LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

Research areas: areal studies of the Baltic languages, geolinguistics, dialectology.

THE SOUTHERN SUBDIALECTS OF THE WESTERN AUKŠTAITIAN OF ŠIAULIAI: THE GEOLINGUISTIC ASPECT AND ITS INTERPRETATIONS¹

The Southern Subdialects of the Western Aukštaitian of Šiauliai: The Geolinguistic Aspect and Its Interpretations

ANNOTATION

The article presents a geolinguistic study of the subdialects in the southern area of the Western Aukštaitian of Šiauliai subdialect (Jonava and its surroundings). The material examined comprises the Western Aukštaitian of Šiauliai in the dialect classifications of Zigmas Zinkevičius and Aleksas Girdenis; the Central Aukštaitian dialect in those of Kazimieras Jaunius and Antanas Salys; and the Eastern First dialect in that of Antanas Baranauskas.

A comparison of the aforementioned areas using computer cartography highlighted the intermediate position of the Western Aukštaitian of Šiauliai in relation to neighboring subdialects. The southern subdialects of this dialect stand out because, in all classifications, they are located at the very edge and are in contact with the Slavic languages of these areas; they can therefore be regarded as peripheral.

ANNOTATION

The article presents a geolinguistic study of the Southern area (with Jonava and its environs) of the Šiauliai subdialect of the Western Aukštaitian. The studied material is the Western Aukštaitian of Šiauliai from the classification by Zigmas Zinkevičius and Aleksas Girdenis, the

¹ I sincerely thank Prof. Dr. Danguolė Mikulėnienė for suggesting the article topic and for her valuable comments.

K E Y W O R D S: Western Aukštaitians of Šiauliai, classification of Lithuanian dialects, geolinguistics, linguistic map, Jonava, peripheral subdialects.

K E Y W O R D S: Western Aukštaitian of Šiauliai, classification of Lithuanian dialects, geolinguistics, linguistic map, Jonava, peripheral subdialects.

156

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVII

Pietinės vakarų aukštaičių šiauliškių šnektos: geolingvistinis aspektas ir jo interpretacijos

Middle Aukštaitian from Kazimieras Jaunius and Antanas Salys’ classification as well as Antanas Baranauskas’ First Eastern.

The comparison of the mentioned areas applying a method of computer cartography demonstrated the intermediate situation of the Western Aukštaitian of Šiauliai with regard to neighbouring subdialects. Jonava and its environs are distinguished by the fact that in all classifications they are on the edge of the area and have contacts with the Slav languages of this area; they can be considered to be peripheral.

As the geolinguistic method gains ground in Lithuanian dialectology, it allows scholars to take a different view of linguists’ work and classifications of Lithuanian dialects from various periods, and to compare and synthesize dialect data collected at the same or different times from various perspectives (Mikulėnienė, Stafecka 2009: 141–163; Mikulėnienė, Trumpa 2008: 128–146; Geržotaitė 2009: 98; 2011: 13–23; 2011a).

The subject of this article is the little-studied dialects of Jonavõ and its surroundings, which in the classification of Lithuanian dialects are assigned to the southernmost part of Western Aukštaitian of Šiauliai (see Fig. 1).

FIG. 1. Southern dialects of Western Aukštaitian of Šiauliai²

² The localities indicated by numbers are also points in the Atlas of the Lithuanian Language (hereafter LKA) (see LKA I 21–30).

Straipsniai / Articles

157

LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ

The aim of the article is to show the development of this subdialect, especially its southern part, using the geolinguistic method³.

AREA UNDER DISCUSSION

The subdialects of the area under discussion, located east of the Baisógala–Dotnuva–Kėdainiai–Jonava line, have been briefly mentioned in the works of many dialectologists (Salys 1935: 68; 1992: 304; Zinkevičius 1966: 15; 2002 [1969]: 377; 2006: 205; Morkūnas 1993: 7; Kazlauskaitė et al. 2007: 85–86). In the current classification of Lithuanian dialects, Jonavà and its environs are assigned to a larger territorial linguistic unit, the Western Aukštaitian Šiauliškiai dialect area (Girdenis, Zinkevičius 1966: 139–147).

These environs belong to Western Aukštaitian because the nasal vowels ą, ę and diphthongs an, am, en, em are preserved intact. Šiauliškiai differs from Western Aukštaitian Kauniškiai in the following features: 1) stress is retracted from the word ending; 2) unstressed long vowels are shortened and stressed short vowels lengthened; 3) unstressed endings are shortened (Zinkevičius 2006: 203–205; LKTCh 60–63; Kazlauskaitė et al. 2007: 25–28)⁴. In addition, the subdialects also differ in that they are in contact with the Slavic languages spoken in these areas.

The Western Aukštaitian Šiauliškiai area, which includes the environs of Žagarė, Joniškis, Kruopiai, Šakyna, Stupurai, Šiauliai, Aukštelkė, Pakapė, Šaukotas, Šiluva, Betygala, Baisógala, Dotnuva, Kėdainiai, Šėta, and Jonava, forms a long, narrow strip that narrows only south of Šiauliai⁵. To the west, Western Aukštaitian Šiauliškiai borders Samogitian, and to the east, Eastern Aukštaitian Panevėžiškiai and Širvintiškiai. The southern Šiauliškiai extend between Western Aukštaitian Kauniškiai and Southern Aukštaitian (see LKA I, map no. 1; www.tarmes.lt).

³ The beginnings of geolinguistic research worldwide are associated with the work of the German dialectologist Georg Wenker, and in Lithuania with that of Kazimieras Būga and Antanas Salys (LKE 32–33; Salys 1985: 73–76; Morkūnas 1977: 7–8; 1980: 41–52). The term language geography, linguistic geography, used previously, is increasingly giving way to geolinguistics (Mikulėnienė 2012; Mikulėnienė, Stafecka 2009: 40–42; www.tarmes.lt). The methodology itself has also changed and continues to evolve, setting ever-new goals alongside its traditional ones (Kalėdienė 2011; Aliūkaitė 2011: 257–259).

⁴ Cf. the questionnaire on the distinguishing dialectal features of Western Aukštaitian Šiauliškiai, compiled for Rima Bakšienė, Asta Leskauskaitė, and Daiva Vaišnienė’s 2011 project, Contemporary Geolinguistic Research in Lithuania: Optimization of the Survey-Point Network and Interactive Dissemination of Dialectal Information (No. VP1-3.1-ŠMM-07-K-01-028) (www.tarmes.lt).

⁵ Drawing on the work of other linguists, Rūta Kazlauskaitė uses maps from the Atlas of the Lithuanian Language and the Encyclopedia of the Lithuanian Language, as well as texts from Western Aukštaitian Šiauliškiai, to include more localities in the area in question; see the map (Kazlauskaitė et al. 2007: 24). Thus, it also includes Džiūikai (survey point 132), traditionally assigned to Southern Samogitian Varniškiai according to LKA I (map no. 1); Girėknalis (399), Ariógala (400), Lenčiai (401), and Daugėliškiai (439), assigned to Western Aukštaitian Kauniškiai; and Surviliškis (335), assigned to Eastern Aukštaitian Panevėžiškiai. The area of Western Aukštaitian Šiauliškiai indicated by the author excludes Gegužìnė (499) and Pociūnėliai (265), which have long been assigned to it.

158

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVII

Pietinės vakarų aukštaičių šiauliškių šnektos: geolingvistinis aspektas ir jo interpretacijos

This article compares the present-day Western Aukštaitian Šiauliškiai dialect with the Aukštaitian Middlelanders in the classifications of Kazimieras Jaunius and Antanas Salys, and with the Eastern Firstlanders in Antanas Baranauskas’s classification.

OVERVIEW OF THE RESEARCH

There are almost no substantial studies devoted to these dialects. The first to write about the language of this area was Viktoras Poržežinskis (Поржезинский 1896: 1–28), who discussed the phonetics of the dialects of the Eastern Lithuanian dialect that fell within the Šiauliai, Kaunas, and Panevėžys districts of the Kaunas Governorate at that time. He mentioned the speech of Žeimiai and the surrounding villages, which belonged to Kaunas district, but did not discuss it separately. Among the features characteristic of this dialect, as well as of the related dialects of Šiauliai district, are the retention of nasal vowels ą, ę and diphthongs an, am, en, em, e.g.: žāsis (with ā), tấėsiu (cf. žāsis, tấėsiu, rañka, âmžias in the Southern Middle Lithuanian dialect (Поржезинский 1896: 8, 12); the consonant l is pronounced hard here and throughout the Eastern Lithuanian dialect, e.g.: łasu ‘I peel’, ładas (cf. lesù, lėdas), łangvas, paniała in the Middle Lithuanian dialect (Поржезинский 1896: 24).

Jurgis Gerulis compiled a description of the Kulvós dialect (based on the speech of Rūčiūnai village, formerly located about two kilometres from Kulvós) (Gerullis 1930: 48–51). Following Baranauskas, he assigned this dialect to the Southern Eastern Firstlanders and discussed its features of accentuation, vowel system, and consonant system.

In terms of quantity, vowels are short, half-long, and long. In his view, the first elements of short, stressed i, u and mixed diphthongs i, u + r, l, m, n may be half-long, e.g.: bù.βa ‘was’, prapú.lt̄ ‘to perish’, mú.m ‘to us’. The short vowel e at the beginning of a word, and e with a falling or rising accent as the first element of mixed diphthongs, is realized as a, e.g.: ažī’s ‘crayfish’, pukštā.lis ‘little bird’, gáˑr̄t ‘to drink’. In the dialect, long vowels in pre-stressed and post-stressed syllables and in word endings are shortened, and the diphthongs ie, uo are monophthongized, e.g.: grūdāˑli ‘a little grain’, nùtupė ‘landed’, bałtadznīˑtę ‘Baltaduonytė’, vėroˑ ‘in the thread’. The first elements of the diphthongs (i)ai, ei, au are reduced, e.g.: vaīˑka ‘child’s’, akułōˑrėi ‘midwives’, pukštāˑlis ‘little bird’. Word-final vowels have different reflexes, e.g.: dugnì ‘at the bottom’⁶, mamīˑtis ‘mother’s’ (Gerullis 1930: 49–50).

As many as five intonation types are identified: short (Kurzton), pushed (Stoßton), sustained (Dehnton), middle (Mittelton), and cut (geschnittenem Dehnton). The last two are discussed in greater detail (Gerullis 1930: 48–49).

The following consonant features are noted: hardening of l, e.g.: dī.dėła ‘big’ and galėˑtume ‘we could’; replacement of j by non-syllabic i (written į), e.g., įināi. (Gerullis 1930: 51).

⁶ Cf.: “7. Word-final position: a) stressed -è in literary spelling > -u: dugnè > dugnì, dievè > dièβˌì” (Gerullis 1930: 50).

Straipsniai / Articles

159

LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ

All these features are illustrated by five short transcribed texts (Gerullis 1930: 52–53)⁷, to which is added a transcribed hymn translated by Abraomas Kulvietis, “Gott sey gelobet und gebenedeiet” or “Pagarbints būki ir paczestawotas” (Gerullis 1930: 53).

The outlying localities of the West Aukštaitian Middle dialect—Kulvōs, Vėprių, Surviliškio, and Baisógalos—where the word-final diphthongs ai, au are reduced, were also mentioned by Salys, although he did not discuss the speech of these places in greater detail (1935: 68; 1992: 304).

Kazys Morkūnas identified the West Aukštaitian Šiauliai dialects around Šėta and Jonava as having features characteristic of peripheral dialects, namely strong interaction with Slavic languages, but did not discuss them in greater detail (1993: 7).

Bonifacas Stundžia wrote about the stress patterns, vowel system, and consonant system of the speech of Ūpningai and its environs, as well as certain morphological features (1980: 98–100; 1988: 111–114). This dialect is divided into two subdialects that differ in phonetic features (reflexes of word-final a, and equivalents of final a, e (< –*án, –*én) and ą, ę).

In one subdialect, which includes the villages of Dagilioniai, Vareikiai, Aukštākai̇mis, Ūpningai, Kunigiškiai, and Saleni̇nkai, word-final a is realized as a vowel of the u type, transcribed v, e.g.: vāsaru, dvkrūs, while instead of final a, e (< –*án, –*én) and ą, ę, u, i are pronounced and transcribed v, l, e.g.: káru ‘war’, šilkinį ‘silken [feminine]’, glūvėnumi. In the second subdialect, which includes the villages of Vānagiškis, Padaigai, and Keižoniai⁸, unstressed word-final a is pronounced without an u coloring, but is also reduced, e.g.: vėžɔ, visbs, tvártbs (and tvártbs); instead of final a, e (< –*án, –*én) and ą, ę, a, e are pronounced, e.g.: vargà, raj̇kà ‘hand’. The stem diphthongs an, en and nasal vowels ą, ę are preserved throughout the area (Stundžia 1980: 98; 1988: 112).

According to Stundžia, the other features are shared by the entire Ūpningai dialect. In villages near the boundary with the East Aukštaitian Širvintos dialect, the vowels ė, o are diphthongized, e.g.: nepadėjė ‘did not help’, r ū̄vėm ‘we were pulling’, and the diphthong uo is realized as ^u̯o or ɔ, e.g., dū̯dɔ (and dɔdɔ). The falling and unstressed diphthong ai is reduced, e.g., krūmbi̇. Stress is retracted from a short ending to the penultimate syllable, which contains a long vowel or the diphthong ie, uo, except among those for whom Lithuanian is a second language (Stundžia 1980: 99–100). Stundžia observes (1980: 99) that in the speech of local people for whom Lithuanian is their native language, vowel and diphthong tones are distinct, but only weakly.

Among the morphological features, the present-tense first-person forms of verbs with t, d are noteworthy, e.g.: áudiau ‘I was weaving’, statiau ‘I was building’; iterative verbs, e.g.: apardinėja ‘he/she ploughs around’; and the preposition iž ‘from’, e.g.: iž ryto (Stundžia 1980: 100).

Some features of the stress patterns, vowel system, and consonant system of the Jonava dialect that arose through contact with Slavic languages were discussed by Rūta Kazlauskaitė (2008: 600–609). According to the author, in this dialect stressed ė, o are diphthongized only slightly, e.g.: stuv’ė̃t

⁷ The same texts are used to present all eleven dialects distinguished by Baranauskas.

⁸ Stundžia (1980: 98) nurodo Keižonių kaimo pavadinimą ir išnašoje paaiškina, kad kaimų pavadinimai jo teikiami tokie, kokie buvo užrašyti iš vietinių gyventojų.

160

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVII

Pietinės vakarų aukštaičių šiauliškių šnektos: geolingvistinis aspektas ir jo interpretacijos

‘to stand’, žmᵘónis ‘people’; diphthongs ie, uo, are monophthongized, e.g.: dʲėnas ‘days’, pardᵘóda ‘sells’. Those who grew up in mixed families pronounce them as follows: jaunesnę.m ‘for the younger ones’, atvaž.š.f ‘to arrive’. Residents of these areas who have spoken several languages since childhood do not use some palatalized consonants. After non-palatalized consonants, front vowels change, e.g.: pù.sesesres ‘female cousins’, žã.mes ‘lands’, grĩ.čė ‘house’. Unstressed ending vowels are reduced; stress is retracted from a short ending not only to the penultimate syllable containing a long vowel or diphthong ie, uo, but also to a syllable containing a diphthong. There is a tendency to level stress placement throughout the word paradigm.

Texts from these dialects, recorded in Akmeniai and Trakai, have been published (LT II 238–239, 246–248; Kazlauskaitė 2005: 66–67): vˈiːrʋs tˈeiˌpà(t) turˈė ju pˈėn.ˈkˈis; bū.va labbī. sun.ku Akmeniai (LT II 239), turė dawom ękli čė↑ vadi.namà // givæ.nambs nã.mbs↑ Akmeniai (Kazlauskaitė 2005: 66), iˌvarˇ.ks tˈei. kôˈlˈii paũ.ks vьlikai. Trakai (LT II 247); from Reniūnai (Panoteriai parish) (Markevičienė 2001: 169–170): ãitra diėna vĩ·rai aĩdava láˈistīt mᵘóteris; būˈdava gavˈėne (Markevičienė 2001: 169), labaĩ būˈdava gegũ.žes mˈėnesi ažuliˌnu vabalū. // kar̃kvabalij; viénus vaikį.nvs (Markevičienė 2001: 170); from Ūpninkai, Markūtiškiai, and Gaižūnai⁹ (Kazlauskaitė et al. 2007: 87–93, 95–97; LKT 223): tašˌvienvs / viriˌš eis givæˈnv Upninkai (Kazlauskaitė et al. 2007: 90), mãˈma būˈdava kalėdom / kleckėˈls kæːpą / dà pirãˈga i.šǩepa Markutiškiai (Kazlauskaitė et al. 2007: 91), ĩ·ra trĩ·s ježerai: juódvs jėˈžervs, áˈpskrivus iir báˈltvs Markutiškiai (LKT 223), tié gíˈde gíˈde / ligᵘónine gulėˈje / tóˈku stᵘóru kᵘóje i lĩ.[ka] Gaižūnai (Kazlauskaitė et al. 2007: 96); from Jaugeliškiai (Kazlauskaitė 2005: 68–69): paskui dar↑ tᵘóke šuniˈbe buuãu padã.ris↑ (Kazlauskaitė 2005: 69); from Žeimiai¹⁰, Pasoda, Batėgala¹¹, and Gegužinė (LKT 221–222, 224–225): tukˈoˈs suó̃gus áˈsti rūˈkšˈus Žeimiai (LKT 221), aĩnu aĩnu jisai, žˈuˈri – pirtˈė la apáˈugu(s) žõˈlv Pasoda (LKT 221), pàc šenãˈuja sėˈnis: kóˈkˈa sˈveikatà, tóˈks šenãˈuimas Batėgala (LKT 224), lakštĩngela labaĩ gražẽi čĩ.lba; nusipirka gelãžini plūˈgu Gegužinė (LKT 225).

The excerpts presented clearly reflect the features of the dialect area under consideration that have been discussed.

DISCUSSION OF THE DIALECTS FROM A GEOLINGUISTIC PERSPECTIVE

Senojoje Jauniaus ir Salio tarmių klasifikacijoje (Salys 1933: 21–34; 1935: 1–87; 1946: 1–67; 1992: 3–140) dabartinius šiauliškius sudaro dalis aukštaičių vakariečių žiemiečių ir aukštaičių viduriečių (žr. 2 pav.).

⁹ The official form specified in LKA I 26 is used.

¹⁰ Recorded as Žeimis.

¹¹ Recorded as Betégala.

Straipsniai / Articles

161

LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ

FIG. 2. Dialect classification by Kazimieras Jaunius and Antanas Salys

The Central Highlanders preserved the diphthongs am, an, em, en and nasal vowels ą, ę intact, like the Westerners, but in pronouncing hard l before ė they are close to the Easterners (Salys 1946: 53; 1992: 109). The map shows that Salys’s Central Highlanders seem to be split into two areas: a northern one (south of Šiauliai this area breaks off completely) and a southern one beginning at Legečiai¹².

These areas differ not only in their linguistic features. There is also a clear natural boundary between them: “[...] a long stretch of swamps and sparsely inhabited forests extends from Šiauliai all the way to the confluence of the Bėržė and Šušvė” (Salys 1992: 111). Indeed, these places abound in swamps,

¹² Iš Salio aukštaičių viduriečių ploto aprašo (1946: 38, 54; 1992: 77, 111) ir pridėto lietuvių tarmių žemėlapio matyti, kad šių aukštaičių plotas šiek tiek žemiau Šiaulių susiaurėja, bet visiškai nenutrūksta.

162

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVII

Pietinės vakarų aukštaičių šiauliškių šnektos: geolingvistinis aspektas ir jo interpretacijos

FIG. 3. Western Central Aukštaitians in the current dialect classification

peat bogs (the Rėkyva and Šūlinkiai peat bogs, and the Tytuvėnai and Šiluva mires) and large forest tracts (Mažuoliai, Liaudiškiai, and Užpelkiai) (see LK 40, 41, 56, 57).

The second area of the Western Central Aukštaitians (the southern one), beginning with Legečiai, includes the environs of Baisógala, Gražiškiai, Šlapabėržė, Kėdáiniai, Jonavõs, Kaũno, Kaišiadorys, and Prienai. In this dialect classification, the Western Central Aukštaitians lie between the Western Aukštaitians (Northern, Veliuona, and Southern), the Eastern Aukštaitians (pantininkai, puntininkai), and the Western Dzūkai.

The Western Šiauliai Aukštaitians in the current classification and the Western Central Aukštaitians in the old classification are geographically distributed in a very similar way, although there are also differences (see Fig. 3).

The map shows that: 1) Salys’s Western Central Aukštaitians formed part of the eastern area of the present-day Šiauliai dialect; 2) the southern part of the Western Central Aukštaitians included not only the area of the present-day Western Šiauliai Aukštaitians, but also a sizeable part of the Western Kaunas Aukštaitians and a small part of the adjacent Southern Aukštaitian area.

Straipsniai / Articles

163

LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ

FIG. 4. Western Šiauliai Aukštaitians in Antanas Baranauskas’s dialect classification¹³

The map presented shows that the eastern boundary of the areas of the present-day Western Šiauliai Aukštaitians and the Western Central Aukštaitians in the old classification coincides. In addition, the eastern boundary of the Western Central Aukštaitians in the old classification almost coincides with the isophones of stem-stressed a, e (see LKA II, map no. 44) and stem circumflex am, an (see LKA II, map no. 69). East of these isophones, the nasal ą, ę and the first components of diphthongs begin to be narrowed (see Fig. 2).

The western boundary of the Western Central Aukštaitians almost coincides with the isophones of l before e and especially ė (see LKA II, maps nos. 15, 28); east of these (and thus across almost the entire Western Central Aukštaitian area), l is pronounced hard (see Fig. 2). The comparison of these two classifications

¹³ Sud. Laura Geržotaitė (2011).

164

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVII

Pietinės vakarų aukštaičių šiauliškių šnektos: geolingvistinis aspektas ir jo interpretacijos

The map shows the intermediate position of the Southern Western Aukštaitian Šiauliškiai dialect in relation to neighboring subdialects. Thus, Jonava and its environs lie on the margins of the areas of the subdialects being compared.

The approximate map of Lithuanian dialects drawn by Baranauskas (see Fig. 4) shows that the area of the first Easterners included the environs of Joniškis, Radviliškis, Šeduva, Smilgiai, Kėdainiai, Jonava, and Kaunas.

The area of this subdialect also extended somewhat into the Suwałki and Vilnius governorates. It is possible that the first Easterners, the Southerners, occupied a somewhat different (larger) area in the south and southeast than the one indicated on the map. Based on Baranauskas’s descriptions (Барановский 1898: 49–51), which are not precise, the area of this subdialect shown on the map may also be only approximate.

In Baranauskas’s classification, the first Easterners, whose area included the Middle Aukštaitians mentioned by Salys, bordered the Westerners, the Northerners and Southerners, to the west, and the second and third Easterners to the east.

A comparison of the areas of the Southern Western Aukštaitian Šiauliškiai in the current classification and of the first Easterners (Northerners and Southerners) in Baranauskas’s classification reveals major differences (see Fig. 4)¹⁴. In relation to the Southern Western Aukštaitian Šiauliškiai, the first Easterners extend considerably farther east and encompass a substantial part of the area of today’s Eastern Aukštaitian Panevėžiškiai. The area of the Southern Western Aukštaitian Šiauliškiai itself is heterogeneous. It comprises a large part of Baranauskas’s Westerners, the Northerners, and a small part of the Southerners; it also includes a small area of the first Easterners, the Northerners, with Joniškis and its environs, and of the Southerners, with Jonava and its environs.

In this classification, Jonava and its environs lie on the edge of the first Easterners’ Southerners. Moreover, these localities belonged to the outskirts of Kaunas Governorate, near the border between the Kaunas and Vilnius governorates; see the map (Mikulėnienė, Trumpa 2008: 129). Ūpnikai, too, lay on the very edge: “Upnikai (Ukm. district) lies right by the border of Vilnius Governorate, and therefore the people here are Polonized and less educated than elsewhere [...]” (Augštaitis¹⁵ 1914: 2).

Indeed, only Salys wrote of the distinctive position of the Middle Aukštaitians (or part of today’s Southern Western Aukštaitian Šiauliškiai), whose long, narrow stretches extended across almost the entire Lithuanian-speaking area (1992: 303: “in the north, the area itself is a very narrow strip, mixed in places with forests. It is broader in the south”).

Aukštaičių viduriečių, kaip atskiros patarmės, neskyrė Baranauskas (Барановский 1898: 49–51; www.tarmes.lt)¹⁶. Jaunius šią patarmę išskyrė tik Lietuvių kalbos gra-

¹⁴ If the areas of the Middle Aukštaitians in Jaunius’s and Salys’s classifications and those of Baranauskas’s first Easterners were “overlaid” on one another, they would differ less.

¹⁵ The author of this text has not yet been identified.

¹⁶ It is noteworthy that Baranauskas linked the first Easterners with the Westerners, even though he called them Easterners (Барановский 1898: 56).

Straipsniai / Articles

165

LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ

matikoje (Явнис 1911: 23), o Kaũno gubernijos tarmių aprašuose, kaip ir Baranaus-kas, aukštaičius skyrė tik į vakarietčius ir rytiečius (Явнис 1894: 175; 1897: 178). Būga kalbamąjį plotą priskyrė prie rytiečių (1961: 85–97). Taigi aukštaičiai vidu-riečiai tėra pereinamasis plotas tarp vakarų ir rytų aukštaičių, arba „[...] sudaro tik pereiginę tarmę iš rytiečių aukštaičių į vakarietčius“ (Salys 1992: 303). Negalėdamas nurodyti ryškių skiriamųjų ypatybių (vieninteliu aukštaičių vakarietčių ir aukštaičių viduriečių skiriamuoju požymiu kalbininkas laikė kieto l prieš ė tarimą žodžio pradžioje), kuriomis aukštaičiai viduriečiai skiriasi nuo aukštaičių vakarietčių ir aukštaičių rytiečių, Salys rašė: „šītame skirstyme kokio griežtumo negali būti. Ats-kiros ryškios tarmės nesudaro“ (1946: 53; 1992: 109).

Because of this geographical position, this area also shares other linguistic features with neighboring dialects. For example, reduction is observed in the surroundings of Kulvõs, Vėprių, Šėtos, Surviliškio, and Baisóg alos, a feature characteristic of the neighboring easterners (present-day Eastern Highlanders) (Salys 1992: 304). Clear reduction occurred in old texts from the Kulvõs dialect (Gerullis 1930: 52–53), as well as in dialect texts recorded in the surroundings of Baisóg alos (Вольтеръ 1904: 336–338). In these texts, the short u in endings is represented by an indistinct, “faded” voiced u variant (υ), e.g.: gražūs (Gerullis 1930: 52), àdatus (Gerullis 1930: 52), suprantùs vãrnas (Gerullis 1930: 52); the stressed and unstressed short a is represented by a “faded” voiced a variant (α, ə), e.g.: užkėikts dvõras (Вольтеръ 1904: 337), viẽna pana (Вольтеръ 1904: 337), kūnigas (Вольтеръ 1904: 337), uzbõnas (Gerullis 1930: 52); the first elements of diphthongs are reduced, e.g.: kailinėi. (Gerullis 1930: 52), iïsai. (Gerullis 1930: 52).

Later, after linguists had studied this area, they reached Salys’s conclusion that the Central Highlanders do not constitute a separate dialect (Zinkevičius 2002 [1969]: 366), because: 1) “they do not have a single linguistic feature characteristic exclusively of them”; 2) their territory is not contiguous, and near Šiauliai the Western and Eastern Highlanders meet; 3) the area assigned to them “clearly divides, from a dialectal perspective, into a southern and a northern part, each of which is much closer to the dialect of its own neighbors than the two are to each other” (Zinkevičius 2002 [1969]: 366).

In the current classification, dialects are subdivided not according to consonantal features but on the basis of vowel-system and accentuation features, and the Central Highlanders are assigned to the Western Highlanders (Girdenis, Zinkevičius 1966: 139–147; Zinkevičius 2002 [1969]: 366). The Central Highlanders could not be assigned to the Eastern Highlanders for several reasons: 1) if they were assigned to the Eastern Highlanders, there would be no common feature distinguishing the Highlanders, since l is hardened by the Southern Highlanders as well; 2) assigning the southern part of the Central Highlanders, which is closer to the Western Highlanders, to the Eastern Highlanders would seem artificial; 3) linguistic studies distinguish the dialects of the Šiauliai subdialect in the southern Western Highland area, east of the Baisógala–Dotnuva–Kėdainiai–Jonava line, and also assign them to the Western Highlanders; see the map (Kazlauskaitė et al. 2007: 84). These dialects, now strongly influenced by the neighboring Eastern Highlanders of Panevėžys—

166

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVII

Pietinės vakarų aukštaičių šiauliškių šnektos: geolingvistinis aspektas ir jo interpretacijos

kių (suplakami trumpieji balsiai galūnėse), anot Zinkevičiaus (2002 [1969]: 367), anksčiau nesiskyrė nuo vakarų aukštaičių.

The assignment of the Central Highlanders to the Western Highlanders, like the other changes, provoked considerable discussion among dialectologists (Karaliūnas, Sabaliauskas 1967: 154–156; Vitkauskas 1967: 3; Grinaveckis 1968: 2; Grinaveckienė, Senkus 1968: 6; Kazlauskas 1968: 410; Skardžius 1968: 215–218). According to Elena Grinaveckienė and Juozas Senkus (1968: 6), “the abolition of the Central Highland subdialect in the study is not entirely clearly justified and is rather mechanical.”

Pranas Skardžius also criticized the new dialect classification, finding it questionable and not entirely self-evident (1968: 217). He also objected to the abolition of the Central Highlanders, writing that this change “will also strike many as hard to swallow” (Skardžius 1968: 218).

The heterogeneity of the dialects under study is also reflected in the terminology used in dialect classifications (see Fig. 5).

⁵ FIG. Study area of the dialects in Lithuanian dialect classifications

Fig. 5 shows that authors of different Lithuanian dialect classifications assigned the same area to different subdialects. This variation in terminology also allows for the possibility that the study area is not contiguous, as is generally characteristic of dialects spoken on the fringes of dialect regions.

THE PERIPHERALITY OF THE DIALECTS UNDER INVESTIGATION

The Slavic languages of these localities may have influenced the peripheral character of the dialects in the southern area of the Western Aukštaitian Šiauliškiai subdialect, since the localities under investigation fall within one of the three Polish

Straipsniai / Articles

167

LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ

language areas—the Kėdainiai–Jonava area (see Fig. 1), where in the mid-19th to early 20th centuries there were many Polish estates and manor houses (Zinkevčius 1992: 68). In the vicinity of Jonava alone, more than seventy estates were counted as having existed in the 19th and early 20th centuries (Karaliūnienė 1999: 31). Among them, first and foremost, is the Skaruliai estate, closely connected with the history of the town of Jonava and situated only a few kilometers from it (Jankauskas 2000: 9–10), as well as the estates of Barbõrlaukis, Bukonys, Dróbiškiai, Markūtiškiai, Žeimiai, Kulvōs, Gegužinė, and others (for more, see Kviklys 1965: 363–369, 456–460, 549; Semaškaitė 2010: 50, 79–80, 109, 228, 481–482; Karaliūnienė 1999: 31–33, 53–55, 57–58; Vitkauskienė 2007). The presence of such estates, for example in the vicinity of Žeimiai, is recorded in the periodicals of the time: “there are several manor houses and a dozen or so shabby little nobles in this parish [...]. The first time I went through the town of Zeimė, I thought everything here was Lithuanian, since the inscriptions on the houses were all in Lithuanian. But when addressed, they say that they do not know their parents’ language” (Vabalninko Juozas¹⁷ 1910: 642)¹⁸.

Kazys Morkūnas (1993: 7) was perhaps the first to draw attention to the position of dialects in this central Lithuanian-language area, writing that these dialects “also have other features characteristic of peripheral dialects (or subdialects)—strong interaction with the Slavic languages (Polish and Russian).”

Stundžia (1988: 113; 1980: 100) has mentioned the possible influence of Polish and Russian on the dialects of central Lithuania. Discussing the speech of Ūpninkai and its environs, which are assigned to the Western Aukštaitian Šiauliškiai subdialect, he described this dialect as peripheral, with features of the Western Aukštaitian Šiauliškiai, Eastern Aukštaitian Širvintiškiai, and Panevėžiškiai subdialects. Moreover, according to Stundžia (1988: 113), “people of the older generation who speak Russian and Polish live in this area (there are even several entire villages—Perelozai, Apeikiškiai...), and they also speak Lithuanian (albeit with a certain accent).” In Stundžia’s view (1988: 113), the influence of these languages may account for the hardening of consonants š, ž, t, d, the slight monophthongization of stressed diphthongs uo, ie, and the diphthongization of o, ė that occurred in the speech of the Ūpninkai area; however, “without special investigations, it is difficult to say anything concrete.”

Kazlauskaitė’s study (2008: 600–608) shows that the dialect of the Jonava area and the local Polish language influence one another. As a result of this interaction, the Lithuanian diphthongs ie, uo are monophthongized, and some consonants are not palatalized. In addition, according to Kazlauskaitė (2008: 608), Polish may contribute to the deterioration of the accentuation system in local Lithuanian dialects.

¹⁷ Juozas Gvildys (1884–1968), who used this and other pseudonyms, was a teacher and participant in the national movement who contributed to the periodical press (Mačiulis 2007; LE VIII 75).

¹⁸ Kunigo, draudžiamos spaudos platintojo Mato Miežinio (1851–1929) teigimu, Žeimių parapiją labai sulenkino joje dirbę kunigai S. Grigalinskas (1820–1864) ir Taurosevičius (1864–1896) (X. M. 1909: 2; 1909a: 2). Šio laikraščio numeriuose šis kunigas pasirašė kaip X. M. (Mačiulis 2007).

168

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVII

Pietinės vakarų aukštaičių šiauliškių šnektos: geolingvistinis aspektas ir jo interpretacijos

Somewhat earlier, linguist Valerijus Čekmonas had reached almost the same conclusions, noting that in the Lithuanian speech of non-Lithuanian-speaking informants from these environs, the distinction between long and short vowels and between falling and rising diphthongs had practically disappeared¹⁹.

In other words, these Lithuanian dialects exhibit precisely the features also found in the local Polish language. The loss of the long–short vowel contrast is one of the most striking features they share. Much of the Western Aukštaitian Šiauliškiai area, the northern corner of Southern Aukštaitian, and the Eastern Aukštaitian areas (Širvintiškiai and Panevėžiškiai) shorten unstressed long vowels and lengthen stressed short vowels (LKTCh 61–62; Zinkevičius 2006: 82–83). The line enclosing the Aukštaitian dialect area in which unstressed long vowels are shortened in pre-antepenultimate syllables runs through Jõniškis, Šiauliai, Ariógala, Babtai, Jonava, Kaišiadorys, Musninkai, Giedraičiai, Anykščiai, Karšakiškis, Vabalninkas, and east of Biržai. Stressed short vowels are lengthened north and east of the line encompassing the following localities: Jõniškis, Šiauliai, Ariógala, Jonava, Musninkai, and Pabradė (Zinkevičius 1966: 107, 109). According to Zinkevičius (2006: 83), this process is attributable to the increased influence of stress and is associated with the leveling of pitch accents across a large part of the dialect area, especially in central Lithuania.

Correspondingly, Lithuanian also influences the local Polish language, since people in a considerable part of the Šiauliškiai area, as well as in the neighboring Širvintiškiai and southwestern Panevėžiškiai areas, had switched to Polish and were—and still are—bilingual (Zinkevičius 2006: 84). Among the effects of this interaction, the mixing of the Polish vowels i and y should be mentioned first (Zielińska 2002: 86–87; 2004: 107; Rieger 2006: 11–47; Karaś, Rutkowska et al. 2001).

Dvikalbę situaciją atskleidė ir 1996, 1997, 1999–2000 m. Čekmono atliktas sociolingvistinis Jonavõs rajono tyrimas (Чекмонас 2001). Surinkta medžiaga iš Batėgalos, Padaigų, Pasódos, Markūtiškių, Kulvõs, Žeimių, Gegužinės punktų ir jų apylinkių parodė, kad vyriausieji šių vietų atstovai geriau ar blogiau mokėjo lenkų kalbą (Чекмонас 2001: 79). Paskutiniai 2011 m. ekspedicijų duomenys, surinkti iš Jonavõs apylinkių, rodo, kad dabar lenkų kalba šiose vietose beveik išnykusi, nors lenkiškai kalbančių informantų beveik visur pavyko rasti²⁰.

¹⁹ Cf.: “It is immediately apparent that in his Lithuanian speech long and short vowels are practically not distinguished (and vowel length is tied to the intonation contour of the phrase); syllabic intonations in diphthongal combinations are realized indistinctly and inconsistently [...]” (Чекмонас 2001: 87).

²⁰ Dialectological fieldwork in Jonava District (Žeimiai, Gaizūnai, Markūtiškiai, Pasóda, Kulvà, Batégala, Ūpnikai, Gegužinė) took place in July–August 2011 as part of the project Šiauliai̇kiniai geolingvist­ikos tyrimai Lietuvoje: punktų tinklo optimizacija ir interaktyvioji tarminės informacijos sklaida (No. VP1-3.1-ŠMM-07-K-01-028; implementing institution: the Institute of the Lithuanian Language; project leader: Prof. Dr. Danguolė Mikulėnienė). For more, see: www.tarmes.lt.

Straipsniai / Articles

169

LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ

CONCLUSIONS

The geolinguistic analysis of the dialect area around Jonava shows that the southern Western Aukštaitian Šiauliškiai dialects discussed can be considered peripheral for two interrelated reasons examined in the article:

1) their marginal geographical position in relation to other subdialects (the area’s threefold dialectal affiliation is not accidental, as reflected in the terminology: in the current classification of Lithuanian dialects it belongs to the Western Aukštaitian Šiauliškiai, in the older one—to the Central Aukštaitian, and in Baranauskas’s classification—to the first southern Eastern dialects);

2) interaction with Slavic languages.

The peripheral character of the dialects around Jonava is confirmed not by just one, but by several chronological cross-sections of this analysis, conducted on the basis of different classifications of Lithuanian dialects.

LITERATŪRA

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

Augštaitis 1914: Lenkybės vaisiai. Upninkai. – Viltis 40, 2.

Bakšienė Rima, Leskauskaitė Asta, Vaišnienė Daiva 2011: Vakarų aukštaičių šiauliškių garso įrašų skiriamųjų ypatybių klausimynas. Interneto prieiga: http://www.tarmes.lt/index_meniu.php?id=5.

Būga Kazimieras 1961: Rinktiniai raštai 3, sud. Zigmas Zinkevičius. Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla.

Gerullis Georg 1930: Litauische Dialektstudien. Leipzig: Markert & Petters Verlag.

Geržotaitė Laura 2009: Rankos pirštų pavadinimai lietuvių kalbos tarmėse. Magistro darbas. Kaunas: Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas.

Geržotaitė Laura 2011: Anties pavadinimai lietuvių kalbos tarmėse. – Baltu filoloģija 20(2), 13–23.

Geržotaitė Laura 2011a: Vakarų aukštaičiai šiauliškiai tarmių klasifikacijose: geolingvistinis aspektas. – Tarptautinės mokslinės konferencijos Sociolingvistine dialektologija: baltų tarmių tyrimai pranešimų tezės 2011 m. spalio 21–22 d. Vilniaus universiteto Kauno humanitarinio fakulteto Lietuvių filologijos katedra, Lietuvių kalbos instituto Kalbos istorijos ir dialektologijos skyrius. Interneto prieiga: http://www.tarmes.lt/images/Veikla/Laura%20GERZOTAITE.pdf.

170

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVII

Pietinės vakarų aukštaičių šiauliškių šnektos: geolingvistinis aspektas ir jo interpretacijos

Girdenis Aleksas, Zinkevičius Zigmas 1966: Dėl lietuvių kalbos tarmių klasifikacijos. – Kalbotyra 14, 139–147.

Grinaveckienė Elena, Senkus Juozas 1968: Naujas veikalas apie mūsų tarmes. – Literatūra ir menas 25, 6.

Grinaveckis Vladas 1968: Žymus veikalas apie lietuvių kalbos tarmes. – Tiesa 113, 2.

Jankauskas Vidmantas 2000: Jonavos šv. Jokūbo bažnyčia ir parapija. Vilnius: Vilniaus dailės akademijos leidykla ir spaustuvė.

Kalėdienė Laima 2011: Geolingvistikos radimosi sąlygos Lietuvoje. – Tarptautinės mokslinės konferencijos Sociolingvistinė dialektologija: baltų tarmių tyrimai pranešimų tezės 2011 m. spalio 21–22 d. Vilniaus universiteto Kauno humanitarinio fakulteto Lietuvių filologijos katedra, Lietuvių kalbos instituto Kalbos istorijos ir dialektologijos skyrius. Interneto prieiga: http://www.tarmes.lt/images/Veikla/Laima%20KALEDIENE.pdf.

Karaliūnas Simas, Sabaliauskas Algirdas 1967: Kapitalinis lietuvių dialektologijos veikalas. – Pergalė 6, 154–156.

Karaliūnienė Regina 1999: Jonava – Lietuvos kraštas. Vilnius: Trys žvaigždutės.

Karaś Halina, Rutkowska Krystyna ir kt. 2001: Język polski na Kowieńszczyźnie. Historia, sytuacja socjolingwistyczna, cechy językowe, teksty. Warszawa–Wilno: ELIPSA.

Kazlauskaitė Rūta 2005: Šiauliškių patarmės pietinių šnektų tekstai ir komentarai. Šiauliai: Šiaulių universiteto leidykla.

Kazlauskaitė Rūta ir kt. 2007: Vakarų aukštaičiai šiauliškiai. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

Kazlauskaitė Rūta 2008: Jonavos šnektos fonetinės ypatybės. – Kalbos istorijos ir dialektologijos problemos 2, 600–609.

Kazlauskas Jonas 1968: Lietuvių kalbos istorinė gramatika. Vilnius: Mintis.

Kviklys Bronius 1965: Mūsų Lietuva 2. South Boston (Mass.): Lietuvių enciklopedijos leidykla.

LE VIII – Lietuvių enciklopedija 8. South Boston (Mass.): Lietuvių enciklopedijos leidykla, 1956.

LK – Lietuvos kelių atlasas, vyr. red. Mindaugas Baltrušaitis. Vilnius: Briedis, 2010.

LKA I–II – Lietuvių kalbos atlasas 1. Leksika; 2. Fonetika, ats. red. Kazys Morkūnas. Vilnius: Mokslas, 1977–1982.

LKE – Lietuvių kalbos enciklopedija, parengė Kazys Morkūnas. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 1999.

LKT – Lietuvių kalbos tarmės. Chrestomatija, ats. red. Kazys Morkūnas. Vilnius: Mintis, 1970.

Straipsniai / Articles

171

LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ

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

LT II – Urbanavičiūtė-Mark evičienė Žaneta, Grinaveckis Vladas. Lietuvių tarmės 2. Vilnius: Vilniaus pedagoginis universitetas, 1992.

Mačiulis Jonas 2007: Slapyvardžių sąvadas (kompaktinė plokštelė). Vilnius: Lietuvos nacionalinė Martyno Mažvydo biblioteka.

Markevičienė Žaneta 2001: Aukštaičių tarmių tekstai 2. Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla.

Mikulėnienė Danguolė 2012: Lietuvių tarmių tinklas: jo ištakos ir optimizacija. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica (atiduota spaudai).

Mikulėnienė Danguolė, Stafecka Anna, sud., 2009: Baltu valodu atlants. Prospekts = Baltų kalbų atlasas. Prospektas = Atlas of the Baltic languages: A Prospect. Rīga: Latvijas Universitātes Latviešu valodas institūts, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

Mikulėnienė Danguolė, Trumpa Edmundas 2008: Nauj as žvilgsnis į Kazimiero Jauniaus tarmių klasifikaciją. – Kalbos istorijos ir dialektologijos problemos 2, 128–146.

Morkūnas Kazys 1977: Įvadas. – Lietuvių kalbos atlasas 1. Leksika. Vilnius: Mokslas, 7–18.

Morkūnas Kazys 1980: Pažintis su lietuvių kalbos tarmėmis. Vilnius: Mokslas.

Morkūnas Kazys 1993: Dėl sąvokos periferinės tarmės. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 30, 4–7.

Rieger Janusz 2006: Polszczyzna gwarowa na Litwie. – Słownictwo polszczyzny gwarowej na Litwie. Warszawa: DiG, 11–47.

Salys Antanas 1933: Kelios pastabos tarmių istorijai. – Archivum Philologicum 4, 21–34.

Salys Antanas 1935: Lietuvių kalbos tarmės (Rankraščio teisėmis). Kaunas.

Salys Antanas 1946: Lietuvių kalbos tarmės (Rankraščio teisėmis). Tübingenas.

Salys Antanas 1985: Raštai 3. Įvairūs straipsniai. Roma: Lietuvių Katalikų Mokslo Akademija.

Salys Antanas 1992: Raštai 4. Lietuvių kalbos tarmės. Roma: Lietuvių Katalikų Mokslo Akademija.

Semaškaitė Ingrida 2010: Lietuvos dvarai. Enciklopedinis žinynas. Vilnius: Algimantas.

Skardžius Pranas 1968: Lietuvių kalbos dialektologija. – Aidai 5, 215–218.

172

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVII

Pietinės vakarų aukštaičių šiauliškių šnektos: geolingvistinis aspektas ir jo interpretacijos

S t u n d ž i a B o n i f a c a s 1980: Kelios pastabos apie Upninkų šnektą. – Kalbotyra 31(1), 98–100.

S t u n d ž i a B o n i f a c a s 1988: Upninkų apylinkės tarminė situacija. – Kraštotyra 22, 111–114.

V a b a l n i n k o J u o z a s [Gvildys Juozas] 1910: Žinios iš Lietuvos. Žeimė. – Vienybė 41, 642.

V i t k a u s k a s V y t a u t a s 1967: Svarbus kalbotyros veikalas. – Gimtasis kraštas 16, 3.

V i t k a u s k i e n ė E r l a n d a 2007: Gegužinės parapijos ir bažnyčios istorija. Kaišiadorys: Kaišiadorių muziejus.

X. M. [Miežinis Matas] 1909: Iš Lietuvos. Žeimė. – Viltis 46, 2.

X. M. [Miežinis Matas] 1909a: Iš Lietuvos. Žeimė. – Viltis 49, 2.

Z i e l i ń s k a A n n a 2002: Polska mniejszość na Litwie Kowieńskiej. Studium socjolingwistyczne. Warszawa: Slawistyczny Ośrodek Wydawniczy.

Z i e l i ń s k a A n n a 2004: Litewskie interferencje fonetyczne w polszczyźnie na terenie między Kownem a Poniewieżem. – Baltų ir kitų kalbų fonetikos ir akcentologijos problemos. Vilnius: Vilniaus pedagoginio universiteto leidykla, 105–109.

Z i n k e v i č i u s Z i g m a s 1966: Lietuvių dialektologija. Vilnius: Mintis.

Z i n k e v i č i u s Z i g m a s 1992: Lietuvių kalbos istorija 5. Bendrinės kalbos iškilimas. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla.

Z i n k e v i č i u s Z i g m a s 2002 [1969]: Apie lietuvių kalbos tarmių skirstymą. – Rinktiniai straipsniai 1. Vilnius: Lietuvių katalikų mokslo akademija, 365–380.

Z i n k e v i č i u s Z i g m a s 2006: Lietuvių tarmių kilmė. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

Б а р а н о в с к і й А н т о н і й 1898: Замѣтки о литовскомъ языкѣ и словарѣ. Санктпе-тербургъ: Типогр. Императорской Акад. Наукъ.

В о л ь т е р ь Э д у а р д 1904: Литовская хрестоматія. Санктпетербургъ.

П о р ж е з и н с к і й В и к т о р 1896: Замѣтки по діалектологіи литовскаго языка. Санктпетербургъ: Типографія Императорской Академіи Наукъ.

Ч е к м о н а с В а л е р и й 2001: Польский язык в Йонавском районе Литвы (социолин-гвистические заметки). – Studia nad polszczyzną Kresową 10, 71–91.

Я в н и с К а з и м і р 1894: [Новоалександровскій уѣздъ] – Памятная книжка Ковенской губерніи на 1895 годъ. Ковна: Въ Типографіи Губернскаго Правленія, 174–176.

Я в н и с К а з и м і р 1897: Паневѣжскіе говоры литовскаго языка. Памятная книжка Ковенской губерніи на 1898 годъ. Ковна: Въ Типографіи Губернскаго Правленія, 174–228.

Я в н и с К а з и м і р 1911: Грамматика литовскаго языка. С.-Петербургъ: Типографія И. Академіи Наукъ.

Straipsniai / Articles

173

LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ

The Southern Subdialects of the Western Aukštaitian of Šiauliai: The Geolinguistic Aspect and its Interpretations

S U M M A R Y

The article is concerned with the area of the Šiauliai subdialect of the Western Aukštaitian in the classifications of Lithuanian dialects during various periods. The focus is on the little studied southern subdialects of Jonava and its environs.

By applying a computer cartography method, the Western Aukštaitian of Šiauliai in the classification by Zigmas Zinkevičius and Aleksas Girdenis was compared to the Middle Aukštaitian in the classification by Kazimieras Jaunius and Antanas Salys and to the First Eastern in the classification by Antanas Baranauskas.

The comparison of the mentioned areas demonstrated their intermediate situation with regard to other subdialects. The Western Aukštaitian of Šiauliai finds itself between the Žemaitian and Eastern Aukštaitian. With regard to the Western Aukštaitian of Šiauliai, Jaunius and Salys’ Middle Aukštaitian that is similarly placed borders with the Western Aukštaitian in the West, while in the East they border on the Eastern Aukštaitian. In Baranauskas’ classification the First Eastern that differs from the Western Aukštaitian of Šiauliai by distribution also finds itself between the Western and Second and Third Eastern.

The subdialects of Jonava and its environs emerge as peripheral i.e. as occupying a fringe situation with regard to the compared subdialects. Their peripheral situation was determined not only by their exceptional geographical situation but also interaction with the Slav languages that were spoken in these areas.

Įteikta 2012 m. vasario 10 d.

LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ

Lietuvių kalbos institutas

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

[email protected]

174

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVII