Geolinguistic and Sociolinguistic Situation of Northern Samogitians of Kretinga: Dialectal Area, Use of the Dialect, Linguistic Attitudes

DALIA PAKALNIŠKIENĖ Lietuvių kalbos institutas Fields of research: history of Lithuanian language, Baltic linguistics, geolinguistics. JŪRATĖ LUBIENĖ Klaipėdos universitetas Fields of research: lexicology, dialectology, geolinguistics. GEOLINGUISTIC AND SOCIOLINGUISTIC SITUATION OF NORTHERN SAMOGITIANS OF KRETINGA: DIALECTAL AREA, USE OF THE DIALECT, LINGUISTIC ATTITUDES Šiaurės žemaičiai kretingiškiai geolingvistiniu ir sociolingvistiniu požiūriu: plotas, tarmės vartojimas, kalbinės nuostatos ANNOTATION The aim of this article is to highlight the parameters denoting the vitality level of linguistic and cultural identity of one dialectal community (namely, the Northern Samogitians of Kretinga) under the circumstances of increasing globalization and diglossia. In accordance with the theoretical concept of geolinguistics as a dynamic dialectology, the domain classification proposed by Anton M. Hagen and the empirical material issues denoting sociocultural identity of the subdialect are presented. The vitality and sociocultural distinction of the dialect area is being sustained by various factors, three of which have the most important role: sufficiently developed infrastructure, dialect use and attitudes based on the value system of users of the dialect. Straipsniai / Articles 37 DALIA PAKALNIŠKIENĖ, JŪRATĖ UBIENĖ KEYWORDS: Samogitian dialect, Northern Samogitians of Kretinga, standard language, geolinguistics, sociolinguistics, domain, linguistic attitude. ANOTACIJA Straipsnyje svarstoma, ar įmanomas vienu dialektu kalbančios bendruomenės kultūrinės ir kalbinės tapatybės tęstinumas globalizacijos ir diglosijos (dialekto ir bendrinės kalbos) sąlygomis. Remiantis teorine geolingvistikos kaip įdamiškios dialektologijos koncepcija, Antono M. Hagena pasiūlyta domenų klasifikacija ir empirine medžiaga, pristatoma vienos paribės – šiaurės žemaičių kretingiškių – sociokultūrinės tapatybės problematika. Tarmės grupės gyvybingumą ir sociokultūrinę tapatybę lemia įvairūs veiksniai, bet ypač svarbūs trys – pakankamai išvystyta infrastruktūra, tarmės vartojimas ir tarmės vartotojų vertybinės nuostatos. ESMINIAI ŽODŽIAI: žemaičių tarmė, šiaurės žemaičiai kretingiškiai, bendrinė kalba, geolingvistika, sociolingvistika, domenas, kalbinės nuostatos. 1. INTRODUCTION Geographical mobility, urbanization and globalization inevitably lead to contacts between dialects causing leveling and change of dialects. What is more, standard languages in the modern world are representatives of the territorial wholeness and entirety of states. They are firmly established at the top of the hierarchy of language varieties and serve as publicly accepted languages for public administration. Language standardization ideology prevailing in most European countries suins a lower social value of dialects in comparison to the standard language (Ramoniene (ed.) 2013). However, the examples from Norway and some other countries tolerating dialects in various communicative spaces have shown that it is posible to resist linguistic homogenisation and retain linguistic diversity by consciously nurturing linguistic tolerance and linguistic values (Jahr 1997, 2008). At the end of the 20th century and in the begining of the 21st century investigations of language variation evaluating linguistic, social and geographical parameters increased greatly worldwide. Various aspects of relationships between dialectal and standard languages were investigated as well (Ferguson 1959; Haugen 1966; Labov 1972; Trudgill 1983; Hagen 1989; Auer, Hinskens 1996; Auer 2005, 2011; Edwards 2006, 2009, 2010). 38 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIX Geolinguistic and Sociolinguistic Situation of Northern Samogians of Kretinga: Dialectal Area, Use of the Dialect, Linguistic Attitudes Currently, significant attention is being paid to linguistic variety in Lithuania. The use of dialect and standard language has also drawn the interest of researchers (Aliūkaitė 2008; Klukienė 2013; Bakšienė 2015). Such aspects as dialectal self-awareness and conscious/unconscious linguistic attitudes, overt and covert prestige of dialects/standard language have received special attention from some Lithuanian researchers (Venskienė 2008a, b; Aliūkaitė 2011; Vaicekauskienė, Sauverde 2012; Kačiškienė 2012; Vaicekauskienė, Aliūkaitė 2013; Kalėdienė 2013; Geržotaitė 2016; Vyniautaitė 2016).1 This article complements the research in language variation in Lithuania by presenting a geo-sociolinguistic situation of one Samogian subdialect, namely the Northern Samogians of Kretinga (further in the text – NSK). The aim of this article is to highlight the parameters denoting the vitality level of linguistic and cultural identity of one dialectal community. To this end, the following aspects are taken into account: 1) the area in which the dialect is being used, 2) the use of the dialect, and 3) linguistic attitudes towards vernacular language. The investigation presented in this article is based on the project Modern Research of Geolinguistics in Lithuania: The Optimisation of the Network and Interactive Spread of Dialectal Information which was implemented in Lithuania in 2011–2013.2 To examine the geolinguistic and sociolinguistic aspects of the dialect, the methods of the project were applied.3 The questionnaires4 meeting general sociolinguistic principles were used in order to reveal and record sociodemographic parameters. Geographical, social and cultural dimensions were compiled out of the data about the speaker’s place of residence, age, education, nationality, profession, spoken languages, language attitudes, and other information. The locality point questionnaire provided sociocultural heritage data that allowed to determine the level of the region’s vitality. 1 A few innovative projects have already been implemented in Lithuania, e.g. Sociolinguistic map of Lithuania: Cities and towns 2010–2012 (see results in two monographs: Ramonienė (ed.) 2010, 2013) and Modern research of geolinguistics in Lithuania: The optimisation of the network and interactive spread of dialectal information 2011–2013 (see results in the monograph: Mikulėnienė, Meiliūnaitė (eds) 2014). 2 Global grant project No. VP1-3.1-ŠMM-07-K-01-028. For more information, see www.tarmes.lt. 3 For more information about methodological issues, see Mikulėnienė, Meiliūnaitė (eds) 2014: 25–47. 4 For more information about the methodology for compiling questionnaires, see Mikulėnienė, Meiliūnaitė (eds), 2014: 49–62. Straipsniai / Articles 39 DALIA PAKALNIŠKIENĖ, JŪRATĖ UBIENĖ 2. DIALECTAL AREA By referring to the traditional classification of Lithuanian dialects provided in Lietuvių kalbos atlasas (Atlas of the Lithuanian Language), 35 dialectal points were distinguished in the area of the NSK. Dialectal point is considered the point with the largest population, greatest infrastructure, highest social prestige, and most pronounced dialectal features. A dialectal point is not a single village/community/town/city. It is composed of both central and peripheral localities (Mikulėnienė 2013). The authors of this article visited 35 dialectal points of the NSK. After collecting the data with the help of the questionnaire which was completed by all the informants5 they tried to examine whether the respondents from all three age groups spoke the dialectal language in each dialectal point under investigation. The speaker questionnaire created according to the general principles of sociolinguistics enabled the authors to reveal and record the sociodemographic parameters which exhibit the use of the dialect by all three age groups in all dialectal points except for one named Serapinai which had physically become extinct. However, considering the fact that the extinct point is surrounded by vital dialectal points, the conclusion can be made that the territory of the use of the subdialect has not substantially changed over the last fifty years. According to the primary data, nearly 11 per cent of dialectal points have disappeared in Lithuania (Meiliūnaitė, Švambarytė-Valužienė 2014). Meanwhile, only 3 per cent of dialectal points have become extinct on the territory of NSK.6 The investigation of each dialectal point was based on the sociolinguistic point questionnaire7 (35 questionnaires in total) that allowed the authors to confirm the real existence of dialectal points and to establish their differences in respect of their vitality level. Having examined the dialectal points in respect of their administrative status, economic, social and cultural infrastructure as well as their localization regarding connection to urban areas, the following 5 groups of dialectal points were singled out: Strong dialectal points (23 in total) have several (or at least one) educational institutions, a cultural centre, a church, a library, shops/cafés/a market, 5 Sociolinguistic speaker questionnaire No. 3 included 22 questions, see Mikulėnienė, Meiliūnaitė (eds) 2014: 381–384. 6 Consider the situation in 37 language points of Lietuvių kalbos atlasas (Atlas of the Lithuanian Language) representing different dialects of Lithuania from western and eastern Aukštaitija (Highland) as well as southern and northern Žemaitija (Lowland) in Švambarytė-Valužienė 2014. 7 Sociolinguistic point questionnaire No. 2 including a set of thirteen questions, see Mikulėnienė, Meiliūnaitė (eds) 2014: 378–380. 40 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIX Geolinguistic and Sociolinguistic Situation of Northern Samogians of Kretinga: Dialectal Area, Use of the Dialect, Linguistic Attitudes community organizations; the dialect point has the status of administrative centre (188 Āl̄kas/Daugēdai, 91 Darbēnai, 218 Endriejāvas, 216 Gargždāi/Vēžāi, 94 Gintalīškē/Plātēlai, 92 Grūšlaukė, 286 Judrēnai, 90 Kalgrāužiai/Laukēmē, 154 Kālniškiai, 155 Karklēnai, 152 Kretingā, 185 Lapāi, 189 Med̄enai, 125 Misēnai/Šateikiai, 156 Plungė, 219 Rietāvas, 93 Salantāi, 250 Veiviržēnai, 124 Stropēliai/Kulūpēnai, 123 Ruginēi/Kartēna, 39 Žemātē/Lenkīmāi, 64 Vindēiai/Notēnai, 122 Žibininkāi/Rūdāičiai⁸). Dialectal points of medium strength (3 in total) have at least one educational institution, a library, a shop, but there is no cultural centre – its functions are implemented and community members are consolidated by educational institutions (126 Babūnēnai/Didvīčiai, 61 Įpiltis, 252 Žadvaināi). Weak dialectal points (2 in total): have no educational institutions, but there are cultural centres, communities, shops and/or a market (153 Budriē, 186 Šakiniai/Tilvikai). Dialectal points in decay (6 in total) have no educational institutions, cultural centres, churches, shops, or community organizations (217 Āntkop̄tis, 251 Matāičiai, 187 Mižūičiai, 151 Pyšnāičiai, 63 Šuklēi, 220 Užpelēi). Dead points (1 in total): the point itself has already vanished, only the fields are left (62 Serapinai). The research of the traditional dialectal points under investigation showed that the majority of dialectal points of the region in question (over 80 per cent) are remarkably strong, vital, have preserved their traditional (or slightly shifted) centres from the geographic point of view. The main factor having determined the vitality/gradual displacement/decay of NSK dialectal points and/or their centres is infrastructural changes. The main factors sustaining the socio-cultural peculiarities of the dialect are such institutions as school, cultural centre, administrative status of a town, library, church, community organization, shoping centre, public catering institutions, post office, etc. The administrative reorganization of small towns, settlements and villages implemented by closing smaller schools, libraries, cultural centres, health care institutions and moving them to larger administrative centres had a very negative impact on the material and spiritual lives of communities, stimulated the processes of migration and other (psycho)social phenomena – unemployment, the loss of the sense of community, alcoholism, to mention but a few. 8 The second position shows which center the dialectal point has shifted to. The numbering of localities is provided in Lietuvių kalbos atlasas (Atlas of the Lithuanian Language). Straipsniai / Articles 41 DALIA PAKALNIŠKIENĖ, JŪRATĖ UBIENĖ 3. USE OF THE SUBDIALECT Another question under investigation was: How do people from Kretinga speak? What is the relationship between the dialect and the standard language? Three generational categories were investigated: the younger generation (people under the age of 30), the middle generation (people aged 31–49 years) and the senior generation (people aged 50 and older). A total number of informants who were questioned and recorded in the study is 300: 69 per cent of them are women (209 in total); men comprise 31 per cent (91 in total). The informants from the elderly generation comprise 63 per cent (188 respondents); 20 per cent (59) of the informants belong to the middle generation; the informants from the younger generation account for 17 per cent (52). As a result, 300 speaker questionnaires were completed and 350 hours of digital speech recordings from 34 residential points were made. In speaker questionnaire No. 3 (questions 9, 10, 15–18) each informant was asked which language – dialectal and/or standard one – he or she chooses to communicate with their family members (with a spouse, children, grandchildren, parents, siblings and grandparents) or in public (in shops, various institutions, meetings, in church, with acquaintances/strangers, neighbors, etc.).9 To carry out the analysis of standard and dialectal language (further – SL and DL respectively), the theory of domains proved to be a methodological useful framework for the research. Domain is understood as an extralinguistic category that alludes to activity rather than place, to a discursive situation rather than mere language (for a more exhaustive description of a domain, see Aliūkaitė, Valikonė 2012). Various researchers distinguish different domains; however, this research employed the classification by Anton M. Hagen (1989). The author distinguishes the following domains: 1) Instrumental public domains, such as public institutions, school, region, conversations with strangers. 2) Solidarity domains, such as neighbors, friends, colleagues. 3) Separate domains (family). Researchers claim that the language of domains is a direct reference to the language vitality rate. Daiva Aliūkaitė emphasizes that considering SL and DL from the perspective of domains they refer to, a completely different value is attributed to the category of domain loss. The distribution of language varieties, as distinct from the use of different languages in bilingual or multilingual communities, is less likely to cause harm to the language as a communicative unit 9 It should be noted that all the informants permanently live in the dialectal points under investigation and know their vernacular dialect, except for a few respondents from the younger generation. 42 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIX Geolinguistic and Sociolinguistic Situation of Northern Samogitians of Kretinga: Dialectal Area, Use of the Dialect, Linguistic Attitudes important for self-realization and identity of a particular ethnic community. On the other hand, as far as the maintenance of the dialectal language is concerned, the loss of, let’s say, home domain is a reference to the loss of the dialect. Furthermore, the scheme of SL and DL distribution shows the ideological value of SL and DL in social context and the like (Aliūkaitė, Valikonė 2012: 9–10). Thus, with regard to the classification of domains proposed by Anton Hagen, the following results of DL and SL distribution are presented below. It should be emphasized that for this research the answers of the respondents reflecting their opinion were analysed, while the objective observation was not applied. The question of how much the answers reflect the real situation of the dialect use remains open. However, they clearly show conscious attitudes towards the dialect use. 3.1. Separate domain (family) Dialectal language. Eighty one per cent of the informants use their dialect to talk to all family members (244 in total). Of them, 85 per cent belong to the elderly generation (159 informants); 80 per cent belong to the middle generation (47 informants), and 67 per cent belong to the younger generation (35 respondents) (see Diagram 1). Dialect versus standard. Eighteen per cent of the informants use both the standard language and the dialect to communicate with some of their family members (51 informants). Fourteen per cent of the respondents belong to the elderly generation (26 in total); 17 per cent belong to the middle generation (10 respondents), and 29 per cent of all the informants are representatives of the younger generation (15 informants). For example, the representatives of the elderly and middle generation use the dialect while communicating with all the members of their family, whereas the standard language is used for communication with children, especially with grandchildren. The representatives of the younger generation use their dialect for communication with their grandparents, mother or father only. Meanwhile, they use the standard language for communication with their siblings. Several informants from the middle or younger generation note that they speak the standard language while talking to their children so that they could learn the standard language better (in this case, both spouses of the family are Samogitian). In other cases, families whose members belong to different generations use SL and DL alternately; only the standard language is used for communication with some family members if one of the spouses is a representative of a different dialect/language. Straipsniai / Articles 43 DALIA PAKALNIŠKIENĖ, JŪRATĖ UBIENĖ DIAGRAM 1. Separate domain. Distribution of language code Standard language. Only 5 informants (1 per cent in total) use the standard language at home, 1 of whom belongs to the elderly generation (the informant with higher education); 2 informants belong to the middle generation, and 2 respondents are the representatives of the younger generation (see Diagram 1). 3.2. Solidarity domain (neighbours, friends, colleagues) Dialect language. Eighty per cent of all the respondents (241 in total) use only the dialect to communicate with their neighbors, friends, and colleagues. Eighty eight per cent of the respondents belong to the elderly generation (166 in total); 75 per cent of the informants belong to the middle generation (44 in total), and 54 per cent of the respondents are representatives of the younger generation (28 informants) (see Diagram 2). Dialect versus standard language. Both the standard language and the dialect are used by 16 per cent (47 in total) of the respondents to communicate with their neighbours. The standard language and the dialect are used alternately by 12 per cent of the respondents from the elderly generation (19 in total); the respondents from the middle generation comprise 29 per cent (15 respondents), and 17 per cent of the informants belong to the younger generation (9 in total). The Samogitians of Kretinga use their dialect to speak to the oldest and elderly generation, whereas the standard language is used for communication with the younger generation. Most commonly, the choice of the respondents belong to the elderly and oldest generation to use the standard language when speaking to the children of neighbours and youth is determined by their professions (such as teachers, priests, librarians); however, for communication 44 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIX Geoinguistic and Sociolinguistic Situation of Northern Samogians of Kretinga: Dialectal Area, Use of the Dialect, Linguistic Attitudes with their neighbours who belong to the oldest and younger generation the respondents use their dialectal language. The respondents from slightly larger settlements (Kretinga, Gargždai, Darbėnai, Lenkimai) claim to use either dialectal or standard language for communication with their neighbors depending on which language or dialect the neighbours prefer to use. DIAGRAM 2. Solidarity domain. Distribution of language code Standard language. Only 4 per cent of the respondents (11 in total) use the standard language to communicate with their neighbors. There are no respondents from the elderly generation who speak only the standard language. The standard language is used exclusively by 3 per cent of the middle generation (2 in total) and 17 per cent of the younger generation (9 in total). 3.3. Instrumental domain (encompassing public institutions, region, school, conversations with strangers) Dialect language. In the instrumental domain 42 per cent of the respondents use the dialectal language (see Diagram 3). More than half of all the informants (58 per cent, 108 out of 188) who belong to the elderly generation use the dialectal language. One fifth of the respondents (20 per cent, 12 out of 59) belong to the middle generation; only 6 per cent are representatives of the younger generation (3 out of 52). Dialect versus standard. Approximately half of all the informants of NSK (52 per cent, 156 in total) tend to shift their linguistic code in the instrumental domain. More than one third (40 per cent, 74 in total) of the elderly informants from Kretinga use both DL and SL alternately, prefering the dialect more frequently. The respondents from the middle generation usually use both Straipsniai / Articles 45 DALIA PAKALNIŠKIENĖ, JŪRATĖ UBIENĖ linguistic codes – 75 per cent of such informants (44 out of 59) were registered. Meanwhile, 73 per cent of the informants from the younger generation alternate between DL and SL (38 out of 52). DIAGRAM 3. Instrumental domain. Distribution of language code Standard language. Six per cent of the respondents (18 in total) speak the standard language only. It is mostly the young generation (21 per cent, 11 out of 52) who uses the standard language in public institutions or to communicate with strangers. The respondents from the middle generation speaking standard language only comprise 5 per cent (3 out of 59). It is very uncommon for the elderly generation (2 per cent, 4 respondents out of 188) to speak the standard language only. The distribution of language varieties in the instrumental domain is closely related to ideology: the preference for the dialectal language is conscious, based upon the values of the speaker. For example, meetings in Kūlupėnai Municipality proceed in Samogitian which is used in a substantial part of cultural events as well. It stands to reason that the standard language prevails in the educational domain. 4. LINGUISTIC ATTITUDES The preference for a different variety of language in various spheres (see Chapter 3) is determined by linguistic attitudes and value position of the informs. Speaker questionnaire No. 3 (questions 18–21) used in this research intended to reveal the respondents’ attitude towards communication in vernacular language, the texts written in dialectal language, and the people speaking the dialect. Each respondent was asked which linguistic code they would choose for communication with their relatives and acquaintances in the private/public 46 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIX Geolinguistic and Sociolinguistic Situation of Northern Samogians of Kretinga: Dialectal Area, Use of the Dialect, Linguistic Attitudes space, with unknown people in their homeland and outside it, which linguistic variety should be used on the radio or TV; how letters and SMS to relatives and acquaintances, publicist and fiction texts should/could be written, etc. The aim of question No. 21 of the questionnaire was to reveal how a person speaking the dialect is regarded (positively or negatively): the questionnaire included such descriptive key words as a countryman, poorly educated, of senior age, respectful of a native dialect, having patriotic feelings. The research revealed positive attitudes towards dialect language which predominate in all generations of the respondents from the Northern Samogia of Kretinga (nearly 80 per cent of the informants): a person speaking Samogian is regarded as paying respect to his/her dialect, as a patriot of his/her own land and, eventually, as a free person. The most positive attitudes towards dialect language were expressed by the respondents having high or higher education. People who do not use Samogian are viewed negatively – they are considered neither close nor sincere.10 The representatives of the senior generation acknowledge that they speak as they have been used to, since the Samogian language is the only one they know. The cases of negative evaluation of dialectal speech are very rare, some of which include remarks about the vernacular speech being “plain, rough language, not suitable for communication; the dialect is used by non-educated people or those living in the countryside”. Such high prestige attributed to the dialect raises hope that it will remain vital and will persist in the future. The majority of the respondents (nearly 70 per cent) have a positive approach to the texts written in the Samogian dialect. The publication of Samogian fiction works, dialect dictionaries, and different genres of folklore, jokes, and short ethnographic stories are regarded very positively. Advertisements, invitations to ethnocultural events, the names of various objects written in the dialect are viewed positively. The respondents were more doubtful about the use of dialect language for political or economic issues. Almost all the respondents noted that texts written in dialect language are much more difficult to read, so they suggested “writing in a simple manner”, that is, write as you hear. Only several respondents, mainly teachers, proposed to teach the young generation the basics of Samogian writing. 10 Similar results were found by other researchers as well: consider the analysis of dialects in the urban environment provided by Regina Klukiene: “[...] for 64 per cent of the respondents, the Samogian dialect is most common and most acceptable. [...] The beauty of the Samogian dialect is equaled to simplicity, transparency, even to the gentle and pleasant language, which is being used to talk to pleasant people” (Klukiene 2013: 91–101). Straipsniai / Articles 47 DALIA PAKALNIŠKIENĖ, JŪRATĖ UBIENĖ More than half of all the respondents from the younger generation (more frequently men) declare that they write SMS and emails in their native Samogitian dialect of Kretinga. Usually, such communication takes place between peers, people of the same or similar age; it is less common in communication with the generation of parents. According to the respondents, they write “in a simple manner”, “with no rules”, “as they hear”. Such a practice is very common in the area covering the northern part of Samogitians of Kretinga (namely, Lenkimai, Šukiai, Darbėnai, Įpiltis, Grūšlaukė, Salantai, Kūlupėnai, Gintališkė, Plungė and other locations). 5. CONCLUSIONS 1. The territory of the subdialect has not changed significantly over the last fifty years. The majority of dialect points in the region in question (over 80 per cent) are remarkably strong, vital, having preserved their traditional (or slightly shifted) centres from the geographic point of view. The continuity of dialect and sociocultural identity depends on the changes in the infrastructure of NSK: the process of administrative reorganization of small towns, settlements and villages involving the closure of smaller schools, libraries, cultural centres, healthcare institutions and their transfer to larger administrative centres had a negative impact on the material and spiritual lives of communities. 2. The use of the subdialect in all domains raises hope that the linguistic and sociocultural identity of the subdialect users will not cease to be important in the future. The situation in different domains differs significantly, however. The generational category is also of great importance for the distribution of dialectal language. 2.1. Dialectal language prevails in separate and solidarity domains: about 80 per cent of the informants use the dialect to talk with their family members, neighbours, and friends, while the use of the subdialect in the instrumental domain comprises only 40 per cent. 2.2. A relatively small part of Samogitians, less than 20 per cent, shift their language code in separate and solidarity domains, while more than half of all the respondents, about 52 per cent, use the dialect and the standard language in the instrumental domain alternately. 2.3. Only a few informants, mostly the representatives of the younger generation, use the standard language in all domains, the instrumental domain in particular. 48 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIX Geolinguistic and Sociolinguistic Situation of Northern Samogians of Kretinga: Dialectal Area, Use of the Dialect, Linguistic Attitudes 3. The positive attitude towards the dialect language can be further strengthened by the attitudes expressed by the respondents from all age groups: a person speaking Samogian respects his/her dialect; he/she has a strong sense of patriotism for his/her land, and he/she is a free person. A positive approach to the texts written in the Samogian dialect, especially to ones in the Internet domain (SMS, emails, and facebook), expands and enlarges the possibilities for dialect use. The so called dialect cyberlanguage used by the youngest generation can provide opportunities to preserve the dialect and identity of the dialect users. REFERENCES Aliūkaitė Daiva 2008: Tarmiškai kalbančio žmogaus stereotipai: apriorinės eilinių kalbos bendruomenės narių nuostatos. – Respektus Philologicus 14(19), 23–45. Aliūkaitė Daiva 2011: Jaunųjų žemaičių raiškos idealai: sąmoningosios nuostatos. – Respektus Philologicus 20(25), 209–220. Aliūkaitė Daiva, Valikonė Jolanta 2012: Bendrinės kalbos ir tarmės domenai. – Verbum 3, 7–20. Auer Peter 2005: Europe’s sociolinguistic unity, or: A typology of European dialect/standard constellations. – Perspectives on variation: Sociolinguistic, historical, comparative, ed. by Nicole Delbecque, Johan van der Auwera, Dirk Geeraerts. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 7–42. Auer Peter 2011: Dialect vs. standard: A typology of scenarios in Europe. – The languages and linguistics of Europe. A comprehensive ed. by Bend Kortmann, Johan van der Auwera. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 485–500. Auer Peter, Hinskens Frans 1996: The convergence and divergence of dialects in Europe. New and not so new developments in an old area. – Sociolinguistica 10, 1–30. Bakšienė Rima 2015: Tarminio kalbėjimo savitė ir gyvybingumas: XXI a. pradžios Šakių ir Jurbarko šnektos. – Lietuvių kalba 9. Prieiga internetu: www.lietuviukalba.lt. Edwards John 2006: Language attitudes. – Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics 6. Second edition, ed. by K. Brown. Amsterdam and Boston, MA: Elsevier, 324–331. Edwards John 2009: Language and identity: An Introduction. Cambrige: Cambrige University Press. Edwards John 2010: Minority languages and group identity. Cases and categories. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Straipsniai / Articles 49 DALIA PAKALNIŠKIENĖ, JŪRATĖ UBIENĖ Ferguson A. Charles 1959: Diglossia. – Word 15, 325–40. Geržotaitė Laura 2016: Jaunųjų šiauliškių ir panevėžiškių tarminė savimonė: ribos mentaliniuose žemėlapiuose. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 74, 121–142. Hagen M. Anton 1989: Frisian and education in the Netherlands. – Dialect and education: Some European perspectives, ed. by Chesire Jenny, Edvars Viv, Münsterman Henk, Veltens Bert. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 48–61. Haugen Einar 1966: Dialect, Language, Nation. – American Anthropologist 68, 922–935. Jahr Ernst Håkon 1997: On the use of dialects in Norway. – Language in time and space, ed. by Heinrich Ramsh, Kenneth Wynne. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 363–369. Jahr Ernst Håkon 2008: On the reasons for dialect maintenance in Norway. – Sociolinguistica 22, 157–170. Kačiukienė Genovaitė 2012: Šiaulių regiono atstovų kalbinė savimonė. – Acta Humanitarica Universitatis Saulensis 14. Šiauliai: Šiaulių universiteto leidykla, 130–139. Kalėdienė Laima 2013: Požiūris į tarmes ir nuostatos dėl jų vartojimo trijose Dzūkijos etnografinio regiono dalyse. – Miestai ir kalbos II. Sociolingvistinis Lietuvos žemėlapis. Kolektyvinė monografija, sud. Meilutė Ramonienė. Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla, 125–151. Klუკienė Regina 2013: Tarmės mokėjimas, vartojimas ir nuostatos Žemaitijos regione. – Miestai ir kalbos II. Sociolingvistinis Lietuvos žemėlapis. Kolektyvinė monografija, sud. Meilutė Ramonienė. Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla, 91–103. Labov William 1972: Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 7–41. Lietuvių kalbos atlasas 1–3, 1977–1991. Vilnius: Mokslas. Meilūnaitė Violeta, Švambarytė-Valužienė Janina 2014: Bendras Lietuvių kalbos atlaso punktų tinklo gyvybingumas. – XXI a. pradžios lietuvių tarmės: geolingvistinis ir sociolingvistinis tyrimas. Žemėlapiai ir jų komentarai, sud. Danguolė Mikulėnienė, Violeta Meilūnaitė. Vilnius: Briedis, 197–205. Mikulėnienė Danguolė, Meilūnaitė Violeta (eds) 2014: XXI a. pradžios lietuvių tarmės: geolingvistinis ir sociolingvistinis tyrimas. Žemėlapiai ir jų komentarai. Vilnius: Briedis. Mikulėnienė Danguolė 2013: Lietuvių tarmių tinklas: jo ištakos ir optimizacija. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 86, 70–91. 50 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIX Geolinguistic and Sociolinguistic Situation of Northern Samogitians of Kretinga: Dialectal Area, Use of the Dialect, Linguistic Attitudes Ramonienė Meilutė (ed.) 2010: Miestai ir kalbos. Kolektyvinė monografija. Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. Ramonienė Meilutė (ed.) 2013: Miestai ir kalbos II. Sociolingvistinis Lietuvos žemėlapis. Kolektyvinė monografija. Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. Ramonienė Meilutė 2013: „Tarmės socialinė vertė: Lietuvos miestų jaunimo kalbinės nuostatos“. – Taikomoji kalbotyra 2. Prieiga internetu: www.taikomojikalbotyra.lt. Švambarytė-Valužienė Janina 2014: Kalbinio punkto gyvavimo situacija: XX a. vidurys–XXI a. pradžia. – Acta Linguistica Lituanica 71, 215–228. Trudgill Peter 1983: On dialect: Social and geographical Perspectives. Oxford: Blackwell. Vaicekauskienė Loreta, Aliūkaitė Daiva 2013: Overt and covert evaluation of language varieties in the Lithuanian speech community. – Language (de)standardisation in late modern Europe: Experimental studies, ed. by Tore Kristiansen and Stefan Grondelaers. Oslo: Novus, 97–124. Vaicekauskienė Loreta, Sauverdė Erika 2012: Lietuvos tarmių rezervatas. Socialiniai ir geografiniai tarmės mobilumo ribojimai tiesioginių tyrimų duomenimis. – Taikomoji kalbotyra 1. Prieiga internetu: www.taikomojikalbotyra.lt. Venskienė Asta 2008a: Lokalūs etnografinis jaunimo tapatumas XIX a. pabaigoje–XXI a. pradžioje: geografinės apibrėžtys ir kilmė. – Lituanistica 54, 1(73), 88–100. Venskienė Asta 2008b: Lokalūs etnografinis jaunimo tapatumas XIX a. pabaigoje–XXI a. pradžioje: kultūros elementų savatis. – Lituanistica 55, 2(74), 69–81. Vyniautaitė Simona 2016: Skuodo apylinkių žemaičių kalbinės nuostatos. – Acta Linguistica Lituanica 75, 176–204. Šiaurės žemaičiai kretingiškiai geolingvistiniu ir sociolingvistiniu požiūriu: plotas, tarmės vartojimas, kalbinės nuostatos SANTRAUKA Straipsnyje svarstoma, ar įmanomas vienu dialektu kalbančios bendruomenės kultūrinės ir kalbinės tapatybės tęstinumas globalizacijos ir diglosijos (dialekto ir bendrinės kalbos) Straipsniai / Articles 51 DALIA PAKALNIŠKIENĖ, JŪRATĖ LUBIENĖ sąlygomis. Remiantis teorine geolingvistikos kaip dinamikosios dialektologijos koncepcija, Antono M. Hageno pasiūlyta domenų klasifikacija ir empirine projekto Šiuolaikiniai geolingvistikos tyrimai Lietuvoje: punktų tinklo optimizacija ir interaktyvioji tarmės informacijos sklaida (2011–2013) medžiaga, pristatoma vienos tarmės – šiaurės žemaičių kretingiškių sociokultūrinės tapatybės problematika. Tarmės grupės gyvybingumą ir sociokultūrinę tapatybę lemia įvairūs veiksniai, o ypač svarbūs trys: pakankamai išvystyta infrastruktūra, tarmės vartojimas ir tarmės vartotojų vertybinės nuostatos. Dabartiniai šiaurės žemaičių kretingiškių tarmės punktai infrastruktūros požiūriu yra nevienodi: vieni yra stiprūs, kiti vidutinio stiprumo, silpni arba nykstantys. Didžioji dalis kretingiškių tarmės punktų (per 80 proc.) yra stiprūs, gyvybingi, jų centrai išsaugoti tradiciniai ar kiek paslinkę. Punktų silpnėjimui ir nykimui daugiausia įtakos turėjo mokyklų, kultūros centrų, bibliotekų centralizavimas. Tarmė vartojama visose srityse, ypač gausiai – izoliuotame (namų) ir solidarumo domenuose: apie 80 procentų pateikėjų kalba tarmiškai su šeimos nariais, kaimynais, draugais, pažįstamais. Instrumentiniame, arba viešajame, domene tarmės vartojimas sumažėja perpus – tesiekia 40 procentų. Maždaug penktadalis informantų keičia kalbinį kodą, t. y. kalba bendrine kalba, izoliuotame ir solidarumo domene, o viešojoje erdvėje bendrine kalba renkasi net pusė žemaičių, ypač vidurinės ir jaunesniosios kartos (per 70 proc. abiejose amžiaus grupėse) atstovai. Tik bendrine kalba su šeimos nariais, artimaisiais bendrauja retai. Maždaug penktadalis jaunesniosios kartos atstovų (apie 20 proc.) kalba bendrine kalba solidarumo ir instrumentiniame domenuose. Tyrimo metu nustatyta, kad tarp visų šiaurės žemaičių kretingiškių kartų respondentų grupių dominuoja sąmoningos nuostatos tarmio kalbėjimo atžvilgiu (apie 80 proc.): žemaitiškai kalbantis žmogus geba savo tarmę, yra savo krašto patriotas, laisvas žmogus. Pozityvus rašytinės tarmės vertinimas ir jos vartojimas, ypač internetinėje erdvėje, teikia naujų galimybių išlaikyti ir gyvuoti tarmei bei jos vartojų tapatybei. Įteikta 2018 m. spalio 8 d. DALIA PAKALNIŠKIENĖ Lietuvių kalbos institutas Petro Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius, Lietuva [email protected] JŪRATĖ LUBIENĖ Klaipėdos universitetas Salomėjos Nėries g. 5, LT-92227 Klaipėda, Lietuva [email protected] 52 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIX