VYTAUTAS KARDELIS

Vilnius University

Research interests: dialectology, language history, cognitive semantics, variation in language.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.35321/all82-13

Asta Leskauskaitė, Vilija Ragaišienė

DICTIONARY OF THE SOUTHERN SOUTHERN HIGHLANDERS’ DIALECTS

Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2016, I t. A–M, 682 p. ISBN 978-609-411-187–7 (bendras), ISBN 978-609-411-188-4 (I tomas) Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2019, II t. N–Ž, 831 p. ISBN 978-609-411-187-7 (bendras), ISBN 978-609-411-238-6 (II tomas)

The first volume of the “Dictionary of the Southern Southern Highlanders’ Dialects” (A–M) was published in 2016. Three years later, in 2019, the second volume of the dictionary (N–Ž) was also published. Among dialect dictionaries, this is already the fourteenth (for a more detailed overview of dialect dictionaries published up to 2014, see Zubaitienė 2014: 142–147). Both volumes of the “Dictionary of the Southern Southern Highlanders’ Dialects” were prepared by experienced and professional dialectologists, outstanding experts and specialists in the Southern Highlanders’ subdialect, Dr Asta Leskauskaitė and Dr Vilija Ragaišienė. The dictionary’s scientific editor is Dr Vilija Ragaišienė, its editor is Dr Vilija Sakalauskienė, and its map was created by Dr Laura Geržotaitė. The dictionary was meticulously typeset by Neda Kostkienė and designed by artist Rokas Gelažius. Preparation of the dictionary was supported by the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language (hereafter VLKK) under the 2001–2010 Programme for the Preservation of Dialects and Ethnic Place Names; publication of the first volume was supported by the Research Council of Lithuania (hereafter LMT) under the 2016–2024 State Programme for Lithuanian Studies and Dissemination. Apparently, funds from the aforementioned LMT programme were insufficient to publish the second volume. It is nevertheless pleasing and important to note that publication of the second volume was supported by businesses, the Varėna District Municipality, and individual people—some of them are listed on the dictionary’s front matter, while others, having generously supported publication, wished to remain anonymous. Here it is important to draw attention to several things: the fact that publication of scholarly work is now being supported not by the LMT, but by businesses, municipalities, and citizens,

Recenzijos / Reviews

207

VYTAUTAS KARDELIS

clearly shows that the dictionary has already reached its intended audience. This is a fine example both of patriotism toward one’s homeland and of support for its culture. It is also evident that the dictionary’s authors are not incidental passers-by in the lives of the “cikrin Dzūks”; this is evidenced not only by the support received for the dictionary’s publication and the sincere, warm presentations of the dictionary at the Vilnius Teachers’ House Living Room and the Institute of the Lithuanian Language, but also by the quality of the dictionary itself.

The first volume of the dictionary opens with a Preface (pp. VII–IX), followed by an Introduction. The latter provides all the attributes required of a dialect dictionary: it identifies the southern Southern Highlanders’ dialects (also mentioning the sociolinguistic situation—residents who are bilingual or trilingual) and their area (pp. XI–XIII), and discusses the dialects’ distinctiveness and the more characteristic features of their sound system, stress, morphology, and syntax (pp. XIII–XV). The nature and structure of the dictionary are presented concisely and systematically, with illustrative and appropriate examples (pp. XXV–XXX). Next is the transcription section, which presents and explains the symbols for vowels, consonants, stress and pitch accent, intonation, and the syntagmatic segmentation of text. Lists of abbreviations for place names, other abbreviations and symbols, and references are included. The second volume also opens with a Preface (pp. VII–VIII), followed by an Introduction (pp. IX–XI)—a concise summary of the Introduction to Volume I. In this latter part of the dictionary, the sections from the first volume presenting the nature and structure of the dictionary (pp. XI–XV), transcription (pp. XV–XVIII), and lists of place-name and other abbreviations and symbols are repeated.

According to its authors, the “Dictionary of the Southern Southern Highlanders’ Dialects” “was prepared according to the principles of the most comprehensive dialect dictionaries: it includes all the words collected from the living speech and written sources of the southern Southern Highlanders’ dialects (the manuscript collection and audio recordings held in the Dialect Archive of the Centre for Geolinguistics at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language, and the supplementary card index for the “Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language” compiled at the Centre for Research into Standard Language)” (p. XXVI). The Preface also notes that “nearly three hundred hours of audio recordings were made over five years <...>. Dialect examples selected from the audio recordings made during this period form the basis of the dictionary” (p. VIII). In addition, material was drawn from other audio recordings made by colleagues in the early 21st century. It should be emphasized that “the dictionary was also enriched by dialect examples from the previously mentioned audio recordings and manuscript texts from the 1960s–1990s and 2002–2003, as well as from the supplementary card index for the “Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language”” (pp. VIII–IX).

Reading these statements, one might pause and ask: what were the principles and criteria for selecting the material? Clearly, there is a difference between written sources and original audio recordings. It is also clear that dialect examples from audio recordings and manuscript texts dating from the 1960s–1990s, as well as from the supplementary card index for the “Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language,” were collected and—especially—processed according to theoretical and methodological principles different from those customary in contemporary Lithuanian dialectology. Thus, one might ask whether it was worthwhile to include in a single dictionary

208

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXII

Asta Leskauskaitė, Vilija Ragaišienė.

Dictionary of the Southern Southern Aukštaitian Dialects

material collected and presented using older methods alongside “new” material marked by a new theoretical approach. Incidentally, this way of assembling the empirical material may have been prompted by thoughts expressed by the dictionary’s authors in the preface, where one can clearly sense a somewhat nostalgic note, tinged with concern about the fate of the dialects: “The worldview, customs, and everyday life of the people of these places are reflected in their native dialect—a melodic, expressive, archaic one, though already somewhat diluted by new borrowings. Unfortunately, the communities in the villages of southern Dzūkija, which cherish traditional crafts and the way of life and existence inherited from their ancestors, are dwindling every year because of unfavorable demographic trends and economic and social processes; their very existence is therefore under real threat. As the number of people declines, so too does the number of those who know the local dialect...” (p. VII). As this rather lengthy quotation suggests, the aim of the dictionary was to bring together as much and as varied material as possible. It must be acknowledged that the authors dispelled the doubt just raised about combining material of different kinds by choosing a rational and suitable approach: “Sentences from old handwritten texts have been transcribed in accordance with the original system of notation, presented in the original transcription, with references to the place of residence and the handwritten texts.” (p. XXX). This reference (RT) clearly identifies the older material. In that case, inconsistencies and nuances in the transcription of older examples become less significant; moreover, material from different chronological layers can readily be compared when needed.

Another point that may invite discussion is borrowed vocabulary and “newer or new words” (p. XXVI). The latter are marked with the abbreviation nj. Words of foreign origin (Slavicisms, Germanisms) are marked sv., which is also used to indicate borrowed senses. This might seem like a blameworthy ambiguity, but here too the authors found a suitable solution: “Borrowed senses are indicated before the definition, in parentheses, by the abbreviation sv.” (p. XXVI). Thus, in one case the abbreviation sv. follows the headword, while in the other it precedes the definition.

One further comment on borrowings: according to the authors, “Every effort has been made to indicate the origins of words,” but “for old borrowings <...> no etymological labels are given” (p. XXVI). It seems to me that the practice of leaving “old borrowings” unmarked is not particularly suitable and merits criticism (for arguments, see Kardelis 2016: 8–9). However, it is understandable that this choice was motivated both by the traditions of compiling dialect dictionaries—as the authors themselves note—and by the General Requirements for Compiling Dialect (Subdialect) Dictionaries approved by VLKK. Incidentally, although these requirements are recommendatory, the authors have followed them appropriately and creatively.

One example of this is the excellent decision that “the Dictionary contains no verb nests, and consequently no ‘artificial words’ that are created artificially to form verb nests, e.g.: bōsti, milti, mōkti, žinti. Nor does the Dictionary include base verbs for which no examples of usage have been recorded in the dialects” (p. XXVIII).

A brief note on transcription: it is immediately apparent that the dictionary was compiled and edited by professional and experienced dialectologists, whose areas of work also include

Recenzijos / Reviews

209

VYTAUTAS KARDELIS

the preparation of dialect texts. The transcription, for example, is carefully considered, uncluttered, and consistent; it describes both the systematic framework of the sound system and its more significant and subtle nuances.

The section Distinctive Features and More Characteristic Traits of the Dialects is fairly traditional: it uses terminology customary in traditional Lithuanian dialectology, especially in its discussion of the sound system (it mentions archaic acute-stress endings, hard consonants, and the “confusion” of consonants). This traditional presentation is probably not particularly open to criticism: on the one hand, anyone undertaking linguistic research based on the dictionary’s material would adapt the terminology to their needs; on the other, the dictionary will be read not only by linguists and specialist lexicographers. Thus, the simpler presentation and explanation of empirical facts have their own rationale and logic in this case.

On reading the section discussed above, one striking feature immediately catches the eye, and it can be described in a single word—variants. The fact that the dictionary does not shy away from showing variation—real phonetic, morphological, and syntactic diversity—is encouraging and commendable. Variation is appropriately described in the Introduction and is clearly visible in the illustrative examples. One can say that the material presented in the dictionary is truly original and authentic (of course, comparing it with the original sound recordings might prompt discussion of one particular case or another, but anyone who has transcribed dialect texts knows very well that different transcribers sometimes hear the same things differently—this is an extensive, complex cognitive process dependent on many factors).

Overall, with regard to the dictionary’s structure and organization, its material and presentation, and the transcription and definitions mentioned above, there are no substantial critical remarks to make. It must be acknowledged that the authors maintain systematic and lexicographic consistency both in presenting the material and in defining meanings and providing grammatical and other labels. The presentation of definitions also demonstrates quite well the creative and analytical approach taken to the work of writing the dictionary. For me, at least, a textbook example of how the interweaving of certain definitions and their illustrative examples becomes confused is found in the words kalba, kalbėti in the “Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian” and the “Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language” (hereafter LKŽ). It is enough to compare them with the definitions in the “Dictionary of the Southern Southern Aukštaitian Dialects” and how these relate to the examples to see immediately that the latter are much better. In general, although the dictionary’s authors draw on definitions from LKŽ (of course, where these are entirely suitable and do not conflict with the dictionary’s empirical material), they often also provide their own, which are frequently more elegant, better motivated, and well matched to the examples.

It is gratifying that the volumes of the “Dictionary of the Southern Southern Aukštaitian Dialects” are adding to the existing body of dialect dictionaries. Importantly, it is already—and will continue to be—useful not only for traditional branches of linguistics (Lithuanian dialectology, Baltic studies, Indo-European studies), but also has an excellent, distinctive, multifaceted material and spiritual,

210

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXII

Asta Leskauskaitė, Vilija Ragaišienė. Dictionary of the Southern Southern Aukštaitian Dialects

—a cultural stratum in general. It will undoubtedly be useful not only to professional scholars in the humanities. In the preface, the authors have put it beautifully and aptly: “Thus, this dictionary is a small tribute to the custodians of the major Southern Southern Aukštaitian, or Dzūkian, dialect.” This is a work that helps nurture a sense of community, encourages an appreciation of the value of one’s identity, and ultimately reminds us of what we have already lost.

From a linguistic perspective, this is a major and significant contribution to research on this subdialect, which the authors of the “Dictionary of the Southern Southern Aukštaitian Dialects,” Dr Asta Leskauskaitė and Dr Vilija Ragaišienė, have recently been advancing and deepening not only vigorously but, most importantly, professionally.

All that remains is to wish our colleagues, in the words of the late Professor Alberto Rosi-no, creative success and continued significant research.

LITERATŪRA

Leskauskaitė Asta, Ragaišienė Vilija 2016: Pietinių pietų aukštaičių šnektų žodynas (A–M) I, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

Leskauskaitė Asta, Ragaišienė Vilija 2019: Pietinių pietų aukštaičių šnektų žodynas (N–Ž) II, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

Kardelis Vytautas 2016: Lietuvių kalbos slavizmai: tyrimo istorija ir perspektyvos. – Lietuvos lenkų tarmės. Prieiga internete: http://www.lenkutarmes.lfl.vu.lt/apie/straipsniai.

Zubaitienė Vilma 2014: Lietuvių leksikografija: istorija ir dabartis: mokomoji knyga, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla.

Įteikta 2020 m. balandžio 21 d.

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

Recenzijos / Reviews

211