Juozas Pabrėža. „Žemaičių kalba ir rašyba“

JŪRATĖ PAĖDIENĖ Institute of the Lithuanian Language Research areas: the syntax, semantics, and pragmatics of Old and Modern Lithuanian; the history of Lithuanian culture and ecclesiastical texts. DOI Juozas Pabrėža THE SAMOGITIAN LANGUAGE AND ORTHOGRAPHY SCHOLARLY MONOGRAPH Šiauliai: Publishing Department of the Šiauliai University Library (Bibliotheca actorum humanitaricum universitatis Saulensis, book no. 17), 2017, 336 pp. ISBN 978-609-819-10-1, ISSN 1822-7278 Published at the end of 2017, Juozas Pabrėža’s monograph The Samogitian Language and Orthography (hereafter ŽKR) is important not only for dialectologists but also for anyone interested in Samogitian identity, since, as a means of expressing and recognizing Samogitian identity, the book reveals the most important and interesting components of this phenomenon, those that have been studied most extensively as well as, conversely, those that remain understudied, and highlights their distinctiveness. ŽKR may appeal to and is intended for two different types of readers. The first is an emotionally neutral reader interested in Lithuanian studies and dialectology: the Samogitian linguistic system is described with Standard Lithuanian as its point of reference (this is reflected both in the demonstration formulas emphasizing the differences between the two linguistic systems and in the illustrative examples, which almost always1 include a Standard Lithuanian equivalent in form or meaning). But ŽKR also has another, emotionally engaged, reader in mind. This book is highly important to every Samogitian or person of Samogitian descent, since the Samogitian alphabet (p. 167), practical spelling rules (pp. 168–194), and explanations of phonetic transcription (pp. 37–40) presented in it provide the foundations for basic literacy. ŽKR 1 Except for a few cases that fully coincide with Standard Lithuanian, cf., for example, the southern Samogitian stress pattern laukas, rasa, given on p. 74. Straipsniai / Articles 267 JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ The descriptions of Samogitian cultural research (pp. 17–36) and the Samogitian language (pp. 41–113), texts representing Samogitian speech in different subdialects (pp. 114–144), and a collection of Samogitian literary works entitled Žemaičių rašõs pavyzdžiais (pp. 195–300), together with references to literature on various aspects of the expression of Samogitianness (pp. 301–309), give readers of this book the opportunity to become thoroughly acquainted with the expression and distinctive character of Samogitianness. On 19–20 October 2017, the fifth Alekso Girdenio (1936–2011) memorial conference, “Transformations of Languages and Dialects,” was held at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language. At the conference, Juozas Pabrėža spoke about the origins and traditions of Samogitian writing, covering in his account the period from the first Lithuanian book (1547) and the Samogitian character of Martynas Mažvydas to the present day, including the Samogitian movement that arose with the national revival and Žemaičių rašõs2, published in 1998 by Aleksas Girdenis and Juozas Pabrėža. On that occasion, the speaker mentioned that he, too, had already prepared a book about the Samogitian language and writing. Yet it was not just this remark or the content of the talk as a whole that mattered most—the manner of its delivery made the greatest impression on the audience. He began his talk in standard Lithuanian, then, at a certain point, switched codes when giving a Samogitian example to illustrate a claim. Juozas Pabrėža did not switch back. A similar “Samogitian incantation” technique is used in the book under review: the expository sections of ŽKR are in Lithuanian, followed by Samogitian texts illustrating two distinct systems for representing Samogitian speech in writing—the precise and the approximate (the first is suitable both for those who can and those who cannot speak Samogitian; this is the so-called simplified phonetic transcription, “based on an accurate recording of sounds according to their perception” (p. 37); the second writing system, applied orthography, with which readers of ŽKR are introduced, is intended for recording everyday and/or literary Samogitian; visually, this system is considerably simpler, but it is precisely this one that requires readers to have Samogitian speaking skills, while those beginning to use it in practice also need a substantial understanding of the regularities of the Samogitian language, which ŽKR explains by comparing them with the sound system of the standard language). On the back cover, ŽKR’s author is introduced in Samogitian: Eso Skouda žemės žmogos. [...] Pabrėža Jūzas. The monograph under discussion consists of Preface, Introduction, two main sections, The Samogitian Language and Žemaičių rašõs (both containing sample texts representing these distinct systems of expression—speech and writing), a bibliography, an index of surnames, and an abstract, The Samogitian Language and Writing. From the perspective of the book’s structure, the only point that gives some pause is the placement of the chapter Transcription in the Introduction rather than in the The Samogitian Language section. Without this interlude devoted to the fundamentals of transcription, the Introduction could be described as an overview of research on Samogitian origins and self-awareness, discussing the name Samogitians (pp. 17–19), cultural 2 Dar plg. Urbanavičienė, Jaroslavienė 2018: 144. 68 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXX Juozas Pabrėža Žemaičių kalba ir rašyba. Mokslo monografija the Samogitian movement (pp. 20–25), the activities of the Samogitian Cultural Society, founded on 27 November 1988 (pp. 26–30), and questions of Samogitian identity (pp. 31–36). In presenting interpretations of the origin of the word žemaičiai, the author of ŽKR emphasizes two meanings of the name in its plural forms: “Žemaičiai (with a capital letter) denotes the region, while žemaičiai (with a lowercase letter) denotes its inhabitants” (p. 17). According to Juozas Pabrėža, the name of the region in the plural form Žemaičiai is considerably older than the place name Žemaitija (the latter “began to spread after the restoration of the press” (p. 19)). The chapter Samogitian Identity (pp. 31–36) sets out two views on Samogitian origins: archaeologists Pranas Kulikauskas, Adolfas Tautavičius, Albinas Kuncėvičius, Adomas Butrimas, and Vladas Žulkus, drawing on their research, propose that the Samogitians existed as a separate Baltic tribe (or distinct ethnic unit), whereas historians Alvydas Nikžentaitis and Edvardas Gudavičius, linguists Giedrius Subačius and Zigmas Zinkevičius, and ethnologist Petras Kalnius view them as a subethnos, subnational group, subpeople, or ethnic group (p. 31). Juozas Pabrėža characterizes Samogitian identity and its distinctiveness by drawing on the research of linguists Regina Kliukienė, Rasa Kviklytė, Kazimieras Župerka, and Silvija Papaurėlytė; ethnologists Auksuolė Čepienė, Vaidotas Pakalniškis, Petras Kalnius, and Stasys Gutautas; ethno-psychologist Remigijus Blumas; and ethnomusicologist Loreta Sungailienė. He particularly emphasizes that “the most important and distinctive element of traditional Samogitian culture, the one that most clearly characterizes, identifies, and represents Samogitian identity, is the Samogitian language” (p. 36). The chapter The Samogitian Language begins with the question of status—language versus dialect. Arguments cited in support of the language’s status include its ties to Samogitian, its differences from the standard language and other dialects, and the observation that “the Samogitian language has all the most important levels, parameters, or components of any language: phonetics, morphology, syntax, and lexicon” (p. 47). The author stresses his personal conviction, stating that he himself “firmly maintains that there is a Samogitian language with three distinct dialects (Northern Samogitian donininkai, Southern Samogitian dūnininkai, and Western Samogitian dounininkai), subdialects of the Northern Samogitian Telšiai and Kretinga varieties, the Southern Samogitian Varniai and Raseiniai varieties, and numerous smaller speech varieties and subvarieties” (p. 48). Accordingly, ŽKR presents a comprehensive picture of the Samogitian linguistic system by discussing the most characteristic features of sounds, prosody, morphology, syntax, and lexicon found in the Samogitian language (and, by extension, its dialects and speech varieties)³. This review likewise uses the term for the Samogitian dialect continuum 3 It is customary to describe dialects first on the basis of their most general features, and then to focus on a particular dialect or subdialect. For example, Z. Zinkevičius’s Dialektologijoje first presents the most salient differences between Samogitian and Aukštaitian (Zinkevičius 194: 85–105), and then discusses Southern Samogitian (Raseiniai and Varniai varieties), Northern Samogitian (Telšiai and Kretinga varieties), and the phonetic and prosodic features characteristic of Western Samogitian (ibid., 106–123). Recenzijos / Reviews 269 JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ the concept of the Samogitian language; therefore, attention will also be paid to whether the terms commonly used in dialectological descriptions are suitable for automatic adoption and application in ŽKR to understand the status of the entirety of Samogitian speech varieties as a single language rather than a dialect. As already noted, ŽKR describes the Samogitian language on the basis of the standard language4. Such a frame of reference is conventional in the tradition of Lithuanian dialectological descriptions, and in many cases this approach poses no problem in this monograph either (ŽKR’s status as a scholarly monograph indicates that its primary intended audience is a person who knows standard Lithuanian and is familiar with its structure). For example, the phonetic features of Samogitian dialects and subdialects are discussed by specifying their correspondences to the standard Lithuanian sounds uo, ie, o, ė, ai, ei, u, i,5, am, an, em, en, ą, ę, ų, į, describing the pronunciation of the palatalized č, dž and certain other consonants, as well as the reduction of endings. The description of the Samogitian language contains numerous illustrations of both regularities and exceptions. For instance, in discussing the Samogitian correspondences of the diphthongs ie, uo (pp. 49–52), it addresses both the failure to follow the patterns of change and the retention of these sounds in loanwords such as miests, sviests; it notes not only variations in the suffix -ien (for example, in married women’s surnames, cf. Butkėnė, and in names of dishes, cf. bulbėnė, lapinė), but also cases in which “instead of uo, ie all Samogitians have long ū, ī or short u, i vowels, e.g., Jūzaps / Jūzops ‘Juozapas’, […] kūnėr ‘kuomet, kada’, kėutė-mėt ‘kitą’, kažekumėt ‘kažin kada’, tūmėt ‘tada’, vėsumėt ‘visuomet, visada’, tūjau ‘tuojau’, lītös ‘lietus’ […]” (p. 51), also mentioning instances of “opposite” correspondences for uo, ie in certain words (e.g., pùks ‘pūkas’, vėšnė ‘vyšnia’) and correspondences that do not follow the pattern (cf. “[v]ery unexpected uo, ie are also possible, e.g.: juokūte ‘juokauti’, […] švėstė ‘šveisti’.” (p. 52). ŽKR is characterized by a straightforward description based on evidence, and it is clear that this is deliberately sought6. Nevertheless, in a few instances the reader is offered an especially simplified explanation, prompting doubts about the value of this approach. Compare, for example, the opening of the description of the southern Samogitian dialect’s correspondences for standard-language uo, ie and the entire paragraph, which suggests that the Author himself is disinclined to accept the simplified version (and, as a scholar, should not endorse it), cf.: Southern Samogitians […] have sounds similar to long ū, ī instead of uo, ie, e.g.: dūna ‘duona’, […] svīts ‘šviesas’ […]. Indeed, some linguists (A. Girdenis, J. Bukantis, D. Atkočaitė, “The Dialects of the Lithuanian Language 4 Indeed, at times the features of the Samogitian language in ŽKR are also compared with those characteristic of Aukštaitians, e.g., pp. 75–76. 5 Considerable attention is also devoted to cases of regressive assimilation of u, i, which distinguishes the Telšiai subdialect of Northern Samogitian from the Kretinga subdialect of Northern Samogitian (cf. pp. 57–62). 6 The Preface contains a statement that allows this to be regarded as one of the book’s aims, namely, “to describe the Samogitian language and its distinctiveness as simply, clearly and accessibly as possible” (p. 11). 270 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXX Juozas Pabrėža Žemaičių kalba ir rašyba. Mokslo monografija the compilers of the chrestomathy”7 argue that these are not lengthened vowels (monophthongs) ū, ī, but diphthong-like sequences (diphthongoids) uⁿ, iⁿ, e.g.: dūⁿna ‘duona’, [...] sūⁿts ‘svietas’ [...]. This is because various studies and experiments have shown that the southern Samogitian equivalents of standard-language ie, uo and y, ū are not entirely identical sounds, since forms such as rīts ‘rietas’ and rīts ‘rytas’, lītē ‘lieti’ and lītē ‘lyti’ [...], differ. (p. 50)8 In ŽKR, efforts are made to describe the distinctiveness of Samogitian sounds in a way that draws the attention not only of readers who do not speak Samogitian (cf., for example, the unacceptability in standard Lithuanian of ou, ei, which occur in Northern Samogitian, while standard Lithuanian has ou only in loanwords such as klounas, šou (pp. 49–50)), but also of Samogitians themselves, who seek to pronounce standard-language words correctly, cf.: [...] most Samogitians (except those in the western area) do not have long tense vowels o, ē at all. And learning to pronounce sounds that are absent from one’s native-language system is extraordinarily difficult. Consequently, more than one Samogitian, even after learning standard language quite well, most often gives away their true origins by diphthongizing the vowels o, ē. (pp. 53–54) Such observations that bring different phonetic systems into focus are common in descriptions of Lithuanian dialects9, but the rationale for doing so in ŽKR is evident in the much greater number of examples provided (cf. cases in which newer consonants expected in international words, loanwords or proper names, f, ch, h, are replaced by their usual equivalents p, k, g (such as Ādūlis ‘Adolfas’ [...], kuligāns ‘čuliganas’ [...], gīms ‘himnas’ [...]), as well as their complete deletion (cf. aktārs / ek tārs ‘hektaras’ [...]), the addition and insertion of consonants j (before i, e, ė) and v (before uo) (cf. jīd ‘ėda’ [...], vūobōs ‘uobolys’, vūobėlē ‘obelės’ [...]), or their loss, palatalization and so on (see pp. 70–71). The chapter Prosodic Features discusses stress patterns characteristic of Samogitian (pp. 74–84) and describes the intonations they use—broken and continuous—as well as a particular variant of the simple intonation, the medial one (pp. 85–86). It also notes that in certain parts of Samogitia “recessive-stress intonations are distinguished” (p. 86), and that intonation factors may bring about changes in certain intonations (p. 87). It further explains how familiarity with the distinctiveness of Samogitian stress patterns and intonations can be useful in teaching and learning standard-language stress (pp. 83–84). Indeed, for a reader uninterested in dialectology, and especially for a Samogitian, beginning ŽKR’s discussion of Stress (pp. 74–78) calls for patience, since it proceeds on the basis of the theory of regular stress retraction as though this were self-evident 7 See Bacevičiūtė et al., eds. 2004. 8 Apie šiuos diftongoidus dar plg. Zinkevičius 1994: 105. 9 On the influence of dialects and the pronunciation difficulties Samogitians encounter when speaking standard Lithuanian, see Zinkevičius 1966: 20–21; 1994: 126–131; Grinaveckis 1973: 31–35. Recenzijos / Reviews 271 JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ The accentuation features of the Samogitian language—which differs from the standard language—are characterized in terms of various factors (or, more precisely, as manifested in certain ways in the territories of particular dialects). Introduced without any theoretical explanation or references, the term “accent retraction” appears to resolve the traps for the conception of the Samogitian language proposed in ŽK. For, without any initial theoretical introduction or references to the conditional nature of the discourse familiar to accentologists10, Samogitians who understand their native language within their own frame of reference may find it difficult to understand on what basis their natural way of accentuating is called conditional or general accent retraction (see point 4 in the quotation below). Cf. the somewhat abridged beginning of the chapter Accentuation: According to accentuation, Samogitians can be divided into four areas: 1. In the very southern part of Samogitia (Šilutė, Vainutas, Pagėgiai, Tauragė, Skaudvilė, Eržvilkas), the entire accentuation system is very similar to that of the standard language: the accent is retained in all cases and is not retracted, e.g., pugā ‘pūgā’, gīvā ‘gyvà’, laũkš ‘laũkš’ [...], žaltis ‘žaltýs’, ragù ‘ragù’, mažõs ‘mažõs’. All other Samogitians have some form of accent retraction from the ending toward the beginning of the word. Two types of accent retraction are distinguished: conditional and general. Depending on the quantity of the syllable to which the accent is retracted, conditional accent retraction is divided into two degrees. 2. In a very small area of southern Samogitia, around Raseiniai, Viduklė, Nemakščiai, and Lyduvėnai, second-degree accent retraction occurs: the accent is retracted from a short ending to the penultimate long syllable, e.g., pūgā ‘pūgà’, gīvā ‘gyvà’, laũkš ‘laũkš’ [...], but [...] žaltīs ‘žaltýs’, ragù ‘ragù’, mažõs ‘mažõs’. 3. Farther north, in a somewhat larger area of southern Samogitia, around Pėžrantė, Kražiai, Kelmė, Kiaunoriai, Šaukėnai, and Kurtuvėnai, accent is retracted according to first-degree conditional (or more intensive conditional) accent retraction, that is, from a short ending to the penultimate syllable, whether long or short, e.g., gīvā ‘gyvà’, dīnà ‘dienà’, laũkš ‘laũkš’ [...], but [...] žaltīs ‘žaltýs’, ragù ‘ragù’, mažõs ‘mažõs’. 4. Most Samogitians (all northern Samogitians and most western and southern Samogitian Varniai speakers) have general (intensive) accent retraction: the accent 10 Cf. Vytautas Rinkevičius’s description of the conditional nature of this term, expressed not only by the epithet so-called, but also in his discussion of the emergence of the standard language as a reference point for comparing accentuation systems: “Among the systematic differences in accent placement between dialects, the so-called retraction of accent from final word syllables, which are usually accented in other dialects, is first noted as characteristic of the dialects of northern and northwestern Lithuania. [...] Standard Lithuanian, formed on the basis of the relatively archaic Western Aukštaitian dialect, in which pitch accents are clearly distinguished and accent retraction is absent, provides a convenient reference point for research into the history of accentuation” (Rinkevičius 2015: 24; 25). 272 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXX Juozas Pabrėža Žemaičių kalba ir rašyba. Mokslo monografija is retracted from short and long circumflex endings to the first syllable, whatever its quantity, e.g., gõž ‘gyvà’, bãisòs ‘baisùs’, [...] šãką ‘šakà’, [...] žãltįs ‘žaltìs’, [...] tėkrā ‘tikrai’, tīevā ‘tėvai’, [...] jōukās ‘juokais’ [...]. (pp. 74–75) However, later, having noted that such cases are not the most frequent¹¹ (since “[f]rom circumflex endings Samogitians do not retract the accent, e.g.: karklīns ‘karklynas’, šabakštīns ‘šabakštynas’, [...] perm ‘pirm’, ketām ‘kitām’, [...] arklēms ‘arkliams’, šimtāms ‘šimtams’ [...]”) (p. 75), the author of ŽKR discusses Samogitian accent retraction as a phenomenon related to what is called accent shift (p. 77) and the formation of secondary stresses¹² (pp. 76–78), and as a process whose origins and dating have been debated (pp. 83–84). He emphasizes that accent retraction is not “a completely regular, systematic phenomenon without any exceptions” (p. 78), and provides a particularly thorough account of the dynamics of accent retraction (pp. 78–83). Juozas Pabrėža’s scholarly interests were probably focused for some time on what are called accent retraction theory’s unruly cases¹³, which led to this theory being presented as self-evident in the book under review, since the appropriateness of the concept of accent retraction in ŽKR is neither questioned nor substantiated. ŽKR also contains passages where descriptions of accent retraction as a phenomenon may at first glance seem somewhat contradictory (cf. the statements: “For a long time it was thought that accent retraction was a completely regular, systematic phenomenon without any exceptions. However, after extensive empirical material (over 61,000 examples) had been studied and the results statistically processed [...], it became clear that Samogitian accent retraction is not a static but a dynamic phenomenon” (p. 78) and “[w]hen teaching or learning accentuation, one can even rely on accent retraction, since it is precise, strict, and systematic” (p. 88). The illusion of contradiction would be dispelled by an additional note about the nature of the speech situations in the latter case, which concerns the accentuation of individual words, since pp. 78–82 in the former case discuss connected texts¹⁴). 11 Cf.: “[Samogitians] have more circumflex endings than the standard language or other dialects [...]. Thus, in the Samogitian language, unlike in the Aukštaitian dialects or the standard language, the circumflex, rather than the acute, is the marked member of the opposition” (p. 75). 12 These are cases in which “a new secondary stress appears after the main stress, one that is entirely absent in the standard language (e.g., žodė ‘words’)” (p. 77). Cf. accentuation patterns in words notable for their abundance of exceptional stresses: “There are words with as many as four or five stresses, e.g.: [...] možēkontēs ‘muzikantus’, darbēninkūs ‘darbininkus’, [...] nabāpīrādi ‘nebeprigirdi’ [...]” (p. 78). 13 Plg., pavyzdžiui, Pabrėža 1986. 14 Cf.: “In connected Samogitian speech, there are quite a few words whose final syllables, despite the operative accent-retraction rules, sometimes do not undergo accent retraction, e.g.: [...] možēks ‘muzikas’, stuogā ‘stogai’, prostā ‘prostai’...” (p. 78) Recenzijos / Reviews 273 JŪRATĖ PAKĖDIENĖ The chapter Morphological features (pp. 89–101) discusses word forms that differ more markedly in morphological (rather than phonetic) respects from the standard language or other dialects. In ŽKR, they are described in terms of the most characteristic differences associated with the various parts of speech—nouns, adjectives, pronouns, verbs, numerals, and adverbs—and with discussion of word formation (pp. 100–101) and the dual number’s distinctiveness (since Žemaitians have preserved the dual not only in pronouns, e.g.: vė́do, vė́d(ž)e, jọ́.do, jọ́.-d(ž)e, anọ́.do, aned(ž)e (p. 98), but also in verbs, nouns, and even participles (see p. 99)). In discussing syntactic features, ŽKR emphasizes Žemaitians’ ability to express the situation, time, and manner of an action in their own way. The aspectual system of Žemaitian (especially northern Žemaitian) is described as having not only imperfective and perfective, but also an intermediate aspect (p. 103), which “is most often formed by adding adverbs of attenuated meaning and emphatic particles žem, lān, šalin, lygi, kietai, gatavai, kiaurai, viršų, arti, vietoje, etc., to an imperfective verb” (p. 102), cf.: patį eini į bažnyčią į vakus vėdi kiaura ‘you yourself go to church and take the children along without fail’ (Židikai); [...] kās tau stuovies vėitio be dārba ‘what would you do without work’ (Mosedis); pagivėn į lėk, nestūo vėitio ‘he lives for a while and then runs off—he cannot stand it for long’ (Laižuva) (p. 103). This chapter highlights the very strong contrast characteristic of Žemaitian speech between simple and perfect tenses (pp. 103–104), the common use of evidential expressions¹⁵ called the “reported mood” (p. 103), as well as causal constructions unique to Žemaitian (pp. 104–106) and distinctive word order (including a pattern unusual in the standard language, in which the person’s surname is stated first and their given name afterward, e.g., vėžo, Kaubris Kazimiers batėtos ‘I look—Kaubrys Kazimieras is wearing boots’ (Alsėdžiai) (p. 106). The chapter Lexical features (pp. 107–113) describes word groups that are particularly inclined to retain their meanings. The distinctive character of Žemaitian vocabulary is demonstrated through a collection of words divided into several thematic groups. These lists (pp. 107–111) will allow Žemaitian readers to test their actual knowledge of Žemaitian vocabulary, although they are probably intended to interest readers beyond Žemaitians, since the vocabulary is presented not in dialect transcription but, as is customary in dictionaries, transposed into the standard language (cf., for example, terms for parts of the human body—šlaņkai ‘bones’, kūšinas ‘small bone in the leg’, išleži̇s ‘space between the fingers or toes’, pōpūtė ‘hardened blister, callus’ (pp. 107–108)—and terms for plants—brānė ‘green pea or bean pod’, tatārška ‘sweet flag’, žąsniklas ‘reed’, pliōris ‘oil’ (p. 108)). Here, words characteristic of other dialects are also discussed. 15 According to Axel Holvoet, the formal properties and functional peculiarities of evidential forms make it difficult to incorporate them into systems of mood and modality; for more on evidentiality as a “parasitic category,” see Holvoet 2004: 107t. 16 Apie transponavimą žr. Pabrėža, Marčiukaitė, Leskauskaitė 2013: 17. 274 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXX X Juozas Pabrėža Žemaičių kalba ir rašyba. Mokslo monografija words characteristic of dialects that Žemaitians use with a different meaning, e.g., žygiai—Žem. ‘household chores, tending livestock’, kūlnai—Žem. ‘prayers with hymns’ (p. 11). The chapter Lexical features also discusses the role and quantity of loanwords—particularly noteworthy is that Žemaitians have fewer loanwords than other Lithuanian dialects (pp. 112–113). The second part of the monograph under review, Žemaitian Orthography, consists of seven chapters: A Brief History of Žemaitian Writing, The Žemaitian Alphabet, Vowels, Consonants, Diphthongs, Digraphs, Some Matters of Morphology, Syntax, and Lexicon, and Examples of Žemaitian Orthography. In discussing the history of Žemaitian writing (pp. 147–166), the text first identifies instances of Žemaitian usage in Martynas Mažvydas’s catechism (1547), the Wolfenbüttel Postil (1574), and the hymnbook translated by Saliamonas M. Slavočinskis (1646); it also introduces a Žemaitian manuscript text (earliest dating to 1636)17 and the most important and prominent seventeenth-century monument of the Žemaitian language—a translation from Polish of a book by the theologian St. Bonaventure, printed in 1759—ZWATAS PONA YR DIEWA MUSU JEZUSA CHRISTU-SA18. Attention then turns to the nineteenth century, a period of great importance for the development of Žemaitian writing; drawing mainly on Giedrius Subačius’s research, the text presents works written in Žemaitian, devoted to the language written in Žemaitian, or concerning the Žemaitians by leading nineteenth-century figures of Žemaitian culture: Jurgis Pabrėža, Simonas Daukantas, and Motiejus Valančius (pp. 149–151), as well as the grammar written in Polish in 1850 by Juozas Čiulda, Brief Reflections on the Rules of Žemaitian Grammar, which “summarized the tradition of written Žemaitian, thoughtfully codified and standardized it, and brought consistency to Žemaitian writing”19 (pp. 151–152). ŽKR emphasizes that the need for Žemaitian writing persisted after a common Lithuanian language had taken shape at the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries on the basis of the southern Western Aukštaitian dialect: in the Žemaitian press of the time—the weeklies Žemaičių prietelius (1925–1940) and Žemaičių žemė (1940–1944)—people debated and urged writing in Žemaitian (cf. Jonas Jablonskis’s statement: “For the common good of the nation’s linguistic culture, it would be useful for Žemaitians to have their own written language alongside the literary language” (p. 156)); various proposals (by J. Tautvydas and B. Jurgis) for a standardized Žemaitian orthography were put forward (pp. 155–156), and stories, proverbs, sayings, songs, and poems written in Žemaitian were published. In the above-mentioned periodicals and in the 1938 anthology Žemaičiai, Stasys Anglickis, Pranas Genys, Sofija Čiurlionienė-Kymantaitė, and other authors published their work written in Žemaitian (pp. 156–158). The new wave of the Žemaitian cultural movement that gathered momentum with the national revival encouraged people to pool their efforts. 17 See Zinkevičius 1974. 18 For more, see Girdinis, Skirmantas, ed., 1998; Girdinis, Girdenienė 1997. 19 Subačius 1993: 5. Recenzijos / Reviews 275 JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ to prepare the principles of Samogitian orthography and develop creative self-expression in Samogitian: in 1991, the booklet Žemaičių rašybos patarimai, prepared by Juozas Pabrėža, was published; at Danutė Mukienė’s initiative, a Samogitian newspaper, A mon saka?, began publication, and from 1993 it was replaced by the magazine Žemaičių žemė. The growing number of people wishing and able to write in Samogitian encouraged the clarification and improvement of the foundations of Samogitian orthography; therefore, in 1998, Alekas Girdėnas and Juozas Pabrėža published a new, expanded and revised booklet, Žemaičių rašyba20, which was reprinted in the journal Žemaičių žemė in 2002, thus making it more accessible to a wider readership21. The next five chapters of the orthography section of ŽKR focus on the rules of practical Samogitian orthography. After presenting the Samogitian alphabet, the authors note that the principles for spelling Samogitian vowels are very close to phonetic ones (“One must write as one speaks in the place from which the author comes” (p. 169)), whereas consonants are written as in Standard Lithuanian—morphologically (p. 168). After introducing the rules for spelling short vowels i, ė, e, a, o, u, with examples such as lis ‘lės’ [...], vėse ‘visi’ [...], medos ‘medus’, [...] taks ‘takas’, rode ‘rudi’, [...] šūs ‘šuo’ [...] (pp. 169–170), ŽKR identifies cases that need to be discussed separately, for example, when vowels lengthened by stress in certain positions (so-called positional lengthening) are written with short-vowel letters (“cf.: ‘uoka ‘vaiką’ (‘genuinely’ long vowel): taka ‘taką’ (a vowel a lengthened by stress)’” (p. 170)). The spelling of short vowels in word endings is discussed by distinguishing 13 cases (pp. 170–173), which may frighten someone wishing to learn the spelling rules. Here, the Samogitian reader should be reassured that these explanations are in fact superfluous, intended for people who do not speak Samogitian (or do not speak22). They discuss differences between the Samogitian phonetic system and Standard Lithuanian, indicating when Samogitian vowels are dropped from endings (cf. “1. If the ending is short and can never bear stress, the vowel is omitted entirely. In that case we write without ending vowels, e.g.: nė ‘nėsa’, ved ‘veda’, [...], top ‘tupi’, [...] ples ‘pilas’ [...]” (pp. 170–171)), retained (see descriptions of cases 2 and 3), or replaced by short vowels when long (see case 4), and so on. These 13 points describe correspondences between the rules governing Samogitian endings and/or their variation across different dialects (cf. 12), and will serve as lessons in phonetic diversity among Samogitian dialects. One of these points may be described as an attempt to restore a historically established tradition by urging readers to violate the declared phonetic principle (see pp. 168–169), cf.: ²⁰ Žr. Girdenis, Pabrėža 1998. ²¹ A little later, a version of this publication also became available online; see: http://www.samogit.lt/ZZ_2013_1/ZZ_2013_1_p8_14.pdf and http://www.samogit.lt/ZZ_2013_2/ZZ_2013_2_geras_16-21.pdf. ²² Cf., for example, the description of case 10: “The short -u (not -o!) is used consistently in the plural endings of masculine nouns, adjectives, and pronouns, e.g.: tievus ‘tėvus’, [...] plėkus ‘plikus’, anus ‘juos’, ketus ‘kitus’ [...]” (p. 173). 276 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXX Juozas Pabrėža Žemaičių kalba ir rašyba. Mokslo monografija 13. Particular attention should be paid to the feminine instrumental ending. Newer forms in -a are now becoming increasingly established, e.g.: ronka ‘ranka’, luova ‘lova’, stuora ‘stora’, kėta ‘kita’. However, older northern Samogitians use the vowel -o in these forms. This feature was inherited from the distant past and should therefore also be preserved in written Samogitian. Thus, let us write: so pagalbo, kalbo, šako, balto, viso ‘with help, speech, a branch, white, everything’, so veino ronko ‘with one hand’, želo galvo ‘a grey head’, balto kato ‘a white cat’, so to gero motreško ‘with that good woman’, and so on (p. 173). In presenting the variation in the pronunciation (and therefore spelling) of prepositions, prefixes, and word stems found in different dialects (for instance, the Standard Lithuanian conjunction ir corresponds in some Samogitian dialects to a monophthongized form, pronounced and written as the short vowel i, and in others as the short vowel ė) (see pp. 173–176), readers are instructed to follow the phonetic principle consistently: “when writing, one simply needs to follow one’s native dialect” (p. 175). ŽKR next describes the spelling of long Samogitian vowels. The length of all vowels is marked with a macron²³, cf.: ī, ē, ė̄, ā, ō, ū. Long vowels in word stems and endings are written in this way, e.g.: vīrs ‘viras’, [...] sprēsk ‘spresk’, [...] svēks ‘sveikas’ [...], gerā ‘gerai’ [...], drōsas ‘drąsus’ [...], skūsti ‘skųsti’ (pp. 176–177). To check the spelling of Samogitian ā and ē, the corresponding Standard Lithuanian forms should be consulted, cf.: First, one should remember that the letters ā and ē must be used for sounds pronounced in place of the Standard Lithuanian diphthongs ai and ei. If they were written like the short vowels, this spelling would not only fail to reflect the actual pronunciation, but would also increase the number of different word forms spelled identically in the text. This would make the text much harder to read. (p. 177) It is also pointed out here that not all sounds corresponding to Standard Lithuanian ai and ei as ā and ē (the wording used in ŽKR is “which have changed from the diphthongs ai, ei into the vowels ā, ē” (p. 178)) are pronounced long; cf. the two possible forms kāp and kap for ‘how’ in the sentence kāp to čė jedi kap mažos vāks ‘how do you eat here like a little child’ (p. 178). It is therefore recommended that ā and ē pronounced short be written as such, even when they correspond to Standard Lithuanian ai and ei. Other cases in which long Samogitian vowels arise are also introduced here (for example, long ē in a negation; cf. nē, aš tēkrā navažiuosiu [...] ‘no, I definitely won’t go [...]’ (pp. 178–179). ŽKR states that “[a] long ē can also arise through the contraction of two short vowels” (p. 179). Nevertheless, judging from the examples provided, it is hard to believe this claim. They appear to have been written incorrectly, as they do not conform to the phonetic principle declared in ŽKR, cf.: aš tēkrā nēso (<neso) would mean ‘I really have not been there’, and nēso ni matēs, ni girdējēs ‘I have neither seen nor heard’. 23 Nasal vowels ą, ę, į, ų are unnecessary in Samogitian orthography. For information on which Samogitian vowels correspond to the nasal vowels of Standard Lithuanian, see pp. 180–181. Recenzijos / Reviews 277 JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ (p. 179). Therefore, the forms neso ‘I am not’, explained as having arisen from ne ‘not’ and esu ‘I am’, are also redundant24. Moreover, writing neso ‘I am not’ with a long ė is inappropriate because of its occurrence in nėso ‘I will not go’; cf. aš tékrà neso ten božės ‘I really haven’t been there’ and aš tékrà ten nėso ‘I really won’t go there’. There are also further examples showing that the rules for vowel spelling in ŽKR are based not only on the phonetic principle; cf.: “[i]f we pronounce and write the long vowel in the words virs ‘man’, vira ‘of a man’, then it should likewise be written in the words viròks ‘fellow’, virėlis / virielis ‘little man’, even though the vowel would be pronounced short” (p. 180); the spelling of the words grudlė ‘little grains’ (because grūds ‘grain’), grėžinis ‘boring’ (because grėžė ‘to drill’), and others is explained similarly (p. 180). Incidentally, the account of consonant-spelling principles notes that the morphological principle is sometimes applied to vowels as well (cf.: “It is important to remember that the morphological principle is applied to consonants more often than to vowels” (p. 182)). The spelling of Žemaitian consonants uses 20 letters: b, c, č, d, f, g, h, j, k, l, m, n, p, r, s, š, t, v, z, ž. The morphological principle requires the same parts of a word to be written identically, regardless of differences in their pronunciation; consequently, consonant assimilation is not represented in writing—for example, darbs ‘work’, derbsio ‘I will work’ are written (although they are most often pronounced darps, dèrpsio), and so on (p. 182). The morphological principle is also proposed for cases of complete assimilation; cf.: “When two similar consonants come together and only one is pronounced, both consonants should be represented in writing, in accordance with the morphological principle, e.g.: išsprouga ‘slipped out’, [...] ožžėlė ‘became overgrown’ [...]” (p. 182). The writer chooses how to spell č, dž and t, d (cf.: “One should write as people speak in the place where the author comes from” (p. 184)). In the eastern part of Žemaitija, t, d are retained only before e-type vowels, e.g.: žemaitė ‘Žemaitians’, žuodė ‘words’, but people say žemaičiū ‘of the Žemaitians’, žuodžiu ‘of words’; in the northwestern Žemaitian dialects, however, t, d are retained in all cases; cf.: žuodis ‘word’, žuodės ‘words’, žemaitė ‘Žemaitians’, žemaitems ‘to the Žemaitians’, and so on (see pp. 183–184). The discussion of the pronunciation and spelling of Žemaitian counterparts to standard-language f, ch, h is interesting. The many examples allow Žemaitian readers to check and see that in actual speech not only personal names but also many international words are naturally pronounced, and can therefore be written, with their own p, k, g; for example: šoperis ‘chauffeur’, arkiteks ‘architect’, bogateris ‘accountant’, and so on. It is also worth noting that these foreign consonants are readily emphasized 24 Here it is useful to take as an example the phonological principle applied in the standard language, whose spelling, according to the prevailing principle governing the use of letters, “is morphological (or morphophonemic), but also includes elements of phonological and historical (traditional) spelling. [...] The phonological principle is followed when morphophonological alternations do not occur (i.e. when there is no neutralization), or when the derivational relationship between related words has faded and is no longer perceived (aukštas ‘high’, daiktas ‘thing’ are written because they are not associated with ūga, dāgas). In addition, spelling is phonological when sound changes are based on obsolete traditional rules (e.g. vežu, not *vežiu; bristi, not *bridi [...].” Girdenis and Ambrazas, eds., 2006: 20. 278 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXX Juozas Pabrėža Žemaičių kalba ir rašyba. Mokslo monografija in interjections: fui, fi, cha cha, hop hop, aha, oho (p. 184), and when discussing scientific and artistic subjects (cf.: harmonėje ‘harmony’, Fausts ‘Faust’, chuoralā ‘chorale’, filosofėje / filusufėje ‘philosophy’, and so on) (cf. p. 185). An apostrophe is needed in Žemaitian spelling to mark consonant softness, e.g.: vėlns or veļs ‘devil’ (pp. 185–186). When writing Žemaitian diphthongs and mixed diphthongs (see pp. 187–189), one can rely on one’s ear; cf. the spelling of words with ou, ei in Northern Žemaitian, for example, in the words papuole ‘fell in’, rodu ‘became rusty’, snēgs ‘snow’, pēmu ‘I take’ (p. 187). The section Some Matters of Morphology, Syntax, and Lexicon offers valuable discussion of variation in the formation of traditional Žemaitian surnames (cf. girls’ / young women’s surnames found in different parts of Žemaitija, e.g.: Botkalė or Botatė ‘Butkutė’, Raudatė or Raudėtė ‘Raudytė’, Šakalė ‘Šakytė’, Vaškė ‘Vaškytė’, Šikšnė ‘Šikšniūtė’; teenage boys’ surnames with -ūtis, -utis: Butūtis or Bututis ‘Butkus’), as well as notes on the spelling of names (see pp. 192–193). These are the most noteworthy focal points that introduce ŽKR readers to the fundamentals of the Žemaitian language and its spelling. A few brief comments25 were offered in the hope that, when preparing a new edition and/or publishing the book in a different format26, they might help provide further arguments for the main idea of the book under review: that the Žemaitian linguistic system as a whole can be regarded as having the status of a language rather than a dialect. It is to be hoped that the Author will, for this purpose, present the views of neutral assessors27 and develop further arguments of his own28. ŽKR has two kinds of addressees (those addressed in the chapter The Žemaitian Language are more clearly standard-language speakers, while those addressed in the chapter Žemaitian Spelling are users of the Žemaitian language), and this duality also shapes the presentation of the topics discussed. The Author’s relationship with the addressee differs in the first and second parts of the book—the mode of discourse 25 Several typographical errors noted are also listed here: p. 63 sondėlė, p. 82 kāims, p. 103 ‘and the heat will be [...]’ -> ‘and the heat used to be [...]’; p. 148 (see Subačius 1998: 489) -> (see Subačius 1998); p. 221 veizu: žmonės atseitoj kāp tik tas vaikēzas -> veizu: už monės atseitoj kāp tik tas vaikēzas; p. 302 Čiulda Juozas, 1993: trumpi [...] -> Čiulda Juozas, 1993: Trumpi [...]; p. 304 Kliukinė -> Kliukienė. 26 Certain formats of electronic books that can be read—now familiar to Lithuanians as well—are one possibility (distributed on a CD or available online; cf. Klicner 2017), but an audiobook (or audio versions of parts of the book) might also be considered. 27 Cf. references in the works of Zigmas Zinkevičius concerning bilingualism among the Žemaitians (and others), which indicate that in areas where such dialects are spoken, “children who have completed school and students are practically ‘bilingual’: ‘At home, too, they speak dialect with speakers of the dialect; with speakers of the standard language and other dialects, they speak—or at least try to speak—the standard language, which is also used when thoughts need to be put in writing’” (Zinkevičius 2006: 34). 28 One such argument cited in ŽKR was also presented when the book was introduced at the Wroblewski Library of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences; see Pabrėža 2018-03-30. Recenzijos / Reviews 279 JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ ŽKR is discussed neutrally, while the inclusive we (encompassing both the author and the reader of the text)²⁹, which has a stronger emotional impact, is chosen to explain the spelling conventions (cf. instances of such we: so let us not give in (p. 175); we usually say it briefly, that is, so we must write it (p. 178); we cannot do without these new reasons (p. 185), and so on). When reading ŽKR, it is this emotionally influential and influenced addressee who will gain the most, since the book offers reading pleasures on different levels: Juozas Pabrėža’s scholarly text is informative, well-argued, simple, and clear, and the examples are comprehensive and interesting. The chapter “The Samogitian Language” presents transcribed texts³⁰ representing different Samogitian dialects and subdialects; they are not only interesting but also reveal the differences and similarities among Samogitian dialects (and touch on a wide range of topics—everyday life and festivities, illnesses and treatment, Samogitian consciousness, and so on). Examples of Samogitian literary works in the chapter “Samogitian Spelling” reveal the depth of the Samogitian language and its suitability for artistic creation. It is to be hoped that this compendium of the various forms and possibilities of the Samogitian language, brought together in one book, will encourage Samogitian readers to pay attention to their own language not only in the ways familiar to Samogitians—silence and speech—but perhaps also through writing. For, paraphrasing the main idea presented in Čiurlionienė-Kymantaitė’s tale Suopėjos pasaka Najies – nadėktois, arba selekėj – kaštuns dāktas (pp. 195–198) (cf. p. 198), one can also express this truth that matters to Samogitians: if you do not read, you will not find your way—you will not stay in this world. The description of the Samogitian linguistic system presented in ŽKR, grounded both in regular features and in differences from standard Lithuanian that do not follow regular patterns, may be valuable not only to Samogitians, but can also be used in teaching and learning—not only Samogitian or in becoming acquainted with it, but also in teaching and learning standard language as a foreign language. This book can serve as a guide when teaching Samogitian children to read and write in standard language. To answer the question of whether the system of teaching writing set out in ŽKR is effective, it needs to be tried out. It may be that, for those Samogitians who have never tried reading and writing in Samogitian, this book will initially seem somewhat confusing and off-putting, so one can imagine that their inner (or perhaps actual) dialogue will go something like this: No dar kon baišėmėis – rēks muokētės skaitīte i rašītė! No nakentu tokiu daliku. So tuom nujoujem daba vėsė pōl, juk jau išmuokom lietovėška, i gerī, i ožtenk mon. But, it is to be hoped, once they begin reading ŽKR, the pleasure of reading will draw them in, and after reading or finishing the book they will think and speak a little differently: No jau nagalio sakīt, ka 29 Apie inkluzyvinio mes tipus žr. Linkevičienė, Šinkūnienė 2012: 92–94. 30A reader who does not know Samogitian or has difficulty understanding it can find Lithuanian translations of some dialect texts in ŽKR (recorded by northern Samogitian speakers from Telšiai) in another publication prepared by Juozas Pabrėža with colleagues, for example: Pabrėža, Marčiauskaitė, Leskauskaitė, eds., 2013: 81ff.; 124ff., and ŽKR 114ff.; 116ff. 280 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXX Juozas Pabrėža Žemaičių kalba ir rašyba. Mokslo monografija Let us appreciate that “The Samogitian Language and Orthography.” A serious book. Now we know a little about ourselves. Pabrėža Jozis has clearly shown us all our modesty: we are both quite silly and capable of being philosophers, and we know how to joke. The description of the most prominent features of the Samogitian language and spelling is useful both in theory and in practice to readers interested in Samogitian identity. This book is helpful for Samogitians learning standard language and, of course, for those who want to learn Samogitian. From a didactic perspective, this book may be—and is likely to be—very useful to parents and/or educators of preschool- and primary-school-aged children, as they begin motivating children who have mastered only their native Samogitian to read and write in standard Lithuanian. In concluding the discussion of ŽKR, we must return to the central idea concerning the status of the Samogitian language: the extent to which this book confirms, asserts, popularizes, or persuades people to believe in it—or leaves them doubtful. The author of ŽKR, being consistent and a conciliatory type of personality (Juozas Pabrėža’s personal type could be described in Samogitian with the sentence Ons ir malonus žmogus), is an excellent ambassador for this idea. It is particularly important that Juozas Pabrėža promotes the Samogitian language as suitable for formal, representative speech. Successful peaceful ambassadorship always requires support from outside (since support from Samogitians alone may be perceived as Samogitians judging their own case), so one would like to wish the Author such support. For now, Samogitians themselves need to embrace the idea of speaking Samogitian as speaking a native language, rather than a native dialect, and to represent it appropriately. L I T E R A T U R E Bacevičiūtė Rima, Ivanauskienė Audra, Leskauskaitė Asta, Trumpa Edmundas, sud., 2004: Lietuvių kalbos tarmių chrestomatija. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla. Girdенis Aleksas 2006: Fonologija. Morfonologijos reiškiniai. – Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika, red. Vytautas Ambrazas. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 15–59. Girdенis Aleksas, Girdенienė Danutė 1997: 1759 metų „Ziwato“ indeksas. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Girdенis Aleksas, Pabrėža Juozas 1998: Žemaičių rašyba. Vilnius–Šiauliai: Žemaičių kultūros draugijos redakcija. Girdенis Aleksas, Skirmantas Petras, par., 1998: 1759 metų „Ziwatas“. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Grinaveckis Vladas 1973: Žemaičių tarmių istorija. Vilnius: Mintis. Recenzijos / Reviews 281 JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ Holvoet Axel 2004: Evidencialumo kategorija. – Gramatinių kategorijų tyrimai [Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos darbai 2], Axel Holvoet, Loreta Semėnienė (red.). Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 105–120. Klicer Loreta: The “Bible” of the Samogitian language presented in Samogitian. Available online: http://www.skrastas.lt/?data=2017-11-24&rub=106924810&id=151187726 [accessed 2017-11-21]. Linkevičienė Nijolė, Šinkūnienė Jolanta 2012: Asmeniniai įvardžiai mokslo kalboje. – Kalbotyra 64(3), 78–102. Prieiga internete: http://www.kalbotyra.lfl.vu.lt/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Kalbotyra_64_78-102.pdf. Pabrėža Juozas 1986: Diachroninės pastabos apie kirčio atitraukimą šiaurės žemaičių tarmėje. – Baltistica 22(2), 53–59. Pabrėža Juozas, Marčiukaitė Vida, Leskauskaitė Asta, sud., 2013: Šiaurės žemaičiai telšiškiai. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Pabrėža Juozas: Puožo ožebuokės, buobas nasoraši. Public lecture, 2018-03-20, at the Wroblewski Library of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences. Available online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev5HqErYiMc. Subačius Giedrius, par., 1993: Lietuvių atgimimo istorijos studijos 6. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Urbanavičienė Jolita, Jaroslavienė Jurgita, 2018: Aleksa Girdenio (1936–2011) atminimo konferencija „Kalbų ir tarmių transformacijos“. – Baltistica 53(1), 143–147. Prieiga internete: http://www.baltistica.lt/index.php/baltistica/article/view/2334. Zinkevičius Zigmas 1966: Lietuvių dialektologija. Vilnius: Mintis. Zinkevičius Zigmas 1974: Reikšmingas žemaitiškas rankraštinis tekstas. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 15, 171–193. Zinkevičius Zigmas 1994: Lietuvių kalbos dialektologija. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Zinkevičius Zigmas 2006: Lietuvių tarmių kilmė. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Submitted on January 15, 2019. JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ Institute of the Lithuanian Language 5 Petro Vileišio Street, LT-10308 Vilnius, Lithuania [email protected] 82 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIX