VYTAUTAS KARDELIS

Vilnius University

Research areas: dialectology, language history, cognitive semantics, variation in language

DOI: https://doi.org/10.35321/all82-12

Danguolė Mikulėnienė

LITHUANIAN DIALECTOLOGY: GENESIS, DEVELOPMENT AND PARADIGMATIC SHIFTS.

PART I. THE PRE-DIALECTOLOGICAL PERIOD. THE BEGINNING OF LITHUANIAN DIALECTOLOGY: THE CLASSIFICATION OF DIALECTS, THE EMERGENCE OF RESEARCH PERSPECTIVES AND THEIR TYPES

Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos centras, 2018, 319 p. ISBN 978-5-420-01809-5 (bendras), ISBN 978-5-420-01810-1 (I tomas)

For a long time, the history of Lithuanian-language research was dominated by a prominent and distinguished figure—Professor Algirdas Sabaliauskas—and his series of classic works on the history of Lithuanian linguistics, “The History of Lithuanian Language Research” (Sabaliauskas 1979; 1982; 2012). While paying full tribute to Prof. A. Sabaliauskas and his work, it should also be said—and we can rejoice—that Prof. Danguolė Mikulėnienė has opened a new chapter in the history of Lithuanian linguistics, devoted to the history of Lithuanian dialectology.

D. Mikulėnienė has conceived a trilogy of monographs, whose “title, ‘Lithuanian Dialectology: Genesis, Development and Paradigmatic Shifts,’ indicates that the three descriptive and critical discourses (Vol. 1: ‘The Pre-Dialectological Period. The Beginning of Lithuanian Dialectology: The Classification of Dialects, the Emergence of Research Perspectives and Their Types.’ Vol. 2: ‘The Pre-Geolinguistic and Geolinguistic Periods of Lithuanian Dialectology. One-dimensional Dialectology of the 20th Century: Research Types and Directions.’ Vol. 3: ‘The Neogeolinguistic Period. Lithuanian Dialectology in the 21st Century: Multifunctional

202

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXII

Danguolė Mikulėnė. Lithuanian Dialectology: Genesis, Development, and Paradigmatic Breaks. Part I

the model of dialectology”) seeks to reveal the emergence and development of Lithuanian dialectology as a scientific paradigm of language variation in Lithuanian linguistics” (p. 9). To quote the author herself: “Thus, this monographic trilogy is the first attempt to describe more systematically the origins and beginnings of Lithuanian dialectology, encouraging a search for forgotten data and old archival material for new pages in Lithuanian linguistics—in other words, to find out how the scientific understanding of regional variation took shape and continues in contemporary linguistics” (p. 10).

Both the titles of the monographic trilogy and the trilogy’s purpose, just quoted, clearly show that D. Mikulėnė has taken a different path in writing the history of linguistics from that of the classic A. Sabaliauskas. I will not be original in highlighting the essential difference between these two perspectives and strategies for narrating history. On the back cover of the monograph “Manifestuojanti Klėja” by my fellow historian Aurelijus Gieda, published in 2017, the following thought by Prof. Alfredas Bumblauskas is printed: “The history of historiography has long been about who wrote what, and when. Aurelijus Gieda chose another path: he wrote a book about who thought what, and how. He managed to discover Lithuanian historiography and tell us things we had not seen before.” Prof. A. Bumblauskas’s apt description can be applied almost verbatim to Prof. D. Mikulėnė’s book “Lithuanian Dialectology: Genesis, Development, and Paradigmatic Breaks. Part I. The Pre-Dialectological Period. The Beginnings of Lithuanian Dialectology: The Division of Dialects, the Emergence of Research Perspectives, and Their Types”—it would be hard to describe and reveal the essence of the book more aptly. Therefore, paraphrasing Prof. A. Bumblauskas somewhat, I can say that “the history of Lithuanian dialectology (and linguistics in general) has long been about who wrote what, and when. Prof. Danguolė Mikulėnė chose another path: she wrote a book about who thought what, and how. She managed to discover Lithuanian dialectology and tell us things we had not seen before.” Thus, there can be no doubt about the relevance and novelty of the first part of the monographic trilogy: the essence of these aspects is expressed in the paraphrased quotation.

The monograph, edited by Dr. Audra Ivanauskienė, was published by the Centre of Scientific and Encyclopaedia Publishing, designed by artist Alfonsas Žvilis, and professionally and carefully laid out by Darius Šimkūnas. The monograph’s text is supplemented by 86 illustrations (a section of illustrations and maps), to which cartographers Vigilija Krikščiūnienė, Neringa Matulevičiūtė-Turlienė, Rima Svilienė, and Loreta Šutinienė contributed; the illustrations were prepared for print by Laima Gelčiūtė. The monograph’s summary was translated into English by Dr. Anna Ruskan.

The monograph comprises a Preface, which contains not only the features characteristic of the preface genre but also presents the author’s original perspective on the development of dialectology—one might say, the backbone of the monograph’s forthcoming text and analysis. The key pillars of this perspective are the three stages of Lithuanian dialectology identified by the author: 1) the beginnings of dialectology and the pre-geolinguistic stage, 2) the geolinguistic stage, and 3) the neogeolinguistic stage (p. 11), as well as the three conditions that, in the author’s view, are necessary for Lithuanian dialectology, as

Reviews

203

VYTAUTAS KARDELIS

an independent linguistic discipline, to take shape: “a map of the language-variation area under study, with clearly defined boundaries, was drawn <…>”, “a questionnaire suitable for collecting dialect material was prepared <…>”, and “a classification of the dialects of a particular language area was created <…>” (p. 12). Next comes the Introduction, which states the monograph’s aim and objectives (the key words in this chapter are critically assess, highlight and bring up to date, examine and evaluate systematically, and assess from the perspective of internationalization), presents the methods, and highlights the monograph’s novelty, relevance, and significance. The Introduction concludes with a concise presentation of the monograph’s structure.

The 319-page monograph consists of four chapters, in turn comprising sections and subsections. The first chapter discusses the division of the Lithuanian language area and focuses on pre-dialectological dialect nomenclature and language-standardization scenarios in early grammars. The second chapter is devoted to research perspectives on language variation in the 19th century (it analyzes A. Schleicher’s, A. Bezzenberger’s, and F. de Saussure’s journeys to Lithuania; the fieldwork of S. Mikuckis, J. Kuznecovas, E. Volteris, and L. Geitler; insights into dialect features by A. Schleicher, F. Kuršaitis, A. Bezzenberger, S. Mikuckis, J. Juška, and J. Karłowicz; the first attempts at dialect classification in the works of S. Mikuckis, A. Schleicher, F. Kuršaitis, J. Juška, V. Porzeziński, and M. Akelaitis; and the fundamental classifications of A. Baranauskas and K. Jaunius, according to the author). The third chapter examines programmatic Lithuanian dialectology projects from the late 19th and early 20th centuries (monographic descriptions of dialects by F. Fortunatov, A. Leskien and K. Brugmann, R. Gauthiot, K. Jurgelionis, and K. Jaunius; the first questionnaire on the Lithuanian language; and reader editions, including A. Baranauskas’s “Anykščių šilelis”). The fourth chapter is devoted to discussing and evaluating the discourse on the internationalization of Lithuanian dialectology in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and examines the continuation of Neogrammarian research on the Lithuanian language. The monograph concludes with findings; lists of tables and figures, references (317 entries), and sources, as well as abbreviations, are included. At the end is the aforementioned summary in English. In summary, it can be said that the monograph undoubtedly meets all the formal requirements for a publication of this genre.

In my view, the essential claims, features, and aspects of this first part of the monographic trilogy are as follows: as already mentioned, it is a book about what dialectologists thought—in other words, a story about ideas; it is not merely a list of completed works but a critical analysis of those works, an elucidation of the stages and paradigms of dialectology identified by the author, and an analytical and critical review of the work of individual researchers.

Another important structural and substantive component of the monograph should not be overlooked: the author’s effort not to separate the analysis but to weave it into the chronological context of the history of scholarship and into its historical and cultural context, as well as her attempts to engage with the European linguistic paradigm—the Neogrammarians.

204

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXII

Danguolė Mikulėnienė. Lithuanian Dialectology: Genesis, Development and Paradigmatic Breaks. Part I

The periodization of Lithuanian dialectology mentioned earlier is original, based on the author’s proposed motives and arguments.

It is interesting that the concept of variability, which has recently been gaining popularity in Lithuanian linguistics, appears in the monograph.

Undoubtedly, archival data are very important: many of them have neither been published to date nor even mentioned, and they greatly enrich the history of Lithuanian dialectology and the context of research. The use of archival data is another strength of the monograph. It may also be added that the monograph contains a wealth of well-presented illustrative material; particularly interesting are those illustrative excerpts that are not readily accessible in publications issued to date.

Section 3.2 of Chapter Three, “The Establishment of Neogrammarian Concepts in Lithuanian Dialectology” (pp. 222–239), is interesting: it develops the theme of “rehabilitating” A. Baranauskas as a linguist and dialectologist.

In my view, the most characteristic features of the monograph’s text and, of course, its content are its chronological presentation and analytical nature. In other words, the text forms a coherent, logical, and analytical whole, often enriched with detective-like elements and new, hitherto unknown facts from researchers’ biographies and works. It is also important that, when expressing her opinion—which does not necessarily coincide with established or widespread claims—the author does not assume the role of a categorical evaluator or judge. The monograph leaves considerable room for future discussion and deliberation, and even for the formation of differing opinions. Perhaps the value of every new work can be measured not only in terms of the relationship between the object under study and theoretical and methodological paradigms, and the weight and significance of empirical material, but also by the ideas, deconstructions, and interpretations it offers for discussion. Discussions are not negative in any case; they make it possible to view the object from a different angle, perspective, and point of view. Such things only enrich our understanding of the object itself.

The monograph by D. Mikulėnienė under review also discusses in greater detail a number of matters worthy of attention. For example, I myself have proposed a somewhat different division of the stages in the development of Lithuanian dialectology (dialectological paradigms) (see Kardelis 2019: 53–54), but I agree that D. Mikulėnienė’s model, supported by relevant arguments, is also open to discussion. One might, for instance, consider the relationship between the modern terminology used in the monograph and the linguistic thought of the period under discussion. The concepts of variability, the period (the nineteenth century), and perspectives are, for example, interesting in relation to the theoretical foundations of linguistics at the time. As far as one can tell from Chapter II, “Perspectives on Research into Variation in the Lithuanian Language in the Nineteenth Century,” the subject is what would now be termed diatopic variation, which at the time could hardly have had any clear alternatives. Thus, one might ask what the authors mentioned in Chapter II understood by this: variation, or the inventory and classification of features?

Book Reviews / Reviews

205

VYTAUTAS KARDELIS

However, bearing in mind D. Mikulėnienė’s intention, mentioned at the beginning of this review, to prepare a trilogy of monographs, it may now be somewhat premature and not entirely reasonable to examine and discuss the first part of the forthcoming trilogy in detail. As the still-popular saying goes, chicks are counted in autumn, so an in-depth discussion should wait until the other two parts of the trilogy and a comprehensive analysis of Lithuanian dialectology are available. Then the full research context would become clear, and the ideas and conclusions would crystallize and connect with one another. It will therefore be much more convenient and meaningful to discuss the whole.

To sum up briefly: a history of Lithuanian dialectology such as the one D. Mikulėnienė has begun to write has long been needed. It is already important, and will continue to be so, not only for dialectologists, but also more broadly for understanding the history of Lithuanian linguistics, shaping research perspectives, and fostering discussion. All that remains is to wish the author every success and to look forward to the other parts of the monograph trilogy.

LITERATŪRA

Gieda Aurelijus 2017: Manifestuojanti Klėja. Istorikai ir istorika Lietuvoje 1883–1940 metais, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla.

Kardelis Vytautas 2018: Arealinis tipologinis lietuvių tarmių kompleksiškumas. Aukštaičiai, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla.

Mikulėnienė Danguolė 2018: Lietuvių tarmėtyra: genezė, raida ir paradigminiai lūžiai 1: Ikitarmėtyrinis laikotarpis. Lietuvių tarmėtyros pradžia: tarmių skyrimas, tyrimų perspektyvų užuomazgos ir jų tipai, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos centras.

Sabaliauskas Algirdas 1979: Lietuvių kalbos tyrinėjimo istorija: iki 1940, Vilnius: Mokslas.

Sabaliauskas Algirdas 1982: Lietuvių kalbos tyrinėjimo istorija: 1940–1980, Vilnius: Mokslas.

Sabaliauskas Algirdas 2012: Lietuvių kalbos tyrinėjimo istorija: 1980–2010, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

Įteikta 2020 m. balandžio 24 d.

VYTAUTAS KARDELIS Vilniaus universitetas Filologijos fakultetas Taikomosios kalbotyros instituto Lietuvių kalbos katedra Universiteto g. 5, LT-01131 Vilnius, Lietuva [email protected]

206

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXII