, pri, tarp are slightly less common. Peculiar prepositional instrumental constructions with the prepositions po, su, sulig are used. The speakers of Žagarė local dialect also use dangling constructions (ir gan(a), ir viškas). Simple sentences are supplemented with the homogeneous parts of the sentence linked by the conjunctions a(r), i(r). The same conjunctions are also used in case of coordinate sentences. Subordinate sentences are usually linked by the typical Lithuanian conjunction ka(d). Other subordinators are kada, kas, kiek, koks, kur. Subordinate object clauses prevail; subordinate subject and attributive clauses as well as subordinate clauses of place, time, etc. are slightly less common. Like in every other dialect, the expressive content of Žagarė local dialect manifesting itself through phraseological units and stable word phrases is rather original as it reflects the capacities of the respondents’ natural experience, wit, understanding and linguistic creation (užraukti kaip į maišą ‘not allow, prohibit’, kaip maišą prarijus ‘to feel unhealthy’, Straipsniai / Articles 91 JANINA ŠVAMBARYTĖ-VALUŽIENĖ etc.). Concerning the traditional phraseological units used in the dialect, 21 of which were discussed, as many as 15 are original and not found in the Phraseological Dictionary. It means that as many as 71.4% of the phraseological units are used by the speakers of Žagarė dialect only. The high number of stable word phrases (as many as 39 were discussed), which are subdivided into individual and general, also shows the dialect’s viability. As regards comparisons formed with comparative kai(p), household items, birds, animals, etc. serve as the basis of comparison. Yet another type of syntactic expression is based on the shift of number or gender, repetition of words, search for synonyms. The dialect’s inherent syntactic expression formed through centuries provides an individual with the freedom of self-expression. It is not without reason that people speak about the eloquent authors of Lithuanian literature Marius Katiliškis (Albinas Vaitkus) and Juozas Žlabys-Žengė, who originated in the environs of Žagarė. Įteikta 2019 m. gruodžio 17 d. JANINA ŠVAMBARYTĖ-VALUŽIENĖ Lietuvių kalbos institutas Petro Vileišio g. 5, Vilnius LT–10308, Lietuva [email protected] 92 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXII