JANINA ŠVAMBARYTĖ-VALUŽIENĖ

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

Research areas: analysis of dialects in written sources, dialect lexicography and lexicology, sociolinguistics.

THE STATE OF LINGUISTIC POINTS: MID-20TH CENTURY – EARLY 21ST CENTURY

The Vitality of Language Points: Middle of the 20^th – Beginning of the 21^st Century

ABSTRACT

A linguistic point, identified by linguists as a distinct unit of inhabited places and structurally connected to other linguistic points through social networks, underwent major political, economic, social, and cultural upheavals from the mid-20th century to the beginning of the 21st century.

The survey of linguistic points in 2011–2013 made it possible to reflect on and present for the first time the factors in the development of linguistic points (their decline and destruction) that had been at work for more than 70 years.

ANNOTATION

Language point distinguished by the linguists as an integral unit of the populated locality structurally connected in a social network experienced major political, economic, social and cultural changes from the middle of the 20^th to the beginning of 21^st century.

A review of language points in 2011–2013 provided an opportunity to reflect on factors of the development of points (decline or destruction of points) over the period of more than 70 years.

KEYWORDS: factors in the decline and revitalization of linguistic points, historical cataclysms, socioeconomics, urbanization, linguicide, Atlas of the Lithuanian Language, Lithuanian dialects.

KEYWORDS: factors influencing the decline and the revival of language points, historical cataclysms, socioeconomics, urbanisation, linguacide, Atlas of the Lithuanian Language, dialects of the Lithuanian Language.

Straipsniai / Articles

215

JANINA ŠVAMBARYTĖ-VALUŽIENĖ

INTRODUCTION

Geografinės lingvistikos metodais atliekamų tyrimų pradininkas Antanas Salys (1902–1972), pateikęs kalbinių punktų Lietuvoje numeraciją, nurodo juos kaip vientisą gyvenamųjų vietų ir juos vienijančių socialinių tinklų vienetą¹. Pirmiausia minėtina, kad Salys tuo pačiu skaičiumi žymėdavo kalbinio punkto centrą ir 15–20 km spinduliu esamus kaimus (vienkiemius) – punkto periferiją. Kalbinis centras visada turėdavo mokyklą (atskirą pastatą ar ūkininkų trobas, pritaikytas mokytis), bažnyčią (veikusias įvairias organizacijas ir atlaidų šventimo papročius), kapus, policijos nuovadą, paštą, parduotuvę (parduotuvės), restoraną². Taigi kalbinei punkto visuomenei ugdyti ir perimti prigimtinius bendruomenės įpročius, tarminę nuostatą būta visų sąlygų. Todėl nuo pirmųjų žodžių geografijos darbų 1939–1943 m. (tuo tikslu Salio parengtas Apkla usas 1) kalbinio punkto skyrimo kriterijai nekito ir vėliau šį darbą tęsiant Lietuvių kalbos atlaso (toliau LKA) rengėjams³.

The aim of this article is to identify, for the scholarly community for the first time, the factors (causes) behind the (gradual) decline (destruction) of linguistic points and the possible revitalization of some points.

The object of the study comprises 37 LKA linguistic points that the author of this article visited and examined (or participated in examining) during 2011–2013⁴. They are located in 6 districts: Akmenė, Joniškis, Kelmė, Radviliškis, Šiauliai, and Telšiai⁵. The LKA points discussed belong to different Samogitian and Aukštaitian dialects and subdialects of Lithuanian⁶. Western Aukštaitian Šiauliai subdialect: Rudiškiai (LKA 074), Stupurai (LKA 075), Dimšiai (LKA 104), Bridai (LKA 105), Lūpaičiai (106), Lieporiai (LKA 133), Aukštelkė (LKA 163), Pakapė (LKA 196), Šiaulėnai (LKA 228), Šaukotas (LKA 261), Legečiai (LKA 262), Pašušvys (LKA 263), Baisogala (LKA 264), Kyburiai (LKA 050), Noriūnai (LKA 051), Vaineikiai (LKA 023), Dargaičiai (LKA 073). In the Eastern Aukš-

¹ For more on the interdependence of contemporary social networks and linguistic points, see Kalėdienė 2013; Švambarytė 2014: 24.

² Apie gyvenamųjų vietovių (punktų) tinklą Lietuvoje plačiau žr. Mikulėnienė 2013: 71–91.

³ Plačiau žr. LKA 1977: 7–30.

⁴ In 2011–2014, the Institute of the Lithuanian Language’s Department of the History of Language and Dialectology, together with Lithuanian higher education institutions (scholars from Vilnius, Klaipėda, and Šiauliai, the Lithuanian University of Educational Sciences, and the Kaunas Faculty of Humanities of Vilnius University), carried out the project Contemporary Geolinguistic Research in Lithuania: Optimization of the Network of Points and Interactive Dissemination of Dialectal Information (Project code No. VP1-3.1-ŠMM-07-K-01-028). The author of this article was one of the project participants. For more on the project, see Aliūkaitė 2011: 257–259; the collective monograph Lithuanian Dialects at the Beginning of the 21st Century: A Geolinguistic Study (maps and their commentary), 2014. For more on similar research by Latvian linguists, see Trumpa 2012.

⁵ The author thanks Laura Geržotaitė, junior researcher and doctoral student at LKI KIDS, for her assistance in researching these linguistic points: Klaišiai LKA 071, Dimšiai LKA 104, Lūpaičiai LKA 106.

⁶ Apie tarmių skiriamuosius bruožus plačiau žr. LKTCH 2004.

216

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXI

The Situation of Linguistic Point Vitality: Mid-20th Century – Early 21st Century

The Panevėžys Aukštaitian area includes Kaŕcemos (LKA 198), Šeduva (LKA 199), and Kriukai (LKA 024). The South Samogitian Raseiniai subdialect includes Gūdomiškė (LKA 162), Šaukenai (LKA 164), Kūr­tuvėnai (LKA 195), Vaiguva (LKA 224), Kušlẽikiai (LKA 225), Kiaunoriai (LKA 227), Kẽlmė (LKA 258), Kražiai (LKA 257), and Kubiliai (LKA 259). The South Samogitian Varniai subdialect includes Pakšteliai (LKA 101), Kuršėnai (LKA 102), Džiui̇k(i)ai (LKA 132), Užventis (LKA 193), and Labūnavėlė (LKA 223). The North Samogitian Telšiai subdialect includes Trimėsedis (068), Dauginiai (LKA 069), Mičkiškė (070), Klaišiai (LKA 071), and Tryškiai (LKA 099).

In summarizing the field expedition data, the analysis draws on information from respondents (hereafter Rt) and an interdisciplinary method of comparing facts, taking into account the ideas of David Crystal, a theorist of language death.

FACTORS IN THE (DESTRUCTION AND) DECLINE OF LINGUISTIC SITES

Of the linguistic sites listed earlier in the LKA, only 7 have been proposed for localization in contemporary geolinguistic studies conducted in 2011–2013 not at the former settlement but at the nearest one. In the area of the 17 Western Aukštaitian Šiauliškiai sites, it is proposed to designate Dapkūnai rather than Lūpaičiai (LKA 106); Minaičiai rather than Legečiai (LKA 262) (an attempt was made to restore the village name in the standard language as Menaičiai, but the local community does not want this change and showed me more than one old document in which the name is Minaičiai, and collected signatures from local residents requesting that the village name be retained); Jurdaičiai rather than Kyburiai (LKA 050), and Bėržininkai rather than Noriūnai (LKA 051). In the area of the 3 Southern Žemaitian Raseiniškiai sites, it is proposed to designate Šalteniai rather than the Kušleikiai site (LKA 225). Of the 9 Southern Žemaitian Varniškiai sites, Kužiai rather than the Džiui̇k(i)ai site (LKA 132) is proposed. In the area of the 3 Northern Žemaitian Telšiškiai sites, Kapėnai rather than the Dauginių site (LKA 069) is proposed. Thus, one in every four or five linguistic sites studied is disappearing, severely depleted, or almost extinct.

What causes led a vibrant site identified in the mid-20th century to begin declining, become depleted or disappear, face extinction, or be destroyed by the beginning of the 21st century? The dialect material collected from informants (dialect recordings) and the questionnaires show that there are several possible factors behind the decline of sites⁷.

First, external causes should be mentioned—historical cataclysms. For example, during World War II, the linguistic site of Džiui̇k(i)ai (LKA 132) found itself on the front lines⁸. The residents were driven from their homes for more than three months. When they returned, they found their homesteads burned down (Rt 4 (1924), Rt 7 (1937)).

⁷ For more on how many linguistic sites have survived in the Žemaitian and Aukštaitian dialects, and on sites whose locations have changed, see Meiliūnaitė, Švambarytė-Valužienė 2014: 197–205.

⁸ Džiui̇k(i)ai is 10 km from Šiauliai, on the road toward Kuršėnai.

Straipsniai / Articles

217

JANINA ŠVAMBARYTĖ-VALUŽIENĖ

Before World War II, Dži uik(i)ai was a village of 18–20 dispersed homesteads⁹. According to Rt 4 (1924), Rt 3 (1932), and Rt 7 (1937), the community, which farmed fertile land, took care to build a two-story brick school, actively participated in various cultural and religious organizations, and shaped children’s cultural attitudes by personal example (subscribing to periodicals and reading many books)¹⁰.

There were apparently many villages that found themselves on the front lines, since the Encyclopedia of Soviet Lithuania (hereafter TLE) contains the statement: “More than [a number of] dispersed homesteads were destroyed during the Great Patriotic War” (TLE 4: 507).

After the battles, the returning Dži uik(i)ai community did not lose heart: it dismantled the former trenches and rebuilt its homes (Rt (1937)).

The geopolitical (or unfavorable political climate) factor is associated with the linguistic site of Legečiai (LKA 262) (Radviliškis district, about 8 km from Pašušvys). Legečiai consisted of isolated homesteads, surrounded by forests on all sides¹¹.

Before the war, Legečiai had a two-story wooden school, a post office, a police station, a large forestry district office with many employees, a cemetery, and a shop¹². In the postwar years, there was active resistance here—the Prisikėlimas District operated, and a congress of representatives of Lithuanian partisan districts was held in its partisans’ bunker¹³. Soviet party officials avoided Legečiai village and established a settlement in a more open location, that is, as far as possible from the forests, in Minaičiai (Rt 3 (1939), Rt 4 (1936)). Members of the Legečiai community were intimidated and threatened with reprisals; many families were deported, others had to move to a safer place, while the homesteads of those who resisted were destroyed by land reclamation (Rt 4 (1932), Rt 5 (1977)).

The disruption of communities was a factor experienced by all linguistic sites, but especially Dauginių (LKA 069), Kušleikiai (LKA 225), and Labūnavėlė (LKA 223)¹⁴. The inhabitants of these sites lived in dispersed homesteads and had schools; in Daug iniai

⁹ It should be recalled that villages began to be divided into dispersed homesteads in the early 19th century. “By 1944, about 300,000 dispersed homesteads had been established, that is, about 80% of all peasants lived in dispersed homesteads” (TLE 4, 507).

¹⁰ The children’s names—Kunigunda, Skolestina—attest to literacy and cultural attitudes.

¹¹ According to the Lithuanian Encyclopedia (LE), deciduous forest covers as much as 68 hectares of land in the area of Legečiai (LE X 80).

¹² Data on the villages are drawn from: Project No. VP1-3.1-ŠMM-07-K-01-028 “Contemporary Geolinguistic Research in Lithuania: Optimization of the Site Network and Interactive Dissemination of Dialect Information” Document 2. Sociolinguistic questionnaire for an LKA site. The material is held in the Dialect Archive of the Language History and Dialectology Department of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language (LKI KIDS TA).

¹³ In Minaičiai (1 km from Legečiai), on February 16, 1949, the Lithuanian Freedom Fight Movement announced a declaration stating that the Council of the Lithuanian Freedom Fight Movement was the sole legitimate authority in the territory of occupied Lithuania RT (1934).

¹⁴ Dauginiai (LKA 069), Akmenė district, about 15 km from Viekšniai; Kušleikiai (LKA 225), Kelmė district, about 10 km from Kelmė; Labūnavėlė (LKA 223), Kelmė district, about 12 km from Užventis.

218

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXI

Kalbinio punkto gyvavimo situacija: XX a. vidurys – XXI a. pradžia

A church and graves still remain. The community’s disintegration is twofold: unnatural and natural. The unnatural process began during the war years with withdrawal to the West and deportations¹⁵. Three to five families were deported from each of the aforementioned settlements¹⁶. The onset of collectivization encouraged the inhabitants of those communities themselves, especially young people, to flee their homes. For example, in Labūnavėlė livestock began to be raised in barns confiscated from farmers; a large workforce was needed, so several apartment buildings were erected and families were brought in from elsewhere to tend the animals. The differences in the lives and cultures of the two communities—the resettled and those who had moved there—eroded the fundamental, innate principles governing morality, ways of life, and understanding of work (diligence). Hostility between locals and newcomers began and continues to this day (Rt 7 (1937), Rt 8 (1935)). In Labūnavėlė, people began selling their farmsteads or simply handing them over to newcomers, so that almost no local residents remained (Rt 7 (1937)). Among the unnatural factors contributing to the disintegration of the community, one should mention individuals who were killed or murdered¹⁷.

The internal causes include the natural factor in the community’s disintegration¹⁸. All the linguistic settlements were inhabited by elderly members of the community (individuals or childless families). The community was traditionally taught to help one another, so informants have recounted many stories about neighborly relations and mutual assistance. Texts were recorded about helping with work and festive customs, through which such residents were incorporated into a family, household, and communal kinship network (LKA 132 Rt 4 (1924), Rt 7 (1937); LKA 051 Rt 4 (1923); LKA 050 Rt 5 (1925)). People of other ethnicities or speakers of other languages moved into some homesteads left by families that had died out; some of the homesteads were demolished or collapsed on their own because of age.

Informants noted that in all the linguistic settlements studied—that is, communities undergoing natural development—there had been many young people and children. With the change in Lithuania’s political situation, the demographic balance¹⁹ was also disrupted. Parents began encouraging their children to leave

15 “The largest wave of emigration in Lithuania’s history,” writes the Lithuanian Encyclopedia, “began in 1944, when more than 60,000 Lithuanians withdrew to the West to escape the approaching second Soviet occupation” (LE XV 59).

16 From Lithuania, the Universal Lithuanian Encyclopedia (VLE) states, 40,000 intellectuals and farmers were deported in June 1941 (VLE XII 111). In 1944–58, 260,000 were deported (according to other figures, 350,000 (VLE XII 112).

17 Individuals loyal to the Soviet authorities who were shot, young people and children who blew themselves up with explosives left behind during the war years, people massacred by groups posing as partisans, and so on (LKA 106 RT 4, LKA 132 RT 4, LKA 069 RT 2, LKA 050 RT 5, LKA 225 RT 4, LKA 262 RT 4, LKA 051 RT 4).

18 It should be recalled that in 1940 Lithuania had a population of 3,084.5 thousand. In 1941 it was already 2,958.6 thousand, and in 1945 just 2,500.0 thousand (VLE XII 109). From 1939 to 1959, Lithuania lost 530,000 inhabitants (VLE XII 112).

19 The statistics provided by the VLE show how the population of villages declined: in 1940, 2,408.6 thousand people lived in villages; in 1941, 2,274.4 thousand; in 1945, 2,125.0 thousand; and in 1950, 1,843.9 thousand (VLE XII 112).

Straipsniai / Articles

219

JANINA ŠVAMBARYTĖ-VALUŽIENĖ

to leave home and look for work in the cities. There was an unwritten order not to let young people leave the collective farm, as there would be no one left to work: if at least one child did not remain at home, the family was threatened with being denied a 65-are plot, without which it would not have survived. The number of young people declined, and the birth rate fell²⁰. Only older generations remained in the villages. People from elsewhere in the country (or from other Soviet countries) began to be invited to join the collective farms.

The sociopolitical and socioeconomic factor in the dismantling of the linguistic enclave was linked to land reclamation²¹. The plan to “straighten the fields,” as informants put it (LKA 132 Rt 1 (1941); LKA 050 Rt 5 (1925)), together with the increased availability of agricultural machinery, sparked a wave of land reclamation, particularly intense from 1971 to 1975. First, isolated farmsteads were “cleared” from the fields and demolished. Those who resisted and did not want to move to settlements were threatened with having access roads removed and the land around their homesteads ploughed in such a way that reaching them in autumn or spring would become impossible (LKA 132 Rt 4 (1924), Rt 7 (1937))²². The previously mentioned Džiuk(i)ai enclave (LKA 132) was affected a second time—land reclamation began. Residents were offered the option of moving to Kužiai or Gilvyčiai²³. Almost all residents of Džiuk(i)ai moved to Kužiai; only one family settled in the Gilvyčiai settlement of another cultural community (the Santikiai).

Urbanization as a factor encouraged the dispersal of the community into Soviet-style settlements and cities. Collective-farm centers, informants say, were established in more open locations, farther from forests and near better roads, so that the stribai and the collective-farm authorities would be safer (LKA 069 Rt 2 (1935); LKA 225 Rt 2 (1936); LKA 262 Rt 4 (1932)). It did not matter at all that there was no village there, or that there were only about three isolated farmsteads (for example, Minaičiai), a manor (for example, Kapėnai), or a railway station (for example, Dapkūnai). According to VLE, the following numbers of residents moved away from their places of residence: “in 1967—1,830; in 1969—3,610; in 1971–1975—20,880” (VLE XII 789)²⁴.

Cultural assimilation, or the closure of schools, which has affected Lithuania quite recently, was particularly widespread during the Soviet period. VLE writes of it: “From 1949, as schools were consolidated—primary schools were incorporated into secondary schools—boarding schools, the so-called dormitories, appeared” (VLE XII 571–572). Until 1940, education policy was

²⁰ “From 1966 to 1980, 24,000–25,000 people left agriculture each year—75 percent of them were of working age” (VLE XII 789).

²¹ “In 1939, there were 3,070 thousand ha of arable land” (VLE XII 787).

²² The statistics given by VLE are as follows: “From 1970 to 1990, approximately 10,000 ha of wetland were drained each year, while irrigation systems were installed over an area of 3,000 ha. By 1970, 1 million ha had been drained; by 1978, 2 million ha” (VLE XIV 644).

²³ Gilvyčiai (about half a kilometer from Džiuk(i)ai) is a village of Russians brought there after uprisings in Russia. Kužiai, 2–3 km from Džiuk(i)ai, was burned down after the war. Only one bathhouse remained; before the war, Kužiai had a primary school and a railway station (still operating today).

²⁴ “From 1967 to 1971, 16,920 houses were built for people who moved from isolated farmsteads to settlements” (VLE XII 789).

220

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXI

Kalbinio punkto gyvavimo situacija: XX a. vidurys – XXI a. pradžia

of this kind: every place, even the most remote, must have a school²⁵. From the second half of the 20th century onward, a campaign to close schools began: in 1970–1971 there were still 2,297 primary schools, with 64,500 pupils, whereas in 1980–1981 only 986 remained, with 18,100 pupils (VLE XII 573). In 1970–1971 there were 3,611 lower-secondary and secondary schools, including schools for children with physical and intellectual disabilities; they had 539,600 pupils and 29,300 teachers. By 1980–1981, only 2,257 such schools remained, with 535,500 pupils and 30,300 teachers (VLE XII 573–574)²⁶. No schools means no transmission of ethnic culture, no community education, and no remaining pride in oneself and one’s state²⁷. The best way to cultivate people who are favorably disposed toward oneself is to separate them from the community. School closures also encouraged parents to move to settlements. Schools operated and fostered national identity in all the relocated settlements: Džiūk(i)ai (LKA 132), Dapkūnai (LKA 106), Kušleikiai (LKA 225), Legečiai (LKA 262), Dauginiai (LKA 069), and Kyburiai (LKA 050).

Another internal factor in the decline of the linguistic point is linguicide²⁸. In the postwar years, people spoke dialect more often and more widely than the standard language. Lithuanian-language teachers tried to teach pupils the standard language, sometimes using methods that were not entirely pedagogical²⁹. The belief was fostered that a dialect was not a language worthy of respect, and that someone who spoke dialect was uncultured and uneducated. Some parents supported the primacy of the standard language. Children did not learn to value and respect their parents’ language—the dialect, subdialect, or local speech variety. And what is not valued is destroyed. The belief took hold that the Lithuanian language, too, was not something of value³⁰. In Antanas Salys’s words, the language had become worn out and faded; it had become ugly, difficult, and impossible for us to learn. Linguicide, as the denigration of one’s own language, continues to this day³¹.

²⁵ In 1940 there were 2,743 primary schools, attended by 341,299 pupils and staffed by 6,944 teachers (LE XV 770). From 1945 to 1949, there were 3,241 primary schools, 242 lower-secondary schools, and 131 secondary schools, 3,614 schools in all (VLE XII 571–572). In 1964–1965, there were 4,105 schools. From 1945 to 1948, 1,200 teachers were deported (VLE XII 571).

²⁶ Let us compare this with the current situation: in 2007 there were 105 primary schools, attended by 24,590 pupils; 582 basic schools with 120,445 pupils; 444 secondary schools, attended by 302,300 pupils; 132 gymnasiums with 77,230 pupils; and 21 youth schools with 2,100 pupils (1,284 schools in all, with 526,665 pupils) (VLE XII 574).

²⁷ Paraphrasing Stalin’s idea, one could say that the notion that if the patriotism and pride in one’s state of at least one generation can be destroyed, the nation will be killed, remains relevant today. It is likely that the time will come to describe and scientifically investigate the influence of communal living—life away from one’s family—on young people.

²⁸ Plačiau apie šį reiškinį pasaulio kalbose žr. Crystal 2005.

²⁹ Pupils were forbidden to speak dialect during breaks and were kept after class; those who spoke dialect were mocked.

³⁰ The occupying power also continually reinforced that attitude, which is why the spread of bilingualism seemed natural.

³¹ Even today, people believe that foreign languages guarantee a more comfortable livelihood. Correcting and changing this attitude requires the efforts of linguists, educators, and cultural workers to foster young people’s national consciousness.

Straipsniai / Articles

221

JANINA ŠVAMBARYTĖ-VALUŽIENĖ

Among the other factors contributing to the decline of the linguistic enclave, one notable factor was the severed natural relationship between linguists and the community³². With many linguists having fled West during the war, it took time to train a new generation of linguists. Because of the immense fear surrounding dialects, fieldwork, according to dialectologist Dr. Aldona Jonaiytė, was extremely difficult. At that time, linguists, as representatives of those dialects, were encouraged to describe only their own dialect and collect as much material as possible. The obvious lack of intervention in dialects and in matters concerning language as a value to be protected also left room for linguistic nihilism to flourish. The positions promoted by the occupying authorities—that the Lithuanian language, though ancient, was difficult to learn and unsuitable for writing production documents—also encouraged the denigration of one’s own language and the glorification of other languages that offered material benefits.

Another factor is a difficult-to-explain phenomenon in present-day independent Lithuania: Kyburiai (LKA 050), formerly a large village and the center of a strong collective farm, began to decline rapidly after the collective-farm system collapsed and almost disappeared altogether (even the informants could not explain it; they themselves wondered how everything had vanished, as if it had disappeared (Rt 1 (1927), Rt 2 (1953), Rt 3 (1930), Rt 4 (1936), Rt 5 (1925)).

The ideas expressed by émigré political scientist Vytautas Vardys (real name Vytautas Stasys Žvirgždys) in his articles “Soviet Colonialism in the Baltic States. A Note on the Nature of Modern Colonialism” (1965) and “The Colonial Nature of Soviet Nationality Policy” (1964) are highly relevant to summarizing this chapter: “the ‘engineers’ of traditional and Soviet colonialism use industry, the economy, education, and language as trump cards and a cover, creating the impression of a supposedly modern civilization, although, on the other hand, they pay no attention whatsoever to the wishes and will of the peoples they rule. As V. Vardys argues, Soviet colonialism creates a system designed to erase people in the Soviet ‘melting pot.’ But not just any kind of erasure: it is carried out so that coercion is elevated ‘to the heights of freedom,’ in the belief that coercion can create a free desire to renounce one’s identity. As V. Vardys says, ‘it is no wonder that a civilization of such dimensions has struck humanity to the very heart’ (for more, see Vardys 1965).

EFFORTS AND METHODS OF CONTEMPORARY COMMUNITIES TO REVITALIZE THE LINGUISTIC POINT

A change in the location of these linguistic enclaves mentioned above does not mean that the linguistic enclave has disappeared entirely or that nobody lives there anymore. The remaining members of the local and other-dialect communities who have moved to these places themselves try to revive the linguistic enclaves. The main factor in reviving a linguistic enclave is a socially active

Before the war, linguists traveled around Lithuania themselves and collected dialect material so they could study the dialects; they encouraged teachers to do the same, took part in teachers’ summer courses, informed the public about the progress and results of their research, and delivered public lectures.³²

222

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXI

The life situation of the linguistic point: mid-20th century – early 21st century

community. Former village residents return, having regained property rights and their parents’ undestroyed or undamaged homes³³. Community activity is increasingly associated with rapidly emerging communities, their active chairpersons, and community centers.

An active community stance is related to economic attitudes. Older-generation farmers pass their farms on to their children or grandchildren. Such returns by children have been observed in all the points whose locations have changed: Legečiai (LKA 262), Džiuk(i)ai (LKA 132), Lūpačiai (LKA 106), Kušleikiai (LKA 225), Dauginiai (LKA 069). Descendants of the local community who live in major cities also hold on to their inherited property.

A sense of property ownership emerges (returns or is restored)³⁴. This economic factor brought some children back to their parents’ homes to live and work (farm, develop rural tourism, etc.), while others, having regained property rights, remain connected emotionally and in terms of cultural identity to the place where they lived and grew up (LKA 069 Rt 1 (1949); LKA 132 Rt 2 (1961); LKA 050 Rt 3 (1930), Rt 5 (1925); LKA 262 Rt 4 (1932), Rt 5 (1977); LKA 051 Rt 2 (1946), Rt 4 (1923); LKA 223 Rt 7 (1937)).

A sense of authenticity is also important. Former village residents visit their birthplaces: they take their children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren to show them the places where they were born. Having dispersed across Lithuania’s cities and towns, more active community members organize village reunions (sometimes even in an open field or at a homestead), teach and encourage community members of all ages to interact and recognize one another by the former local code. They visit the elderly village residents who remain, listen to their stories, often make recordings, take photographs, and otherwise take an interest in the history of their family, kin, and neighbors. Other forms of social interaction include various parish feasts, All Saints’ Day, Mother’s Day and Father’s Day, family reunions, presentations of books about vanished villages, and so on (LKA 069 Rt 2 (1935); LKA 132 Rt 2 (1961); LKA 262 Rt 5 (1977); LKA 051 Rt 3 (1936)).

Very important is cultural identity or the linguistic-local factor. For example, LKA 132 Rt 7 (1937) urged the son to return to his grandparents’ home³⁵. Thanks to the daughter-in-law, who is a history teacher (Rt 2 (1961)), the children are encouraged to collect material about the villages and farmsteads of the linguistic point that have disappeared, to record people’s memories, and their creativity is fostered (for example, a legend was created that Džiuk(i)ai supposedly originated from the word to rejoice). Talking about one’s places, preparing books about those that have disappeared, those that are disappearing—

Younger people build new homes, raise children, and create jobs for themselves and sometimes for others. Some residents who have moved in from nearby places or from another part of Lithuania also take up economic and cultural activities.³³

The VLE states that “in 2005, property was restored over an area of 3.8 million ha” (VLE XII 790).³⁴

A son who had an apartment, a job, a garden, and all his property in Kaunas sold everything and returned with his Kaunas-born wife to his grandparents’ land. He farmed. His wife began working as a history teacher at Kužiai School.³⁵

Straipsniai / Articles

223

JANINA ŠVAMBARYTĖ-VALUŽIENĖ

… villages, whether declining or thriving, their inhabitants, the most important events, and old photographs foster pride in one’s village and country and nurture young people’s self-esteem. Every family’s cultural attitude of cherishing old photographs, books, and personal belongings is also important.

The words of the thinker Palau are very apt for summarizing the article’s second part: “Between the past, where our memories are, and the future, where our hopes are, there is also the present, where our duties lie” (Tremtinys 41(1063), 7). The better the duties of the community living there now are carried out, the sooner the point will regain the status of a thriving point.

IN LIEU OF CONCLUSIONS

The set of factors shaping the development of the 37 linguistic points studied from the mid-20th century to the beginning of the 21st century (the period 1939–2013) is neither exhaustive nor highly comprehensive. A total of 735 linguistic points have been identified within Lithuania, and 15 beyond the borders of the Republic of Lithuania (750 in all); thus, the points studied account for only 5.03% of all linguistic points. Nevertheless, the factors contributing to the decline and destruction of linguistic points reflect the principal trends in their development.

Of the 37 Central Lithuanian linguistic points recorded in the mid-20th century, 30 remained vibrant in the 21st century (Vaineikiai (LKA 023), Kriukai (LKA 024), Klaišiai (LKA 071), Dargaičiai (LKA 073), Rudiškiai (LKA 074), Stupurai (LKA 075), Tryškiai (LKA 099), Pakšteliai (LKA 101), Kuršėnai (LKA 102), Dimšiai (LKA 104), Bridai (LKA 105), Lieporiai (LKA 133), Gudmoniškė (LKA 162), Aukštelkė (LKA 163), Šaukėnai (LKA 164), Užventis (LKA 193), Kurtuvėnai (LKA 195), Pakapė (LKA 196), Karčemos (LKA 198), Šeduva (LKA 199), Labūnavėlė (LKA 223), Vaiguva (LKA 224), Kiaunoriai (LKA 227), Šiaulėnai (LKA 228), Kražiai (LKA 257), Kelmė (LKA 258), Kubiliai (LKA 259), Šaukotas (LKA 261), Pašušvys (LKA 263), Baisogala (LKA 264).

In the 21st century, the locations of 7 linguistic points changed. It is proposed that LKA 106 be designated Dapkūnai rather than Lūpaičiai; LKA 262, Minaičiai rather than Legečiai; LKA 050, Jurdaičiai rather than Kyburiai; LKA 051, Beržininkai rather than Noriūnai; LKA 225, Šalteniai rather than Kušleikai; LKA 132, Kužiai rather than Džiuk(i)ai; and LKA 069, Kapėnai rather than Dauginiai. Linguistic points whose locations changed account for just 18.92% of all the points studied. The main factors behind the decline of these linguistic points are linked to prolonged occupation and the cultural and economic policies pursued.

The factors contributing to the decline and destruction of linguistic points are most closely linked to external forces: historical cataclysms (the Second World War), prolonged occupation, and the covertly coercive replacement of the political, economic, social, and even cultural system (the cessation of farming, nationalization, deportation, land reclamation, the establishment of collective-farm settlements, urbanization, youth migration to cities, and so on).

224

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXI

The Situation of Linguistic Points: Mid-20th Century – Beginning of the 21st Century

External factors also created conditions for internal factors to emerge, including the natural disintegration of the community, linguicide (the denial of one’s own dialect, even one’s own language), and a breakdown in communication between the public and linguists.

The points whose locations changed in the 21st century have not been entirely extinguished linguistically. The western Aukštaitian Šiauliai subdialect is still spoken in the Lūpaičiai–Dapkūnai (LKA 106), Legečiai–Minaičiai (LKA 262), Kybur(ių–Jurdaičiai (LKA 050), and Noriūnai–Beržininkai (LKA 051) linguistic points. The southern Samogitian Raseiniai subdialect is still used in the Kušleikai–Šalteniai (LKA 225) linguistic point. The Daugin(ių–Kapėnai (LKA 069) linguistic point retains features of the northern Samogitian Telšiai subdialect. Only the Džiui(k)ių–Kužiai (LKA 132) linguistic point, classified as southern Samogitian Varniškiai, is gradually shifting to the western Aukštaitian Šiauliai subdialect: older respondents have retained features characteristic of southern Samogitian Varniškiai, while younger generations already speak the western Aukštaitian Šiauliai subdialect.

In all linguistic points with changed locations, the non-local community that has settled there, sometimes speaking a different dialect, together with the few remaining local residents, is taking the initiative to revive the point culturally and linguistically³⁶. A socially active community, the economic and property ties that bind it, a sense of authenticity, and factors related to cultural identity (linguistic and location-based) are evident in almost all current linguistic points: Legečiai–Minaičiai (LKA 262), Džiui(k)iai–Kužiai (LKA 132), Lūpaičiai–Dapkūnai (LKA 106), Kušleikiai–Šalteniai (LKA 225), Dauginiai–Kapėnai (LKA 069), Kyburiai–Jurdaičiai (LKA 050), and Noriūnai–Beržininkai (LKA 051).

The residents’ cohesion and activity, their ongoing search for the cultural and traditional identity of the place, and their ability to bring together people who have moved away from their homes and direct their efforts toward advancing linguistic and location-based factors are likely to contribute to the recovery of linguistic points.

LITERATŪRA

Aliūkaitė Daiva 2005: Kalba ir dialektas kaip kultūrą lokalizuojantys dydžiai: tapatumo aspektas (išraiškos). – Baltų kalbų tarmės: rašytinis palikimas. Šiauliai: Discens, 27–35.

Aliūkaitė Daiva 2011: Projektas „Šiuolaikiniai geolingvistikos tyrimai Lietuvoje: punktų tinklo optimizacija ir interaktyvioji tarminės informacijos sklaida“. – Respectus Philologicus 20(25), 257–259.

Crystal David 2005: Kalbos mirtis. Vilnius: Tyto alba.

³⁶ Apie kalbos ir kultūros sąsajas plačiau žr. Aliūkaitė 2005: 27–35.

Straipsniai / Articles

225

JANINA ŠVAMBARytĖ-VALUŽIENĖ

Kalėdienė Laima 2013: Sociolingvistinė geolingvistinių duomenų interpretacija. Tarptautinė tarpvalstybinė mokslinė konferencija: XXI amžiaus tarminų tyrimai: geolingvistinė ir sociolingvistinė perspektyvos. Lietuvių kalbos instituto Kalbos istorijos ir dialektologijos skyrius. Vilnius, 2013-12-05—06.

LE – Lietuvių enciklopedija. South Boston: LEL, t. 10, 1957, 80, 468; t. 13, 1958, 454; t. 15, 1958, 59, 770, t. 18, 1959, 489–490; t. 29, 1963, 331.

LKA – Lietuvių kalbos atlasas 1 Leksika. Tomo autoriai: E. Grinaveckienė, A. Jonaitytė, J. Lipskienė, K. Morkūnas, M. Razmukaitė, B. Vanagienė, A. Vidugiris. Redakcinė kolegija: E. Grinaveckienė, A. Jonaitytė, K. Morkūnas, (atsak. redaktorius), A. Vidugiris, Z. Zinkevičius. Vilnius: Mokslas, 1977.

LKI KIDS TA – Lietuvių kalbos instituto Kalbos istorijos ir dialektologijos skyriaus Tarmių archyvas, kuriame saugomi projekto „Šiuolaikiniai geolingvistikos tyrimai Lietuvoje: punktų tinklo optimizacija ir interaktyvioji tarminės informacijos sklaida“ (Projekto kodas Nr. VP1-3.1-ŠMM-07-K-01-028) duomenys.

LKTCH – Lietuvių kalbos tarmių chrestomatija, sudarė Rima Bacevičiūtė, Audra Ivanauskienė, Asta Leskauskaitė, Edmundas Trumpa. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla, 2004.

Meiliūnaitė Violeta, Janina Švambarytė-Valužienė 2014: Bendrasis Lietuvių kalbos atlaso punktų tinklo gyvybingumas. – XXI a. pradžios lietuvių tarmės: geolingvistinis tyrimas (žemėlapiai ir jų komentarai). Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 197–205.

Mikulėnienė Danguolė 2013: Lietuvių tarmių tinklas: jo ištakos ir optimizacija. – Acta Linguistica Lituanica 68, 71–91.

Projekto Nr. VP1-3.1-ŠMM-07-K-01-028 „Šiuolaikiniai geolingvistikos tyrimai Lietuvoje: punktų tinklo optimizacija ir interaktyvioji tarminės informacijos sklaida“ 2 dokumentas. Sociolingvistinis LKA punkto klausimynas.

Švambarytė-Valužienė Janina 2012: Šiuolaikiniai geolingvistikos tyrimai Lietuvoje: kalbinio punkto sunykimas. – Tarptautinė mokslinė konferencija Geolingvistikos pologas XXI amžiuje. Kaunas, VU KHF, 2012 12 06–07.

Švambarytė-Valužienė Janina 2014: Konferencijos, renginiai. – Gimtoji kalba 1. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos centras, 23–28.

TLE – Tarybų Lietuvos enciklopedija 4. Vilnius: Vyriausioji enciklopedijų redakcija, 1988, 507.

Tremtinys Nr. 41(1063), 2013 m. lapkričio 8 d., 7.

Trumpa Edmunds 2012: Latviešu ģeolingvistikas etīdes. Rīga: Zinātne.

Tumėnas Stasys 2013: Vytautas Vardys – politologijos išeivijoje kūrėjas. – Gimtāsai kraštas 43, 43–48.

Vardys V. S. 1965: Lithuania under the Soviets. Portrait of a Nation, 1940–65. New York–London.

226

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXI

Kalbinio punkto gyvavimo situacija: XX a. vidurys – XXI a. pradžia

VLE – Visuotinė lietuvių enciklopedija, t. XII, 2007, 109, 111–112, 571–574, 787, 789; t. XIV, 2008, 644. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

XXI a. pradžios lietuvių tarmės: geolingvistinis tyrimas (žemėlapiai ir jų komentarai). Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2014.

KALBINIŲ PUNKTŲ RESPONDENTAI (Rt)

Dauginiai (LKA 069) – Rt 1 (1949); Rt 2 (1935).

Džiuik(i)ai (LKA 132) – Rt 1 (1941), Rt 2 (1961), Rt 3 (1932), Rt 4 (1924). Rt 7 (1937).

Kyburiai (LKA 050) – Rt 1 (1927), Rt 2 (1953), Rt 3 (1930), Rt 4 (1940), Rt 5 (1925).

Kušleikiai (LKA 225) – Rt 2 (1936), Rt 3 (1942), Rt 4 (1932).

Labūnavėlė (LKA 223) – Rt 7 (1937), Rt 8 (1935).

Legečiai (LKA 262) – Rt 1 (1934), Rt 2 (1939), Rt 3 (1936), Rt 4 (1932), Rt 5 (1977).

Lūpaičiai (LKA 106) – Rt 4 (1940).

Noriūnai (LKA 051) – Rt 1 (1943), Rt 2 (1946), Rt 3 (1936), Rt 4 (1923).

The Vitality of Language Points: Middle of the 20^th – Beginning of the 21^st Century

SUMMARY

The article provides an overview of the situation in 37 language points of Lietuvių kalbos atlasas (LKA) (Atlas of the Lithuanian Language) representing different dialects of Lithuania from western and eastern Aukštaitija (Highland) as well as southern and northern Žemaitija (Lowland). An attempt is made to establish factors which influenced the situation when certain points were vibrant in the middle of the 20^th century and experienced a decline or ceased to exist at the beginning of the 21^st century. The location of 7 language points had to be changed. Out of 17 language points of the Šiauliai subdialect in western Aukštaitija 4 had to be moved: from Lūpaičiai (LKA 106) to Dapkūnai, from Legečiai (LKA 262) to Minaičiai, from Kyburiai (LKA 50) to Jurdaičiai and from Noriūnai (LKA 51) to Beržininkai. Out of 3 language points of the Raseiniai subdialect in southern Žemaitija one was moved – from Kušleikiai (LKA 225) to Šalteniai. Out of 9 language points of the Varniai subdialect in southern Žemaitija one was moved – from Džiuik(i)ai to Kužiai. Out of 3 language points of the Telšiai subdialect in northern Žemaitija one was moved – from Dauginiai (LKA 069) to Kapėnai.

The 37 points researched make up 5.03% of the 735 language points in Lithuania (there are 750 language points of LKA in total and 15 of them are located outside the borders of Lithuania). These 37 language points were vibrant in the 20^th century, but by now the location of 18.92% of them has had to be changed.

Straipsniai / Articles

227

JANINA ŠVAMBARYTĖ-VALUŽIENĖ

The decline of every fourth or fifth point was influenced by external factors: historical cataclysms (the Second World War), occupation and forced changes in the political, economic, social and cultural system (changes in the ways of farming, nationalization, deportations, melioration, creation of the settlements of collective farms, urbanization, migration of the young generation into towns, etc.). External factors created conditions for the development of internal factors, such as natural death of the local population, linguicide.

Those language points of which the locations changed in the 21^st century had not entirely died out. The remaining and returning members of the local communities as well as people from different dialects moving into such places who are active socially, have economic relations in the area and develop cultural as well as linguistic identity make attempts to revive these language points.

Įteikta 2014 m. liepos 22 d.

JANINA ŠVAMBARYTĖ-VALUŽIENĖ

Lietuvių kalbos institutas

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

[email protected]

228

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXI