Rytų ir pietryčių vilniškių kalbinės nuostatos

JOLITA URBANAVIČIENĖ Institute of the Lithuanian Language Research areas: dialectology, experimental phonetics, phonology, lexicography, contacts between Baltic and Slavic languages. LANGUAGE ATTITUDES OF EASTERN AND SOUTH-EASTERN VILNIŠKIAI Language Attitudes of Residents of Eastern and South-Eastern Vilnius (Vilniškiai) ABSTRACT The article is based on material from the project Contemporary Geolinguistic Research in Lithuania: Optimization of the Network of Survey Points and Interactive Dissemination of Dialectal Information, carried out at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language in 2011–2013. The sociolinguistic questionnaires completed during the project make it possible to investigate the use of languages and dialects in relation to various social factors, covering the most important domains of language use and age groups (the younger generation (up to 30 years), the middle generation (31–50 years), and the older generation (from 51 years)). The article analyzes data from 34 Eastern Aukštaitian Vilniškiai survey points, collected in the areas around Tverečius, Adutiškis, Švenčionys, Švenčionėliai, Mielagėnai, Strūnaitis, and Sariai. The use of the standard language, the Vilniškiai subdialect, and Slavic languages (Belarusian, Polish, Russian) is investigated in three domains: individual (thinking), private (home, family), and public (village community, official communication, school, church). ANNOTATION The article has been developed on the basis of the material under the Project “Modern Research of Geolinguistics in Lithuania: Optimization of Network of Points and Interactive Spread of Dialect Information” carried out at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language in the years 2011–2013. The sociolinguistic questionnaires filled in during the Project enable the exploration of the use of languages and dialects taking into consideration different social factors covering the most important domains of language use and age groups (younger (under 30 years old), middle (31–50 years old) and older (from 51 years old) generations). The data of 34 points of Eastern Aukštaitian sub-dialect of Vilnius gathered in the localities of Tverečius, Adutiškis, KEYWORDS: language attitudes, domain, diglossia, overt prestige, covert prestige. KEYWORDS: language attitudes, domain, diglossia, overt prestige, covert prestige. Straipsniai / Articles 63 JOLITA URBANAVIČIENĖ Švenčionys, Švenčionėliai, Mielagėnai, Strūnaitis, Sariai, which are attributed to Eastern and South-Eastern sub-dialects of Vilnius by dialectologists, are under analysis. The relations between the standard language, sub-dialect of Vilnius and Slavic languages (Belarusian, Polish, Russian) were analysed based on their use in different domains: individual (thinking), private (home, family) and public (village community, official communication, school, church). RESEARCH PROBLEM AND METHODS In recent years, the ideology of regionalization (as the opposite of globalization), which has been gaining popularity in Europe, has encouraged research into dialect attitudes and the social value of dialects. In Lithuania, the greatest attention has been devoted to the linguistic attitudes of urban residents (since most—two thirds—of Lithuanians live in cities) and young people (this age group makes it possible to conduct prognostic studies of society’s linguistic behavior) (see Vaicekauskienė, Sausverde 2012; Ramonienė 2013)1. In rural areas, the social value of dialects has not yet been studied comprehensively; only individual areas have been analyzed, for example, Joniškėlis, Pasvalys district (Ramonienė 2006: 137–147), and Lydūokiai, Ukmergė district (Aliūkaitė 2005: 38–47). Research on the dialects of villages from a geolinguistic (horizontal) and sociolinguistic (vertical) perspective (for terminology, see Aliūkaitė 2013 and references cited therein) should be encouraged by the project carried out at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language in 2011–2013, Contemporary Geolinguistic Research in Lithuania: Optimization of the Network of Survey Points and Interactive Dissemination of Dialect Information (project leader Danguolė Mikulėnienė, project code No. VP1-3.1-ŠMM-07-K-01-028), which aims to collect and analyze the latest data from the survey points of the Atlas of the Lithuanian Language. This article summarizes sociolinguistic material collected in the course of the project from 34 survey points assigned by dialectologists to the Eastern and South-Eastern Vilnius dialect area2. Adūtiškis (485), Pirštėliškė (458), Svirkai (4582), Kavaltiškė (460), Jakėliai (4602), Jurgeliškė (457), Bāčkininkai (4572), Trečiūnai (484), Milkūškai (4842), Švenčionys (483), Žiboliškė (508), Strūnaitis (5082), Rópiškė (509), Vidutinė (5092), Melagėnai (507), Sariai (5072), Šutai (527), Švenčionėliai (482), Kretuonai (455), Reškutėnai (4552), Ceikinėliai (417), Ceikiniai (4172), Šiulėnai (419), Mielagėnai (418), Gražuliai (456), Šventōs (4562), 1 Other projects worth mentioning include Language Use and National Identity in Lithuanian Cities, 2007–2009 (carried out by Vilnius University, project leader Meilutė Ramonienė), and The Lithuanian Language: Ideals, Ideologies and Shifts in Identity, 2010–2013 (carried out by the Institute of the Lithuanian Language, project leader Loreta Vaicekauskienė). 2 The number of each survey point is given alongside its name in the Atlas of the Lithuanian Language. If an LLA survey point has disappeared (or is disappearing) and another larger settlement has developed in its vicinity (within 8–12 km), the status of survey point is assigned to the latter locality (such a new survey point is marked by adding an index to the number of the old survey point 2). In such cases, material was collected from both the old and the new survey points. 64 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXX Rytų ir pietryčių vilniškių kalbinės nuostatos Rādiškės (459), Gilūtai (459²), Tverėčius (420), Lazinkai (423), Navikai (423²), Sekonys (421), Didžiasalis (421²), Vosiūnai (422). Earlier studies of the Eastern Aukštaitian Vilnius dialect include sociolinguistic data (cf. Kardelis 2009; Kardelis et al. 2003) and analyze the use of the dialect, non-dialectal speech, and varieties of Slavic languages in the Vilnius dialect area (Kardelis 2013), but the linguistic attitudes of Vilnius dialect speakers have not yet been investigated. The research method was a direct, in-depth interview (lasting approximately 1.5 hours), during which 1–7 Lithuanian-speaking informants were interviewed3, selected using the principles of random multistage sampling. In selecting informants, consideration was given to age (informants represented three generations: younger [up to 30 years], middle [31–50 years], and older [from 51 years]), education (where possible, one local professional was interviewed in each survey point), and gender (an effort was made to interview equal numbers of men and women4). During the interview, alongside other questionnaires, a sociolinguistic speaker questionnaire compiled by Laima Kalėdienė and Daiva Aliūkaitė was completed. The research material for this article consists of data from 120 questionnaires completed in Švenčionys and Ignalina districts (for the full list of survey points, see above). The initial aim of the research was to identify the domains of use of the Vilnius subdialect and Standard Lithuanian: in which communication situations Standard Lithuanian is used more often, and in which the subdialect is used. Naturally, this formulation of the problem is only approximate, since the boundary between the standard language variety and the territorial language variety is not always clear5. Moreover, research conducted using the direct-interview method reveals only the linguistic attitudes of dialect users, not their actual language use. Nevertheless, researchers agree that linguistic attitudes most often determine individuals’ linguistic behavior (see Ramonienė 2013 and references cited therein), and that changes in linguistic attitudes are among the most important factors in language change (Vaičekauskienė, Sausverde 2012). As the research proceeded, its scope had to be broadened to account for the specific characteristics of the region under study: informants said that in everyday situations they used not only Standard Lithuanian and the Vilnius subdialect, but also Slavic languages (Polish, Belarusian, and Russian). Thus, the study covered not only diglossia (Standard Lithuanian and dialect), but also bilingualism (several different languages), including cases of— 3 The number of informants depends on the vitality of the survey point: 1–2 informants were recorded in a declining survey point, and 6–7 in a vital one. 4 The number of female informants is slightly higher than that of male informants for objective reasons (the proportion of women among residents, particularly of the older generation, is relatively higher than that of men) and extralinguistic reasons (women’s greater innate communicativeness, a more favorable prior attitude toward the research, etc.). 5 Pavyzdžiui, Daiva Aliūkaitė (2010: 41) skiria tris tarminio kalbėjimo variantus: 1) tarminį kalbėjimą (nuosekliai reiškiasi tarmės ypatybės), 2) pusiau tarminį kalbėjimą (nenuosekliai reiškiasi tarmės ypatybės) ir 3) naująjį dialektą (tarmės ypatybės nesireiškia). Joshua Fishmanas skiria 8 tarmės nykimo (vadinasi, ir perėjimo prie standartinio kodo) pakopas (Fishman 1991: 88–109). Tarmė ir bendrinė kalba, susiklosčius diglosijos situacijai, susilieja į tarpinę kalbą (intermediate language) (žr. Auer 2011; plg. Vaičekauskienė, Sausverde 2012). Straipsniai / Articles 65 JOLITA URBANAVIČIENĖ the study. The article uses generalized terms for Slavic languages6: Polish, Belarusian, Russian; however, more detailed future studies should also distinguish between the standard language and its local variety, for example, Polish (used for teaching at school and conducting religious services) and local Polish dialect (spoken at home and in the village community). It should be added that the area studied is homogeneous in terms of dialect, and therefore the term dialect throughout the article refers to the Eastern Aukštaitian Vilnius subdialect. The ultimate aim of the study is to identify the linguistic attitudes of Eastern and South-Eastern Vilnius residents toward the dialect, the standard language, and Slavic languages. The study seeks to determine which linguistic codes are associated with different domains of language use. Three main domains are analyzed separately: the individual (thinking), the private (home, family), and the public (village community, official communication, school, church) (see Karaliūnas 2008: 316). INDIVIDUAL DOMAIN Informants were asked which languages (language varieties) they use when thinking, counting, and talking to animals. The majority (78%) of informants from the older generation say that they speak dialect in their personal sphere. Dialect use declines in the younger age groups: only every second informant (50%) aged 31–50 and 15% of younger-generation informants admit to speaking dialect. The use of the standard language is likewise inversely proportional to informants’ age: 10% of the older, 15% of the middle, and 50% of the younger generation report speaking the standard language variety. A considerable proportion of informants (10% of the older, 31% of the middle, and 30% of the younger generation) reported using both the standard language and the Vilnius dialect in the individual domain7: animals are more often addressed in the dialect, while counting is more often done in the standard language. A small proportion (3% of the older, 4% of the middle, and 5% of the younger generation) of informants also require Slavic language varieties in individual communication. These individuals, who use several (two or three) language varieties even when communicating individually, should be considered representatives of individual bilingualism (Karaliūnas 2008: 334). For example, an informant (born in 1969) from the Vidutinė (5092) survey point said that she talks to animals in the Vilnius dialect or Polish, while she counts and thinks in Polish or Belarusian. Such people are usually from mixed families in which one language is insufficient for communication. Linguistic attitudes in the individual domain are summarized in Table 1. 6 Other researchers do not differentiate Slavic languages in greater detail in similar studies, but confine themselves to the term Slavic language varieties (see Kardelis 2013). 7 In this case, the use of the dialect and the standard language does not imply that they merge into a single continuum (diglossia; cf. Auer 2011). Informants indicate that they can speak both the standard language and the dialect (a diglossic situation). 66 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXX Rytų ir pietryčių vilniškių kalbinės nuostatos TABLE 1. Linguistic attitudes in the individual domain Language varieties Share of users (percent) Older generation Middle generation Younger generation Vilnius dialect 78 50 15 Standard language 10 15 50 Vilnius dialect, standard language 10 31 30 Vilnius dialect, Polish 1 Standard language, Polish 1 Standard language, Russian 5 Vilnius dialect, Belarusian, Polish 4 The study revealed a mismatch between linguistic and national identity among some informants. Both linguistic ideology and national self-awareness are shaped by various sociopolitical factors (cf. Saville-Troike 1990, 181–182). A situation in which “nationality does not always coincide with mother tongue” (Kardelis 2009, 60; on the mismatch between official nationality and language use in the Adutiškis–Kamojai area, see Urbanavičienė 2011: 109–110) is especially characteristic of the borderlands of eastern Lithuania, which experienced the dominance of Polish and Russian (and, during World War II, also Belarusian and German) over the course of the 20th century. One in ten (11%) of the Lithuanian-speaking informants who participated in the study does not officially declare a Lithuanian identity. Such cases were recorded only among informants of the older and middle generations. Most of them—85%—are registered as Polish in official documents, while the remainder do not declare an identity at all, because they cannot decide which one to choose. For example, an informant (born in 1933) from Adutiškis (485) says that she could identify as both Lithuanian and Belarusian. An informant (born in 1940) from Svirkai (4582), formerly Polish, now puts a dash instead of an identity. An informant (born in 1969) from Sariai “does not consider herself to be anything.” No mismatch between linguistic and national identity was found among informants in the younger-generation group. Individuals who associate their identity not with a linguistic community but only with their place of residence can be considered representatives of local identity. PRIVATE DOMAIN The private domain is one of the most important areas shaping an individual's linguistic identity, since the transmission of language from one generation to the next and its vitality are ensured in the home environment. It is associated with the communication needs of four different generations (grandparents – parents – children – grandchildren), with interpersonal relationships and their dimensions (closeness – distance, warmth – coldness). One variety of language may be used with household members, another with relatives seen less often. Straipsniai / Articles 67 JOLITA URBANAVIČIENĖ The middle and younger generations of informants say that they use dialect in the private domain almost twice as often as in the individual domain (cf. the middle generation – 50% and 27%, the younger generation – 30% and 15%). The older generation, by contrast, speaks dialect less at home than in the individual domain (55% and 77%, respectively). A quarter (25%) of the older and younger generations and a third (34%) of the middle generation of informants say that they use both the standard language and the dialect diglossically at home. Dialect is most often spoken with grandparents and parents’ families (brothers and sisters), as well as with one’s partner (husband or wife), if they are speakers of the same dialect, whereas standard language is spoken with children and grandchildren8. Cf.: 7% of older-generation informants communicate with their children in standard language, and 14% with their grandchildren. Almost every second (44%) representative of the middle generation said that they speak standard language with their children9. Interestingly, the most favourable attitudes towards the standard language are expressed by representatives of the older generation. Cf.: Now you avoid those [dialectal] words, you speak more Lithuanian, towards more beautiful speech... It would be more beautiful to speak in standard language, times are changing. You have to write correctly; the language has to be proper, grammatical. (Female informant (born 1945) from the Vidutinė (509²) survey point.) You have to speak more grammatically [correctly], more culturedly (more elegantly). (Female informant (born 1942) from the Šutai (527) survey point.) The older generation assigns the standard language a social advantage—it is associated with higher social status, greater career opportunities, and better education (cf. Ramonienė 2013). The middle and younger generations, by contrast, use the standard language in the private domain half as often as in the individual domain (cf. 4% and 25%, respectively, at home, and 15% and 50% in the individual domain). Thus, accommodation processes (adjustment to one’s interlocutor) encourage the older generation to switch to the standard language, while encouraging the middle and younger generations to switch to the dialect. Family communication often involves bilingualism: 21% of the older generation, 35% of the middle generation and 15% of the younger generation of informants say that they speak not only Lithuanian but also Slavic languages in the home environment. In the home environment, one informant may use between two and four different language varieties (see Table 2). 8 Cf. the situation in the city of Vilnius: “The dialect is used with members of the family in which one was born and raised. After starting families, Vilnius residents speak dialect much less often with their partners, and only one in five passes their dialect on to their children, and one in ten to their grandchildren” (Gudavičienė 2010: 226). Cf. also Laima Nevinskaitė’s observation about the language of Klaipėda families: “Relatively few people speak dialect with their children—less often than with friends, older family members, and even at work” (Nevinskaitė 2010: 265). 9 Parents most often believe that dialects can hinder the successful learning of the standard language (Balčiūnienė 2007: 153). 68 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXX Rytų ir pietryčių vilniškių kalbinės nuostatos TABLE 2. Language attitudes in the private sphere Language varieties | Share of users (percent) | Older generation | Middle generation | Younger generation | Vilnius dialect | 54 | 27 | 30 | Standard language | | 4 | 25 | Vilnius dialect, standard language | 25 | 34 | 25 | Vilnius dialect, Belarusian | 4 | 4 | | Vilnius dialect, Polish | 6 | | | Vilnius dialect, Russian | | 4 | | Standard language, Polish | 4 | | 5 | Standard language, Belarusian | | 4 | | Standard language, Russian | | | 10 | Vilnius dialect, standard language, Polish | 3 | 7 | | Vilnius dialect, standard language, Russian | 2 | 4 | 5 | Vilnius dialect, standard language, Belarusian | | 4 | | Vilnius dialect, standard language, Russian, Polish | 2 | 4 | | Vilnius dialect, standard language, Belarusian, Russian | | 4 | For example, an informant (born in 1937) from Lazinkai (423) recalls speaking dialect in the family of his parents, Polish with his grandparents, Russian with his Russian wife, standard Lithuanian with his children living in Vilnius, Russian with those who had moved to Latvia, and standard Lithuanian or Russian with his grandchildren. An informant (born in 1937) from Didžiasalis (421²) indicated that he had spoken dialect with his grandparents and parents, Russian with his wife, and standard Lithuanian with his children and grandchildren. Informants of the middle generation, born around 1960–1980, have the most contact with Slavic languages of all the generations studied. The more intensive multilingualism of this generation may be related to the socialism that flourished during their years of growth and maturation, bilingual schools, intensive contact with their Belarusian neighbors, and frequent marriages to Slavs. Cf.: a female informant (born in 1962) from Strūnaitis (508²) says that she spoke Belarusian with her grandparents, the Vilnius dialect with her parents, brothers, and sisters, Russian with her husband from Belarus, and standard language with her children. A female informant (born in 1969) from Vidutinė (509²) indicated that Polish was spoken in her parents’ family, standard Lithuanian with her mother’s relatives, while she speaks with her husband and children according to her husband—in the Vilnius dialect. The younger generation uses only Russian and Polish among the Slavic language varieties. Belarusian disappears from young people’s linguistic repertoire. It is regarded as lacking prestige and prospects, so young people do not know it—Belarusian is replaced by Russian. Straipsniai / Articles 69 JOLITA URBANAVIČIENĖ A situation in which not only Lithuanian but also several (two or three) Slavic language varieties are used daily at home is characteristic of multilingualism10. PUBLIC SPACES Communication in public spaces encompasses various areas of life and social roles. This article analyzes separately the language attitudes of dialect users toward four areas of public life: the rural community, institutions and meetings (official communication), school, and church. Communication in the rural community, like individual and private communication, is classified as everyday interaction, whereas communication in institutions, meetings, schools, and churches is considered prestigious (see Karaliūnas 2008: 345). It is likely that informants choose the dialect more often for everyday interaction and the standard language for prestigious interaction. 1. The Rural Community Dialect speech is better suited to communication in the rural community, as it is more sincere, warmer, and more open than the standard language (cf. Girdenis 2000: 250; Aliūkaitė 2005: 42). Informants were asked which language variety they use in their rural surroundings when speaking with neighbors of different ages, as well as with acquaintances and strangers. The rural setting is semi-public, since informants either know their interlocutor very well or are conversing in a familiar environment. The status of the communicative act (familiar or formal) and the choice of language variety depend on the relationship between the speakers (closeness or distance). The active or passive participation in a conversation of someone from a different linguistic environment may prompt the use of the standard code—the standard language. The study showed that only a small proportion of informants use exclusively the standard language in the rural community: 6% of the older generation, 8% of the middle generation, and 20% of the younger generation (cf.: the standard language is used more often in individual and private domains11). Likewise, only a small proportion report speaking exclusively in the dialect 10Vytautas Kardelis points out that “when describing a sociolinguistic situation, it is essential to clearly distinguish knowledge of a foreign language from the facts of true bilingualism” (Kardelis 2009: 66). He argues that in the rural areas of the Lithuanian-speaking zones of the northeastern Vilniškiai dialect area, “no major manifestations of bilingualism can be discerned” (Kardelis 2009: 68), but acknowledges that linguistic contacts may be maximal in the mixed southeastern zones. Our study shows that one in four (25%) representatives of the eastern and southeastern Vilniškiai dialect areas encounter multilingualism in the private sphere. 11Consequently, we cannot agree with Loreta Vaicekauskienė and Érika Sausverde’s claim that “the use of dialects in Lithuania is essentially diglossic and unequivocally associated primarily with the private sphere, especially the family, and more strongly with older people” (Vaicekauskienė, Sausverde 2012). In the eastern Aukštaitian Vilniškiai area, the dialect has its strongest position in communication within the rural community. 70 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXX Rytų ir pietryčių vilniškių kalbinės nuostatos among middle-generation (4%) and younger-generation (10%) informants. However, nearly half (41%) of the older-generation representatives speak exclusively in the dialect in rural settings. One in two informants, regardless of age, use the dialect and the standard language diglossically: when communicating with strangers, they favor the standard language, whereas with neighbors they favor the dialect. The neighbors’ age is also taken into account when choosing a means of communication; for example, older-generation informants speak dialect with their peers, but use the standard language with middle- and younger-generation neighbors (cf. the analogous communication between grandparents and grandchildren). Informants themselves identify the dialect as the predominant means of communication in the rural community, sometimes with undisguised regret that they are obliged to speak dialect. Cf.: I speak dialect with the neighbors. They all speak dialect, so how could I be the only Lithuanian-speaking lady here [...]. It might be better if we all spoke the standard language, but the village speaks dialect. And what can you do now? You can’t change them. (Female informant (born 1933) from the Šiūlėnai survey point (419).) Tarmė suvokiama kaip „grupinė tapatybė“ (Ramonienė 2006: 145), „savos grupės kalbinės elgsenos atributas“ (Vaicekauskienė, Sausverde 2012), „socialinis solidarumas“ (Ramonienė 2013). Kaimo bendruomenės komunikaciją sudaryta iš individualių komunikacijos aktų, kuriuose kalbos pasirinkimą nulemia ne atskiras žmogus, o bendruomenės normos ir socialinis statusas. Individai, siekiantys būti lygiaverčiais kaimo bendruomenės nariais, nejaučia atskirties, vartoja tarmę. Ir atvirkščiai – norintys išlaikyti socialinį atstumą, pabrėžti savo aukštesnį išsilavinimą, socialinę padėtį ar kilmę asmenys vartoja bendrinę kalbą. The dialect may be regarded as a consolidating code of the rural community, while the complex underlying processes that sustain its use may be considered the covert prestige of the dialect12 (Trudgill 1972: 179–195; Miliūnaitė 2010: 241; Ramonienė 2006: 145). On the one hand, a positive attitude toward the dialect is not displayed publicly (on the contrary, many respondents admit that the dialect is “ugly,” “bad”); on the other hand, the dialect is used in a variety of rural community situations. Community members who do not speak the dialect are viewed with suspicion, while those who do speak it are embraced in solidarity. Cf.: In the village, you’ll come across as a lady if you don’t speak dialect. (Female informant (born 1962) from the Šiūlėnai survey point (419).) In the rural community, the dialect is valued as a means of communication among community members. People who are not recognized as true members of the community 12Meilutė Ramonienė has described this covert favor toward the dialect in the Joniškėlis area (Pasvalys district): “In informal settings, the use of the standard language is usually not tolerated; members of one’s own speech community who do not speak dialect are regarded as estranged, are mocked, and are not trusted” (Ramonienė 2006: 145). Straipsniai / Articles 71 JOLITA URBANAVIČIENĖ (for example, local intellectuals), the more prestigious variety—the standard language—is assigned in advance. For example, a teacher working in Didžiasalis admits that she avoids speaking dialect in public: If I meet a friend who knows the dialect, then I speak dialect. Well, that’s how it is, I’m a teacher... How can you speak dialect here? I think it’s good to speak dialect when you meet someone you know, but I catch myself: I wonder what people will think of me if I speak dialect. I look around to see if anyone is listening. I answer in dialect, but I look around. (Female informant (born 1957) from the Tverečius (420) locality.) There are few manifestations of the overt prestige of dialect, but it is interesting that it is displayed by representatives of the younger generation. Young people seek to create their own linguistic repertoire by distinguishing themselves from the older generation—their parents and grandparents. One form of such self-expression, reflecting their local identity, is speaking dialect. Cf.: My acquaintances try to use those [dialect] words. Maybe they think they’re nice? All my acquaintances and friends try to speak dialect when they return to that area [from the city to the village]. Or they speak dialect with new friends, because it’s interesting to see what they’ll say. Those dialect words are interesting. It seems that everyone wants to emphasize where they come from, so they speak dialect. (Female informant (born 1989) from the Mielagėnai (418) locality.) The informant’s references to the dialect as “nice” and “interesting” indicate an overtly favorable attitude toward dialects (unlike that of speakers of the middle and especially the older generations). This evaluation of local dialects differs from the negative or neutral attitude toward dialects among urban young people13. Cf.: “The dialects of rural regions [...] are viewed more favorably than nonstandard urban varieties” (Ramonienė 2013). Vienalyčių kalbinių bendruomenių beveik nebūna (plg. Karaliūnas 2008: 323), ypač rytų ir pietryčių vilniškių teritorijoje, kur įvairiais lygmenimis kontaktuoja baltų ir slavų kalbos. Norėdami patenkinti komunikacijos poreikį pakraštinių arealų gyventojai – lietuviai ir slavai – išmoksta vieni kitų kalbas. Tai pastovūs ir natūralūs kalbų kontaktai (Karaliūnas 2008: 32), kurie nesukelia konfliktų ir yra šio regiono žmonių kasdienio gyvenimo dalis (apie Adutiškio ir Kamojų daugiakalbes bendruomenes žr. Urbanavičienė 2011: 95–114). Šalia vilniškių patarmės ir bendrinės kalbos slavų kalbų atmainas kaimo bendruomenėje teigia vartojantys 13% vyresniosios kartos, 27% vidurinės kartos ir 20% jaunesniosios kartos informantų (žr. 3 lentelę). 13 Cf. Ineta Dabašinskienė and Raminta Garuckaitė’s observation about the linguistic attitudes of young people in Kaunas: “On the question of dialects, young people more often take a neutral or negative view. Apparently, for young people, the use of dialects is more often associated with the village and is not a sign of modern life” (Dabašinskienė, Garuckaitė 2010: 245). 72 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXX Rytų ir pietryčių vilniškių kalbinės nuostatos TABLE 3. Language attitudes in rural community communication Language varieties Share of users (percent) Older generation Middle generation Younger generation Vilnius subdialect 41 4 10 Standard language 6 8 20 Vilnius subdialect, standard language 40 61 50 Standard language, Russian 10 Vilnius subdialect, standard language, Russian 6 19 5 Standard language, Russian, Polish 1 4 5 Standard language, Belarusian, Polish 1 Vilnius subdialect, Belarusian, Polish 1 4 Vilnius subdialect, standard language, Russian, Belarusian 1 Vilnius subdialect, standard language, Polish, Russian 3 The Slavic language varieties—Russian, Polish, and Belarusian—are used in mixed areas. Accommodation (adjustment) processes are particularly pronounced on the eastern edge of the Vilnius dialect area: since most residents know all the local language varieties, they let their interlocutor choose the means of communication (“I speak whatever language I am addressed in”). The study results show that Belarusian has disappeared from the linguistic repertoire of the younger generation (cf. its non-use even in the private domain), whereas Russian and Polish continue to be used. It is noteworthy that the older generation uses Slavic languages alongside the dialect, while the middle-aged and younger generations use them alongside the standard language. Thus, in mixed families, the dialect gives way to the standard language. It is also evident that informants from the older generation in rural communities use a greater number of languages (up to four language varieties), while the linguistic inventories of the middle-aged and younger generations are smaller (up to three language varieties). 2. Official communication Official communication was analyzed in terms of the use of language varieties in three different situations: in a shop, an institution, and a meeting. The choice of means of communication in institutions is related to political conditions, which have changed very dynamically in this region (see Urbanavičienė 2010: 46). The language used at a meeting is determined by social circumstances, i.e., the language of the dominant social group is spoken. In village shops, the means of communication is determined by psychological reasons and the dimensions of familiarity (speaking dialectally) and unfamiliarity (speaking the standard language). Straipsniai / Articles 73 JOLITA URBANAVIČIENĖ In all the situations mentioned, almost half (48%) of the older-generation informants said they spoke dialectally. Among representatives of the middle and younger generations, considerably fewer admitted to speaking only dialectally—4% and 10%, respectively. The use of the standard language is also related to a person’s age: the younger the informant, the more often they would speak the prestigious variety of Lithuanian in public. Cf.: 15% of the older generation, 31% of the middle generation, and 55% of the younger generation said that they used the standard language in official communication. One in four (25%) of the younger generation, one in three (30%) of the older generation, and one in two (53%) of the middle generation would use both the standard language and the dialect in official communication situations. Examining the situations under discussion separately shows that in institutions (the eldership office, library, post office, shop, medical station, and elsewhere) most informants would prefer the standard language, whereas in village shops (especially if a local person works there) they would prefer the dialect. The language variety used at meetings should be regarded as the linguistic code of the entire village community, uniting in one space members of different linguistic communities. Communication at meetings is structured one way in Lithuanian-speaking areas and another in mixed areas. In Lithuanian-speaking areas, people more often speak dialectally than in the standard language during meetings, for example, in Mielagėnai (419), Reškutėnai (4552), and Šventa (4562). In mixed areas, one of the Slavic languages may be spoken at meetings (for example, Polish in Ropiškė (509)). The means of communication may be chosen spontaneously, depending on the interlocutors; that is, the choice of language variety is determined by accommodation processes. For example, an informant from Ziboliškė (508) (born in 1935) emphasizes that at a meeting they will speak “the way the others speak.” Alongside varieties of Lithuanian, Slavic languages are used by 5% of the older generation, 12% of the middle generation, and 10% of the younger generation (see Table 4). 4 TABLE. Language attitudes in official communication Language varieties | Share of users (percent) | Older generation | Middle generation | Younger generation | Vilnius subdialect | 49 | 4 | 10 | Standard language | 15 | 31 | 55 | Vilnius subdialect, standard language | 31 | 53 | 25 | Standard language, Russian | 1 | 8 | 10 | Standard language, Polish | 1 | | | Vilnius subdialect, Russian | 1 | | | Vilnius subdialect, Polish | 1 | | | Vilnius subdialect, standard language, Russian | 1 | 4 | 74 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXX Rytų ir pietryčių vilniškių kalbinės nuostatos Compared with communication in the village community, Slavic languages are used less often in official situations and their repertoire has narrowed, while the importance of the prestigious variety—the standard Lithuanian language—has increased noticeably. Informants say that they do not use Belarusian at all in acts of official communication. Only representatives of the older generation admit to speaking Polish in official situations. It is likely that the middle and younger generations have shifted from Belarusian and Polish to Russian (cf.: there are no longer any Polish-language schools in the region under discussion). In mixed areas, Russian is used alongside the dialect and the standard language; for example, Russian is spoken in a shop in Šutai (527) and at meetings in Bačkininkai (4572). 3. Church A distinct sphere of public life—the church—also has a defined number of language varieties: dialect, the standard language, and Polish compete here. Informants were asked which language they pray in, go to confession in, teach prayers to others in, and use to communicate with the priest. In all age groups, the dominant language of religion is the standard language; cf. it is used by 26% of the older generation, 65% of the middle generation, and 85% of the younger generation of informants. Only in dialect do 26% of the older generation, 4% of the middle generation, and 10% of the younger generation pray and communicate with the priest. Cases of diglossia were recorded: some informants use both the standard language and the dialect for religious purposes (36% of the older generation, 23% of the middle generation, and 5% of the younger generation): usually, they speak in dialect with the priest or during confession, but pray in the standard language, that is, “the way it is written in the prayer book.” Informants’ language attitudes—the preference for the standard language in church—show that the domain of religion is perceived as prestigious. Attitudes toward Slavic languages are less favorable, since these languages have lower social value. Of the Slavic languages, only Polish is used in the domain of religion; it has long been associated with Catholicism. Polish is used more often by older-generation informants who attended Polish-language schools during the Polish period (1920–1939): they pray in Polish, listen to Mass on the radio in Polish, and go to confession in Polish. Alongside the Vilnius dialect and the standard language, Polish is also used for religious purposes by 8% of the middle-generation representatives (most often, they report that they pray in Polish). The younger generation says that they do not use Polish in church. Informants’ language attitudes toward the three language varieties—the standard language, the dialect, and Polish—are summarized in Table 5. How all three language varieties are mixed within one person is well illustrated by the example of an informant from Strunaitis (5082) (born in 1930): she speaks in dialect with the priest and during confession, teaches her grandchildren prayers in the standard language, and prays in Polish herself. Straipsniai / Articles 75 JOLITA URBANAVIČIENĖ TABLE 5. Language attitudes in the domain of religion Language varieties | Share of users (percent) | Older generation¹⁴ | Middle generation | Younger generation Vilnius subdialect | 26 | 4 | 10 Standard language | 26 | 65 | 85 Vilnius subdialect, standard language | 36 | 23 | 5 Vilnius subdialect, Polish | 3 Standard language, Polish | 3 | 4 Vilnius subdialect, standard language, Polish | 1 | 4 4. School Another important sphere of public life that shapes linguistic identity and implements language policy is school. Because of the region’s specific characteristics (multilingualism and political upheavals), the informants living here attended schools with different languages of instruction. The educational experience of the older generation was particularly complex (all middle- and younger-generation informants studied in Lithuanian): informants born in the 1930s experienced various transformations in language policy. One in four (26%) graduated from schools with two, three, or even four different languages of instruction (see Table 6). TABLE 6. Languages of instruction among three different generations Language of instruction | Share of pupils (percent) | Older generation | Middle generation | Younger generation Lithuanian | 67 | 100 | 100 Polish | 5 Lithuanian, Polish | 8 Lithuanian, Russian | 4 Polish, Russian | 2 Lithuanian, Russian, Polish | 5 Lithuanian, Polish, Belarusian | 2 Lithuanian, Russian, Polish, Belarusian | 2 Lithuanian, Russian, Polish, German | 3 Studied at home | 2 14 5% of informants said that they do not go to church and do not pray, and therefore did not answer the questions about religion. 76 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXX Rytų ir pietryčių vilniškių kalbinės nuostatos Cf.: an informant (born in 1929) from Vosiūnai (422) says that he studied not only in Lithuanian and Polish, but also in Russian and German (during the Second World War). The same was reported by an informant (born in 1929) from Ceikiniai (417²). An informant from Strūnaitis (508²), born in 1930, states that she studied not only in Lithuanian, but also in three Slavic languages—Polish, Russian, and Belarusian (the Lithuanian borderlands belonged to Belarus). According to researchers, education is one of the most important factors shaping language attitudes (Garrett 2010: 22; Ramonienė 2013). Cf.: in Eastern Lithuania, the school was a more powerful instrument of Polonization than the church, the Polish administration, or the estates (Kardelis, Navickaitė 2006: 495). This study merely confirms that the language attitudes of the borderland Vilniškiai developed under very complex circumstances. CONCLUSIONS The language attitudes of the Eastern and South-Eastern Vilniškiai, encompassing three domains of language-variety use (individual, private, and public), can be summarized at two levels: vertical and horizontal. The horizontal (or quantitative) level of the results shows that the Vilniškiai subdialect ranks second after the standard language in terms of the functions it performs—it is used only neither at school as a language of instruction (see Table 7). In descending order of social importance, it is followed by Russian, Polish, and Belarusian. T A B L E 7. Language attitudes of the Eastern and South-Eastern Vilniškiai Language, dialect | Generation | Domains of language use | Individual domain | Private domain | Public domain | Rural community | Official communication | Church | School | Vilniškiai subdialect | Aged 51 and over | + | + | + | + | + | Aged 31–50 | + | + | + | + | + | Aged up to 30 | + | + | + | + | + | Standard Lithuanian | Aged 51 and over | + | + | + | + | + | + | Aged 31–50 | + | + | + | + | + | + | Aged up to 30 | + | + | + | + | + | + | Polish | Aged 51 and over | + | + | + | + | + | + | Aged 31–50 | + | + | + | | + | | Aged up to 30 | | + | + | | | Straipsniai / Articles 77 JOLITA URBANAVIČIENĖ Language, dialect | Generation | Domains of language use | Individual domain | Private domain | Public domain | Rural community | Official communication | Church | School | Belarusian | Aged 51 and over | + | + | + | Aged 31–50 | + | + | + | Aged up to 30 | | | | Russian | Aged 51 and over | + | + | + | + | Aged 31–50 | + | + | + | Aged up to 30 | + | + | + | + A vertical (or qualitative) assessment of the results obtained shows a decline in the value of the dialect, which correlates with the younger age of the informants: representatives of the middle and younger generations choose dialect speech less often than the older generation in all the domains of use studied (see Figs. 1 and 2). FIGS. 1 AND 2. Language attitudes toward the use of dialect and the standard language in the individual, private, and public domains (percentages) Other conclusions of this study: 1. A diglossic use of the standard language and dialect is characteristic of some informants; it is shaped by social constraints, for example: in the private domain—age (communication between parents and children, grandparents and grandchildren); in the public domain—education, social class, and social distance (communication between acquaintances and strangers, official and private communication). 78 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXX Rytų ir pietryčių vilniškių kalbinės nuostatos 2. If there are no social barriers, the dialect’s position remains strong, especially in the public—rural community—space, where it is sustained by the dialect’s covert prestige. In both the individual and private spheres, the dialect is avoided for utilitarian reasons: better career prospects and higher social status are associated with the standard language. 3. Only the younger generation displays overt prestige for the dialect; it tends to incorporate the dialect into its repertoire of linguistic resources and make it part of its identity. 4. The study revealed a decline in the social status of Slavic languages. The younger generation has completely abandoned Belarusian; Polish is retreating from the public sphere, and the social value of Russian has diminished. 5. The study highlighted the linguistic tolerance and accommodative behavior of informants living in multilingual areas: the interlocutor is allowed to choose the means of communication. 6. One in ten informants (11%) does not declare a Lithuanian identity. A small proportion of informants (3%) associate their identity not with a linguistic community, but with their place of residence. These are representatives of local identity. LITERATŪRA Aliūkaitė Daiva 2005: Terminis kalbėjimas: (galimi?) socialiniai kalbėjimų koreliatai. – Lituanistica 1(61), 38–47. Aliūkaitė Daiva 2010: Naujasis dialektas: galimas tarminio kalbėjimo vertinimo scenarijus. – Respectus Philologicus 18(23), 41–57. Aliūkaitė Daiva 2013: Horizontalusis ir vertikalusis kalbos kontinuumo skaidumas: XXI amžiaus kalbėjimo variantai paprastojo kalbos vertintojo požiūriu. – Taikomoji kalbotyra 2. Interneto prieiga: www.taikomojikalbotyra.lt. Auer Peter 2011: Dialect vs. standard: A typology of scenarios in Europe. – The languages and linguistics of Europe. A comprehensive guide, 485–500. Balčiūnienė Ingrida 2007: Gimtosios kalbos įsisavinimas. – Kalbos kultūra 80, 153–158. Dabašinskienė Ineta, Garuckaitė Raminta 2010: Kalbinis Kauno praeities ir dabarties savitumas. – Miestai ir kalbos, 231–249. Fishman Joshua A. 1991: Reversing Language Shift. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Garrett Peter 2010: Attitudes to Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Girdenis Aleksas 2000: Tarmės ir mokykla. – Kalbotyros darbai 2, 249–253. Gudavičienė Eglė 2010: Sociolingvistinis Vilniaus miesto portretas. – Miestai ir kalbos, 207–229. Straipsniai / Articles 79 JOLITA URBANAVIČIENĖ Karaliūnas Simas 2008: Kalbos vartojimas ir socialinis kontekstas. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Kardelis Vytautas 2009: Šiaurės rytų aukštaičiai vilniškiai: ribos ir diferenciacija. Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. Kardelis Vytautas 2013: Kalbų vartojimas rytų aukštaičių vilniškių patarmėje. – Lietuvių kalba 8 (įteikta). Interneto prieiga: www.lietuviukalba.lt. Kardelis Vytautas, Birutė Sinočk ina, Wiemer Björn, Zielińska Anna 2003: Situacija językowa na terenie od Wisagini do Hoduciszek na Litwie (Raport z badań terenowych). – Acta Baltico-Slavica 27, 33–52. Kardelis Vytautas, Navickaitė Agnė 2006: Šiaurės rytų vilniškiai 1920–1930 m. Sociolingvistinės pastabos. – Baltistica 41(3), 489–496. Miliūnaitė Rita 2010: Kalbos prestižas ir jo planavimas. – Kalbos kultūra 83, 231–256. Nevinskaitė Laima 2010: Klaipėdiečio sociolingvistinis portretas: kalbų mokėjimas ir vartojimas Klaipėdoje. – Miestai ir kalbos, 251–267. Ramonienė Meilutė 2006: Nuostatos dėl bendrinės kalbos ir tarmės: Joniškėlio atvejis. – Kalbos kultūra 79, 137–147. Ramonienė Meilutė 2013: Tarmės socialinė vertė: Lietuvos miestų jaunimo kalbinės nuostatos. – Taikomoji kalbotyra 2. Interneto prieiga: www.taikomojikalbotyra.lt. Saville-Troike Muriel 1990: The Ethnography of Communication. An Introduction. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Trudgill Peter 1972: Sex, covert prestige and linguistic change in urban British English. – Language in Society 1, 179–195. Urbanavičienė Jolita 2010: Svirkų šnektos fonologinė sistema: vokalizmas ir prozodija. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Urbanavičienė Jolita 2011: Adutiškio – Kamojų arealas: kalbinė tapatybė lietuvių ir baltarusių parib yje. – Kalbotyra 63(3), 95–114. Vaicekauskienė Loreta, Sausverde Ėrika 2012: Lietuvos tarmių rezervatas. Socialiniai ir geografiniai tarmės mobilumo ribojimai tiesioginių tyrimų duomenimis. – Taikomoji kalbotyra 1. Interneto prieiga: www.taikomojikalbotyra.lt. 80 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXX Rytų ir pietryčių vilniškių kalbinės nuostatos Language attitudes of residents of Eastern and South-Eastern Vilnius (Vilniškiai) S U M M A R Y The research revealed a decreasing use of the dialect in the individual domain: 78% of the older generation, 50% of the middle generation and 15% of the younger generation informants think (calculate, speak to animals) in the dialect. In the private domain (family) the use of the dialect and the standard language is predetermined by the communication needs of different generations (grandparents – parents – children). In the group of the older generation the need for the standard language notably increases (54% of the informants use the dialect only and 25% - both the dialect and the standard language), whereas the informants of the younger generation – to the contrary – “come back” to using the dialect while talking at home (30% use the dialect only, 25% – both the dialect and the standard language). In public domain (village community) the use of the dialect and the standard language depends on familiarity-unfamiliarity between the communication act participants: 81% of the older generation, 65% of the middle generation and 60% of the younger generation representatives choose the dialect or the standard language interchangeably (based on the talker). In public domain the prestige of the standard language is directly proportional to the informants’ age – in offices, meetings, shops 15% of the older generation, 31% of the middle generation and 55% of the younger generation representatives use the standard language. The use of the standard language in church is even more frequent and is also related to the informants’ age: while praying or communicating with a priest, 26% of the older generation, 65% of the middle generation and 85% of the younger generation representatives use the standard language. Nevertheless, it is impossible to unambiguously state that a negative attitude towards dialects is under formation (especially among the youth). The dialect is still: 1) common in many communication acts of individual, private and some public domains; 2) as distinct from the prestigious standard language, it is associated with intimacy, informality, familiarity; 3) the dialect is supported by a covert dialect prestige (indirect pressure from the village community); 4) a tendency of the young generation can be observed to include the dialect into the repertoire of their linguistic tools and to make it part of their local identity. Įteikta 2013 m. lapkričio 4 d. JOLITA URBANAVIČIENĖ Lietuvių kalbos institutas Petro Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius, Lietuva [email protected] Straipsniai / Articles 81