Go to originalLocalized version was produced by AI. It may contain inaccuracies.
Preparing document pages…
Page 1
DAIVA ALIŪKAITĖ
Vilniaus universitetas
Research areas: geolinguistics, perceptual dialectology, sociolinguistics, cognitive linguistics.
DANGUOLĖ MIKULĖNIENĖ
Institute of the Lithuanian Language, Vilnius University
Research areas: geolinguistics, Baltic dialectology, synchronic and diachronic accentology, morphonology, language history, history of Lithuanian linguistics.
INSTRUMENTS AND RESEARCH DIRECTIONS IN PERCEPTUAL DIALECTOLOGY: AREAS OF VARIANTS ON MENTAL MAPS (THE BIRŽAI CASE)
Perceptual Dialectology Instruments and Directions for Research: Areas of Variants in Mental Maps (Case of Biržai)
ANNOTATION
The article discusses the applicability of perceptual dialectology principles to research on Lithuanian regional variation and provides a brief history of the development of perceptual dialectology principles. The basis of the article’s empirical section is material from the research project The Place of Standard Lithuanian in the Mental Map of the Lithuanian Language. Drawing on data from a study conducted in the Biržai geole ct area, one of the project’s research sites, the article demonstrates how research based on the principles of perceptual dialectology can be integrated into the study of traditional Lithuanian dialects and their newer formations.
Straipsniai / Articles
89
Page 2
DAIVA ALIŪKAITĖ, DANGUOLĖ MIKULĖNIENĖ
The article focuses primarily on data from the so-called drawn-map (lit. draw a map) task in the Biržai geole ct area.
The nature and density of perceptual isoglosses on young Biržai residents’ drawn maps reveal that ordinary members of the speech community have different conceptions of dialectalness as a set of distinguishing features. The young Biržai residents’ drawn maps indicate a non-conflictual relationship with the surrounding code, which in turn points to an optimistic future for the Biržai geole ct.
The paper discusses the possibilities of application of the principles of perceptual dialectology in the Lithuanian regional variability research. In addition, a brief history of the principles of perceptual dialectology formation is introduced. The foundation of the research part of the paper is the material from the scientific project Standard Lithuanian Language Place in the Mental Map. On the basis of research data of one of the area points – the geolect of Biržai – this paper shows how the research based on the principles of perceptual dialectology can be integrated into the study of traditional Lithuanian dialects and new new varieties. The article focuses on the data of the task “draw a map” in the area of the geolect of Biržai.
The character and density of perceptive isogloss in the drawn maps of the young residents of Biržai reveals that the ordinary members of the language community have different images of dialecticism as distinctive features. The drawn maps of the young residents of Biržai show a non-conflicting relationship with the code of environment, which, in turn, draws optimistic prospects for the geolect of Biržai.
KEYWORDS: perceptual dialectology, mental map, linguistic homeland, Lithuanian dialects, geolect of Biržai.
This article discusses the possibilities for applying the principles of perceptual dialectology to research on Lithuanian regional variation. It draws on theoretical and methodological discourses in perceptual dialectology and analytical discourses on regional variation (primarily the dissemination of geolinguistic thought).
Such research is not new worldwide. The principles of contemporary perceptual dialectology have already been applied in the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, and several European countries. Over the past decade, work in this paradigm has also become more abundant in Lithuania (cf. Aliūkaitė 2009; Aliūkaitė, Merkytė-Švarcienė 2012).
90
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIV
Page 3
Perceptyviosios dialektologijos instrumentai ir tyrimų kryptys: variantų arealai mentaliniuose žemėlapiuose (Biržų atvejis)
Earlier sociolinguistic studies by Lithuanian dialectologists also occasionally featured conceptual links with the principles of perceptual dialectology (see Grumadienė 1980: 91–93; Kačiūskienė 2003: 88–91; Kačiūškienė 2004: 103–108; Kačiūškienė 2005: 49–54; Kačiūskienė, Barvydytė 2006: 8–14; Tumėnas 2003: 238–242; Tumėnas, Račkauskas 2004: 222–224, etc.), but one of the most important components of perceptual research—the mental map task—has not yet been applied systematically.
Thus, the aim of this article is to demonstrate how the principles of perceptual dialectology can be applied to the study of traditional Lithuanian dialects and their new formations.
All empirical illustrations of the insights presented in this article are based on material¹ from the research project Bendrinės kalbos vieta mentaliniame lietuvių kalbos žemėlapyje. During 2014–2016, a study of geolinguistic competence was conducted in several ethnographic regions of Lithuania (see Fig. 1 for the sample of survey locations), using an empirical research instrument designed according to the principles of perceptual dialectology to investigate conscious attitudes verbalized and visualized on mental maps.
1 FIG. Survey locations for the project Bendrinės kalbos vieta mentaliniame lietuvių kalbos žemėlapyje
In designing the research instrument for the project Bendrinės kalbos vieta mentaliniame lietuvių kalbos žemėlapyje, the general principles for constructing dialectological and sociolinguistic questionnaires were followed; that is, the aim was to identify and record
1 The project Bendrinės kalbos vieta mentaliniame lietuvių kalbos žemėlapyje is being carried out under the 2011–2020 Programme for Research into the Functioning and Change of Standard Lithuanian, Dialects and Other Language Varieties. It is funded by the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language (project leader Associate Professor Daiva Aliūkaitė).
Straipsniai / Articles
91
Page 4
DAIVA ALIŪKAITĖ, DANGUOLĖ MIKULĖNIENĖ
the participants’ sociodemographic data, which serve as the initial reference point for data classification and organization in subsequent stages of the study; participants were therefore asked to indicate their age, gender, place of origin, and place of residence.
More than 2,000 young people took part in the study. This article does not focus on the project’s entire dataset; rather, it seeks to develop a discourse on perceptual dialectology illustratively, and therefore discusses only the geolinguistic competence of school-age youth in one regional city. All project data will be discussed in detail in other scholarly publications disseminating the project’s findings.
Geolinguistic competence is the knowledge and ability to recognize linguistic variation and relate it to particular areas—geographical (i.e., territorial variables), social (i.e., social variables), and cultural (i.e., cultural variables/cultural dimensions).
The subject of this article is the evaluation, from the perspective of young residents of Biržai, of the speech varieties spoken in the vicinity of Biržai and classified as belonging to the Panevėžys subdialect of Eastern Aukštaitian, as well as their geolinguistic competence.
It should be emphasized that the model for studying geolinguistic competence in communities across Lithuania’s regions is not merely a mechanical reproduction of contemporary perceptual-dialectology approaches: a consistent effort is made to adhere to the principle of perceptual dialectology that distinguishes this paradigm from other techniques for studying language attitudes—namely, that both verbalized and visualized attitudes of language users are investigated.
1. REGIONAL VARIATION FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF PERCEPTUAL DIALECTOLOGY
As Chris Montgomery and Joan Beal, two representatives of contemporary perceptual dialectology, aptly observe, perceptual dialectology is a speaker-focused paradigm (an. speaker-focused paradigm) (Montgomery, Beal 2011: 121).
The question of the geolinguistic competence of an ordinary member of a speech community began to be raised at the same time as the first dialect atlases were being compiled in Europe; compare Georg Wenker’s research in Germany and Jules Louis Gilliéron’s research in France (Mesthrie 2003: 44–75; Schrambke 2010: 87–106). Dutch and Japanese scholars were the first to introduce into the discourse on the analysis of variation a critical assessment of the linguistic environment of an ordinary member of a speech community.
92
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIV
Page 5
Perceptyviosios dialektologijos instrumentai ir tyrimų kryptys: variantų arealai mentaliniuose žemėlapiuose (Biržų atvejis)
1.1. Dutch Perceptual Dialectology
The beginnings of perceptual dialectology in the Netherlands can be dated to 1886, when Pieter Willems’s research questionnaire was published. One of its questions was intended to establish where, in the view of ordinary members of the speech community, people spoke the same way or similarly to those in their own place of residence (Goeman 1999: 138–139, Preston 2010: 89).
The first systematic study of perceived dialect boundaries (an. perceptual dialect boundaries) was conducted in the 20th century, in 1939, during Dutch dialect research expeditions (Montgomery, Beal 2011: 123). One section of the questionnaire (an. Questionnaire #8) contained two questions about dialect awareness. The first (as in Willems’s 1886 questionnaire) explored an ordinary member of a speech community’s ability to distinguish the linguistic expression of their own environment—that is, where, in the respondent’s opinion, people spoke the same way or almost the same way as in their place of residence. The second explored the opposite: where people spoke completely differently from the respondent’s place of residence. In addition, respondents were asked to list specific local linguistic features (Rensink 1999 (1955): 3).
The next stage in Dutch dialect research came in 1944, when, drawing on the material gathered through the Dutch dialect questionnaire, Antonius A. Weijnen devised the so-called short-line method (Dutch pijltjesmethode) (Preston 1999a: xxvi–xxix): using lines, the researcher connected places that respondents regarded as identical or very similar to the dialect they themselves spoke. Thus, imagined dialect areas were obtained on the basis of dialect-awareness data.
Continuing Weijnen’s work, in 1955 W. G. Rensink produced a composite subjective map of Dutch dialects. It should be noted that its compilation was based only on responses to the first question, concerning dialect similarity (Gooskens, van Bezooijen, Nerbonne 2013: 569). Rensink’s position that the subjective map should be regarded as provisional is noteworthy (Heeringa 2004: 12).
This clearly expresses the insight that subjective maps reflect changing perceptions of dialect variation. Thus, both subjective and objective maps show only the situation in a particular period: in the former case, perceptions are reflected; in the latter, the distribution of dialect features.
1.2. Japanese perceptual dialectology
Attention was also paid to the perception of dialects in the earliest works of Japanese dialectology, published in 1927 (see Montgomery, Beal 2011: 124).
In the seminal work Japanese Dialectology (1954; Japanese: Nihon hōgengaku), the classic of Japanese dialectology, Misao Tôjô, set out the view that, in determining
Straipsniai / Articles
93
Page 6
DAIVA ALIŪKAITĖ, DANGUOLĖ MIKULĖNIENĖ
dialect regions, one must take into account how ordinary people perceive them. The perceptions of the subjects highlight precisely those linguistic features that help distinguish one dialect from another (cited in Sibata 1999: 39).
It should be noted that the principles of traditional perceptual dialectology in Japan differed from those in the Netherlands: the latter emphasized dialect similarities, whereas Japanese scholars asked the subjects to classify dialects according to their degree of difference from one another.
To establish dialect awareness, Japanese linguists asked respondents to rate the speech varieties of villages as: 1) not different; 2) slightly different; 3) considerably different; 4) almost unintelligible (Sibata 1999: 40). Respondents were also asked three additional questions to determine: whether there was any nearby place well known for an unusual speech variety; whether, when hearing someone speak, respondents could identify the area the speaker came from; and whether, when they were children, they had thought that the speech variety of the neighboring village was strange (Sibata 1999: 60).
The logic of the questions—that is, their focus on difference rather than similarity—meant that the arrow method could not be used in Japan. However, Japanese researchers also marked the dialect-awareness data they had collected on maps, using the technique of marking perceptual boundaries (cf. Mase 1999 (1964): 72–97).
The different logic of questionnaire questions—identifying similarities or differences between varieties—proved decisive in determining the (in)accuracy of subjective maps and their (mis)alignment with objective maps: the subjective maps of Dutch dialects, prepared using the arrow method, correlated much more strongly with objective maps than did the Japanese maps.
1.3. Contemporary perceptual dialectology: approaches and instruments
The principles of traditional perceptual dialectology that developed in the Netherlands and Japan, and that established the perspective of the ordinary member of a speech community in classifications of regional varieties, were elaborated in the late twentieth century. Here, the representatives of Japanese dialectology and sociolinguistics should be mentioned first—for example, Kikuo Nomoto (1999 (1963): 63–69), who modeled the principles for combining linguistic isoglosses with isoglosses of the perception of differences (or similarities) (in English, perceptual isoglosses2), or Fumio Inoue (1999 (1995): 147–159), who developed the concept of the dialect image (in English, dialect image), and others.
2 Dėl termino žr. Preston 1999b: 161.
94
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIV
Page 7
Perceptyviosios dialektologijos instrumentai ir tyrimų kryptys: variantų arealai mentaliniuose žemėlapiuose (Biržų atvejis)
However, contemporary perceptual dialectology is primarily associated with Dennis R. Preston’s five-component model of perceptual research (Preston 1989a; 1999a: xxiii–xl; 1999b: 359–373; 2002: 57–104), which, according to Katie Wales (2006: 57–66), earned D. R. Preston the distinction of being named the most prominent representative of this field.
As noted, D. R. Preston’s model of perceptual research comprises five components—tasks: 1) a draw-a-map task (in English, draw-a-map); 2) a task assessing the correctness and pleasantness of dialectal varieties (in English, “correct” and “pleasant”); 3) a task determining the degree of difference between dialectal varieties (in English, degree of difference); 4) a dialect identification task (in English, dialect identification); and 5) a conceptual evaluation task (Preston 1999a: xxxiv–xxxv).
Draw-a-map task for language varieties. In the first task, participants are given a map of an area and asked to mark and define the varieties (dialects). The task map may be blank or include certain landmarks (geographical, administrative, etc.) (for details, see Preston 1988: 379–392; 1999a: xxxiv–xxxv; Aliūkaitė 2009: 167–169).
As Preston emphasizes, from a cognitive perspective, the map drawn by a participant (i.e., with various boundaries between varieties, and so on) is real (in English, cognitively real) (Preston 2013: 169). Thus, although inaccurate, it reflects the user’s active relationship with variation. Whether variation is recognized or not may influence the linguistic behavior of a community member.
Therefore, by drawing on information from such maps, it is possible to assess objective variation and predict the changes and development of regional varieties.
Assessing the correctness and pleasantness of dialectal varieties. When conducting a study to assess the correctness and pleasantness of dialectal varieties, participants are asked to rank and evaluate the varieties according to their correctness and pleasantness (Preston 1999a: xxxiv–xxxv). Such classification and the attitudes toward varieties revealed by ordinary members of a speech community provide information about the linguistic (in)security of the communities studied, or what is known as a dialect (in)feriority complex (in English, dialet inferiority complex3). This task is usually carried out by asking participants to complete semantic differential rating scales (for more, see Preston 2013: 170).
It is worth noting that, conceptually, this task is connected with the concepts developed at that time in the discourse on language attitudes (as a sociolinguistic paradigm) by Howard Giles, Richard Y. Bourhis, and others—the inherent value hypothesis for [sounds, varieties] (in English, inherent value hypothesis) and the imposed norm hypothesis (in English, imposed norm hypothesis) (Giles, Bourhis, Trudgill, Lewis 1974: 405–406). In the view of the proponents of the inherent value hypothesis, some language varieties sound pleasant; they are more attractive and therefore acquire prestige. Whereas, according to the imposed
3 Dėl šio Takesi Sibato koncepto žr. Inoue 1999: 148.
Straipsniai / Articles
95
Page 8
DAIVA ALIŪKAITĖ, DANGUOLĖ MIKULĖNIENĖ
According to the norms hypothesis, variants acquire prestige value through cultural norms—for example, the prestige of the standard variety (in Lithuania, the standard language) may be determined by its status as the state language, and so on.
Determining the degree of difference between dialectal varieties. In the task of determining the degree of difference between varieties (degree of difference; Preston 1999a: xxxiv–xxxv), participants in a perceptual study classify varieties according to their degree of difference, comparing them with the variety spoken in their own region. It should be noted that this task corresponds to the model of dialect awareness developed by the Japanese.
Dialect identification. In the dialect identification task (dialect identification; Preston 1999a: xxxiv– xxxv), participants listen to text stimuli, identify the variety they hear, and associate it with a particular area.
Conceptual evaluation. The conceptual evaluation task collects qualitative data (qualitative data): participants are asked to express their opinions about the tasks they have completed or about language varieties in general, and so on (Preston 1999a: xxxiv–xxxv).
As can be seen, Preston’s five-component research technique is essentially twofold: it encompasses both verbalized and visualized attitudes.
It should be noted that one of the most important components of the study—the task of drawing a map, or mental map—is methodologically linked to the paradigm of cultural geography (Montgomery, Beal 2011: 128–129). On the other hand, the perceptual isoglosses drawn by participants on mental maps connect Preston’s mapping method with the perspectives of traditional perceptual dialectology: the Dutch short-arrow method and the Japanese technique for marking perceptual boundaries.
Over time, approaches in contemporary perceptual dialectology have developed, and the five-component perceptual research model has become merely an initial prototype, continually supplemented by one or another perspective on the assessment of variation. Nevertheless, despite certain distinctions and the diversity of approaches, both traditional and contemporary perceptual dialectology—which identifies linguistic variation and the linguistic landscape through the eyes of the naïve researcher—remains descriptive and multidimensional.
The descriptive nature of this paradigm is critical and reflective. Unlike contemporary dialectology conducted by researchers, perceptual dialectology is conceptually descriptive; that is, it identifies not what variation is, but what it is like for the naïve user and evaluator.
96
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIV
Page 9
Perceptyviosios dialektologijos instrumentai ir tyrimų kryptys: variantų arealai mentaliniuose žemėlapiuose (Biržų atvejis)
2. VARIANT AREAS ON MENTAL MAPS
2.1. Lithuanian questionnaire
An anonymous questionnaire on conscious attitudes was prepared to collect data for the project.
The research questionnaire presents project participants with a two-part task involving a drawn map (see Fig. 2).
Part 1
Part 2
Page 10
DAIVA ALIŪKAITĖ, DANGUOLĖ MIKULĖNIENĖ
It should be noted that the map, as an open-ended question, is a universal technique.
The project Place of the Standard Language on the Mental Map of the Lithuanian Language questionnaire includes open-ended questions about the associations of a person speaking dialectally and a person speaking the standard language; see Fig. 3.
FIG. 3. Tasks on associations with people who speak dialectally and in the standard language
The construction of sociolinguistic portraits of these speakers (from associations) is conceptually linked to the mental map task: the system of speaker characteristics (sociolinguistic portraits) at the stages of research-data analysis and interpretation can be compared with comments on the mental map, that is, emotional or intellectual evaluations of areas. A holistic image of variation and the speakers representing it (prototypes of particular speakers) makes it possible to identify and generalize cultural models of language variants (cf. Berthele 2010: 265–290).
Kaip yra pažymėjęs Willis Diercksas (Diercks 2002: 52—53), dialekto kompetencija (an. dialect competence) apima ne tik gebėjimus skirti, atpažinti kalbinius skirtumus, bet ir įvairius stereotipus apie vietą ar vietovę. Todėl, norint kurti kiek įmanoma tikslesnį diskursą apie paprastųjų kalbos bendruomenės narių mentalinius žemėlapius ar suvokimo izoglosių sistemas, prasminga inventorizuoti ir tas kalbines ypatybes, kurios (kartu su nelingvistiniais kintamaisiais) tampa geolingvistinių arealų skyrimo pagrindu. Tokių „skiriamųjų“ ypatybių fiksavimas yra vertingas regioninių variantų kaitos ir raidos požiūriu.
These data may be useful even from a comparative dialectological perspective—for example, the extent to which, and the kinds of differences that, an ordinary member of the speech community records reflect the system of relevant dialect features that forms the basis for the actual classification of dialects. This perspective may also be meaningful in explaining the convergence of variants.
Thus, another section of the project Place of the Standard Language on the Mental Map of the Lithuanian Language questionnaire is the task on distinguishing features; see Fig. 4.
98
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIV
Page 11
Perceptyviosios dialektologijos instrumentai ir tyrimų kryptys: variantų arealai mentaliniuose žemėlapiuose (Biržų atvejis)
FIG. 4. Distinctive-feature task
Although this task essentially repeats the drawn-map task, it should be noted that differences and/or overlaps between cartographic and verbal classifications may reflect a confrontation between particular knowledge systems, that is, experience and learned knowledge (primarily school-based). The data from this task make it possible to compare the researcher’s perspective with ordinary members of the speech community’s taxonomy of regional variation.
There is no doubt that the system of attitudes, the density of perceptual isoglosses, and the (in)accuracy of the mental map may depend on an ordinary speech-community member’s knowledge of the dialect code and their own productive abilities; therefore, the questionnaire’s introductory section includes questions about dialect competence and language-use activity (see Fig. 5).
FIG. 5. Questions about activity in using the dialect code
It should be noted that the semi-open question (Do you speak dialectally? □ Yes (indicate where _____, with whom___)) is based on the argument of domain theory (Fishman 1972; Hagen 1989). Thus, the information elicited by this question is relevant both to interpreting the mental-map data and, more generally, to assessing and predicting the spread of dialectal variation.
2.2. Prototypical Areas of Regional Variation: The Case of Biržai
As Fig. 1 shows, Biržai is one of the sites included in the perceptual dialectology study. From a geolinguistic perspective, Biržai is the epicenter of one of the most vital traditional dialects of the Eastern Aukštaitian Panevėžiškiai subdialect area, which is becoming a geolect, as recent systematic research in recent years has shown (see Aliūkaitė, Bakšienė, Jaroslavienė et al. 2014: 188–191) (Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė 2014b: 261).
Straipsniai / Articles
99
Page 12
DAIVA ALIŪKAITĖ, DANGUOLĖ MIKULĖNIENĖ
The study involved 196 young people in a regional city in northern Lithuania. The second- and fourth-year students, aged 14–19, at Biržai “Aušra” Secondary School and Biržai “Saulė” Gymnasium (see Fig. 8 for the participants’ characteristics) drew 384 maps: 194 depicting their mental images of dialect codes; 190 showing tendencies in the localization of the standard language; see the table.
TABLE. Characteristics of the young Biržai participants
Total participants Total women Total men Know the dialect Do not know the dialect Speak dialectally Do not speak dialectally Dialect-use frequency 196 121 74 180 14 161 12 100.00% 61.73% 37.76% 91.84% 7.14% 82.14% 6.12% 5.3
First, it should be noted that the drawn maps by 194 young people from Biržai (two participants skipped the drawn-map task in the questionnaire) do not differ from the maps typically obtained in perceptual dialectology studies.
Some participants’ drawn maps are characterized by eclecticism, while on others’ maps perceptual isoglosses segment the entire area of Lithuania. In some cases, dialect-speaking zones are merely marked, with no comments; in others, the markings are supplemented and specified with labels for variants or occasional evaluations of the variants marked. On still other participants’ maps, the comments are consistent, describing all the identified dialect-speaking zones and dialects separated by perceptual isoglosses.
The mental maps of the young people from Biržai can be divided into 6 groups according to the nature and density of their perceptual isoglosses (see Fig. 6).
FIG. 6. Types of mental maps produced by young people from Biržai
100
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIV
Page 13
Perceptyviosios dialektologijos instrumentai ir tyrimų kryptys: variantų arealai mentaliniuose žemėlapiuose (Biržų atvejis)
Birž_1(2)_V02
Birž_1(4)_M06
Birž_1(4)_M20
Birž_1(4)_M10
Birž_2(2)_V13
Birž_1(4)_V19
FIG. 7. The relationship between young people from Biržai’s perceptual isoglosses and dialect classification (examples)
Although young people from Biržai, as they themselves state (see the table data), are active users of the dialect, they are only partly familiar with the binary (Aukštaitian and Samogitian) dialect classification (for this and other examples, see Fig. 7). Only 8.76 percent of young people from Biržai mark Aukštaitian and Samogitian on the sketch map. A somewhat larger number of respondents draw on the sketch map the isoglosses dividing the four dialects (Aukštaitian, Dzūkian, Suvalkian, and Samogitian; the criterion of isogloss accuracy is not applied for now). Some respondents (11.86 percent) model intermediate variants of dialect classification—adding Suvalkian or
Straipsniai / Articles
101
Page 14
DAIVA ALIŪKAITĖ, DANGUOLĖ MIKULĖNIENĖ
the Dzūkians (see Fig. 7). There is no doubt that this reflects the pupils’ knowledge of Lithuania’s ethnographic regions (see also Aliūkaitė 2013).
As mentioned, the final questionnaire task—to name the dialects they know—also correlates with the mental-map task. Thus, it is possible to compare the drawn map with the dialects familiar to the respondent. When listing them, 20.4 percent of respondents mentioned the Aukštaitian and Samogitian dialects. Nearly half of all respondents, that is, 45.4 percent, identified the four-part dialect classification: Aukštaitian, Dzūkian, Suvalkian, and Samogitian.
Birž_1(4)_V03
Birž_1(4)_V01
Birž_1(4)_M30
Birž_1(2)_M03
Birž_2(2)_V11
Birž_2(4)_V18
FIG. 8. Marked zones on the mental maps of young people from Biržai
102
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIV
Page 15
Perceptyviosios dialektologijos instrumentai ir tyrimų kryptys: variantų arealai mentaliniuose žemėlapiuose (Biržų atvejis)
Birž_1(2)_M11
Birž_1(4)_M04
Birž_2(2)_M06
Birž_2(2)_V12
Birž_2(4)_M23
Birž_2(4)_M24
FIG. 9. Mental dialect maps without the native dialect area
The discrepancy between visualized knowledge and verbalized knowledge shows that the conceptualization of regional variation among ordinary members of the speech community integrates both formal and informal knowledge systems—for example, information about dialects and ethnographic regions conveyed in lessons and through various educational projects in public discourse (for example, the Year of Dialects or Year of Regions projects), as well as collective, unverifiable knowledge, whose main channel of dissemination is everyday discourse in the broad sense or the metalinguistic discourse of ordinary members of the speech community.
Straipsniai / Articles
103
Page 16
DAIVA ALIŪKAITĖ, DANGUOLĖ MIKULĖNIENĖ
It is precisely these several overlapping systems of knowledge (including erroneous perceptions) that lead to inconsistency in the conceptualization of variation.
Some of the hand-drawn maps reflect only the identification of individual places as dialect areas; that is, on the hand-drawn map, respondents mark only specific areas as places where dialect is spoken, while their stance on the linguistic codes of other places is not indicated (see Fig. 8).
When respondents differentiate areas of dialect and non-dialect codes on hand-drawn maps, two main tendencies in identifying dialect areas can be observed: 1) respondents mark only the area of their linguistic homeland (for the term, see Diercks 2002: 51–52); 2) respondents distinguish certain—one might say prototypical—areas of dialect codes on the hand-drawn map (see Fig. 8).
Only 7.22 percent of respondents mark their linguistic homeland on the hand-drawn map (see the Birž_1(4)_V03 and Birž_1(4)_V01 maps in Fig. 8). Mental maps on which the linguistic homeland is visually or verbally identified as a dialect-speaking area indicate respondents’ objective relationship to the repertoires of linguistic codes in their living environment.
A conflictual relationship (or at least the preconditions for one) with the code of the linguistic environment would be revealed on a mental map by separating the linguistic homeland from dialect expression. However, there is little inclination to exclude the Biržai area from the areas of dialect codes. In just 3.09 percent of the hand-drawn maps, the Biržai area does not fall among the areas of dialect codes (for examples, see Fig. 9).
As many as 69.59 percent of respondents marked the area of their linguistic homeland among the areas of dialect codes (for example, see the Birž_1(4)_M30, Birž_1(2)_M03, Birž_2(2)_V11, and Birž_2(4)_V18 maps in Fig. 8). The Biržai geolect area was not excluded even from hand-drawn maps on which respondents distinguished only Aukštaitians and Samogitians (see the examples of hand-drawn maps in Fig. 7). Thus, the hand-drawn maps indicate a non-conflictual relationship with the code of the environment, which in turn points to an optimistic outlook for the Biržai geolect.
Nevertheless, young people from Biržai’s answers to the open-ended questionnaire question about associations with a person who speaks dialect show that the conceptualization of regional variation is multilayered and inconsistent. The young people from Biržai themselves identify as representatives of a dialect code—fully 82.14% of respondents stated that they speak dialect (see also Fig. 8) and marked the Biržai area as an area of a dialect code on the hand-drawn map—yet, when listing associations with a person who speaks dialect, they did not hesitate to distance themselves from a typical representative of a dialect code.
In 30.61 percent of respondents’ answers, broadly speaking, oppositional variables emerged—for example, an old (older) person; a rural person; someone with a lower level of education and
104
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIV
Page 17
Perceptyviosios dialektologijos instrumentai ir tyrimų kryptys: variantų arealai mentaliniuose žemėlapiuose (Biržų atvejis)
and so on.4, that is, the sociolinguistic portrait of a dialect speaker is distinguished from the portrait of the participants themselves: young, city-dwelling, educated people.
On the other hand, the structure of the sociolinguistic portrait contains more positive than negative connotative elements (e.g., Birž_1 (2) V08: an ordinary person, someone you can have a chat with and end up feeling cheerful; Birž_1 (2) V13: someone with a sense of duty toward their region; Birž_1 (4) M08: people who cherish their dialect; Birž_1 (4) V06: a person who embellishes the language or cherishes its history; Birž_1 (4) V13: with one’s homeland; Birž_1 (4) V20: easier and quicker communication with friends and others; Birž_2 (2) M14: a dialect speaker who reveals more of themselves).
It is noteworthy that even when participants associate a dialect speaker with a village or an older speaker, they present these characteristics as objective rather than evaluative markers in the sociolinguistic portrait of a dialect speaker, e.g., Birž_1 (2) V06: a dialect speaker is associated with an old person who has maintained and preserved their dialect; Birž_2 (4) M16: with someone who lives in a village, but that is not a bad thing; Birž_2 (4) M41: sometimes with a villager, but only sometimes. Among the participants’ open-ended responses about associations with dialect speakers are some particularly reflective ones, e.g., Birž_2 (4) M41: sometimes with a villager, but only sometimes; Birž_2 (4) M16: with someone who lives in a village, but that is not a bad thing. Such considered responses indicate that the participant is engaged and answers responsibly.
It is plausible that inconsistency in conceptualizing regional variation (for example, I speak dialectally, my linguistic homeland is a zone of dialect codes, but my prototype of a dialect speaker is an old (older) person from a village) is a clear and solid indication of the multilayered nature of dialect codes.
As in objective dialectology, horizontal variation can be divided according to the distribution and intensity of relevant and other features (cf. Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė 2014b: 260–262). As can be seen, the same principle is characteristic of ordinary members of the speech community, except that, of course, in this case no clear classification schemes based on a single criterion are created.
It is precisely from such eclectic maps and mixed attitudes that the ordinary evaluator’s experience of multilayered variation can be reconstructed. Particularly significant for reconstructing the perception of variation are those hand-drawn maps by young people from Biržai in which individual dialect zones are not only identified but also evaluated; that is, on the hand-drawn map, the participants do not merely mark
4A particularly dialect-speaking person is conceptualized by the participant Birž_1 (2) M07: [a dialect-speaking person is] – it depends on which dialect the person speaks. The Aukštaitian and Samogitian dialects are associated with the village. In her hand-drawn map, the participant distinguishes the Aukštaitian, Samogitian, Dzūkian, and Suvalkian dialects, and also lists these dialects in the final task of the research questionnaire. From this response, it can be assumed that dialects are perceived according to a hierarchical system.
Straipsniai / Articles
105
Page 18
DAIVA ALIŪKAITĖ, DANGUOLĖ MIKULĖNIENĖ
specific zones as places where dialect is spoken, but also express an evaluation of the marked linguistic zone (see Fig. 10).
Birž_1(4)_V08
Birž_1(4)_V11
Birž_1(2)_M11
Birž_1(2)_V12
Birž_1(4)_M17
Birž_2(2)_M15
FIG. 10. Evaluated zones on mental maps
Several tendencies emerge from the comments of young people from Biržai: first, dialect codes tend to be conceptualized as attractive but more incorrect than correct. Second, horizontal variation is differentiated internally: some dialect zones are associated with attractive (and less often correct) codes, while others are associated with unattractive codes.
106
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIV
Page 19
Perceptyviosios dialektologijos instrumentai ir tyrimų kryptys: variantų arealai mentaliniuose žemėlapiuose (Biržų atvejis)
It should be noted that in perceptual dialectology research, the juxtaposition of ratings of correctness and attractiveness is a common feature of the image structures of dialect codes (for example, Preston 1989b: 85–111; L’Eplattenier-Saugy 2002: 351–365, etc.). Conceptualization tendencies are related to traditional collective stereotypes, the ideology of the standard language, and the objective linguistic environment.
The linguistic homeland code emerges clearly from the hand-drawn maps of young people from Biržai: it is conceptualized as beautiful and attractive, but incorrect (see examples of hand-drawn map fragments (see Fig. 11).
Birž_1(2)_V04
Birž_1(2)_V03
Birž_1(2)_V07
Birž_1(2)_V11
Birž_2(4)_M26
Birž_1(4)_M12
FIG. 11. Image of the linguistic homeland
There is no doubt that the attractiveness component in the image of a dialect code correlates with the respondents’ linguistic identification. The Biržai code (the respondents refer to it as follows: Birž_1 (2) M06: Biržiečių kalba; Birž_1 (2) V04: aukštaičių biržiečių; Birž_1 (2) V09: biržietiška tarmė; Birž_1 (4) M30: biržietiškai; Birž_2 (2) M21: Biržų krašto tarmė, etc.)—is their own code, and is therefore evaluated favorably. This insight can be illustrated by the respondents’ own comments, for example: Birž_1(4)_M15: graži, nes tai mano gimtoji tarmė; Birž_2(2)_M15: pati gražiausia tarmė. Here, it is worth recalling Renée van Bezooijen’s insights explaining such tendencies in the evaluation of variants, which she summarized in the comprehensibility and identification hypotheses (see van Bezooijen 2002: 15).
It is likely that the correctness component in the image of a dialect code (not only that of the linguistic homeland) correlates with the standard-language factor and can be explained in two ways. First, dialect codes in general are positioned in opposition to the standard language: the standard language is conceptualized as a correct code, while the dialect code (holistically, without even differentiating by zones) is viewed as incorrect (see the map by Birž_1(4)_M23 in Fig. 12). Second, the standard language (more precisely, the image of the standard language held by an ordinary member of the speech community (for the so-called quasi-standard, see Long 1996: 118–135)) serves as a point of reference when respondents rank dialect codes (see the map by Birž_2(4)_M56 in Fig. 12).
Straipsniai / Articles
107
Page 20
DAIVA ALIŪKAITĖ, DANGUOLĖ MIKULĖNIENĖ
Čia prisimintina R. van Bezooijen (2002: 15) vadinamoji panašumo hipotezė, teigianti, kad panašesni į bendrinę kalbą variantai gali sulaukti palankesnio paprastųjų kalbos bendruomenės narių vertinimo. Reikia paminėti, kad ši autorė taip samprotavo apibendrindama estetinio variantų vertinimo polinkius, bet visai tikėtina, kad bendrinės kalbos, kaip taisyklingo kodo prototipo, vaizdinys svarbus (gal net svarbesnis) tarminių kodų taisyklingumo įverčiams.
Birž_1(4)_M23
Birž_2(4)_M56
FIG. 12. The influence of the standard language in comments on mental maps
On the other hand, the influence of linguistic birthplace cannot be ruled out either. From an aesthetic point of view, the Biržai geolect is evaluated very favorably; thus, it is likely that for some respondents their own code serves as a point of reference when differentiating between other variants in terms of attractiveness. One respondent’s comment on a mental map is highly informative – Birž_2(4)_M07: every dialect is beautiful in its own way, but a person from another region will say that their dialect is beautiful and another’s is ugly. My dialect is beautiful to me because I use it. However, it must be acknowledged that a favorable aesthetic evaluation of the linguistic birthplace code is only a tendency, not a rule. There are also different perceptions (Birž_2(4)_M01; see Fig. 13).
Birž_2(4)_M01
Fig. 13. An unfavorable perception of linguistic birthplace
108
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIV
Page 21
Perceptyviosios dialektologijos instrumentai ir tyrimų kryptys: variantų arealai mentaliniuose žemėlapiuose (Biržų atvejis)
Clearly, young people from Biržai have an ambivalent perception of dialectality (in general): permissible: intolerable dialectality. This differentiation is related both to the objective features of variants and to stereotypes, as well as to the factor of communicative success (see the drawn maps Birž_1(2)_V09 and Birž_2(2)_V01 in Fig. 14).
Birž_1(2)_V09
Birž_2(2)_V01
Birž_2(2)_M11
Birž_2(4)_V09
FIG. 14. The ambivalence of perceptions of dialectality
As the research data show, for some young people from Biržai the prototypes of attractive sounds are more Aukštaitian, while for others they are Samogitian, Suvalkian, etc. (cf. the drawn maps Birž_1(2)_V09, Birž_2(2)_M11, Birž_2(4)_V09, and Birž_2(2)_V01 in Fig. 14). R. van Bezooijen’s sound dispersion hypothesis can be applied here; it holds that some sounds are perceived as more beautiful than others (van Bezooijen 2002: 14).
Several types of such opposition emerge from the drawn maps of young people from Biržai, in which areas of dialectal speech are contrasted with areas of non-dialectal speech: 1) areas of dialect codes are brought closer to (vs. moved farther from) the area of linguistic birthplace (Birž_1(2)_M06, Birž_1(2)_V06; see Fig. 18); 2) the hottest points and areas of dialect codes across Lithuania are identified from the perspective of the lay evaluator (Birž_1(2)_V14, Birž_1(4)_M12; see Fig. 18); 3) the Central Lithuania area is distinguished among the dialect zones; moreover, areas of dialect codes are moved farther
Straipsniai / Articles
109
Page 22
DAIVA ALIŪKAITĖ, DANGUOLĖ MIKULĖNIENĖ
from major cities, or major cities are excluded from dialect zones (Birž_2(4)_M41, Birž_2(4)_M55, see Fig. 15).
Birž_1(2)_M06
Birž_1(2)_V06
Birž_1(2)_V14
Birž_1(4)_M12
Birž_2(4)_M41
Birž_2(4)_M55
FIG. 15. Prototypical dialect-code zones
The nearest regional centers, Panevėžys, Utena, and Šiauliai, fall between the prototypical dialect zones.
Only 15.46% of the participants associate dialectal speech with the whole of Lithuania in their drawn maps (see Fig. 16). One could argue that this image is perhaps the most accurate: linguistic repertoires are layered across the entire horizontal language continuum, so the participants are right to indicate that dialects are spoken throughout Lithuania.
110
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIV
Page 23
Instruments and Research Directions in Perceptual Dialectology: Variant Areas on Mental Maps (The Biržai Case)
Birž_2(4)_M19
Birž_2(4)_M51
Birž_2(2)_V03
Birž_1(4)_V17
FIG. 16. “Objective” mental maps
Of course, from the researchers’ point of view, dialectality is differentiated: from codes with prominent, distinctive features to codes characterized only by dialectality in tertiary features (cf. Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė 2014a: 46–47). In such hand-drawn maps, the respondents visualize the highly generalized view that dialectal or dialect-like speech can be expected throughout Lithuania.
These maps are refined by the respondents’ answers to an open-ended question about speech features that help identify a person speaking dialectally. Thus, the respondents’ impression of dialectality in speech is shaped by the (non-)pronunciation of word endings, stress, and unusual words. In other words, by providing a generalized hand-drawn map, the respondents indicate that they expect differences in linguistic expression throughout Lithuania.
More than 63 percent of young people from Biržai say they can recognize that a person speaks dialectally by the (non-)pronunciation of word endings, e.g.: Birž_1 (2) M09: sometimes endings are cut off, Birž_1 (4) M11: a different pronunciation of word endings, Birž_1 (4) V02: curly endings, Birž_2 (4) V06: E.g.: in the Biržai dialect there are no word endings; they are cut off: sveikas – sveiks, aš einu – aš ein and so on. Different stress patterns (e.g.: Birž_2 (4) M29: words are stressed differently, Birž_2 (4) M38: stresses are placed in a different position), unusual words (e.g.: Birž_2 (4) M15: things having a different name, Birž_2 (4) V07: unclear / unheard-of words and words pronounced in a funny way) also serve as objective indicators of dialectal speech for more than 30 percent of young people from Biržai.
Straipsniai / Articles
111
Page 24
DAIVA ALIŪKAITĖ, DANGUOLĖ MIKULĖNIENĖ
As can be seen, the participants project features of dialect speech from the perspective of their linguistic homeland. The shortening of word endings and retraction of stress are objective characteristics of the Biržai geolect.
This register of distinctive dialect features, refracted through the prism of personal linguistic experience, is important for several reasons: first, it creates an opportunity in dialectological discourse to compare distinctive features from the researcher’s perspective with those from the speaker’s perspective; second, such consistency in the characteristics clearly points to the most vital features of the locality.
2.3. Summary: the potential value of perceptual dialectology in studies of variation in Lithuania
The maps drawn by young people from Biržai reveal representations of variation that are likely to influence (or do influence) the linguistic preferences and, more generally, the linguistic behaviour of ordinary members of the speech community.
Projections concerning linguistic preference can be formulated on the basis of data from drawn maps identifying the linguistic homeland as a dialect zone: there is likely a direct relationship between the vitality of the dialect code in the linguistic homeland and the prominence of the linguistic homeland on the mental map. Naturally, this relationship must in every case be verified using methods of direct observation.
The directions of horizontal convergence can be projected on the basis of the zones of (un)attractive dialect codes identified in the participants’ drawn maps. If the dimension of attitudes is eliminated, predictive dialectology becomes one-sided.
Thus, in this respect, the conceptual descriptiveness of perceptual dialectology is valuable for researchers’ dialectology, whose descriptiveness is more inventory-based and classificatory. In this way, the perspective of an ordinary member of the speech community deepens (or can deepen) discourse on research into the change and development of variation.
The nature and density of perceptual isoglosses in the maps drawn by young people from Biržai reveal that ordinary members of the speech community have different representations of dialectality—that is, of distinctive features.
The representation of dialectality is likely to be equally important both for those participants whose drawn maps identify separate areas of dialect codes and for those whose drawn maps of dialect codes cover the entire territory of Lithuania. To answer the question of why such different mental maps are obtained in this case, one should consider differences in how strictly participants assess the relationship between dialect codes and the standard language in terms of objective differences.
112
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIV
Page 25
Perceptyviosios dialektologijos instrumentai ir tyrimų kryptys: variantų arealai mentaliniuose žemėlapiuose (Biržų atvejis)
CONCLUSIONS
Mental maps are more closely associated with the informants’ unconscious attitudes. However, those in which the linguistic homeland is visually and/or verbally identified as a dialect-speaking zone reveal the informants’ objective relationship to the repertoires of linguistic codes in their living environment.
Several years ago, on the basis of objective linguistic material, researchers delineated the Biržai geolect within the area of the Eastern Aukštaitian Panevėžys subdialect. Recent studies of young people from Biržai confirm that it exists in reality rather than only in the imagination: the informants’ relationship—I acknowledge vs. do not acknowledge the dialect code as being present in the immediate linguistic environment—is valuable for predicting the spread of dialect codes and anticipating trends in their vitality. Drawn maps indicate a non-conflictual relationship with the environmental code, which in turn points to optimistic prospects for the Biržai geolect.
Inconsistency in conceptualizing regional variation (for example, I speak dialect, my linguistic homeland is a dialect-code zone, but my prototype of a dialect speaker is an old (older) person from the countryside) is a clear indication of the multilayered nature of dialect codes. First, dialect codes tend to be conceptualized as attractive, but more incorrect than correct. Second, horizontal variation is differentiated internally: some dialect zones comprise attractive (and less often, correct) codes, while others comprise unattractive codes.
The code of the linguistic homeland is conceptualized as beautiful and attractive, but incorrect. It is likely that the correctness component in the image of a dialect code (not only that of the linguistic homeland) correlates with the standard-language factor. From an aesthetic perspective, the Biržai geolect is evaluated very favorably; thus, for some informants, their own code serves as a point of reference for differentiating other varieties in terms of attractiveness.
Maps showing prototypical dialect-code zones indicate that ordinary members of the speech community conceptualize dialect and the standard language in opposition to one another, ignoring intermediate varieties. As a result, only the so-called radiating zones of dialectality stand out on drawn maps (cf. geolect zones on a dialect map). It is likely that a more precise understanding of differences in the relationship between the standard language and dialect codes, rather than of their relative value, results in a more detailed drawn map.
Analysis of data from the drawn-map task completed by young people from Biržai shows that the perspective of an ordinary member of the speech community can be regarded as a kind of control system for conceptualizing variation, complementing and, in some cases, refining the researcher’s perspective. Thus, approaches from perceptual dialectology ensure a more diverse discourse in dialect research.
Aliūkaitė Daiva 2013: Horizontalusis ir vertikalusis kalbos kontinuumo skaidumas: XXI amžiaus kalbėjimo variantai paprastojo kalbos vertintojo požiūriu. – Taikomoji kalbotyra 2, 1–22.
Aliūkaitė Daiva, Bakšienė Rima, Jaroslavienė Jurgita ir kt. 2014: Punkto tinklo tankis geolingvistinės skirties aukštaičiai: žemaičiai požiūriu. – XXI a. pradžios lietuvių tarmės: geolingvistinis ir sociolingvistinis tyrimas: (žemėlapiai ir jų komentarai), sud. Danguolė Mikulėnienė, Violeta Meiliūnaitė. Vilnius: Briedis, 129–196.
Aliūkaitė Daiva, Merkytė-Švarcienė Erika 2012: Bendrinės kalbos regionai jaunųjų lietuvių kalbos bendruomenės narių požiūriu: kompetencija ir vaizdiniai. – Kalbos kultūra 85, 155–177.
Aliūkaitė Daiva, Mikulėnienė Danguolė 2014a: Geolingvistika: ideologija, teorija ir metodai. Pagrindinės sąvokos. – XXI a. pradžios lietuvių tarmės: geolingvistinis ir sociolingvistinis tyrimas: (žemėlapiai ir jų komentarai), sud. Danguolė Mikulėnienė, Violeta Meiliūnaitė. Vilnius: Briedis, 29–47.
Aliūkaitė Daiva, Mikulėnienė Danguolė 2014b: Geolektų ir regioninių dialektų formavimosi ypatumai Lietuvoje. – XXI a. pradžios lietuvių tarmės: geolingvistinis ir sociolingvistinis tyrimas: (žemėlapiai ir jų komentarai), sud. Danguolė Mikulėnienė, Violeta Meiliūnaitė. Vilnius: Briedis, 257–262.
Berthele Raphael 2010: Investigations into the Folk’s Mental Models of Linguistic Varieties. – Advances in Cognitive Sociolinguistics, ed. by Dirk Geeraerts, Gitte Kristiansen, Yves Peirsman. New York, N.Y.: Mouton de Gruyter.
Diercks Willy 2002: Mental Maps. Linguistic-Geographic Concepts. – Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology 2, ed. by Daniel Long, Dennis R. Preston. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 51–70.
Fishman Joshua A. 1972: The Relationship Between Micro- and Macro-sociolinguistics in the Study of Who Speaks What Language to Whom and When. – Sociolinguistics, ed. by John Bernard Pride & Janet Holmes. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books Ltd., 15–32.
Giles Howard, Bourhis Richard, Trudgill Peter, and Lewis Alan 1974: The Imposed Norm Hypothesis: A Validation. – The Quarterly Journal of Speech, Volume 60, Number 4, 405–410.
114
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIV
Page 27
Perceptyviosios dialektologijos instrumentai ir tyrimų kryptys: variantų arealai mentaliniuose žemėlapiuose (Biržų atvejis)
Goeman Antonie C. M. 1999: Dialects and the Subjective Judgments of Speakers: Remarks and Controversial Methods. – Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology 1, ed. by Dennis R. Preston. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 135–146.
Gooskens Charlotte, Bezooijen Renée van, Nerbonne John 2013: Perception of Geographically Conditioned Linguistic Variation. – Language and Space, ed. by Johan Taeldeman and Frans Hinskens. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter, 567–585.
Grumadienė Laima 1980: Subjektyvusis kalbos vertinimas. – Kalbos kultūra 39, 91–93.
Hagen Anton M. 1989: Frisian and Education in the Netherlands. – Dialect and Education: some European Perspectives, ed. by Jenny Cheshire, Viv Edwards, Henk Musterman, Bert Weltens. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 48–61.
Heeringa Wilbert 2004: Measuring Dialect Pronunciation Differences Using Levenstein Distance. Ph.D. thesis, University of Groningen.
Inoue Fumio 1999: Classification of Dialects by Image: English and Japanese. – Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology 1, ed. by Dennis R. Preston. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 147–160.
Kačiuškienė Genovaitė 2003: Trečiojo amžiaus universitetas Šiauliuose: klausytojų požiūris į gimtąją tarmę. – Pedagogika 69, 88–91.
Kačiuškienė Genovaitė 2004: Rytų aukštaičių sidabraviškių šnektos vertinimas tarmės atstovų požiūriu. – Valoda dažādu kultūru kontekstā 14. Daugavpils: Saule, 103–108.
Kačiuškienė Genovaitė 2005: Tarmės samprata šiauliškių inteligentų savimonėje. – Vārds un tā pētīšanas aspekti 9. Liepāja: LiePA, 49–54.
Kačiuškienė Genovaitė, Barvydytė Aušra 2006: Mažeikiškių inteligentų požiūris į gimtąją tarmę: anketinis tyrimas. – Jaunųjų mokslininkų darbai 4(11), 8–14.
L’Eplattenier-Saugy Caroline 2002: A Perceptual Dialect Study of French in Switzerland. – Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology 2, ed. by Daniel Long, Dennis R. Preston. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 351–365.
Long Daniel 1996: Quasi-standard as a Linguistic Concept. – American Speech 71(2), 118–135.
Mase Yoshio 1999 (1964): Dialect Consciousness and Dialect Divisions: Examples in the Nagano-Gifu Boundary Region. – Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology 1, ed. by Dennis R. Preston. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 71–99.
Straipsniai / Articles
115
Page 28
DAIVA ALIŪKAITĖ, DANGUOLĖ MIKULĖNIENĖ
Mesthrie Rajend 2003: Regional Dialectology. – Introducing Sociolinguistics, ed. by Rajend Mesthrie, Joan Swann, Andrea Deumert, William L. Leap. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2003, 44–75.
Montgomery Chris, Beal Joan 2011: Perceptual dialectology. – Analysing Variation in English, ed. by Warren Maguire, April McMahon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 121–148.
Nomoto Kikuo 1999 (1963): Consciousness of Linguistic Boundaries and Actual Linguistic Boundaries. – Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology 1, ed. by Dennis R. Preston. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 63–69.
Preston Dennis R. 1988: Methods in the Study of Dialect Perceptions. – Methods in Dialectology, ed. by Alan R. Thomas. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 373–395.
Preston Dennis R. 1989a: Perceptual Dialectology: Nonlinguists’ Views of Areal Linguistics. Dordrecht: Foris.
Preston Dennis R. 1989b: The Perception of Language Variety in Brazil. – Perceptual Dialectology: Nonlinguists’ Views of Areal Linguistics. Dordrecht: Foris, 85–111.
Preston Dennis R. 1999a: Introduction. – Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology 1, ed. by Dennis R. Preston. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, xxiii–xl.
Preston Dennis R. 1999b: A Language Attitude Approach to the Perception of Regional Variety. – Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology 1, ed. by Dennis R. Preston. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 359–373.
Preston Dennis R. 2002: Perceptual Dialectology: Aims, Methods, Findings. – Present-day Dialectology. Problems and Findings, ed. by Johannes Bernardus Berns and Jaap van Marle. Berlin, New York: Mounton de Gruyter, 57–104.
Preston Dennis R. 2010: Language, People, Salience, Space: Perceptual Dialectology and Language Regard. – Dialectologia 5, 87–131.
Preston Dennis R. 2013: Language with an Attitude. – The Handbook of Language Variation and Change, ed. by Jack K. Chambers, Natalie Schilling. Blackwell: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 157–182.
Rensink W. G. 1999: Informant Clasification of Dialects. – Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology 1, ed. by Dennis R. Preston. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 3–7.
Schrambke Renate 2010: Language and Space: Traditional Dialect Geography. – Language and Space. An International Handbook of Linguistic Variation. Volume 1:
116
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIV
Page 29
Perceptyવિosios dialektologijos instrumentai ir tyrimų kryptys: variantų arealai mentaliniuose žemėlapiuose (Biržų atvejis)
Theories and Methods. HSK Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft, ed. By Peter Auer, Jürgen Erich Schmidt. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter, 87–106.
Sibata Takesi 1999: Consciousness of Dialect Boundaries. – Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology 1, ed. by Dennis R. Preston. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 39—62.
Tumėnas Stasys 2003: Mokytojų požiūrio į tarmes sociolingvistinė analizė. – Pedagogika 69, 238–242.
Tumėnas Stasys, Račkauskas Jonas 2004: JAV lietuvių požiūrio į lietuvių kalbą ir tarmes sociolingvistinė analizė. – Tauta ir kalba: šiuolaikiniai sociolingvistinio ugdymo aspektai. Kaunas: Technologija, 222–224.
Van Bezooijen Renée 2002: Aesthetic Evaluation of Dutch. – Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology 2, ed. by Daniel Long, Dennis R. Preston. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company,13—30.
Wales Katie 2006: Dialects in Mental Contact: A Critique of Perceptual Dialectology. – Bamberger Beiträge zur Englischen Sprachwissenschaft 51, 57–66.
Perceptual Dialectology Instruments and Directions for Research: Areas of Variants in Mental Maps (Case of Biržai)
SUMMARY
The paper discusses the possibilities of application of the principles of perceptual dialectology in the Lithuanian regional variability research. It provides a brief introduction of the origins of Dutch and Japanese perceptual dialectology, which were developed at the end of the 19th century.
It presents empirical illustrations of insights – the material from the scientific project Standard Lithuanian Language Place in the Mental Map. Though the research involved over 2,000 young people, the article is based on the answers of 194 upper-grade pupils from the environs of Biržai. The project data were collected by means of anonymous questionnaire.
When designing a questionnaire and summarising the data collected, the study relied on D.R. Preston’s perceptual research model, which includes five components or tasks: 1) draw-a-map; 2) “correct” and “pleasant” ratings; 3) degree of difference; 4) dialect identification; 5) qualitative data. There were two draw-a-map tasks which include the user approach towards both the use of dialects and Standard Lithuanian.
Straipsniai / Articles
117
Page 30
DAIVA ALIŪKAITĖ, DANGUOLĖ MIKULĖNIENĖ
Thus, the article discusses the geolinguistic competence of the school youth from a single regional city. Geolinguistic competence means knowledge and skills to recognize language variability and to associate it with certain areas – geographic (i.e. territorial variables), social (i.e. social variables), cultural (i.e. cultural variables / cultural dimensions).
Though the young residents of Biržai declare that they are active users of their dialect, they are familiar with the binary classification of dialects (Aukštaitian and Samogitian) only partially: in the drawn map Aukštaitians and Samogitians were specified by 8.76% of the young residents of Biržai only. A slightly higher percentage specified the isoglosses dividing the four dialects (Aukštaitian, Dzūkian, Sudovian and Samogitian) in the map (the criterion of the accuracy of isoglosses is not applied for the time being). A part of the subjects in the study (11.86%) model intermediate variants of dialectal classification – they add Sudovians and Dzūkians to Aukštaitians and Samogitians. There is no doubt that it is a reflection of knowledge of the pupils involved in the study on the ethnographic division of Lithuania. The inconsistency between visualized knowledge and verbalized knowledge shows that the conceptualization of regional variability among ordinary members of the linguistic community integrates both official and unofficial systems of knowledge. The drawn maps show a non-conflicting relationship with the code of environment, which, in turn, draws optimistic prospects for the geolect of Biržai.
The answers of the young residents of Biržai to an open question in the questionnaire regarding the associations pertaining to a person speaking a dialect show that the conceptualization of regional variability is multi-layered and inconsistent. The young residents of Biržai refer to themselves as representatives of a dialectal code – as many as 82.14% of the subjects in the study referred to themselves as speakers of a dialect and marked the area of Biržai as the area of a dialectal code in the drawn map; however, when mentioning the associations of a dialect-speaker, they were inclined to dissociate themselves from a standard representative of a dialectal code.
Oppositional variables came to the fore in around one third (30.61%) of the answers given by the subjects in the study – for instance, an old (older) person; village resident; person with a low educational background, etc., i.e. a sociolinguistic portrait of a dialect speaker is dissociated from the portrait of the subjects themselves: young and educated city residents.
However, the structure of the sociolinguistic portrait itself features more positive than negative connotation components.
The drawn maps of the young residents of Biržai are significant for reconstruction of perception of variability where individual dialectal areas are not only identified but also qualified, i.e. the subjects do not only indicate specific areas as the places of dialectal speaking in the drawn map but also express the evaluation of the area concerned. The comments of the young residents of Biržai reveal several tendencies: first, there is a tendency to conceptualize dialectal codes as attractive but more incorrect than correct. Second, horizontal variability is differentiated – some dialectal areas belong to attractive (and less frequently correct) codes, others – to unattractive codes. The drawn maps of the
118
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIV
Page 31
Perceptyviosios dialektologijos instrumentai ir tyrimų kryptys: variantų arealai mentaliniuose žemėlapiuose (Biržų atvejis)
young residents of Biržai also reveal the code of their linguistic homeland: it is conceptualized as beautiful, attractive but incorrect.
It is likely that the component of correctness in the mental image of dialectal code (not only that of linguistic homeland) correlates with the factor of the standard language and is interpreted in two ways. First, dialectal codes generally find themselves in opposition to the standard language: the standard language is conceptualized as the correct code, while the dialectal code (holistically, even without differentiation by area) as the incorrect one.
From the aesthetic point of view, the geolect of Biržai is evaluated very favourably; therefore, it is likely that certain subjects use their own code as a certain starting-point in differentiating other variants from the perspective of attractiveness. It is obvious that in the consciousness of the young residents of Biržai the image of dialecticism (in general) is ambivalent: permissible: intolerable dialecticism. Such differentiation is also related to objective peculiarities of variants as well as stereotypes and the factor of communicative success. The drawn maps of the young residents of Biržai where dialectal areas are contrasted to non-dialectal areas reveal several types of such contrasting: 1) dialectal areas are brought closer to (vs. distanced from) the area of the linguistic homeland; 2) the hottest spots of dialectal codes are identified through the eyes of an ordinary viewer in the whole territory of Lithuania; 3) the area of Central Lithuania stands out from dialectal areas; what is more, the areas of dialectal codes are distanced from big cities or big cities are eliminated from dialectal areas. The closest regional centres – Panevėžys, Utena, Šiauliai – fall to prototypical dialectal areas.
Only one sixth (15.46%) of the subjects in the study associate dialectal speaking with the whole Lithuania in the drawn maps. It could be said that such image is probably most accurate – the repertoires of linguistic measures stratify across the whole horizontal linguistic continuum; therefore, the subjects, specifying that dialects are used in the whole Lithuania, are right.
The subjects get the impression of dialecticism in the language from (non)omission of endings, accentuation, unusual words.
Mental maps are more associated with unconscious attitudes of the subjects. However, those where the linguistic homeland is visually and/or verbally identified as a dialectal area show an objective relationship of the subjects with the repertoires of linguistic codes in their residential area.
On the basis of objective linguistic data, several years ago the geolect of Biržai was distinguished in the area of the Eastern Aukštaitian subdialect of Panevėžys. Its real (not imaginary) existence is also confirmed by the latest research of the young residents of Biržai: the relationship of the subjects – I acknowledge vs. I don’t acknowledge the dialectal code in the close linguistic environment – is valuable for forecasting the dissemination of dialectal codes and anticipating the tendencies of viability. The drawn maps show a non-conflicting relationship with the code of environment, which, in turn, implies optimistic prospects for the geolect of Biržai. From an aesthetic point of view, the geolect of Biržai is evaluated
Straipsniai / Articles
119
Page 32
DAIVA ALIŪKAITĖ, DANGUOLĖ MIKULĖNIENĖ
very favourably; hence, for certain subjects in the study, their dialectal code is a certain starting-point in differentiating other variants from the perspective of their attractiveness.
The inconsistency of conceptualization of regional variability (e.g. I speak a dialect, my linguistic homeland is the area of dialectal codes but my prototype of a person speaking a dialect is an old (older) person residing in a village) is a clear reference to the multi-layeredness of dialectal codes. First, there is a tendency to conceptualize dialectal codes as attractive but more incorrect than correct. Second, horizontal variability is differentiated – some dialectal areas feature attractive (and less commonly correct) codes, others – unattractive codes.
The code of one’s linguistic homeland is conceptualized as beautiful, attractive but incorrect. It is likely that in the mental image of a dialectal code (not only that of one’s linguistic homeland) the component of correctness correlates with the factor of standard language.
Maps with prototypical areas of dialectal codes show that ordinary members of a linguistic community conceptualize the dialect as opposing to the standard language by ignoring any intermediary variants; therefore, only the so called radial dialectal areas stand out in the drawn map. It is likely that a more accurate perception of the differences rather than the value of the relationship between the standard language and dialectal codes determines a more comprehensive drawn map.
The data analysis of the draw-a-map task accomplished by the young residents of Biržai shows that the perspective of an ordinary member of the linguistic community is seen as a certain control system of conceptualization of variability which supplements the researcher’s approach or corrects it in certain cases.
To conclude, the approach of perceptual dialectology ensures a more varied dialectology discourse.
