LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

Research areas: areal studies of the Baltic languages, dialectology, geolinguistics, perceptual dialectology.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.35321/a1181-08

IMAGES OF THE LINGUISTIC HOMELAND OF YOUNG EASTERN AUKŠTAITIANS—KUPIŠKIS AND UTENA SPEAKERS

Images of the Linguistic Homeland of Young Eastern Aukštaitians from Kupiškis and Utena

ABSTRACT

The article introduces a study of the images of the linguistic homeland of young Eastern Aukštaitians—Kupiškis and Utena speakers. The research material consists of data from a study conducted according to the principles of perceptual dialectology.

The analysis shows that Utena school students consider themselves active users of the dialectal code. Young people from Kupiškis tend to distance themselves from this form of expression. The respondents’ attitudes towards the domains of dialectal-code use are similar. The drawn (mental) maps reveal that young people from Utena are most inclined to identify their linguistic homeland with areas of dialect use. By establishing an actual distance from locations of the neighbouring subdialect, Kupiškis school students apparently distance themselves from their own linguistic expression.

The images of the dialectal code held by the young people surveyed clearly reflect the traits associated with a representative of the traditional dialect, or NORM. Respondents from both Kupiškis and Utena associate a person who speaks dialect with rural areas. In the view of the majority of Kupiškis school students, the dialectal code is a linguistic expression of the past and of the older generation. More often than respondents from Utena, they also regard this code as inseparable from respect for language, culture, and the region.

The boundaries of the linguistic-homeland variety drawn on the maps of Utena school students almost coincide with those of the East Eastern Aukštaitian regiolect identified by geolinguists in the second decade of the twenty-first century. This linguistic formation closely resembles the area of the Fifth Easterners on Antanas Baranauskas’s reconstructed dialect map, or that of the Kupiškis Eastern Aukštaitians in the dialect classification of Zigmas Zinkevičius and Aleksas Girdenis, together with the surrounding area of the Sixth Easterners, or Utena speakers.

Straipsniai / Articles

175

LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ

The verbalized and visualized attitudes reveal the relationship of the young generation of Eastern Aukštaitians with the historical, objective linguistic variation not only of their native localities but also of the entire eastern part of the Lithuanian language area.

KEYWORDS: perceptual dialectology, linguistic homeland, traditional dialect, Eastern Aukštaitian subdialect, mental map, associate.

ANNOTATION

The article presents a research study addressing the images of the linguistic homeland of the young Eastern Aukštaitians of Kupiškis and Utena. The material surveyed in the study consists of data from research conducted according to the principles of perceptual dialectology.

The analysis shows that the school students of Utena consider themselves active users of the dialectal code. Kupiškis youth tend to distance themselves from this self-expression. The subjects share similar attitudes towards the domains of usage of the dialectal code. The drawn (mental) maps reveal that it is the youth of Utena who tend to identify their linguistic homeland with the areas of dialects more often. By establishing an actual distance between themselves and the locations of the neighbouring subdialect, Kupiškis school students possibly dissociate themselves from their own linguistic expression.

The attributes that describe the representatives of the traditional dialect, or NORM, are quite clear in the dialectal code images of the young people polled in the study. Both the subjects from Kupiškis and those from Utena tend to associate a person who speaks a dialect with rural areas. In the opinion of the majority of Kupiškis students, a dialectal code is a linguistic expression of the past and the older generation. They consider this code inseparable from respect for language, culture, and land more often than the respondents from Utena.

The borders of the variation of the linguistic homeland drawn on the maps of Utena students virtually coincide with the boundaries of the East Eastern Aukštaitian regiolect that geolinguists defined in the second decade of the twenty–first century. This linguistic formation is very similar to the area of the so called Fifth Eastern from the reconstructed map of dialects by Antanas Baranauskas or the Eastern Aukštaitians of Kupiškis under the classification of dialects by Zigmas Zinkevičius and Aleksas Girdenis and the surrounding area of the so called Sixth Eastern or the subdialect of Utena.

The verbalised and visualised attitudes reveal the relationship between the young generation of Eastern Aukštaitians and the historical objective linguistic variation both of their birthplaces and of the entire eastern part of the Lithuanian language area.

KEYWORDS: perceptual dialectology, linguistic homeland, traditional dialect, Eastern Aukštaitian subdialect, mental map, association.

176

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXI

Images of the linguistic homeland of young Eastern Aukštaitians—Kupiškis and Utena speakers

1. INTRODUCTION

Over the past decade, research in Lithuania has not been limited to studies using the methods of traditional descriptive dialectology and highlighting a static picture of dialects (Mikulėnienė, Meiliūnaitė 2014; Mikulėnienė, Leskauskaitė, Ragaišienė, Geržotaitė, Birgelienė 2016; Mikulėnienė 2018; Čepaitienė 2018, etc.). The increasingly intensive interaction among dialects, and between dialects, the standard language, and other local language varieties, has meant that both dialectal and more standard-like varieties are increasingly used in actual speech. To comprehensively assess the linguistic variation of a particular speech variety, it is important to document not only its characteristic linguistic features objectively, but also to consider the subjective attitudes of ordinary members of the speech community, which determine the choice of one or another linguistic variety (Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė 2016: 89–120; 2016a: 17–33; Geržotaitė 2016a: 321–339; Geržotaitė, Čepaitienė 2016: 84–100, etc.). Thus, attitudes are one of the essential factors that create the (self-)worth of a local variety and, at the same time, ensure its vitality and continuity.

Novelty and relevance. To date, almost no forward-looking research has been conducted on traditional Eastern Aukštaitian subdialects, especially the Kupiškis subdialect. The only study worth mentioning is research into the geolinguistic competence of Kupiškis school students, which revealed a fairly consistent distancing by local young people from their own dialectal expression (Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė, Čepaitienė, Geržotaitė 2017: 88, 117)^¹. Several earlier studies of ordinary language users’ attitudes, conducted in the area of the Anykščiai subdialect of Eastern Aukštaitian, adjacent to the Kupiškis subdialect, pursued different objectives (Aliūkaitė 2008: 129–142; 2009: 164–179).

The aim of this article is to compare, according to the principles of perceptual dialectology, the images of the linguistic homeland held by the research participants from the Kupiškis and Utena gymnasiums and to assess the vitality of the Kupiškis subdialect.

The subject of the article is the images of the linguistic homeland held by students from Kupiškis and Utena.

The research participants are young people aged 15–18 from two gymnasiums (for information about the respondents, see the table).

^¹ The geolinguistic competence of ordinary members of a speech community is defined as the knowledge and ability to recognize linguistic variation and associate it with particular geographic, social, and cultural areas (Diercks 2002: 52–53; Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė 2016: 92).

Straipsniai / Articles

177

LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ

TABLE. Characteristics of the young people from Kupiškis and Utena participating in the study

The school students surveyed can be assigned to one age group. The study follows Penelope Eckert’s view that age classification is based not on precise chronology, but on stages. On the basis of their linguistic, cultural, and social experience, and their adolescent identity stage, the participants are assigned to the same generation (Eckert 1997: 151–167; Aliūkaitė 2007: 145).

The empirical research instrument was an anonymous questionnaire on conscious attitudes, Evaluation of Dialectal Speech and the Standard Language, prepared during the 2014–2016 project The Place of the Standard Language on the Mental Map of the Lithuanian Language (for more details, see Aliūkaitė, Miku­lėnienė 2016: 97–99). The introductory section of the questionnaire records participants’ sociodemographic data: sex, age, place of origin and residence; it also includes questions on dialect competence and usage activity, and the distribution—or domains—of language varieties. The main section applies the perceptual dialectology model: locating dialect and the standard language on drawn maps, as well as associations with a person speaking dialect and one speaking the standard language, etc.

The research material consists of 187 questionnaires. Of these, 119 were completed by students at Laurynas Stuoka-Gucevičius Gymnasium in Kupiškis during the 2014–2016 project The Place of the Standard Language on the Mental Map of the Lithuanian Language^². Some of the material (prototypical dialect and standard-language areas on drawn maps, and associations with a person speaking dialect and one speaking the standard language) has been published (for more details, see Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė, Čepaitienė, Geržotaitė 2017: 78–102, 140, 185, 263). These data are supplemented by 68 questionnaires collected in 2018 at Adolfo Šapoka Gymnasium in Utena^³.

The images of the linguistic homeland formed in the respondents’ consciousness are highlighted on the basis of data from the following questionnaire tasks: 1) after discussing the locations surveyed

^² The project was carried out with funding from the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language (Agreement No. K-5/2014). The project was led by Prof. Dr. Daiva Aliūkaitė. For more details about its results, see Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė, Čepaitienė, Geržotaitė 2017.

^³ The questionnaires completed at Kupiškis Gymnasium are held at the Institute of Languages, Literature and Translation Studies, Kaunas Faculty, Vilnius University; those completed at Utena Gymnasium are held in the Dialect Archive of the Centre for Geolinguistics, Institute of the Lithuanian Language.

178

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXI

The images of the linguistic homeland of young Eastern Aukštaitians—Kupiškis and Utena speakers

data from questions in the introductory questionnaire section concerning young people’s activity in using the dialectal code and its spread (or domains); 2) an examination of materials from maps drawn by respondents from different locations, on which they were asked to mark where dialects are spoken⁴; 3) an analysis of data on associations with dialect users.

The studied subdialect in dialect classifications and its distinguishing features. In Zigmas Zinkevičius and Aleksas Girdenis’s classification of Lithuanian dialects from the 1960s, the Eastern Aukštaitians of Kupiškis and Utena, like all Aukštaitians, retain ie, uo, while, as Eastern Aukštaitians, they narrow the first components of the diphthongs an, am, en, em and the former nasal vowels ą, ę (Girdenis, Zinkevičius 1966: 139–147; Zinkevičius 1969: 365–380; Morkūnas 1977: 33; LKTChr 2004: 29–30). In this classification, the distinguishing feature of the Kupiškis subdialect, which occupies a small part of eastern Lithuania, is that vowels e, ė at the end of a word and before a hard consonant are reflected as a of varying length, whereas Utena speakers are distinguished by the reflection of unstressed ė and ie as e. (Girdenis, Zinkevičius 1966: 139–147; Zinkevičius 1969: 365–380; Morkūnas 1977: 33) (see Fig. 1).

According to the features that distinguish the Eastern Aukštaitians in Z. Zinkevičius and A. Girdenis’s classification, the Aukštaitian Easterners in Antanas Salys’s classification from the 1930s are subdivided more finely (Salys 1935: 70; 1946: 56). On the same linguistic basis, it identifies the Aukštaitian Easterners corresponding to Kupiškis speakers as central puntininkai dadininkai (those who say dą: da instead of dėdė), and, on a different basis—namely, pronouncing unstressed o as a, or so-called žalininkavimas (saying ža.ld. instead of žolė)—the Aukštaitian Easterners corresponding to Utena speakers as eastern puntininkai (Salys 1933: 21–34; 1935: 75; 1946: 58–59).

The boundaries of the areas of these two subdialects, as can be seen from the original map and A. Salys’s dialect map based on the described dialect boundaries, were recorded as having remained virtually unchanged (Geržotaitė 2016b: 85)⁵. The difference is that the Utena area has shrunk, with part of it assigned in A. Salys’s classification to the central rotininkai puntininkai among the Aukštaitian Easterners (those who say rō.tas instead of ratas), or the Anykščiai speakers, and to the eastern Dzūkai, or the Vilnius Eastern Aukštaitians distinguished by Z. Zinkevičius and A. Girdenis.

⁴ In this questionnaire, maps were provided with municipal boundaries and some of their administrative centres marked. In perceptual dialectology, the mapping technique (see Preston 1989; 1999: xxiii–xl; 1999a: 359–373) uses maps presented to respondents that are either blank (Evans 2002: 76–83) or, to make orientation easier, show the boundaries of the largest administrative units (see Long 1999: 178) and major cities (see Dailey–O’Cain 1999: 228). ⁵ On maps from later periods, other scholars adjusted the dialect boundaries on the basis of material collected in the second half of the twentieth century (Geržotaitė 2016b: 74).

Straipsniai / Articles

179

LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ

Fig. 1. The Eastern Aukštaitians of Kupiškis and Utena in classifications of Lithuanian dialects⁶

In Antanas Baranauskas’s late-nineteenth-century classification of the dialects of Kaunas Governorate, the Easterners were subdivided more finely according to the same features; in A. Salys’s classification

⁶ The abbreviations on the map denote the Kupiškis (RAK) and Utena (RAU) Eastern Aukštaitians in Z. Zinkevičius and A. Girdenis’s dialect classification. The locations assigned in A. Salys’s classification to the corresponding central frequentist puntininkai among the Aukštaitian Easterners (Kupiškis speakers) are circled, while those assigned to the corresponding eastern puntininkai (Utena speakers) are marked with squares.

180

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXI

Jaunųjų rytų aukštaičių – kupiškėnų ir uteniškių – kalbinės gimtinės vaizdiniai

referred to as Eastern Aukštaitians. Using the same criteria, A. Salys distinguished the point-based middle-diphthong Eastern Aukštaitian localities, corresponding in this classification to the Fifth Eastern Aukštaitians, and the point-based eastern Eastern Aukštaitian localities, corresponding to the Sixth Eastern Aukštaitians (Baranovskij 1898: 50–51, 73).

As can be seen from A. Baranauskas’s dialect classification map, reconstructed through an analysis of dialect descriptions, the Fifth Eastern dialect was spoken mainly in Kupiškis and its environs, while the Sixth Eastern dialect was spoken also in the localities of the area of the point-based middle-diphthong Eastern Aukštaitians (or Kupiškėnai) corresponding to them in A. Salys’s classification (see Geržotaitė 2015: 133–165; 2018: 174–190 (see Fig. 1)). The area covered by these two dialects is very similar to the larger linguistic formation taking shape that geolinguists distinguish—the East Eastern Aukštaitian regiolect (Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė 2014: 261; Geržotaitė, Mikulėnienė 2014, Map XIII and commentary).

The subdialects under study at the beginning of the twenty-first century. Recent systematic geolinguistic studies show that the distinguishing feature of the Utena subdialect is retained almost consistently in the speech of representatives of all generations, whereas the corresponding feature of the Kupiškis subdialect, especially at the edges of its area, is not systematic in the speech of either the middle or younger generations (Aliūkaitė, Bakšienė, Jaroslavienė et al. 2014: 176, 188; Balčiūnienė, Rinkauskienė, Meiliūnaitė 2017: 54–55). It has been established that, in terms of linguistic features, Kupiškėnai are becoming more similar to the neighbouring strong Panevėžys and Utena subdialects. The influence of the Utena subdialect is evidenced by the fact that the emerging new, larger local linguistic formation based on it—the East Eastern Aukštaitian regiolect (with Utena as its centre of attraction)—encompasses not only the Utena subdialect area but also those of the surrounding subdialects, including Kupiškėnai (Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė 2014: 261; Geržotaitė, Mikulėnienė 2014, Map XIII and commentary; Mikulėnė, Meiliūnaitė 2017: 169–195). The consistent use of unstressed o pronounced as a, documented up to the beginning of the twenty-first century, connects this area and confirms the stability of the new formation (Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė 2014: 261; Geržotaitė 2016b: 190–191).

Therefore, data collected in the areas of the Kupiškis and Utena subdialects of Eastern Aukštaitian will not only supplement studies of the subjective perception of the traditional Eastern Aukštaitian subdialects, but will also provide a more comprehensive picture of the area under study—and thus of the variety used there—as formed in the local young people’s consciousness.

Principles for drawing dialect maps, classifying associations, and conducting analysis

The questionnaire included a map-drawing task (English Draw-a-Map), or the first of the five components of Denis Preston’s perceptual research model, directly related to the fourth task, dialect identification (English Dialect Identification). The map annotations also imply the third component of this model, the assessment of the correctness and attractiveness of variants (English “Correct” and “Pleasant”) (for more detail, see: Preston 198; 199: xxiv–xxx; 199a: 359–373; Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė 2016: 97).

Straipsniai / Articles

181

LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ

The classification and analysis of the linguistic attitudes of the subjects visualized on these maps drew on Wilio Dierck’s (Diercks 2002: 51–70) insights concerning the categories of linguistic homeland⁷ and real and perceived distance⁸. To assess the (in)accuracy of the subjects’ geolinguistic knowledge, the results of both previous studies of subjective and objective linguistic variation were taken into account (for more, see: Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė 2014: 257–259; Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė, Čepaitienė, Geržotaitė 2017, 174–178, 221–225, 248–253).

Material from the task on associations with a person who speaks a dialect, which was linked to the map task, was classified using the keyword technique (Garrett, Williams, Evans 2005: 37–54). The choice of keywords as filtering units was determined primarily by the traditional dialectology concept of a dialect speaker (i.e. the characteristics describing a NORM informant: sedentary, local, old, elderly, older, village, etc.) (Chambers, Trudgill 2004: 28; see also Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė 2014a: 32–33)⁹. Based on the results of earlier studies of dialect awareness, the keyword network was supplemented with filtering units such as tradition, praise, etc. (for more, see: Aliūkaitė 2008a: 23–45; Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė 2016a, 20–21; Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė, Čepaitienė, Geržotaitė 2017: 69–76).

The groups of associations identified on the basis of keywords comprise the first associations with dialect cited in the scholarly literature. In the qualitative analysis of the groups identified—that is, in reconstructing the sociolinguistic portrait of a dialect speaker—the material from all associations (including those with multiple components) was used.

2. THE ACTIVITY AND DOMAINS OF DIALECT-CODE USE FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF KUPIŠKIS AND UTENA YOUTH

Analysis of the data shows that the gymnasium students surveyed in both locations said that they knew a dialect (could speak dialect) (see table). The largest proportion of those who knew one was among the Utena respondents (73.53%), and the smallest among the Kupiškis respondents (24.37%). When asked which dialect they knew, the young research participants most often indicated Aukštaitian or speaking in Aukštaitian, Aukštaitian, or Eastern Aukštaitian. One or two Kupiškis

⁷ In perceptual dialectology research, linguistic homeland (English Linguistic Homeland) refers to an individual's linguistic environment and is associated with the linguistic and spatial distances of that environment (Diercks 2002: 51).

⁸ When evaluating language varieties and locating them on a map, a distinction is made between actual (objective) and perceived (not corresponding to geographical parameters) distances (Diercks 2002: 51; Aliūkaitė 2009: 172).

⁹ English non-mobile older rural male. Lithuanian: a sedentary older rural resident (male).

182

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXI

Jaunųjų rytų aukštaičių – kupiškėnų ir uteniškių – kalbinės giminės vaizdiniai

student clarified his answers, for example, writing that he knew kupišėnų (Kp_M1), kupišėnų tarmę (Kp_M17), kupišėnišką (Kp_M28), kupišėnų (Aukštaitian) (Kp_M57), kupišėniškai (Kp_V12), and so on.¹⁰ Possible identification not with the linguistic expression of one's own subdialect but with that of the neighboring Eastern Aukštaitian Panevėžys subdialect is indicated by the fact that one Kupiškis respondent said that he knew the biržietišką (Kp_M55) dialect.

The same attitudes emerged not only with regard to knowing the dialect but also to using it (see table). The respondents' answers show that Utena students consider themselves active users of the dialect. Kupiškis youth are most inclined to distance themselves from this form of expression. This choice by the gymnasium students may have been influenced by the lower (self-)value of their native place compared with Utena, which is considered an urbanization center (for further discussion, see: Aliūkaitė, Bakšienė, Jaroslavienė et al. 2014: 174; Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė, Čepaitienė, Geržotaitė 2017: 77).

These results are complemented by answers to a questionnaire item based on domain theory, asking where and with whom dialect is spoken (for further discussion, see: Fishman 1972: 15–32; Hagen 1989: 48–61; Aliūkaitė, Valikonė 2012: 7–20)¹¹. The data, once organized, show that students in both locations use the dialect code with family (or in the isolated domain), with friends (in the solidarity domain), and with teachers and all other people from their native locations (in the instrumental public domain) (see Fig. 2)¹².

FIG. 2. Domains of dialect use in the study locations from the perspective of young people¹³

¹⁰ The following abbreviations for locations are used in the study: Kupiškis – Kp, Utena – Ut; the letters M and V indicate the respondents' gender; the numbers are questionnaire numbers.

¹¹ Isolated domains comprise the immediate home environment and family members; solidarity domains comprise friends; instrumental public domains comprise public spaces and strangers (Hagen 1989: 53; see also Aliūkaitė, Valikonė 2012: 9).

¹² In determining the domains of dialect use, answers to two questionnaire questions were taken into account: Where is dialect spoken, With whom is dialect spoken.

¹³ It should be added that not all students who indicated that they spoke dialect specified where and with whom they used this code. Such responses account for: where – 21.01 (with whom – 15.97) percent of Kupiškis and 63.24 (61.11) percent of Utena youths' questionnaires.

Straipsniai / Articles

183

LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ

Although people speak dialectally everywhere and with representatives of all generations, as Figure 2 shows, they do so with varying frequency. Young people in both locations say that they use the dialect most often with family members and relatives at home (or in the isolated domain). The recorded use of the dialect in the immediate environment would seem to allow for an optimistic outlook on the prospects for the survival of both subdialects. Nevertheless, a stronger inclination to preserve it is evident only among young people from Utena.

Young people from Kupiškis, who are most inclined to distance themselves from the dialectal code, less often choose dialectal expression in the domain of solidarity than in the non-instrumental public domain. These results may be related to the greater attention paid to the subdialect during various public events.

Thus, it seems that representatives of both subdialects use the dialectal code to some degree. On the basis of the available data, the speech of young people from Utena can be considered the most vital, whereas the Kupiškis variety under study, although recorded in all domains, is declining.

3. IMAGES OF DIALECT SPEECH ON DRAWN MAPS

The results on the activity of dialectal-code use and its domains are complemented by maps drawn and marked by young members of the speech community¹⁴.

On the basis of these maps, three ways of including the linguistic homeland as a dialect zone can be distinguished (see Fig. 3).

Maps in which the linguistic homeland is identified by young language users as the only area characterized by dialectal expression are the least common. Most often, it is marked together with other prototypical dialect zones.

The third type of map inclusion of the linguistic homeland comprises maps marked by secondary-school students from both locations in two different ways. In one case, the native locality is marked on maps in which the entire language area is divided by perceptual isoglosses separating Samogitians and Aukštaitians, Samogitians, Aukštaitians, Dzūkians, and so on¹⁵. In the other case, the linguistic homeland is associated with dialectal speech when respondents indicate that this language code is spoken throughout Lithuania.

¹⁴ The map task was left unmarked by 5.04% of students from Kupiškis and 1.47% of students from Utena.

¹⁵ Dėl termino suvokimo izoglosės (angl. Perceptual Isoglosses žr.: Preston 1999a: 361; Aliūkaitė 2009: 165.

184

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXI

Jaunųjų rytų aukštaičių – kupiškėnų ir uteniškių – kalbinės giminės vaizdinai

Utena

51,47%

30,88%

2,52%

Kupiškis

38,65%

26,05%

▥ KG alone ■ KG among other prototypical dialectal language (TK) zones ▤ KG and other TK zones

Fig. 3. Linguistic homeland (KG) as a dialectal language (TK) zone, from the perspective of young respondents at survey points in the southern part of the map

The second group of maps marked by young people from Utena and Kupiškis (i.e., KG among other prototypical TK zones), which perhaps most clearly highlights the image of the linguistic homeland and thus of the variant used in it, merits closer discussion.

3.1. The image of the linguistic homeland among young people from Utena. The data show that more than half of the young people from Utena tend primarily to regard the prototypical dialect zone as their linguistic homeland (the markings account for 54.41 percent of all questionnaires from respondents in this city) (see Fig. 4).

Thus, both in declaring their attitudes toward active use of the dialectal code (60.29 percent speak dialectally) and in identifying their own city with the zones where the dialectal code is used (54.41 percent), these students confirm that they are active representatives of dialectal expression.

Among the places named by Utena respondents that are geographically closer or only somewhat farther away and apparently distinguished by strong dialectality, Panevėžys (45.59 percent), Zarasai (36.76 percent), Anykščiai (32.35 percent), and Biržai (30.88 percent) are worth mentioning (see Fig. 4). It should be added that Panevėžys is also indicated in the part of the maps drawn by Utena students that highlights prototypical dialect zones (this constitutes 17.6 percent of these respondents’ maps), where their linguistic homeland is not marked.

Straipsniai / Articles

185

LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ

FIG. 4. The most prototypical areas of dialectal speech among Utena youth

In addition to the locations already listed, more than a quarter of the students in this city named neighbouring Ignalina and Visaginas (27.94% each), Molėtai (26.47%), and Rokiškis (25%). Kupiškis, analysed in the article as an area of dialectal expression, was named by just over a fifth (20.59%) of Utena youth.

Thus, in the self-awareness of Utena youth, the system of linguistic homeland boundaries is based on so-called actual distance; that is, the boundaries of the linguistic homeland are drawn around their hometown and one or another neighbouring location. If the more distant areas named by the young people, which fall within the sphere of influence of the linguistic expression used in Utena, are added to these, the boundaries of the linguistic homeland can be said to almost coincide with those of the East Eastern Aukštaitian regiolect identified by geolinguists in the second decade of the 21st century (see map Ut_M13 in Fig. 5).

The students’ comments show that the linguistic code of Utena and its surroundings is viewed more positively than negatively. It is said that here people speak “Aukštaitian, beautiful there […]” (Ut_M21). Similar attitudes among the young were recorded not only towards their linguistic homeland, but also towards the dialectal expression of the neighbouring areas of Zarasai, Anykščiai, Ignalina, Molėtai, Rokiškis, and Panevėžys; for example: speaks Aukštaitian, speaks beau-tifully, incorrectly (Ut_M15), Aukštaitian, beautiful (Ut_M35), beautiful, pleasant, correct (Ut_M37)¹⁶.

¹⁶ The language of the respondents’ comments has not been corrected.

186

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXI

Images of the linguistic homeland among young Eastern Aukštaitians—Kupiškis and Utena speakers

Ut_M11

Ut_M13

⁵ Fig. Examples from maps showing how Utena youth mark their linguistic homeland among other prototypical dialect areas

The most prototypical dialect area marked on these maps after the linguistic homeland was Panevėžys; in the view of Utena youth, it is considered one of the locations “where dialect and distinctiveness are most strongly emphasized [...]” (Ut_M05). It is noted that in Panevėžys there is “[…] strange stress, like in Šiauliai [...]” (Ut_M21). Nevertheless, the respondents most often indicate that both in their linguistic homeland and in Panevėžys and other locations, people simply speak Aukštaitian.

Straipsniai / Articles

187

LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ

3.2. The image of the linguistic homeland of Kupiškis youth. Unlike those from Utena, Kupiškis youth in the Eastern Aukštaitian area first singled out Panevėžys (27.73%) and Biržai (26.89%) (see Fig. 6).

⁶ FIG. The most prototypical areas of dialect speech for Kupiškis youth

These students marked their linguistic homeland among the prototypical areas of dialect speech on the maps half as often (26.05%) as young people from Utena (cf. 54.41%). Among these locations, Kupiškis is more often excluded (49.45%) than included (26.05%) in the maps drawn by local youth. Thus, the survey data apparently indicate a tendency among Kupiškis students to distance themselves from their own dialectal code, which, as already mentioned, only a small proportion (14.29%) of respondents said they used.

Apart from their linguistic homeland and Panevėžys and Biržai, Kupiškis students consider only Pasvalys (22.69%) to have a comparable degree of dialect speech. Utena, the subject of this article, is apparently regarded as an area with less dialect speech (see Fig. 6).

Although the Kupiškis respondents say that they are not active users of the dialectal code, they evaluate their own linguistic expression especially positively (map Kp_M68; see Fig. 7).

188

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXI

Jaunųjų rytų aukštaičių – kupiškėnų ir uteniškių – kalbinės gimtinės vaizdiniai

Kp_M42

Kp_M68

⁷ fig. Examples of maps showing how Kupiškis youth marked their linguistic homeland among other prototypical dialect areas

In the words of these young people, Kupiškis dialect speakers are the most beautiful (Kp_M01), Kupiškis dialect speakers (beautiful) (Kp_M20), Kupiškis dialect speakers, incorrect, beautiful (Kp_M28), beautiful (Kp_M31), [...] beautiful, correct (Kp_M68), [...] very beautiful (Kp_V20), [...] beautiful,

Straipsniai / Articles

189

LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ

incorrect (Kp_V26), Kupiškis – one of the most beautiful (Kp_M70). Sometimes the aesthetic evaluation of a local linguistic variant (for me the Kupiškėnai dialect is the most beautiful [...]) is also supported with an argument ([...] because I am used to it, I can speak and understand it, Kp_M67). The linguistic code of Kupiškis is their own code and is therefore, apparently, viewed favourably.

A few instances were recorded in which respondents distanced themselves from their own linguistic variant. The Kupiškis subdialect, which in the school students’ maps is usually associated with Kupiškis itself (see Kp_M68, see Fig. 7), is shifted to the neighbouring P (Kp_M23), or to Panevėžys and Pašvalys (Kp_M17).

The views expressed in the maps by young language users and evaluators from both locations, regarding both active use of the dialectal code and the marking of linguistic homeland as a zone of dialectal expression, are summed up by one of the Kupiškis youths: “[...] Kupiškis residents have their own dialect, which is spoken mostly in villages. Incorrect. In my opinion, this dialect is not very beautiful, but it is unique” (Kp_M29).

Thus, the maps marked by young language users and evaluators from both locations show that it is Utena school students, who describe themselves as more active users of dialectal expression, who are more inclined to associate linguistic homeland with dialectal expression. By creating an actual distance from the areas of the neighbouring subdialect, first and foremost from Panevėžys and other locations, Kupiškis secondary-school students tend to distance themselves from their own dialectal code.

It should be added that analysis of the maps marked by Kupiškis youths, more than that of Utena respondents, confirms a tendency found in earlier studies of young language users: to associate dialectal expression primarily not with locations in the eastern part of the Lithuanian language area, but with those in the west (e.g., Plungė, Telšiai) and southwest (e.g., Marijampolė) (Aliukaitė, Mikulėnienė, Čepaitienė, Geržotaitė 2017: 147).

4. THE PORTRAIT OF A DIALECT SPEAKER

BASED ON ASSOCIATION DATA

Association data show that the features used to characterize the informant representing the traditional dialect, or NORM, in traditional dialectology studies are prominent in the images held by the surveyed secondary-school students.

Two of these features—the association of the user of this code with a place, and its association with the past and the linguistic expression of the older generation—are prominent in studies of both locations (see Fig. 8)¹⁷.

17 This questionnaire task was skipped by 3.36% of the Kupiškis school students.

190

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXI

Jaunųjų rytų aukštaičių – kupiškėnų ir uteniškių – kalbinės gimtinės vaizdiniai

Fig. 8. Associations with dialectal speech from the perspective of young people in the study locations

As Figure 8 shows, Utena students (57.35%) most often, and Kupiškis students (38.66%) less often, tend to associate a speaker of this code with a place. This association reflects the place-related categories of region, one’s own or native land, birthplace, and origin that emerge from the young people’s responses: with his native land (Ut_M31), with his place of origin (lowlands, highlands, etc.) (Ut_M39), where he comes from (Kp_M10), with his place of residence (city, region) (Kp_M14), with his own land (Kp_M25), with his birthplace (Kp_M59), with the region he comes from (Kp_V42).

As many as 45.59% (of the 57.35%) of Utena respondents who associated dialectal speech with a place singled out a village or villager, for example: a village or a very small town (Ut_M24), often associated with a village (Ut_M38), with a person from a village (Ut_V10), with a person from a small town (Ut_V13), with villagers (Ut_V21).

The village attribute (verbalized through categories such as village, small town, villager, etc.) is important to 24.37% (of the 38.66%) of Kupiškis students, for example: with a person who comes from or lives in a village (Kp_M15), a person who speaks dialect is associated with a villager (Kp_M26), with a village, the farther the village is from a city (Kp_M66), with a rural living environment (Kp_M68), usually with a “deep” village (Kp_V01). As the examples show, this attribute usually indicates a place. With only occasional exceptions, it is evaluated neutrally.

Thus, the attribute of place (other than village) is not strongly associated with regional variation in the mental images of the dialectal code held by young language users in either study location (Kupiškis – 14.29%, Utena – 11.76%). Such attitudes may be related to the uneven distribution of dialectal features and their varying strength across the area under analysis, as established by geolinguistic studies at the beginning of the twenty-first century (Aliūkaitė,

Straipsniai / Articles

191

LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ

Baškienė, Jaroslavienė et al. 2014: 174–178, 184–188)¹⁸. Tarmine raiška kalbančiojo tapatinimas su kaime gyvenančiu asmeniu, kaimo žmogumi (arba kaimiečiu) gali reikšti ir tam tikrą atsiribojimą. Tokiu atveju tarminį kalbėjimą su vieta sietų gerokai didesnė Kupiškio ir Utenos gimnazistų dalis.

For almost half of Kupiškis students (49.58%), the dialectal code is associated with the past and the older generation: with old times, with the past (Kp_M20), with the days of our grandparents (Kp_M37), with Lithuania of the past (Kp_V45), with age. Older people speak dialect more often (Kp_M27), mostly with older people (Kp_M39). The association of dialectal speech with the twentieth century and traditions (Kp_V03), or with old times. The days of grandparents and great-grandparents (Kp_V08), likely reflects Kupiškis young people’s attitudes of distancing themselves from this linguistic variety (Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė, Čepaitė, Geržotaitė 2017: 117). Utena respondents mention these associations less often (20.59%), for example: old Lithuania (Ut_M04), with old times (Ut_M14), a person who speaks dialect reminds me of grandparents and great-grandparents, who used to speak that way (Ut_M02), the oldest people (Ut_M25) (see Fig. 8).

A closely interconnected group of associations encompassing several attributes shows that, for young members of the speech community—especially young people in Kupiškis—the dialectal code is an almost disappearing or extinct variety associated with the older generation, who speak or spoke an authentic dialect: a person who speaks dialect reminds me of old times and villages, because young people nowadays hardly speak dialect anymore (Kp_M41), now it is associated with memories and old people (Kp_V15).

The attribute of respect is included less often in the image of a dialect speaker held by the gymnasium students. It is characteristic mainly of young people in Kupiškis (19.33%), for example: with safeguarding one’s dialect; people who usually speak dialect are proud of it (Kp_M05), with a person who respects their region (Kp_M67), such a person seems to love their region very much and cherish its traditions, speech, and dialect (Kp_M63). Such attitudes may be based on simulation, since these young people consistently distance themselves from dialectal speech.

For Utena students, a person who speaks dialect is less often associated with respect for language, culture, and region (7.35%), for example: with a person who wants to preserve as much of Lithuanian culture as possible (Ut_M16), with a person who strives to cherish Lithuanian culture (Ut_M29), with people who love their language (Rk_V13).

The portrait of a dialect speaker established in traditional dialectology is further reinforced by cases that encompass several associations, for example: with life in old times, older people (Kp_M13), with villages, old people (Kp_M51), with elderly people, people from old times, people from villages (Kp_M32), village, old times, land

¹⁸ Similar results were revealed by a sociological study conducted in the Kupiškis and Anykščiai districts. These results show that people also associate regional identity with dialect; however, in young people’s view, “Aukštaitian identity is no longer determined by place of residence” (Savoniakaitė 2003: 105).

192

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXI

Jaunųjų rytų aukštaičių – kupiškėnų ir uteniškių – kalbinės giminės vaizdiniai

a person engaged in farming (Ut_M07), a person who comes from the countryside, an older person (Ut_M13), an elderly person, a villager or a Samogitian (Ut_M19), an old person, not a young person, from a smaller town or village (Ut_M34), etc. These and other examples show that respondents have a very positive image of the person who uses the code in question.

Other attributes in young Eastern Aukštaitians’ images of dialectal speech are vague or have been eliminated entirely. For example, education, which is not reflected in Figure 8, was mentioned only once or twice by respondents from either location. Similar attitudes were recorded regarding the association of a dialect speaker with an uneducated person.

CONCLUSIONS

Data from a study of images of linguistic kinship among young people in localities within the area of the traditional Eastern Aukštaitian subdialects—Kupiškėnai and Uteniškiai—or the area of the currently emerging East Eastern Aukštaitian regiolect, conducted according to the methodological principles of perceptual dialectology, make it possible to summarize the linguistic image of this region.

Analysis of the data shows that Utena students tend to associate themselves more with speaking in a dialect. Among young people in Kupiškis, attitudes of distancing themselves from their own linguistic code are evident. This attitude among users and evaluators of their speech may have been shaped by the (self-)valuation of their place of origin.

Similar results emerged from the analysis of data on the domains of use of the dialectal code. Although students from both locations say that they speak dialect everywhere and with representatives of all generations (i.e., in all situations), Utena respondents show a stronger tendency to maintain their own linguistic variety. The linguistic expression characteristic of Kupiškis is viewed by local young people only as a form of expression used in their immediate surroundings (an isolated domain).

Drawn (mental) maps revealed that Utena high-school students are most inclined to identify their linguistic kinship with dialect zones. By creating an actual distance from areas of the neighbouring subdialect—first and foremost, Panevėžys—young people in Kupiškis apparently distance themselves from their own dialectal expression.

Respondents from both Kupiškis and Utena associate dialect speakers with the countryside. Young people in Kupiškis are more inclined to view the dialectal code as the linguistic expression of older people and of the past. More often than Utena students, they also consider dialectal expression inseparable from respect for language, culture, and the region.

The boundaries of the linguistic variety drawn on maps by Utena respondents almost coincide with those of the East Eastern Aukštaitian regiolect delineated by geolinguists in the second decade of the 21st century. This linguistic formation closely resembles the area of the Eastern dialect points, or

Straipsniai / Articles

193

LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ

The area of the Eastern Aukštaitians of Kupiškis and the surrounding area of the Sixth Eastern, or Utena subdialect, according to the dialect classification by Z. Zinkevičius and A. Girdenis. The images of variation that emerged from the verbalized and visualized attitudes of young language users almost coincide with the historical objective linguistic variation not only of the subjects’ linguistic homelands, but also of the entire eastern part of the Lithuanian language area.

LITERATŪRA

Aliūkaitė Daiva 2007: Tarminis kalbėjimas ir bendrinė kalba: objektyviųjų ir subjektyviųjų skirtumų kultūrinė vertė. Daktaro disertacija. Rankraštis. Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas.

Aliūkaitė Daiva 2008: Tarmių ypatybių vertė kultūriniu požiūriu: Lyduokių šnekta. – Respectus Philologicus 13(18)A, 129–142.

Aliūkaitė Daiva 2008a: Tarmiškai kalbančio žmogaus stereotipai: apriorinės eilinių kalbos bendruomenės narių nuostatos. – Respectus Philologicus 14(19), 23–45.

Aliūkaitė Daiva 2009: Perceptyviniai dialektų tyrimai: mentalinis žemėlapis. – Respectus Philologicus 15(20), 164–179.

Aliūkaitė Daiva, Bakšienė Rima, Jaroslavienė Jurgita et al. 2014: Punktų tinklo tankis geolingvistinės skirties aukštaičiai: žemaičiai požiūriu. – XXI a. pradžios lietuvių tarmės: geolingvistinis ir sociolingvistinis tyrimas (žemėlapiai ir jų komentarai), sud. Danguolė Mikulėnienė, Violeta Meiliūnaitė. Vilnius: Briedis, 129–196.

Aliūkaitė Daiva, Mikulėnienė Danguolė 2014: Geolektų ir regioninių dialektų formavimosi ypatumai Lietuvoje. – XXI a. pradžios lietuvių tarmės: geolingvistinis ir sociolingvistinis tyrimas (žemėlapiai ir jų komentarai), sud. Danguolė Mikulėnienė, Violeta Meiliūnaitė. Vilnius: Briedis, 257–262.

Aliūkaitė Daiva, Mikulėnienė Danguolė 2014a: Geolingvistika: ideologija, teorija ir metodai. Pagrindinės sąvokos. – XXI a. pradžios lietuvių tarmės: geolingvistinis ir sociolingvistinis tyrimas (žemėlapiai ir jų komentarai), sud. Danguolė Mikulėnienė, Violeta Meiliūnaitė. Vilnius: Briedis, 29–47.

Aliūkaitė Daiva, Mikulėnienė Danguolė 2016: Perceptyviosios dialektologijos instrumentai ir tyrimų kryptys: variantų arealai mentaliniuose žemėlapiuose (Biržų atvejis). – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIV, 89–120.

Aliūkaitė Daiva, Mikulėnienė Danguolė 2016a: Lietuvos gimnazistų požiūris: išilavinimas Lietuvos gimnazijų vaizdiniuose. – Verbum 7, 17–33. Prieiga internete: http://www.zurnalai.vu.lt/verbum/article/view/10283 [žiūrėta 2019-09-15].

194

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXI

Jaunųjų rytų aukštaičių – kupiškėnų ir uteniškių – kalbinės giminės vaizdai

Aliūkaitė Daiva, Mikulėnienė Danguolė, Čepaitienė Agnė, Geržotaitė Laura 2017: Kalbos variantiškumas ir jo vertinimas perceptyviosios dialektologijos požiūriu: variantų ir vietų vaizdiniai. Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla.

Aliūkaitė Daiva, Valikonė Jolanta 2012: Bendrinės kalbos ir tarmės domenai. – Verbum 3, 7–20.

Balčiūnienė Asta, Rinkauskienė Regina, Meiliūnaitė Violeta 2017: Kupiškėnų ir uteniškių pabio šnektų fonetinė kaita XXI a.: Vabalninko, Darsūškių ir Salamiesčio punktų atvejis. – Lituanistica 1(107), 38–60.

Baranovskij Antonij [=Барановский Антоний] 1898: Замѣчанія о литовскомъ языкѣ и словарѣ. Санктпетербургъ: Типографія Императорской Академіи Наукъ.

Chambers Jack K., Trudgill Peter 2004: Dialectology. Second Edition. Cambridge University Press.

Čepaitienė Agnė 2018: XXIa. pradžios aukštaičių patarmių kaita: regioninis aspektas. Daktaro disertacija. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

Dailey-O’Cain Jennifer 1999: The perception of Post-Unification German Regional Speech. – Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology 1. Ed. Dennis Preston. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 227–242.

Diercks Willy 2002: Mental maps. Linguistic-Geographic Concepts. – Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology 2. Ed. Daniel Long, Dennis Preston. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 51–70.

Eckert Penelope 1997: Age as a Sociolinguistic Variable. – Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Ed. Florian Coulmas. Oxford: Blackwell, 151–167.

Evans Betsy 2002: Attitudes of Montreal Students towards Varieties of French. – Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology 2. Ed. Daniel Long, Dennis Preston. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 71–93.

Fishman Joshua A. 1972: The Relationship Between Micro- and Macro-sociolinguistics in the Study of Who Speaks What Language to Whom and When. – Sociolinguistics. Eds. John Bernard Pride, Janet Holmes. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books Ltd., 15–32.

Garrett Peter, Williams Angie, Evans Betsy 2005: Accessing Social Meanings: Values of Keywords, Values in Keywords. – Acta Linguistica Hafniensia: International Journal of Linguistics 37(1), 37–54.

Geržotaitė Laura 2015: Geolingvistinė Antano Baranausko lietuvių tarmių klasifikacijos analizė. – Kalbos istorijos ir dialektologijos problemos 4, sud. Vilija Ragaišienė, Violeta Meiliūnaitė. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 133–165.

Straipsniai / Articles

195

LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ

Geržotaitė Laura 2016a: Vartotojo veiksnys: subjektyvusis Lenkojos lietuvių šnektų vaizdas mentaliniuose žemėlapiuose. – Lietuvių tarmių kaita XXI a. pradžioje: Lenkijos lietuvių šnektos, sud. Danguolė Mikulėnienė, Asta Leskauskaitė, Vilija Ragaišienė, Laura Geržotaitė, Nijolė Birgelienė. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 321–339.

Geržotaitė Laura 2016b: Lietuvos tarmių klasifikacijos tyrimas geolingvistiniu aspektu. Daktaro disertacija. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

Geržotaitė Laura 2018: Naujų duomenų Antano Baranausko lietuvių tarmių skirstymo rekonstrukcija. – Linguistica Lettica 26, 174–190.

Geržotaitė Laura, Čepaitienė Agnė 2016: Vilkaviškio jaunųjų kalbinė gimtinė: ribos, taisyklingumo ir patrauklumo vertės. – Verbum 7, 84–100. Prieiga internete: http://www.zurnalai.vu.lt/verbum/article/view/1028 [žiūrėta 2019-09-10].

Geržotaitė Laura, Mikulėnienė Danguolė 2014: Geolektų ir regiolektų formavimas Lietuvoje: žemėlapis ir komentarai. – XXIa. pradžios lietuvių tarmės: geolingvistinis ir sociolingvistinis tyrimas (žemėlapiai ir jų komentarai), sud. Danguolė Mikulėnienė, Violeta Meiliūnaitė. Vilnius: Briedis, XIII žemėlapis ir komentaras (sp. įklija).

Girdenis Aleksas, Zinkevičius Zigmas 1966: Dėl lietuvių kalbos tarmių klasifikacijos. – Kalbotyra 14, 139–147.

Hagen Anton M. 1989: Frisian and Education in the Netherlands. – Dialect and Education: Some European Perspectives. Eds. Jenny Cheshire, Viv Edwards, Henk Musterman, Bert Weltens. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 48–61.

LKTChr 2004: Lietuvių kalbos tarmių chrestomatija, sud. Rima Bacevičiūtė, Audra Ivanauskienė, Asta Leskauskaitė, Edmundas Trumpa. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla.

Long Daniel 1999: Geographical Perception of Japanese Dialect Regions. – Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology 1. Ed. Dennis Preston. Amsterdam, Philadelpia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 177–198.

Mikulėnienė Danguolė 2018: Multimodalis tarmétros modelis: vietinės lenkų kalbos variantiškumo Lietuvoje tyrimo galimybės. Prieiga internete: http://www.lenkutarmes.llt.vu.lt/files/mikuleniene_%20tarmetros_modelis.pdf [žiūrėta 2019-10-05].

Mikulėnienė Danguolė, Leskauskaitė Asta, Ragaišienė Vilija, Geržotaitė Laura, Birgelienė Nijolė 2016: Lietuvių tarmių kaita XXI a. pradžioje: Lenkijos lietuvių šnektos. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

Mikulėnienė Danguolė (sud. ir aut.), Meiliūnaitė Violeta (sud. ir aut.) 2014: XXIa. pradžios lietuvių tarmės: geolingvistinis ir sociolingvistinis tyrimas (žemėlapiai ir jų komentarai). Vilnius: Briedis.

196

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXI

Jaunųjų rytų aukštaičių – kupiškėnų ir uteniškių – kalbinės gimtinės vaizdiniai

Mikulėnienė Dangolė, Meiliūnaitė Violeta 2017: Tarmiškumo matmuo Lietuvos etnografinių regionų struktūroje. – Naujos regionų tapatybės konstravimas. Integralumas, sumanumas, konkurencingumas, sud. Arūnas Augustinaitis, Jolanta Zabarskaitė, Danguolė Mikulėnienė, Violeta Meiliūnaitė et al. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 169–195.

Morkūnas Kazys 1977: Įvadas. – Lietuvių kalbos atlasas 1. Leksa. Vilnius: Mokslas, 7–18.

Preston Dennis 1989: Perceptual Dialectology: Nonlinguists’ Views of Areal Linguistics. Dordrecht: Foris.

Preston Dennis 1999: Introduction. – Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology 1. Ed. Dennis Preston. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, xxii–xl.

Preston Dennis 1999a: A Language Attitude Approach to the Perception of Regional Variety. – Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology 1. Ed. Dennis Preston. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 359–373.

Salys Antanas 1933: Kelios pastabos tarmių istorijai. – Archivum Philologicum 4, 21–34.

Salys Antanas 1935: Lietuvių kalbos tarmės. Rankraščio teisėmis. Kaunas.

Salys Antanas 1946: Lietuvių kalbos tarmės. Rankraščio teisėmis. Tiubingenas.

Savoniakaitė Vida 2003: Aukštaičiai: „ribų“ sampratos. – Lituanistica 3(55), 101–112.

Zinkevičius Zigmas 1969: Apie lietuvių kalbos tarmių skirstymą. – Lietuvos TSR mokslų akademijos darbai. A serija 3(31). Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla, 365–380.

Images of Linguistic Homeland of the Young Eastern Aukštaitians of Kupiškis and Utena

SUMMARY

The article deals with the images of linguistic homeland of young people from locations within the area of the traditional Eastern Aukštaitian subdialects of Kupiškis and Utena. The material surveyed in the study consts of the data from the research study conducted under the principles of perceptual dialectology.

Straipsniai / Articles

197

LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ

The images of linguistic homeland embed in the respondents’ consciousness are highlighted on the basis of the data from several tasks presented in the survey: discussion on the frequency of choice and the domains of usage of the dialectal code; exploration of the drawn (mental) maps of dialect language areas, and analysis of the associations of a dialect speaker.

The data analysis shows that the school students of Utena tend to identify themselves with dialect expression more often. Kupiškis youth manifest a more pronounced trend of distancing themselves from their own linguistic code. This attitude, which is characteristic of the part of the young members of the language community, might have been the product of the (self-)esteem of their birthplace.

A comparable set of results was obtained by arranging the material of the domains of usage of the dialectal code in a structured manner. Even though the students from both locations said they would speak a dialect everywhere and with all generations (which is to say, across all domains), it is the youth of Utena alone that tend to preserve their own linguistic variation. The typical linguistic expression of Kupiškis is considered to be an expression of the immediate environment, i.e. a separate domain.

The drawn maps reveal that students from Utena are more inclined to identify their linguistic homeland with dialectal areas. By establishing an actual distance between themselves and the locations of the neighbouring subdialect, Panevėžys in particular, Kupiškis youth possibly dissociate themselves from their own linguistic expression.

Both the subjects from Kupiškis and those from Utena tend to associate a person who speaks a dialect with rural areas. The subjects from Kupiškis tend to perceive a dialectal code as an expression of the older generation, i.e. the past. They find this expression an integral part of respect for language, culture, and land more often compared to the students from Utena. The borders of the variation of the linguistic homeland drawn on the maps of the respondents from Utena virtually coincide with the boundaries of the East Eastern Aukštaitian regiolect that linguists defined in the second decade of the twenty-first century. This linguistic formation is very similar to the area of the so called Fifth Eastern from the reconstructed map of dialects by Antanas Baranauskas or the Eastern Aukštaitians of Kupiškis under the classification of dialects by Zigmas Zinkevičius and Aleksas Girdenis and the surrounding area of the so called Sixth Eastern or the subdialect of Utena.

The images of variation that emerge from the attitudes of the young language users virtually overlap with the historical objective linguistic variation both of their linguistic homeland and of the entire eastern part of the Lithuanian language area.

Įteikta 2019 m. lapkričio 19 d.

LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ

Lietuvių kalbos institutas

P. Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308, Vilnius, Lietuva

[email protected]

198

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXI