Skuodo apylinkių žemaičių kalbinės nuostatos

SIMONA VYNIAUTAITĖ Institute of the Lithuanian Language Research areas: geolinguistics, dialectology, sociolinguistics. LANGUAGE ATTITUDES OF SAMOGITIANS IN SKUODAS DISTRICT Language Attitudes of Samogitians in Skuodas District ABSTRACT The article analyzes the language attitudes of Samogitians in the Skuodas area—their evaluation of their native dialect and of people who speak dialect. The analysis applies a generalized three-part model that reveals different dimensions of dialect evaluation: ideal, inevitability, and limitation. It indicates possible connections between evaluations of the dialect and conceptions of the native language, as well as psychological distinctiveness. KEYWORDS: Northern Samogitian Telšiai dialect speakers, language attitudes, dialect, standard language, self-awareness. ANNOTATION The article analyses the language attitudes of Samogitians in Skuodas district, namely the native dialects and the evaluation of people speaking a dialect. The broad-brush trinomial model is applied in the analysis which helps to unveil different dimensions of dialect evaluation, such as ideal, inevitability, limitation. The analysis presents the conceptions of dialect evaluation and native language as well as the possible connections of psychological distinction. KEYWORDS: Northern Samogitians of Telšiai, language attitudes, dialect, standard language, self-awareness. 176 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXV Skuodo apylinkių žemaičių kalbinės nuostatos 1. INTRODUCTION The significance of dialects in today’s world and society can be understood in many different ways. The claim that a dialect is an asset, a value, seems, on the one hand, self-evident and difficult to dispute, but, on the other hand, this is not always so, nor is it so for everyone. In the twenty-first century, an era of constantly changing modern technologies and globalization, the diversity of values and attitudes, and changes in them, have become unsurprising phenomena. These are influenced both by external factors and by certain changes in society’s psychology and behaviour. Language, too, is changing—all its varieties. Changes in dialects (those that have occurred and those that are taking place) often seem to be a bad thing—and a greater one than changes in the standard language—while emerging new dialectal formations (geolects, regiolects) and “impure,” “inauthentic” dialect speech are seen as the consequence of this deterioration. Assessing dialect change as a movement toward death, while viewing changes in the standard language as a natural process, or recognizing both processes as inevitable but not as phenomena marking an end, is associated with a choice of ideology and perspective. It is emphasized that the geolinguistic perspective is optimistic and gives meaning to an ideology of development (Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė 2014b: 36). At the intersection of ideologies, the question remains significant (and probably even more so): how important is dialect to ordinary speakers, or is it important at all as change takes place? For this reason, the aspect of language attitudes is increasingly taken into account in dialect research (cf. Vaicekauskienė, Sausverde 2012; Kliukienė 2010; Ramonienė 2013), since language users’ views and evaluations are a significant and even necessary factor (cf. Mikulėnienė 2015: 103), reflecting the current situation quite well and indicating how it may change in the future. The significance of language attitudes can also be seen in relation to the potential for survival: they are one of the factors that ensure the vitality and continuity of dialects (Aliūkaitė, Bakšienė, Jaroslavienė et al. 2014: 130). In this case, attitudes are understood not only as a certain psychological phenomenon but also as a functional one. The Skuōdas area was selected for study; it is one of the localities of Samogitia belonging to the region’s core (for more details, see Petrulis 2005: 168). For this reason, its inhabitants are characterized by perhaps the strongest Samogitian self-awareness and close ties between identity and place of origin. It is also important that the area is not at the boundary with the Aukštaitian dialect, where the dialect would have to be treated as transitional. On the contrary, the environs of Skuōdas, where the phonetic and grammatical features of Coastal Samogitian and the so-called Telšiai dialects intersect (Girdenis 2012: 13), are considered to lie within one of the areas most representative of the linguistic code1 of the “native” Samogitian dialect (Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė 2014a: 262). Skuōdas, as 1 One can distinguish the Skuōdas geolect, a smaller dialectal formation that exists on the basis of strong traditional local varieties (Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė 2014a: 260). Straipsniai / Articles 177 SIMONA VYNIŪTAITĖ the status of a town that has preserved its dialect very well is also confirmed by data from other studies2. It may be assumed that the firm dialectal foundation of this area and its belonging to the core of the Žemaitija region influence not only the inhabitants’ worldview or character, but also their language attitudes. FIG. 1. Survey points Aim, objectives, methods, and material. The aim of this article is to determine how the Samogitians of the Skuodas area evaluate their native dialect and people who speak dialect. It draws on data (respondent questionnaires and audio recordings) from the project Contemporary Geolinguistic Research in Lithuania: Optimization of the Network of Survey Points and Interactive Dissemination of Dialect Information (for more, see www.tarmes.lt), conducted by the Institute of the Lithuanian Language in 2010–2013 and held in the Institute’s Dialect Archive. Fifty-seven inhabitants were surveyed from points in the Atlas of the Lithuanian Language belonging to the Skuodas area—Ker̃viai (12), Vižañčiai (in place of Skliaũstė, 13), Skuõdas (29), Šárkė (30), Ylakiai (31), Lùkniai (in place of Pãluknė, 38), and Mósėdis (40) (see Fig. 1). The sample consists of respondents from the older generation (41; 72%), middle generation (10; 17.5%), and younger generation (6; 10.5%), of whom 45 are women and 12 men. Under the project’s guidelines, the younger generation comprises people under 30, the middle generation those aged 31–49, and the older generation those aged 50 and over. The respondents’ educational backgrounds are quite varied: primary education (16; 27%), higher education (14; 25%), incomplete secondary education (10; 18%), post-secondary education (7; 12%), vocational education (6; 11%), and secondary education (4; 7%). Since all the material collected from the survey points is used, the number of respondents is not uniform in terms of age, gender, or education. In some cases, these 2 Projects Language Use and National Identity in Lithuanian Cities and The Sociolinguistic Map of Lithuania: Cities and Towns (see Cities and Languages 2. The Sociolinguistic Map of Lithuania), and the study by ethnologist Petras Kalnius (2012: 331–332). 178 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXV Skuodo apylinkių žemaičių kalbinės nuostatos the possibility of the influence of sociolinguistic variables. It is likely that with different samples, the results could also be different. To analyze evaluations of the dialect and discuss possible links with the concept of the mother tongue, descriptive-analytical and interpretive methods are used, drawing on data from ethnological and ethnopsychological studies. 2. EVALUATION OF THE DIALECT Attitudes toward the dialect are a significant aspect. It is emphasized that not only dialects change, but also attitudes toward dialectal discourse (Aliūkaitė 2011: 11). As a result, the value of dialects may be perceived differently than before (for example, during the Soviet era). One option is for informants to evaluate the dialect directly by expressing their opinions, or to note and emphasize what they think others most commonly believe and what views have taken shape. Another way to determine attitudes toward the dialect is not to evaluate the dialect itself directly, but to consider opinions about a person who speaks dialect. It is believed that associations with the speakers who use a linguistic code can reveal the code’s vitality and the reasons for its survival more reliably than evaluations of the code itself (Ramonienė 2013: 7); in other words, unconscious attitudes are significant. However, as Daiva Aliūkaitė states, an even more successful model examines both conscious and unconscious attitudes (2013b: 224). In the questionnaires3 several possible descriptions of a person who speaks dialect were provided: a rural person, poorly educated, older, respectful of their native dialect, patriotic. Informants also identified other descriptions of dialect speakers. Some respondents gave several descriptions, so the number reported is the number of responses, not respondents. Since there are not many participants (as is generally the case with the populations in the survey locations), the number of responses is small. It is emphasized that “dialects do not become fewer if they are vital in one location rather than, for example, six (the numbers here are arbitrary). Their geolinguistic value and the significance of their distinctions remain the same” (Aliūkaitė, Bakšienė, Jaroslavienė et al. 2014: 182). It can be argued that attitudes likewise do not diminish if the numbers of people declaring them and of responses differ. The main and possible trends are essentially reflected. Descriptions of a person who speaks dialect and their frequency are presented in Table 1. The figures show how many responses came from informants in the older (Vr), middle (Vd), and younger (J) generations. 3 See example http://www.tarmes.lt/index_meniu.php?id=5 Straipsniai / Articles 179 SIMONA VYNIAUTAITĖ Three main images of the dialect emerge from these descriptions, forming distinct dimensions: Ideal Inevitability Limitation Assigning descriptions to these dimensions is not indisputable; it is more tentative and depends on interpretation. This is a generalized three-part model⁴ that can serve as a basis for analyzing language users’ conceptions and valuation of the dialect. TABLE 1. Attitudes toward a person who speaks dialect Description | Respectful of their native dialect | Accustomed to speaking that way | Patriotic | Raised that way | Rural person | True Samogitian | Older | Born that way | Samogitian | Adheres to traditions | Pure-blooded Samogitian | It cannot be otherwise | Cannot speak otherwise | Poorly educated | Intelligent person | One should respect one’s dialect | One should cherish one’s language | Raised in such an environment | A person who loves their dialect Number of responses | Vr 13 9 8 7 6 4 1 1 1 - 1 1 - 1 - 1 1 - 1 | Vd 4 2 2 2 1 - 1 1 1 1 - - 1 - - - - 1 - | J 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - 1 - - - - | Total 19 13 12 10 8 5 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Percentages 23 15 14 12 10 6 4 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2.1. Dialect as an ideal This dimension consists of the components of respect, patriotism, and tradition. Identifying dialects and people who speak dialectally with such components determines, or may ⁴ One could relate this to the model of the World Tree in a universal symbolic structure, which gives meaning to the harmony and order of the World (for more detail, see Čepienė 2014: 57). Essentially, the existing components here, too, form, one might say, a harmony of linguistic attitudes, since they reflect all three (conditional) dimensions: positive (the ideal), neutral (inevitability), and negative (limitation). The fact that the dimension of the ideal does not exist alone—that is, in this case, that there is not only a positive attitude toward the dialect and its hundred-percent use in all domains—does not mean that the dialect is (dis)appearing or that the situation is particularly poor. 180 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXV Skuodo apylinkių žemaičių kalbinės nuostatos determine the importance of the dialect to its users, its vitality, and its continuity. In a certain sense, “representing” a dimension is also a conscious choice made by the people themselves. For these reasons, the components can be understood as forming a fairly perfect model, or one close to the ideal. Respect. Most often (19 times), informants characterized a person who speaks dialectally as someone who respects the dialect. Respect for one’s own dialect and the authority of the dialect can essentially be considered prestige (Kliukienė 2014: 7). Thus, although this is not stated directly, it becomes clear that the dialect is considered highly prestigious⁵. This characterization was also most frequently mentioned by representatives of other Northern Samogitian localities (cf. Pabrėža 2013: 5). Respect is considered an important value; things of great significance are generally respected. It may be argued that even if one believes the dialect is not suitable for use everywhere and is not very beautiful aesthetically, it must nonetheless be valued and cherished, cf.: (1) žėnā, ta lietuviu kalba ta jau tuoki kāp reikint, vuo, žėnā, ta žemaitiu kalba dėdlē švaka īr, bet mums ana gera vės tēik īr [K. M., m., 79 m., V.]⁶. Although in this case the conception of the standard language as a more prestigious linguistic code becomes apparent, the dialect is nevertheless considered the psychologically closest and best linguistic code. A person who speaks dialectally also becomes worthy of respect; conversely, people who can speak dialectally but do not, or who have “forgotten” the dialect, are regarded rather negatively: (2) Tuoks kap išpoikėms atruoda. Parvažiou va žemaitis kuoks student’s ėš Vėlniaus, Kauna, jau so saveškės jau pradeda šnekietė ta literatūrėška kalba ėr, žėnuok, mon nedėdėlė patink, kažkāp, aha, tuoks ėsdėdoms atruoda dvėlk ėš anuo. [L. Š., m., 52 m., Y.] (3) Ka tēp pasėklausā žnuogos, ka to žėna, ka ons gal žemaitėškā šnekietė ėr nešnek, ta no mon tēp biškī keistā atruoda ėš tēkrūju, nes jėgo ėš žemaitiu esam, ta galem ėr šnekietė žemaitėška. [G. P., m., 24 m., M.] (4) Mon net dabā pėktoms, īr ir pas mūsa, kor, sakīsio, īr pats žemaitis kaima vēdurie banda pakeistė. <...>. Ta īr vėitas, kor to turi kėtėp rokoutėis, kor to turi bėndrauteis, bet jėgo aš kaimė sosėtėksio – mon nesoprantamā, mon ėš tēkrūju nesoprantamā. [D. Č., m., 45 m., K.] (5) Ta kas tēn kėrčious „tai išvažiuosiu, tai aš...“? Joukas ėš kėts kėta paskiau. No ka tēp īr. [J. J., m., 83 m., V.] 5 The resident survey showed that the Samogitian dialect is considered the most prestigious in Skuodas (Kliukienė 2014: 7). It is emphasized that overt prestige is necessary for the standard language (standard varieties) to be regarded as a symbol of national unity (see Auer 2011: 486). In this case, the prestige of the dialect determines, or may determine, its status as a symbol of a constituent part of the nation, namely the Samogitians. Nevertheless, according to P. Kalnius, in general most Samogitians in all localities of Samogitia consider their dialect non-prestigious because the standard language was created on the basis of the Highland Lithuanian dialect (2012: 322). 6 Informants’ initials, sex (m. – female, v. – male), age, and locality are indicated in square brackets (Y. – Ylakiai, K. – Kėrviai, L. – Lūknės, M. – Mósėdis, S. – Skuõdas, Š. – Šárkė, V. – Vižančiai). Straipsniai / Articles 181 SIMONA VYNIAUTAITĖ (6) And here, too, there are such people who, I think, begin speaking the standard language while living in Samogitia—and everyone laughs at them. <…>. They think that if you hear them, they really are funny. [G. L., m., 19 m., Y.] (7) And if you were to start speaking either this way or that way in Aukštaitian now, everyone around would say that some kind of white crow had appeared here. [J. M., m., 72 m., V.] (8) It seems funny to me—having lived for so many years somewhere in Samogitia and then not knowing one’s native language, well, that too… <…>. I don’t think you can forget your native language over a few months or years; you’ll remember it all the same. [B. P., m., 18 m., K.] Not speaking dialect is perceived as a manifestation of arrogance, conceit, or oddness. Such behavior provokes anger or laughter. It should be emphasized that it is unacceptable to representatives of all generations. The dialect is regarded as the primary linguistic code, and not using it seems to set a community member apart: the person falls outside the customary traditional community system, that is, becomes almost not one of us or at least other (this concept occupies an intermediate position in the universal own–foreign opposition (Unukovičius 2014: 192–193). The importance of language in seeking (self-)identification, and of (not) being one of us, also emerged in a survey conducted in 1999, since “not knowing the Samogitian language excludes a person from among the Samogitians” (Pakalniškis 2001: 207). Language could be likened to an element of reverse (and in some cases voluntary) initiation—that is, one might posit the existence of linguistic anti-initiation. This is also borne out by the situation described by P. Kalnius, in which a young Samogitian woman said she was not Samogitian because she no longer spoke Samogitian (she stopped speaking it while studying in Klaipėda) (2012: 310). In this case, linguistic “departure” also entails a departure from the identity. There is also another view, according to which not using the dialect is linked to becoming accustomed to using the standard language. In that case, it is difficult to speak dialect again; cf.: (9) A person is just like that, because from morning till evening they speak with their classmates in the standard language and get used to it; they live that way for a week, a month, a year, and that’s that [V. B., m., 44 m., Y.]. It may be said that this view is exceptional, since people are generally critical of not using the dialect in one’s own surroundings. It is also important that the attitude toward the standard language is not entirely radical: in certain places and situations, it is considered acceptable and appropriate to use (see Table 2). The understanding that dialect is a value, rather than an object of disregard, mockery, or other negative behavior, should also be associated with respect. There are observations about mockery by others (non-Samogitians) and the devaluing of the Samogitian dialect, for example: (10) The Lithuanian language is spoken throughout Lithuania, whereas Samogitian is not particularly liked there: they do not like Samogitians and make fun of them. <…>. There were all kinds of people in the camp: Dzūkians, Aukštaitians, and Samogitians—they came from all over Lithuania. We would all speak Lithuanian, and only among ourselves, when we gathered, it would be easier to speak Samogitian, so we wouldn’t have to keep chattering away in Lithuanian; we could speak Samogitian. But only among ourselves; otherwise, if you started acting like a “little Samogitian,” they would immediately start making fun of you—you couldn’t. Hey, those people, 182 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXV Skuodo apylinkių žemaičių kalbinės nuostatos they picked on them in that way and had this sort of habit: they had to needle someone, and they kept needling one person after another. They would needle the Dzūkians and the Samogitians alike—everyone was fair game for anyone who wanted to pick on them. [V. G., v., 85 m., L.] (11) Oh, nobody appreciates the Samogitians; just start speaking… And the Aukštaitians don’t like that we are Samogitians. <...>. But, I tell you, the Aukštaitians hate the Samogitians—Jesus Mary, especially in Kaunas—they made fun of us. Go on, I tell you, they made fun of you. We used to speak Samogitian, those construction workers—what do you say? Yes, we said, but, I tell you, you understand. Samogitians, Jesus Mary! [M. R., v., 51 m., Š.] (12) Well, but it’s all the same to your own people that you [in Klaipėda] speak Samogitian like that. [K. M., m., 79 m., V.] This view can be understood as an overly sensitive reaction, as a somewhat exaggerated assessment of mockery and hatred. Linguistic difference and the resulting lack of understanding can provoke surprise or laughter—and perhaps not necessarily malicious laughter (cf. the importance of mediation in stereotyping, when characteristics attributed to others are understood as belittling (Gottlieb 2006: 3). However, such Samogitian sensitivity7 indicates their cherishing of the dialect and intolerance of mockery, since the dialect is perceived as something very important—as their mother tongue. Although, according to P. Kalnius, there may be grounds for the mockery: “<...> some pressure on the Samogitian dialect continues to persist—it has only recently begun to be tolerated more by the Lithuanian intelligentsia. The reaction of the linguistic Aukštaitians (especially those from the lower social strata) has changed little, one might say: they continue to be fairly intolerant of Samogitian speech” (2012: 321). It is likely that the negative reaction also reflects an earlier, not particularly positive attitude toward dialects, or, in the informant’s words, is simply a matter of looking for fault. In general, Samogitians are often viewed as somewhat overly ethnocentric people—continually highlighting their national, cultural, historical, and linguistic identity. Samogitians, in turn, find such criticism rather offensive and perceive it as devaluation and mockery. This can be interpreted as the beginning of a certain antagonism or tension, but it can also be understood as a “benign” mutual misunderstanding and cultural differences—and one can rejoice that these exist in the 20th and early 21st centuries. Similar observations by Samogitians about the devaluation of them and their dialect were recorded during fieldwork in the Skuodas, Šiauliai, and Panevėžys districts. It is claimed that the opposition between Samogitians and Aukštaitians, which defines Samogitian identity, is a direct analogy to the opposition between Poles and Lithuanians (for more, see Čepaitienė 2001: 91). There is also the opposite view: that Žemaitija and the Samogitians enjoy considerable support elsewhere in Lithuania, including in the major cities. Samogitians and their dialect are no longer perceived as objects of mockery; rather, people express appreciation and view them positively: (13) even when I go to Vilnius to study, they say that I spoke 7 A psychological study showed that Samogitians are generally more sensitive than Aukštaitians (Bliumas 2000: 59). Straipsniai / Articles 183 SIMONA VYNIAUTAITĖ Samogitia – surely God is not. Well, such support for Samogitia is somehow, like, respectful [L. P., m., 44 m., M.]. It cannot be ruled out that much depends not only on one’s conception of what is offensive or mocking, but also on different people’s experiences, situations they have lived through, or simply their inclination to perceive positive or negative things. The respondents’ answers also revealed a slightly different aspect of respect. Emphasis is placed on the person’s own attitude: it is not simply that they know how or are able to speak dialect, but that they do so out of respect. A very similar description was mentioned once – one must respect one’s own dialect. The description is not so much of the dialect user; rather, it is stated directly and affirmed that the dialect is worthy of respect and is something that matters. Although the association of a dialect-speaking person, and the dialect itself, with respect is the most frequent of all the descriptions, the opposite is also expressed: (14) I don’t think that language needs to be respected in any special way. No. Language is meant to express things, it doesn’t need to be respected, no… Of course, there are certainly swear words that nobody is proud to use, but speaking dialect, saying that I respect the language, somehow sounds hypocritical to me too; I don’t think so [G. J., m., 38 m., Y.]. It may be assumed that language (dialect) and its use are de-idealized here, understood as a phenomenon that is purely practical in nature. Respect is more closely associated with language culture, for example, not using swear words. Another description closely connected with values is a person who loves their dialect. Love, like respect, is also one of the greatest values, so a person who upholds them is perceived very positively. Such a speaker values and cherishes the dialect. Patriotism. The second component constituting the ideal sphere is a patriotic attitude. There are 12 such responses in total. Speaking in dialect is understood as part of patriotism. Using the dialect means loving and respecting one’s homeland, being ready to do a great deal for it (and for one’s native language), and to make sacrifices. This view is connected with national self-awareness, since 39 (68 percent) of the respondents identified as Samogitians (their official nationality being Lithuanian), and most (43; 75 percent) also regard the Samogitian dialect as their native language. In the respondents’ minds, their native language is associated with patriotism, which is close to the notion that language is one of the most important parts of a nation. It can be argued that language fundamentally constitutes a community (Garrett, Coupland, Williams 2003: 12) and is an essential marker of identity (Račiūnaitė-Vyčinienė 2014: 223). The situation of the Samogitians confirms this claim as well: “for present-day Samogitians, the most important indicator in self-identification and differentiation from non-Samogitians is not their place of residence, nor an imagined historical Samogitia, but a different language (dialect)” (Kalnius 2012: 405). In both cases, language itself is understood as the primary marker of identity. A somewhat different view is held in another study: in the case of Samogitians, language is perceived as a factor that marks identity and ranks second, while place of origin is considered the most important factor (Čepaitienė 2001: 190). That language becomes an important factor in understanding nationality, and that such a connection is possible, is demonstrated by a young woman’s conception of nationality: 184 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXV Skuodo apylinkių žemaičių kalbinės nuostatos substantiated by the conception of nationality held by a young-generation respondent: (15) I live in Lithuania, I’m learning the Lithuanian language – so I’m Lithuanian; I’m not learning the Samogitian dialect [B. P., m., 18 m., K.]. Here the point is made even more specific: the learning of a linguistic code is emphasized, that is, identity is inferred from language learning; place of residence is also a significant factor. Descriptions of a dialect-speaking person such as a true Samogitian (5), a Samogitian (2), and a full-blooded Samogitian (1) should also be considered in connection with language and national self-awareness. The dialect is understood as evidence of Samogitianness and Samogitian self-awareness. If a person speaks dialect, in this case they are a member of the community, that is, a Samogitian: (16) if we are Samogitians, then we should speak Samogitian and talk [E. M., m., 61 m., Y.]. The view that language, identity, and patriotism are closely connected may also be associated with the history of Samogitia and its different historical circumstances. Although it is said that history is often mythologized (Venskienė 2008: 80), in any case, people draw on it, and it is often one of the factors in understanding Samogitianness and Samogitia’s distinctiveness in relation to other ethnographic regions. Tradition. A person who speaks dialect is also described as someone who upholds traditions. This component links the past, present, and future, and therefore influences continuity. The dialect is considered a value passed down from one generation to another, so by using it a person preserves it, that is, behaves traditionally. It emerges that what matters most is not modernity (which, in this case, should be associated with the use of the standard language), but tradition. According to Vida Savoniakaitė, “in the discourses of scholars around the world, traditions are associated with the methodological conceptions of ‘one’s own’ and ‘the other,’ which change in contemporary theoretical thought just as a migrating society changes” (2013: 254). As already mentioned, speaking dialect is often identified precisely with the category of one’s own, while not using the dialect means a certain linguistic and/or identity-based distancing. Thus, tradition and upholding it here signify belonging to one’s own people. The dialect is considered something that must be preserved; it stands alongside a nation’s customs, symbols, and other phenomena that must not be forgotten. A similar description related to tradition was also mentioned – one must cherish one’s own language. This does not describe the person themselves, but directly expresses an attitude toward the dialect: to care for it, cultivate it, and tend to it. The future outlook is emphasized, since people feel it is necessary to make an effort for the dialect (cf. quotation 23), for example: (17) Well, it seems to me, if we don’t preserve our dialect, our language, then what will become of us? Just as they say a strong family and a strong state, so I would say too: Lithuanian identity begins with each and every dialect. [B. L., m., 61 m., M.] (18) And, well, everything that we are as Lithuanians – that is what makes us great, though small. And we are small, all the more because even in that small place there is so much diversity; that is what makes us interesting to the world, who we are, somehow we stand out. And what can we do against the world? We are small, but we can still hold our own because we are different [D. Č., m., 45 m., K.]. Straipsniai / Articles 185 SIMONA VYNIAUTAITĖ The preservation of dialect is understood as an essential part of the country’s identity in general. It is emphasized that every dialect is important, not only one’s native dialect. Dialect speech is also significant as an element of distinctiveness and appeal, through which a nation can be interesting to people throughout the world. By cherishing a dialect, tradition will also be preserved, and thus vitality and continuity. This view is also close to the opinion of Skuōdas residents that young people should be encouraged to use the dialect, since not a single respondent said that they should not do so (Miestai ir kalbos 2: 28 žemėlapis). Breaking continuity and tradition is understood as something unserious, unnatural behavior, a betrayal that leads nowhere good, for example: (19) And those who are just starting, I think they are showing off, well, from childhood they have only been taught literary language, so it strikes me. If you are a Samogitian, then be a Samogitian. And if you are going to eat something, then you can eat anything—eat your own language, your own dialect. [A. R. Š., m., 70 m., M.] (20) No, well, it’s clear that it would be very good if everyone, if you are a Samogitian, learned it too. But if it is easier for them to communicate with their friends, let them communicate, but perhaps they should not forget their own dialects too. [D. K., m., 22 m., L.] The second opinion is not so categorical. Perhaps it should be associated with age—the younger generation—although a more liberal view is not always attributable to young people (cf. quotations 8 and 25). The assertion expressed by many is confirmed: the standard language is not inherently bad; when necessary (in some places, with some people, and so on; see Table 2), one can speak it, but preserving and passing on the dialect is very important. To sum up, the elements in the realm of ideals bring out the essential points (the elements serve as signposts): respect → the prestige of the dialect, patriotism → the connection between conceptions of the native language and identity, tradition → the continuity of the dialect. 2.2. Dialect as an inevitability This realm encompasses the elements of habit, environment, and innate disposition. They can be associated with inevitability and fatalism, since the individual’s own choice has less (or no) influence, unlike the ideal sphere and the components that constitute it. The realm of inevitability seems to reflect a neutral, non-idealized image. Habit. A person who often (13 times) used the dialect was associated with habit (habit was also considered a reason for using the standard language; see quotation 9), cf.: (21) They like speaking Samogitian best, they speak more freely, their tongue is already accustomed to the Samogitian language [V. G., v., 85 m., L.]. Speaking dialect means being practiced at doing so; thus, dialect speech is not merely a current phenomenon that has appeared recently, 186 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXV Skuodo apylinkių žemaičių kalbinės nuostatos but already continuing from earlier. As noted, continuity is closely linked to tradition, yet it is precisely between these factors that an individual’s opportunity to choose and awareness become apparent. To become accustomed to a dialect, one needs to speak it and hear it often. For this reason, it can be concluded that, in the respondents’ minds, the dialect is understood as the predominant, primary language. This is also confirmed by the concept of mother tongue. One thing is the language identified as the official mother tongue, and another is the language, or the several languages, that respondents regard as their mother tongue(s). The results are shown in Fig. 2. FIG. 2. Concept of mother tongue All respondents consider Lithuanian to be their mother tongue, though they differ somewhat in this regard. For a smaller proportion of respondents (13; 23%), this linguistic code is the sole conception of their mother tongue. In one case, both Lithuanian and Latvian were regarded as mother tongues. Since the proponent of this conception is a respondent from the Šarkė site8, whose official ethnicity is Latvian (and the respondent identified herself as such in terms of self-identification), this conception is unsurprising, all the more so because she has not forgotten Latvian (she understands it, speaks it, and can read and write it). It is also entirely plausible that she considers Lithuanian her mother tongue: the respondent has lived at the aforementioned site since childhood and therefore understands and uses (speaks, reads, and writes) Lithuanian very well9. Most respondents (43; 75%) also consider the Samogitian dialect their mother tongue. This conception is shared by representatives of all generations: the older generation (30), the middle generation (9), and the younger generation (4). It is evident that for Samogitians of different ages in the Skuodas region, the dialect 8 According to the respondent herself, this locality was colloquially known as Little Latvia, because quite a large number of ethnic Latvians lived there in the past. 9 It is worth considering whether there may be some confusion here. The respondent did not state that the Samogitian dialect was another mother tongue, yet in many situations (when communicating with family members, acquaintances, neighbours, and others) it is in fact the primary language. It is likely that the concept of the Lithuanian language is understood as encompassing both linguistic codes—the dialect and the standard language. On the other hand, the respondent distinguished between these linguistic codes when answering the questionnaire. Straipsniai / Articles 187 SIMONA VYNIAUTAITĖ is very important; it is not a phenomenon characteristic of any one generation alone. Of the respondents who consider the Samogitian dialect their mother tongue, 14 understand and speak only Samogitian (13 from the older generation and 1 from the middle generation), 15 understand, speak, and read it (11 from the older generation and 4 from the middle generation), and 14 understand, speak, read, and write it (6 from the older generation, 4 from the middle generation, and 4 from the younger generation). It should be emphasized that all younger-generation informants who also identified the Samogitian dialect as their mother tongue not only understand and speak it, but also read and write in Samogitian. Thus, in this respect, the younger generation emerges as a more versatile age group in relation to the dialect. Importantly, habituation is often considered a factor influencing not only dialect speech but also reading and writing. The respondents’ conception that Samogitian is also their mother tongue is convincing, because those surveyed, who have always spoken in the dialect, regard the dialect itself as their true mother tongue. Significantly, the Samogitian dialect is considered 100% the most familiar form of speech in Skuodas (Baranauskienė, Krupickaitė 2012: 11). The dialect and standard languages may be considered equivalent linguistic codes (cf.: (22) Ėr ta žemaitiu tarmie, ėr ta bendrėnė – mon anuos abėdvės ein kap veina šalėp kėtuos [G. L., m., 38 m., Y.]). This confirms that both codes can be used and combined without “contradicting” one’s own views and convictions (cf. quotation 4). Environment. Another aspect encompasses a person’s period of growth and development, as well as their social, domestic, and geographical conditions. The description grew up that way was mentioned fairly often (10 times). The description grew up that way does not necessarily refer to a geographical dialect environment; it may be entirely different. However, a person who used the dialect from an early age with family, acquaintances, and so on, would have grown up that way. A person who speaks in a dialect is associated with childhood and adolescence, with a language instilled while growing up. For example: (23) Kuokiuo to kalbuo esi ğemęs, ožaugės ėr rēk anou jau ēšsauguotė [A. T., m., 75 m., Y.]. The influence of parents or other close people becomes apparent, since it is from them that one learns to speak. And what is acquired and learned in childhood—especially language—usually remains deeply rooted and significant throughout life. This is confirmed by the language used for communication in the family: family members communicate in the dialect, and only three respondents also speak the standard language (with children—a respondent from the older generation; with a sister—a respondent from the middle generation; with grandchildren—a respondent from the older generation). A similar description, grew up in such an environment, was mentioned once. In this case, the influence of not only the family and private sphere but also the public sphere, as well as the geographical factor, becomes apparent. Cf.: (24) Mes esam lietovē, aš gvėno Žemaitijou, šneko žemaitėška [E. M., m., 61 m., Y.]; (25) Ka gvėni Žemaitijou, turi rokoutėis sava tarmė [G. L., m., 19 m., Y.]. The view expressed is that dialect speech is used (or should be used) because of the influence of the environment: that is, a person has grown up in an environment where people speak in the dialect everywhere or almost everywhere—not only with close ones and acquaintances, or at home—and where dialect speech is often heard from various people. This response would also reflect the actual linguistic situation at the sites, since dialect speech predominates 188 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXV Skuodo apylinkių žemaičių kalbinės nuostatos communication. The number of respondents (older generation – Vr, middle generation – Vd, younger generation – J) by language choice in different situations is presented in Table 2. 2 TABLE. Language of communication Dialect | Standard language | Dialect and standard language Vr | Vd | J | Total | Vr | Vd | J | Total | Vr | Vd | J | Total In public: At the shop | 37 | 6 | 4 | 47 | 1 | – | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 8 In public: At institutions | 33 | 6 | 3 | 42 | 3 | – | 2 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 1 | 10 In public: At meetings, gatherings | 33 | 5 | 2 | 40 | 1 | – | 1 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 12 In public: With a priest | 35 | 8 | 1 | 44 | 3 | – | 1 | 4 | – | 1 | – | 1 In public: With acquaintances | 41 | 9 | 6 | 56 | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | – | 1 In public: With strangers | 25 | 4 | 1 | 30 | 6 | 2 | 2 | 10 | 9 | 4 | 3 | 16 In public: Starts a conversation with acquaintances in their home area | 41 | 9 | 6 | 56 | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | – | 1 In public: Starts a conversation with strangers in their home area | 33 | 4 | 3 | 40 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 9 | 1 | 3 | – | 4 With neighbors: With the oldest generation | 41 | 10 | 6 | 57 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – With neighbors: With the older generation | 41 | 10 | 6 | 57 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – With neighbors: With the younger generation | 40 | 8 | 5 | 53 | – | – | – | – | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4 Usual language use: Thinking | 41 | 8 | 6 | 55 | – | 1 | – | 1 | – | 1 | – | 1 Usual language use: Counting | 40 | 7 | 5 | 52 | – | 1 | – | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4 Usual language use: Communicating with animals | 39 | 7 | 5 | 51 | – | – | – | – | – | 2 | – | 2 Language of religion: Praying | 12 | 2 | 1 | 15 | 25 | 5 | 2 | 32 | 1 | 1 | – | 2 Language of religion: Going to confession | 20 | 3 | 1 | 24 | 15 | 3 | 2 | 20 | – | – | – | – Language of religion: Teaching others their prayers | 5 | – | – | 5 | 22 | 2 | 1 | 25 | – | – | – | – As can be seen, dialect predominates in everyday language use, with both linguistic codes or only the standard language used in isolated cases. With neighbors Straipsniai / Articles 189 SIMONA VYNIAUTAITĖ communication takes place in dialect, with language choice differing only slightly when communicating with the younger generation, since four respondents indicated that, in addition to dialect, they also use the standard language. Dialectal speech also predominates in public, but the standard language is chosen more often, or both linguistic codes are used (especially with strangers). A contrast between public and private spaces can be discerned: in private spaces, there is a greater tendency to use dialect (cf. Vaicekauskienė, Sausverde 2012: 13). Nevertheless, the dominance of dialect in public also indicates that this linguistic code is commonplace, appropriate, and viable. Although the setting is public, communication is essentially with one’s own, so dialect is considered the most appropriate linguistic code (cf. the choice of linguistic code when speaking with strangers). The situation is somewhat different in the domain of religion. Prayer and the teaching of prayers are conducted mostly in the standard language, while roughly equal numbers of informants go to confession in dialect and in the standard language. It can be argued that important factors determining the choice of linguistic code in the religious sphere include the characteristics of prayers and praying (genre, speaking in public), habituation, and the informants’ own instruction. Prayers are printed in prayer books and recited in the standard language during church services. It is most likely that those informants who pray in the standard language were also taught their prayers in this code. Choosing dialect for prayer is associated not with written prayers, but with prayers of one’s own making, spoken in one’s own words, such as requests, thanksgiving, and so on. In other words, these are compositions of a freer genre, freely formulated thoughts that have not been learned by heart. Confession could be considered a genre in which certain linguistic formulas are unavoidable, but which also includes the individual’s own thoughts. It is precisely those formulas, learned by heart (such as prayers and other forms of prayer), that may lead to the choice of the standard language. The environment emerges as a setting conducive to dialectal speech. The influence of the geographical environment can be discerned, particularly in the case of the surroundings of Skuōdas, since it is argued that “the need and/or courage to use one’s own dialect is directly proportional to the distance of the administrative district from Aukštaitija and from large cities characterized by cultural diversity” (Kalnius 2012: 331). An understanding of the environment as static is evident: the environment determines dialectal speech; it “locks” one in (the environment you live in, the way you grew up—that is how you speak). Nevertheless, another perspective also exists: (26) I realized that wherever you went, even if you learned it, you would still speak the same [V. B., m., 44 y., Y.]. In this case, the environmental factor is prominent, but the idea of immutability is rejected. Environmental influence is understood as the effect of being here in the present, rather than here or there in the past (in childhood, adolescence). Because of this changeability, a shift from the standard language to dialect use is possible, or even inevitable: (27) But how could one not become Samogitian in Samogitia<...>. Well, when those little ones come here now, they speak neither like Aukštaitians nor even the same way, but when they go to school, they become Samogitian right away [V. N., m., 80 y., L.]. “Becoming Samogitian” is perceived as a simple, inevitable matter, with no choice involved. This again proves that people speak dialectally in their environment (in both private and public spaces), and that this linguistic 190 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXV Skuodo apylinkių žemaičių kalbinės nuostatos code is widely used. Such a shift to dialect use can also be associated with age, when children, as they grow older, will begin to speak dialectally. Innateness. Innateness was mentioned twice. In this case, a person who uses dialect is understood to have acquired dialectal speech from birth. In other words, if you were born into a family and/or environment where people speak dialect, you will inevitably speak dialect too. Perhaps from birth a person is already, as it were, obliged to speak dialect; this is what is destined for them. This is almost impossible to change, because dialect use is tantamount to inevitability—the dialect is regarded as a fateful phenomenon. Thus, what is acquired at birth is understood as immutable (much as in the case of the static environment). For this reason, not using dialect seems completely incomprehensible and unjustifiable, provoking indignation (cf. quotations 2–8, 19). This view would accord with the descriptions mentioned once each: it cannot be otherwise and one cannot speak otherwise. The second expression is more specific, referring explicitly to speaking. On the one hand, this view might seem rather radical, since it emphasizes only one way of speaking—dialect—while the standard language is seemingly not acknowledged or understood as a possible and appropriate option. If a person knows how to speak dialect, they must speak that way; in this case, a Samogitian must speak Samogitian (cf. quotation 16). On the other hand, this should not be associated with radicalism. Such thoughts indicate that dialect is commonplace (confirming the fact already mentioned) and is understood as a mother tongue. The inability to speak otherwise can also be understood as difficulty using the standard language, since speaking one’s native dialect is much simpler, easier, and more natural. Not only is it easier, but it is also more sincere, because it is precisely sincerity and simplicity (or the lack of these qualities) that the informants notice, for example: (28) It’s just easier to talk, more heartfelt, more straightforward. But when you’ve learned the language, somehow the words never quite seem right, as if they’re not the right words, as if that language isn’t really the language, as if something is missing. [Ž. V., m., 23 y., S.] (29) Here at school, for example, with the children, or here at work with the children, according to pedagogy we ought to speak correct Lithuanian. But there’s always something, and the children themselves too. And when you start talking, it’s Samogitian, because they speak Samogitian among themselves. And you start talking in a way you can get along with them, so you don’t have to scold them, so they don’t get angry. If someone there started swearing, saying something like “may green toads grow out of your backside,” or something like that—I’m just saying this by the way, I wouldn’t say it here—but if you said something like that in Samogitian, then that child would suddenly see you as one of their own. [V. M., m., 31 y., S.] (30) It’s so pleasant, so pleasant when you hear someone from somewhere in the family say something in Samogitian. It feels so good in your heart—you realize you’re a Samogitian. Or when you’re among those artists, and you’re a Samogitian, it feels so good in my heart. Artists, whoever they may be, they’re all, well, Samogitians, from Samogitia; these are our people, our people—with such joy. [D. Č., m., 84 y., V.] (31) Samogitian—we don’t speak Polish anymore. [A. L., m., 87 y., L.] Straipsniai / Articles 191 SIMONA VYNIAUTAITĖ (32) Only when I was walking around Mosėdis with the local elder did I realize that, if you have not learned literary language, you have not learned how to speak the standard language properly. Almost nobody has learned how to speak properly; they just try to speak, and sometimes it sounds comical. It would be better if we spoke Samogitian, and then it wouldn’t be comical. But what can you do? People want to be genteel. [A. Z., v., 59 m., M.] It is not only pleasant to speak dialect oneself; people also take pleasure in the speech of others, especially Samogitians living outside Samogitia, or well-known people in general. The opposite of speaking dialect—in this case, the standard language—is described as characteristic of, and fitting for, gentlemen: “genteel.” The roots of this understanding should be sought in the past, since for a time the standard language was regarded as “genteel, urban,” but it should also be emphasized that this view persists among Samogitians today (Kalnius 2012: 321); according to A. Čepaitienė, such linguistic “genteelness” should be associated with historically enduring stereotypes about the backwardness of Lithuanians and Polish lords (2001: 191). Thus, the association between the standard language and gentlemen becomes quite understandable. The description of Samogitian speech as “peasant-like” and as an ugly way of speaking—“it’s been that way since olden times—peasant-like, coarse, very coarse” [M. U., m., 71 m., Y.])—which is attributed to the Samogitian dialect, regarded by the informants as characteristic of ordinary, sincere people, would confirm that the standard language is considered a marker of “genteelness.” The components of the inevitability dimension again point to certain essential phenomena: habituation → the validity of the concept of the mother tongue, environment → the use of dialect across various spheres, nativeness → immutability. 2.3. Dialect – limitation This dimension is associated with components that simplify the dialect and its use, restrict them, and confine them within certain limits. In this case, these are rurality, age, education. These components may also make the dialect unattractive and undermine its prospects. Rurality. A person who speaks dialect was associated with the countryside eight times. This component can be understood as a specific geographical or social category. On the one hand, it is logical that rural residents speak dialect, since rural and urban spaces and people’s ways of life differ. It is argued that “urban space, including its linguistic dimension, changes more quickly and markedly; it is constantly being reconstructed under the influence of social, political, economic, and cultural factors, as well as everyday communicative practices” (Ramonienė 2010: 279). Given the instability and constant change characteristic of cities, the association between dialect and the countryside becomes quite persuasive. The informants themselves noted the difference between dialect use in villages and cities: (34) City people speak differently; country people speak in a rougher way. [B. B., m., 82 m., V.] 192 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXV Skuodo apylinkių žemaičių kalbinės nuostatos (35) And then, I say, when you chat with country people, we townspeople here seem a little alien. [A. R. Š., m., 70 m., S.] (36) Well, the older people speak that way; nowadays the speech is changing a little, but in the villages, where they live farther away, they still speak it authentically and continue to speak it; they still try to speak more precisely, in that authentic language. [B. L., m., 61 m., M.] The speech of rural people is perceived as more authentic, “truer,” less influenced by the standard language or other languages, and also as rougher. Sometimes the non-use of dialect in the city is associated with a reluctance to stand out or draw attention to oneself, cf.: (37) go to Vilnius—everyone speaks Aukštaitian; say something in Samogitian and everyone turns to look at you; it sounds like you’re speaking some kind of foreign language [B. P., m., 18 m., K.] The distinctiveness of the linguistic code is emphasized (both in relation to other dialects and to the standard language), and it often becomes 10a reason for considering a dialect a language. It is argued that “the failure of communication—that is, misunderstanding and inability to communicate—is the clearest proof of a dialect’s cultural value” (All dialects are the most beautiful 2013: 10). Lack of understanding can be assessed not only from a cultural perspective, but also as an indicator of the distinction between dialect and language, although this distinction is reciprocal (Groves 2007: 9). In this case, lack of understanding serves a differentiating function. Many informants noted that others who do not know Samogitian do not understand this linguistic code11, e.g.: (38) A lot of people in the city don’t understand Samogitian speech. [G. L., m., 19 m., Y.] (39) When I went to Vilnius, <...> everyone from all over Lithuania had gathered there, with all kinds of dialects. Most people spoke more or less standard language. Well, it was hard for me to adjust, very hard. At first I spoke Samogitian, and, oh God, they just looked and listened—didn’t understand. [L. Š., m., 52 m., Y.] (40) Well, yes, they don’t understand our speech. [Z. A., m., 69 m., Š.] (41) Well, they don’t understand, they don’t understand [non-Samogitians]. But we are an original people; we understand all those dialects, all those dialects we understand. [S. J., m., 71 m., S.] (42) Žēnā, anēi [aukštaičiai] mūsa nesopr ont. Aš anū vės tēik šēik tēik sopronto. [E. M., m., 87 m., L.] (43) And there [in Birštonas] they were looking at us so strangely, as if they didn’t understand Samogitian. But a Samogitian always speaks: either Russian, or Latvian, or Yiddish <...>. A Samogitian speaks all languages. [K. R., m., 80 m., K.] 10 Nors bandoma nustatyti kriterijus, skiriančius kalbas (pavyzdžiui, Wardhaugh 2006: 33), konstatuojama, kad „kalbos ir dialekto problema lingvistikoje (ir ne tik) apskritai yra neišsprendžiama“ (Aliūkaitė 2013a: 4). Taigi neretai daug kas priklauso nuo požiūrio ar interpretacijos. 11 The claim about incomprehensibility is also confirmed by the results of surveys of residents of various cities, since the Samogitian dialect is considered the least comprehensible (cf. Baranauskienė, Krupickaitė 2012: 4). Straipsniai / Articles 193 SIMONA VYNIAUTAITĖ In some cases, the city is emphasized as a space where the Samogitian dialect is not understood and perhaps not used. In general, the city is often regarded as a model of a non-dialectal linguistic environment (cf. Vaicekauskienė 2014: 13). Thus, the category of the village as a geographical environment is confirmed. Interesting observations are made when it is stated that Samogitians find it easier to understand other dialects than speakers of other subdialects find it to understand Samogitian, or that it is easier for them to learn other languages in general. This can be linked to the degree of difference between dialects and the standard language. Since the basis of the standard language is the Western Aukštaitian Kaunas subdialect, the differences between the standard language and the Samogitian dialect are quite substantial. Essentially, one has to learn the standard language as another linguistic system, which is why the respondents feel that it is much easier to understand other dialects if one is a user of a linguistic code that differs considerably. Respondents consciously or unconsciously distinguish dialect and standard language as two opposing linguistic systems, for example: (44) When I started to understand, as they say, that you have to learn standard Lithuanian, because otherwise you won’t manage at school; as they say, they’ll give you dictations and you’ll get only a two, so you had to adapt, there was no getting around it. You had to learn another language, as I say [about correct standard language]. <...>. It’s very difficult, and for a Samogitian, endlessly so. Well, either it’s very easy or it’s very difficult. If you’ve already, as they say, learned it, then you know how to do it, and then it’s very easy; but if you haven’t grasped it, everything will be very difficult for you. [Ž. V., m., 23 m., S.] (45) I translated from Samogitian into Lithuanian. Sometimes, in “Mūsa žuodie,” for example, and “Vakarū Lietuva,” those are also supplements; there are little pages there that someone shows in some way, and people don’t understand them. So you take them and translate them into Lithuanian. [A. R. Š., m., 70 m., S.] (46) I consider it a very bad thing, a very bad thing, when people say, “Well, teach Samogitian from the first grade.” That’s a very bad thing, a very bad thing. <...>. If you teach that child to read Samogitian from the first grade, they wouldn’t be able to read [in Lithuanian] at all; you’d confuse them, and they wouldn’t be able to read a Lithuanian book anymore. <...>. They’d remain like a foreigner. [V. N., m., 80 m., L.] Efforts to adapt and the difficulty of learning the standard language are emphasized. It is regarded as a linguistic code that must be learned just like a foreign one. The standard language is also understood as the linguistic code used so that others (non-Samogitians) can understand. There is no doubt that the standard language will be understood, whereas the Samogitian dialect will not always be (cf. (47) I feel calmer and safer speaking standard Lithuanian, somehow, that’s how it is [G. J., m., 38 m., Y.]. For this reason, lack of understanding (perhaps at times imagined) often becomes the main reason for not speaking dialectally and for adapting to the interlocutor’s linguistic code. Emphasizing the difference between dialect and standard language, it is stated that in certain cases one has to translate from one linguistic code into another. In LKŽe (2008), the verb versti has the meaning ‘to render a text in one language in another language’ (DLKŽe 2011 has an analogous 194 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXV Skuodo apylinkių žemaičių kalbinės nuostatos meaning 11). By using this verb, the respondent probably has two separate linguistic systems in mind. The difference is especially pronounced in example 46. Although it is not stated directly that the Samogitian dialect is a language, the idea that if children are taught in Samogitian they will no longer know the standard language—specifically, how to read it (speaking is not mentioned. Since speaking is learned earlier and reading later—and reading must be learned by developing skills—it is understood as the domain in which irreparable “damage” could be done. The fact that some letters differ when writing in Samogitian probably also contributes to this view12) proves that the linguistic codes are entirely different. In the respondent’s subconscious, the two linguistic codes are understood as two separate linguistic systems. This evokes an association with foreignness, since such a person is understood as a member of another nation. In this case, lack of language proficiency leads to cultural differences and national differentiation. This is the opposite case, in which it is not the non-use of the dialect but the expansion of its forms of use that separates a person from their own (cf. non-use of the dialect in the community). The notion of the village as more of a social category than a geographical space is also possible. According to P. Kalnius, the mental type differs somewhat, as does its prominence among Samogitians living in villages and cities (2007: 108). Nevertheless, it is likely that respondents did not choose this description precisely because of its association with social status—that is, because of the association of the nouns kaimietis, kaimas with a certain disparagement. The noun kaimas can be understood as ‘a bumpkin, ignoramus, fool, simpleton, dimwit, dullard, loser, failure, or idiot’ (Lietuvių žargono bazė. Pagrindiniai duomenys 2010: 88), although neither the North-Western Samogitian Dictionary (Vana-gienė 2014: 247) nor other dictionaries (DLKŽe; LKŽe) indicate any negative connotations. In general, most respondents are disinclined to associate dialect speech with social or geographical rurality (notably, among those who chose this description, there is only one representative each of the middle and younger generations, so younger informants find this association quite unacceptable). This means that respondents understand dialect speech as entirely possible, even commonplace, in cities. This is a fairly new, non-traditional view, indicating the vitality of the dialect rather than its confinement to villages: (48) Well, what does being a country bumpkin have to do with it? There can be country bumpkins in Aukštaitija too [V. B., m., 44 m., Y.]. In this case, the description is also associated with a specific region (the respondent’s native one)—Samogitia—and therefore provokes a negative reaction. This confirms that respondents do not associate the dialect with inferiority or other negative things. Age. Only three times was a person speaking dialectally identified with an older age group. This is one of the components of the traditional conception of the respondent according to the NORM criterion (Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė 2014b: 32). Even now, there is often a tendency to associate dialect speech with older people. The greatest likelihood is that 12 Plačiau žr. Girdenis, Pabrėža 1998. Straipsniai / Articles 195 SIMONA VYNIAUTAITĖ It is precisely the older generation that knows the dialect well, having retained more of its features. Nevertheless, this description was chosen rarely (it was mentioned by one representative of each generation), which indicates that most informants have a different understanding in mind. For example: (49) That’s exactly what I say—the young people speak Samogitian among themselves. [V. M., v., 31 m., S.] (50) The children are more Samogitian than their parents, than, for example, me and my wife. [D. V., v., 51 m., Š.] (51) Everyone speaks best: both the such-and-such, and the younger, and the older. [Ž. V., v., 23 m., S.] Dialect use is associated with representatives of different generations; people of different ages are understood as being able to speak, and as speaking, dialectally. At the same time, this demonstrates the vitality of the dialect. This understanding is also supported by an analysis of language use across different domains, where only in certain cases can generational influence on the choice of linguistic code be considered. It is also significant that most informants are older, yet do not think that knowing and using the dialect is linked to older age. They seem disinclined to sharply distinguish between generations or generalize about the dialect use of any age group, noticing this only occasionally. There is a view that the younger generation is better at speaking the dialect than the middle generation (cf. quotation 50). In other cases, when the younger generation is viewed critically or their reluctance to speak dialect, their “forgetting” of it, is noticed, a positive change is also discerned, one that comes with experience and the passage of time: (52) It’s such a pity that when the children come back from the town, they start not knowing their parents’ dialect and start speaking the standard language. That really irritates me, honestly. And it’s unpleasant, honestly, to listen to them, but especially after the first or second year of university, later they turn back to being Samogitian, they begin to understand that nobody in that town will laugh at them for not knowing how to speak the standard language. [V. Ž., m., 55 m., Y.] (53) Nowadays, somehow there’s, it seems, a kind of age thing or something: people realize that they need to cherish their language. It seems to me that age does its thing, that one needs to cherish one’s language. [A. T., m., 75 m., Y.] In one case, people come to understand and “return” to their Samogitian identity and language, while in another, this identity is “acquired.” One can discuss the young person as someone searching, unable to distinguish values, as a personality in formation, for whom the use and value of the dialect may fluctuate between “losing” it, “returning” to it, or “discovering” it anew (cf. the case of “becoming Samogitian,” quotation 27). Thus, one could speak only of a temporary linguistic and/or identity-related anti-initiation. In general, older age is still understood as the time when true values—in this case, one’s native dialect—are recognized13. 13 Cf. the greater favorability toward dialects among representatives of different generations of Eastern and Southeastern Vilnius speakers, and the overt prestige of the dialect when demonstrated by young people rather than by the middle-aged and especially the older generation (Urbanavičienė 2014: 72). 196 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXV Skuodo apylinkių žemaičių kalbinės nuostatos Education. On one occasion, a person who spoke dialectally was described as poorly educated. In this case, the influence of limited education on dialect use can be explained in two ways: 1) the dialect speaker does not know how to speak the standard language well and therefore speaks dialect; 2) the dialect speaker knows the standard language well but speaks dialect because of a certain lack of culture or intelligence. In some cases, lower education is considered a more significant sociolinguistic variable than environment (rural area / city) (see Alfonzetti 2015: 26). It is debatable whether education14 really influences attitudes. On the one hand, it is fairly common to assume that a less educated person will know the dialect better, but their attitude toward it and toward people who speak dialect will not always be one of prestige. This is also borne out by the results of the research project Use of Languages and National Identity in Lithuanian Cities15, in which people with less education did not attach much importance to their roots, dialect, or language (Kliukienė 2010: 97). On the other hand, it is likely that a more highly educated person will value dialect speech very highly16, even though they use the standard language more often and may have retained fewer dialect features (cf. “although the ethnic structure of the population is mixed in large cities, the use of dialects is also maintained there, in connection with the population’s higher level of education” (Baranauskienė, Krupickaitė 2012: 22)). Nevertheless, there is no single clear tendency, so limited education may also be associated with a very positive attitude toward dialect, while higher education may be associated only with regarding the standard language as prestigious. Since there is only one such response (from a member of the older generation), dialect is not associated with educational level by almost all informants. This means that both an uneducated person and someone with an excellent education can equally know and speak dialect (cf.: (54) Aplink mumis va čia tamė krašte īr daug žemaitiu ėr gal būtė, ons turietė vėsus ėšsėlavėnemus patius aukščiausius, būtė pasiekęs savo profesinie sritie aukštumū ėr ons gal rokoutėis tik žemaitiška [G. J., m., 38 m., Y.]). As a partial counterpoint to lack of education, another description might be understood as “a intelligent person.” Dialect use is associated with intelligent, wise conduct. It is, as it were, the best choice, consciously made by the person themselves. Perhaps it is thought that using the standard language is less intelligent, or even foolish. Intelligence is always a highly valued human trait and an aspiration; in this case, one can be intelligent and show it by speaking dialect. Thus, dialect speech is understood not as a sign of ignorance or foolishness but, on the contrary, of wisdom. 14 For the informants’ own educational backgrounds, see the Introduction. 15 Studied only in Lithuania’s major cities: Vilnius, Kaunas, Klaipėda 16 A particularly positive evaluation of the dialect is characteristic of northern Samogitian Kretinga speakers with secondary or higher education (Lubienė, Pakalniškienė 2015: 108). Straipsniai / Articles 197 SIMONA VYNIAUTAITĖ In summary, rurality is most closely associated with standing out from others (socially, which often has a negative connotation, or geographically, emphasizing the distinction from the city). Age is considered to have little influence or, conversely, to be a factor in certain changes (usually positive ones). The link between educational level and dialect creates oppositions of good speaker / poor speaker, intelligent / foolish, cultured / uncultured. 3. CONCLUSIONS The linguistic attitudes of Samogitians in the Skuodas area can be summarized through the images of a three-part model, comprising the dimensions of ideal, inevitability, and limitation. Identifying the dialect and the person who speaks it with elements of the ideal dimension (respect, patriotism, tradition) determines the importance of the dialect to its users, as well as its vitality and continuity. “Representing” this dimension is also a conscious choice made by the people themselves. The association between dialect and respect, chosen by the largest number of generations, is linked to prestige. People who can speak dialect but do not are viewed rather negatively. The self–other opposition is brought to the fore because not using the dialect, regarded as the primary linguistic code, separates a community member from the community’s customary traditional system; conversely, speaking dialect demonstrates belonging to the community. The community bond is also supported by the dialect’s association with patriotism, when the dialect is understood as evidence of Samogitian identity and Samogitian self-awareness. This view is linked to the concept of a mother tongue and national consciousness, since 39 (68 percent) of the informants said they were Samogitians (their official ethnicity being Lithuanian). The third element—tradition, which links the past, present, and future, as well as different generations—is the clearest indication of continuity. Speaking dialect is regarded as traditional behavior, more significant than modernity (in this case, the use of the standard language). Adherence to tradition means belonging to one’s own, while breaking with it is understood as a negative thing. The elements of the dimension of inevitability (habit, environment, innate disposition) reflect a neutral, non-idealized image of dialect evaluation. Individual choice has less (or no) influence, unlike in the ideal sphere and its constituent elements. Habit is considered important, because of which dialect is understood as the prevailing, primary language. This is also confirmed by the concept of a mother tongue: most informants (43; 75 percent) regard the Samogitian dialect as their mother tongue. A person who speaks dialect is associated with childhood and adolescence, with a language instilled while growing up. The influence of not only the family (with whose members people speak dialect) and private space, but also public space and geographical factors, becomes apparent. The actual linguistic situation at the research sites is reflected, since multifaceted communication in dialect predominates, although the standard language is also considered acceptable in some places and situations, 198 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXV Skuodo apylinkių žemaičių kalbinės nuostatos usable. Thus, overall, the environment can be considered a favorable medium for dialect speech. The association between dialect and birth expresses fatalism and immutability. The inability to change one’s dialect code is often understood as a sign of simplicity and sincerity, while changing it—in this case, using the standard language—is a sign of “refinement.” The dimension of limitation is associated with such factors as rurality, age, and education, which simplify and restrict the dialect and its use, and may also make the dialect unattractive and lacking in prospects. Rurality can be understood as a specific geographical or social category. In some cases, the city is emphasized as a space where the dialect is not understood or used, so lack of understanding (perhaps sometimes imagined) often becomes the primary reason for not speaking dialect and for adapting to the interlocutor’s linguistic code. There is no doubt that the standard language will be understood, whereas the Samogitian dialect will not always be. Informants consciously or unconsciously distinguish dialect and the standard language as two opposing linguistic systems. The notion of the village, understood more as a social category than as a geographical space, is also possible. In this case, the dialect would be associated with a certain denigration. The association between dialect and social or geographical rurality is least acceptable to younger informants, which means that respondents regard speaking dialect as entirely possible and normal in various geographical and social settings. The use of the dialect is identified with representatives of different generations; people of different ages are considered capable of speaking, and to speak, dialect. In one case, older age is understood as the stage at which the value of dialect use is truly appreciated; in another, the younger generation is regarded as more proficient in the dialect. It is significant that most informants are older, yet do not consider the dialect to be associated with old age. There is little inclination to sharply distinguish between generations or to generalize about the dialect use of any age group. Age is seen as a factor in positive changes that arise through gaining experience, a certain period of time in which a dialect that has been “forgotten” or “lost,” along with its use and value, can “return” or be “rediscovered.” There is little inclination to associate dialect with education, especially limited education. There is no single clear trend; thus, a lower level of education may also be associated with a very positive attitude toward the dialect, while a higher level may be associated only with viewing the standard language as prestigious—or vice versa. LITERATŪRA Alfonzetti Giovanna 2015: Age-related Variation in Code-switching between Italian and the Sicilian Dialect. – Athens Journal of Philology 2(1), 21–34. Prieiga per internetą http://www.athensjournals.gr/philology/2015-2-1-2-Alfonzetti.pdf. Straipsniai / Articles 199 SIMONA VYNIAUTAITĖ Aliūkaitė Daiva 2011: Kultūrinės tyrimų schemos geolingvistikos paradigmoje: dėl kai kurių sociolingvistinės anketos klausimų. – Valoda 21, 11–17. Aliūkaitė Daiva 2013a: Horizontalusis ir vertikalusis kalbos kontinuumo skaidumas: XXI amžiaus kalbėjimo variantai paprastojo kalbos vertintojo požiūriu. – Taikomoji kalbotyra 2. Prieiga per internetą http://taikomojikalbotyra.lt.azalija.serveriai.lt/lt/2013/03/horizontalusis-ir-vertikalusis-kalbos-kontinuumo-skaidumas-xxi-amziaus-kalbejimo-variantai-paprastojo-kalbos-vertintojo-poziuriu. Aliūkaitė Daiva 2013b: Kalbos variantiškumas paauglių akimis: lyties kintamasis. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 69, 219–268. Aliūkaitė Daiva, Rima Bakšienė, Jurgita Jaroslavienė ir kt. 2014: Punktų tinklo tankis geolingvistinės skirties aukštaičiai: žemaičiai požiūriu. – XXI a. pradžios lietuvių tarmės: geolingvistinis ir sociolingvistinis tyrimas (žemėlapiai ir jų komentarai), sud. D. Mikulėnienė, V. Meiliūnaitė, žemėlapius parengė V. Čėponis. Vilnius: Briedis, 129–196. Aliūkaitė Daiva, Danguolė Mikulėnienė 2014a: Geoletktų ir regioninių dialektų formavimosi ypatumai Lietuvoje. – XXI a. pradžios lietuvių tarmės: geolingvistinis ir sociolingvistinis tyrimas (žemėlapiai ir jų komentarai), sud. D. Mikulėnienė, V. Meiliūnaitė, žemėlapius parengė V. Čėponis. Vilnius: Briedis, 257–262. Aliūkaitė Daiva, Mikulėnienė Danguolė 2014b: Geolingvistika: ideologija, teorija ir metodai. Pagrindinės sąvokos. – XXI a. pradžios lietuvių tarmės: geolingvistinis ir sociolingvistinis tyrimas (žemėlapiai ir jų komentarai), sud. D. Mikulėnienė, V. Meiliūnaitė, žemėlapius parengė V. Čėponis. Vilnius: Briedis, 29–47. Auer Peter 2011: Dialect vs. standard: a typology of scenarios in Europe. – The languages and linguistics of Europe. A comprehensive guide, ed. by B. Kortmann and J. van der Auwera. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 485–500. Baranauskienė Viktorija, Krupickaitė Dovilė 2012: Lietuvos miestų gyventojų tarminės regioninės savimonės ypatumai (sociolingvistinio tyrimo duomenimis). – Taikomoji kalbotyra 1. Prieiga per internetą http://taikomojikalbotyra.lt/lt/2012/10/lietuvos-miestu-gyventoju-tarmines-regionines-savimones-ypatumai-sociolingvistinio-tyrimo-duomenimis. Bliumas Remigijus 2000: Aukštaičių ir žemaičių etninės priklausomybės determinuotų psichinių reiškinių savitumai. – Etniskumo studijos: teoriniai samprotavimai ir empiriniai tyrimai. Vilnius: Eugrimas, 53–64. Čepaitienė Auksuolė 2001: Atgaivinant etninį tapatumą: individas, simbolis, vieta. – Lietuvos etnologija: socialinės antropologijos ir etnologijos studijos 1(10), 167–198. 200 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXV Skuodo apylinkių žemaičių kalbinės nuostatos Čepienė Irena 2014: Kai kurie mitinės pasaulėkūros aspektai lietuvių tradicinėje kultūroje. – Geografija ir edukacija 2, 56–65. DLKŽe 2011 – Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas, šeštas (trečias elektroninis) leidimas, vyr. red. Stasys Keinys. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2011. Prieiga per internetą http://dz.lki.lt. Garrett Peter, Coupland Nikolas, Williams Angie 2003: Investigating Language Attitudes: Social Meanings of Dialect, Ethnicity and Performance. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. Girdenis Aleksas 2012: Šiaurės žemaičių Skuodo zona. Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. Girdenis Aleksas, Pabrėža Juozas 1998: Žemaičių rašyba. Vilnius, Šiauliai: Žemaičių kultūros draugijos redakcija. Gottlieb Nanette 2006: Linguistic Stereotyping and Minority Groups in Japan. London: Routledge. Groves Julie May 2007: A comparison of the attitudes of Hong Kongers and Mainland Chinese towards the status of Cantonese: Language or Dialect - or Topolect? The Chinese University of Hong Kong. Kalnius Petras 2007: Regioninių tapatumų judėjimo prieštaros dabartinėje Lietuvoje. – Lituanistica 53, 3(71), 92–112. Kalnius Petras 2012: Žemaičiai: XX a. – XXI a. pradžia. Vilnius: Mintis. Kliukienė Regina 2010: Tarmės mieste: mokėjimas, vartojimas ir kalbinės nuostatos. – Miestai ir kalbos. Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla, 91–101. Kliukienė Regina 2014: Kalbėjimas su tėvais tarmiškai ir gyventojų požiūris į tarmes Žemaitijos miestuose (kiekybinė analizė). – Taikomoji kalbotyra 5. Prieiga per internetą http://taikomojikalbotyra.lt/lt/2014/04/kalbejimas-su-tevais-tarmiskai-ir-gyventoju-poziuris-i-tarmes-zemaitijos-miestuose-kiekybine-analize. Lietuvių kalbos atlasas, ats. red. Kazys Morkūnas. 1. Leksika. 1977; 2. Fonetika. 1982; 3. Morfologija. 1991. Vilnius: Mokslas. Lietuvių žargono bazė. Pagrindiniai duomenys 2010. Vilniaus universitetas, Filologijos fakultetas. Prieiga per internetą http://www.flf.vu.lt/mokslas/elektroniniai-istekliai#duomen%C5%B3-baz%C4%97s. LKŽe – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 1–20, 1941–2002, elektroninis variantas. Redaktorių kolegija: Gertrūda Naktinienė (vyr. red.), Jonas Paulauskas, Ritutė Petrokienė, Straipsniai / Articles 201 SIMONA VYNIAUTAITĖ Vytautas Vitkauskas, Jolanta Zabarskaitė. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2008. Prieiga per internetą http://www.lkz.lt. Lubienė Jūratė, Pakalniškienė Dalia 2015: Tarmė moderniojoje Lietuvoje: šiaurės žemaičių kretingiškių atvejis. – Res Humanitariae 17, 101–113. Miestai ir kalbos 2. Sociolingvistinis Lietuvos žemėlapis, sud. V. Baranauskienė. Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla, 2013. Mikulėnienė Danguolė 2015: Prognostiniai tar mių tyrimai daugiadimensės dialektologijos požiūriu. – XII tarptautinis baltistų kongresas: pranešimų tezės (2015 m. spalio 28–31 d.), 103. Prieiga per internetą http://www.baltistukongresas.flf.vu.lt/failai/XII_Tarptautinio_baltistu_kongreso_tezes.pdf. Pabrėža Juozas 2013: Šiaurės žemaičių gimtosios kalbos, tautinės ir tarminės savimonės vertinimas. – Tarptautinė tarpdalykinė mokslinė konferencija XXI amžiaus tarmių tyrimai: geolingvistinė ir sociolingvistinė perspektyvos. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 1–9. Prieiga per internetą http://www.tarmes.lt/images/Veikla/Juozo%20Pabrezos%20pranesimas.pdf. Pakalniškis Vaidotas 2001: Žemaitiškumas globaliame pasaulyje. – Lietuvos etnologija 1(10), 199–216. Petrulis Valdas 2005: Žemaitijos etninės savimonės regiono erdvinė struktūra. – Geografijos metraštis 38(1), 163–175. Račiūnaitė-Vyč inienė Daiva 2014: Individuali tautinės savimonės raiška Lietuvos paribio bendruomenėje: sava / kita. – Savas ir kitas šiuolaikiniais požiūriais. Vilnius: Lietuvos istorijos instituto leidykla, 209–236. Ramonienė Meilutė 2010: Išvados. Kalbos didžiuosiuose Lietuvos miestuose: šiandiena ir perspektyvos. – Miestai ir kalbos. Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla, 279–286. Ramonienė Meilutė 2013: Tarmės socialinė vertė: Lietuvos miestų jaunimo kalbinės nuostatos. – Taikomoji kalbotyra 2. Prieiga per internetą http://taikomojikalbotyra.lt/lt/2013/08/tarmes-socialine-verte-lietuvos-miestu-jaunimo-kalbines-nuostatos. Savoniakaitė Vida 2013: Tradicijos: etnologų, antropologų metodologijos ir tyrimai. – Res Humanitariae 13, 246–266. Unukovičius Jurijus 2014: Lietuvių įvaizdis Vilniaus krašto slavakalbių gyventojų akimis. – Savas ir kitas šiuolaikiniais požiūriais. Vilnius: Lietuvos istorijos instituto leidykla, 183–205. Urbanavičienė Jolita 2014: Rytų ir pietryčių vilniškių kalbinės nuostatos. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 70, 63–81. 202 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXV Skuodo apylinkių žemaičių kalbinės nuostatos Vaicekauskienė Loreta 2014: Didmiestis ir sostinė geriausios lietuvių kalbos percepcijose. – Taikomoji kalbotyra 6. Prieiga per internetą http://mif.vu.lt/ojs/index.php/taikomoji-kalbotyra/article/view/52/47. Vaicekauskienė Loreta, Sausverde Érika 2012: Lietuvos tarmių rezervatas. Socialiniai ir geografiniai tarmės mobilumo ribojimai tiesioginių tyrimų duomenimis. – Taikomoji kalbotyra 1. Prieiga per internetą http://taikomojikalbotyra.lt/lt/2012/12/lietuvos-tarmiu-rezervatas-socialiniai-ir-geografiniai-tarmes-mobilumo-ribojimai-tiesioginiu-tyrimu-duomenimis. Vanagienė Birutė 2014: Šiaurės vakarų žemaičių žodynas: Ylakių, Len kimų, Mosėdžio, Skuodo, Šačių apylinkių šnektos. A–O. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Venskienė Asta 2008: Lokal us etnografinis jaunimo tapatumas XIX a. pabaigoje–XXI a. pradžioje Lietuvoje: kultūros elementų savastis. – Lituanistica 54, 2(74), 69–81. Visos tarmės gražiausios 2013. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos centras. Wardhaugh Ronald 2006: An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Fifth Edition. Oxford: Blackwell. Language attitudes of Samogitians in Skuodas district SUMMARY The article analyses the language attitudes of Samogitians in Skuodas district, namely the native dialects and the evaluation of people speaking a dialect. The broad-brush trinomial model is applied in the analysis which helps to unveil different dimensions of dialect evaluation, such as ideal, inevitability, limitation. The analysis presents the conceptions of dialect evaluation and native language as well as the possible connections of psychological distinction. It is concluded that the identification of a particular dialect or a person speaking a dialect with the elements of the dimension of ideal (respect, patriotism, tradition) determines or may determine the importance, vitality and continuity of the dialect to its user. The opposition of own-strange is highlighted since the disuse of the dialect, which is considered to be the main linguistic code, separates a community member from a common traditional community system. Usually, people who can but do not speak a dialect are judged on quite negatively. Contrary to the case of disuse of the dialect, speaking a dialect shows that Straipsniai / Articles 203 SIMONA VYNIAUTAITĖ a person belongs to the community and it also becomes a sign of sincerity and simplicity. The elements of habit, surroundings and nature, which compose the dimension of inevitability, reflect a neutral and non-ideal image of dialect evaluation. The habit is related to the validity of the dialect as a concept of native language; surroundings are related to the use of the dialect in different spheres, and nature becomes a reference to the continuity of the dialect. The elements of the dimension of limitation, such as country, age, education, simplify and limit the dialect and its use and may determine the dialect’s unattractiveness and its prospectlessness, or may be the factors of certain changes in the use and value of the dialect. Įteikta 2016 m. liepos 8 d. SIMONA VYNIAUTAITĖ Lietuvių kalbos institutas Petro Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius, Lietuva [email protected] 204 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXV