Socialinių faktorių įtaka tarminei leksikai

SOCIAL LINGUISTICS PROBLEMS LITHUANIAN KALBOTYROS QUESTIONS, XIX (1979) Vytautas VITKAUSKAS SOCIAL INFLUENCES OF FACTORS TARMINEI LEXICON Traditional Lithuanian dialect ir schnekts were ir formed and existed in rural communities, for whom it was the only means of communicatne ion with the outside world, within ir su themselves. ir Under the influence of certain laws, our dialect schnekts changed, ir refined the standard morphological structure, vo constantly ir changing the formed vocabulary for their needs. ir The question of lexical change iš differs fundamentally from the question of ir phonetic change in morphology. The vocabulary of any language, dialect is closely connected with life, su with various realities, ir and this life greatly changes the tą lexicon, the so-called most mobile element of language. | Lithuanian dialects, all schnekts are currently experiencing one of the most iš important stages of their history. With the unprecedented pace of development of Lithuanian economy and culture, the situation of our countryside has changed greatly. Population migration, urban growth (youth moves to į the cities), universal learning drives the dialect life, iš and its traditions iš exist among the old rural inhabitants, regardless of where they live. The environment changes ir jų sniffing, blurs important dialectal features. The economic and cultural situation has now become such that there is no longer a social stratum that would adopt the spoken ir dialects as systems and speak them firmly everywhere. The iš grandchildren learn a little bit of the grandparents’ snicket features, su but the school influences the young people with all its vibrant life, quite well introducing them to the norms of common language. The younger inhabitants of the villages and towns begin to speak a new, I would say, dialect, which is characterized by a certain ir harmonization of the local schneck laws of the common language?. The situation with the lexicon of dialects is even more complicated. The vocabulary here consists of da iš common to the whole nation dialectisms ir of words, only for that dialect, ar words characteristic of the part of the dialect [@umun O. II., 1965, 5]. In general, with the emergence of the literary language in o public life, and when snakes have become only a home language, special dialect words are used passively. Those dialectisms that characterize the dialect lexicon [Working O. II., 1961, 15], the heterogeneous composition of the rural population (some of the local, old to ar of the inhabitants of another village becomes even less), no longer have a communicative meaning, because they are not understood by people iš who have come further. For example, in r. Šiauliai k. Ūrkuvėnai there was such an incident: the agronomist explains to the k/uone (t. y. in the barn) to keep a wagon of hay, the o interlocutor says frankly: a min galvud nébgerd: ši'na sduguoju | khirna aš laikou | ne un kluonas jai meadow — by the barn, in the yard. Such nesusiSnekéjimy are many, the authority of the snitch is clearly Those who speak dialects — will or will not have to adapt to the common language of consumers, collective farm managers, specialists, mechanizers. The mixing of populations, the common language push through various means of communication, schools, cultural institutions are the factors that cause $nektds, even with a well-preserved phonetic morphologiir cal system, the vocabulary lives alongside * For the first time in Lithuanian dialectology this is raised Grinaveckium V, (1974, 129—139). Kuršėnų m. just was one iš V. Greenwich Observatory. 2 For example, Šiauliai r. The k. 1975 m. iš 12 villagers of 5 Akminaičiai were only o inhabited by local people, in iš others they had already bought other places. The number of individuals is now decreasing. 111 general language lexicon [Onjinn O. II., 1965, 5]. This is especially evident when asking the speakers about specific words — names of objects, adjectives. When they hear a word, they immediately try to interpret it, believing that they are not being understood. Such cases, the author of these lines, investigating Žemaičių talk, had to experience a lot. In this case, the adjective funny with the meaning "Hard" disappears in the Kuršėnai area, and it is heard saying: diel parduosa lina" heavier | funnier Krš (DūnŽ336). Thus, the old word has not yet faded in the speaker- 's mind, he wants to say a certain idea, but no longer expects that the interlocutor will understand the semantic dialectism used, he inserts a word of common language. 2000. pp. 11. "About Us". www.aboutus.com. "About Us". www.aboutus.com. "About Us". www.aboutus.com. primeld-- va | privepé zuoje visa'p Krš (DūnŽ 436); raviejuom nuvi'n | be sustūojima | nupliešiem sava Krš (DūnŽ 226); 247): pėlejė“ | peliesd: oncė.ded Viekšnėūliai (Din Z 252); puri | kvi'čū' nabsie pi" mū'sa Sv; piles nūor Orndärns | sausa" ¢'ntes nala:ki'si Jdr; tieva: torieje pileva | ėšimtėnę eserašė- 'n Pvn; line lin | išpi"s upūka | iStvinc | nepd-reisma Krš and many others. Such parallelism in speech is usually uncomfortable, so dialect speakers, convinced that their interlocutor may not understand something, begin to avoid using characteristic words in the presence of strangers, characteristic only of some dialect or dialect. Until recently, the dialectism peréné „sauna“ was often used for Pavandenė, Viekšnaliūs, Upyna (Telšių r.), Vidsodis, which, as a cultural term, was displaced by sauna. Only various proverbs and jokes preserved the old word perenė: ka'ršta ka perénie (Upyna), li'p saki"s | vi'rii'n a perė"ne sū'dege | a pate mé.re Pvn (DūnŽ 254). The same is true of the word lielé "throat", now sometimes used in the phraseology liele paléisti "to shout": Zend būobas | biskieli kas | palé-id li-le Pvn (cf. DūnžŽ 175), etc. Every Lithuanian dialectologist has to deal with such things?® [Jonaitytė A., 1967, 183—184], this is the main condition and course of the decline of dialectisms: when one begins to avoid a word in conversations with strangers, clear dialectisms are no longer used or are used more and more rarely in conversations with the old inhabitants of the same village. Finally, as the common language increasingly enters the daily life of a large part of the rural people, dialectism is no longer inherited by the younger generation and is effectively withdrawn from use. Thus, for example, in the Kuršėnai area it has happened with the words mėdė „forest“, ašvienis „working horse“, raja „harvest- “, vafstas „summer- “, etc., which were used more actively (and only in some villages) until the twenties of this century. Later, as cultural terms — through schools, village and county officials, industrialists, travelling craftsmen, hired workers, the words miškas || giré, jauja, vasardjus took hold, which perhaps here, in the peripheral Žemaičių dialect, have previously been used as synonyms (the horse was probably used since ancient times), but, being also in common language, began to be used universally. Such a process may also cover a larger area of the dialects, for example, mėdė is only passively remembered in the vicinity of Ūžventis, Pavandenė, Viekšnuliai, even about Tryškiai, although, as we know from the writings of Žemaitė, Lazdynai Pelėda, at the beginning of this century it was quite actively used there, there was even the title of the job (used, of course, in colloquial language) mėdininks „,medininkas“ || mé-deni.nks, soon after 1920 forgotten, because the common language norm was firmly established girininkas- ®. Sometimes semantic dialectisms are avoided, when the same common language words are often used and have almost the opposite meaning: gerbti "to clean, to arrange": gerb vai.ka Krš —jau and the elders say: nėgerb vi'resnit'- ju Jjauni'je: Krš; cork "sweetness put into the canvas for the child to suck" —now often said bottle cork Krš, even without the youth knowing the dialectal meaning. After 1920, the meaning of the word "superintendent" began to decrease rapidly, because in common language "superintendent" meant something else — "the person in charge of the institution". 3 Similarly, in the Lithuanian dialects of the Belarusian SSR, the words of the Belarusian language, as the most commonly heard, official names of objects and phenomena, are taking hold (see Vidugiris A., 1974, 123—124). 4, see section 4. Atlas of the Lithuanian language. 1977, pp. 1. 113 pages. (Komentarai, p. 191—192) (see also Vitkauskas V., 1977, p. 58). 112 When lexical affairs are “arranged” for social life in this way, it is usually difficult to trace those laws according to which the vocabulary of the speakers changes, as a result of which certain words disappear, are forgotten, go into passive use. Life is so arranged that a considerable part of the dialect vocabulary exists as if in memories and only in intervals, when necessary to describe something more precisely, in order to define the old generation of people more vividly, unexpectedly, as if from distant subconscious streams are washed out rarely used (knownly appropriated from their parents, ancestors, inherited from ancient times) certain words, derivatives. Sometimes one word after another in Lithuanian lexicography is marked only with a dot, from which single snippet it is presented, and if you continue to ask, from which known area of the word, you hear as likely as possible the same form. For example, A. Nepokupnui (1976, 185) the word goštauta, which he examined, according to the LKŽ is only the property of the West Highlands (Panemuniai), Eastern and Dzūkijos speakers, and some conclusions are drawn from this. But in the summers of 1976—1977, when I accidentally asked some women in Kurėnai for the name of a flower, they said: guoštauta' rauduona: ži"d | daii.k smūlkis ži'dėlu; A vegetable-stuffed spoon. Other dialectologists (e.g., A. Jonaitytė) have written this word elsewhere®, but the situation has changed radically — goštauta(s) is used in Lithuania in many places, but only as a passive term, and therefore is written less often in spoken language. Such and similar surprises, forms, pronunciation “innovations” are heard every year and every time you touch any snippet or phrase. This is a serious problem for our linguistics, because the passive vocabulary of our dialects and dialects can only be moved after longer observations. And it would not have come to mind earlier, that there are words about Curonians: švinė [Būga K., 1908, 174]: that lead „,skundikė“ tig žmuonis iied, šatryti,,- greedily eat“, seksté „long bitter“: tuokes šė"kštes iské ltas, Siulénti,,- auginti, penéti*: prasulé-- nusi jaū. paršūka, šlaptryda,,skundžiatis mėgstantis žmogus“: tioks Slaptri-- da | biėduo i biėduėo, šlioparnis „mevaleika“: §luéparnis | apsilé-idusi, šnarva „kas visur lenda“: tuoks šnaiva | kad biéda, tapnoti, kraipyti, linguoti“: i#-dega nulė'idis (paukstis) /tik tapniio tapmio snapelis, taškūs, -i,,i8laidus®: taškė bruolieni | nieka netūr, tratūs, -i: uoi trati buoba | pipiru mėlni'če, tūlas „būrys“: tila: tuoki" Zmuénir, žiubulys,.- zybsintis daiktas“: tuck ir: žubulūku prisaksti-ta i sukniki, Ziurkslynas „,šukšlių primétyta vieta“: tudki" Zurksli-- n@ un skardže pri kurSienu, Zlabena,,- verksnys“: Zla-bena | ma uk sau | neifesk mun niérvu, įsibd'isėti: isibd-isieji* and'm ti" darba ir t. t. A large part of the dialect vocabulary, affected by common language, changed living conditions, disappears, is no longer used at all, occasionally said by the elderly, but not completely inherited by the younger generation®. It is very difficult to trace any laws here, as in phonetics and morphology, for example. The vocabulary, as the best reflection of life in its change, raises even riddles. Let us say, it is not easy to explain now why in eastern Varniškiai, as in many parts of Žemaitija, such words as apėnt „again“, atmata „dirvoning earth“, atskala „guards“, aukštkaupomis „abstly“, blakstas „to strike, strike“, déinauti,,merginti*, diginiūoti „to dress, to dress“, dreižti „to laze“, dūlbis „lazy“, alblivoties „to miam“, kdrdyti „to hinder“, krėištis „to be proud“, maigus „to want sleep“, mązyti „to torment, to bother“, preikšas „lover“ [Vitkauskas V., 1972a, 438; 1972b, 82, 13izn.J]and so on. Whether this is the result of internal processes of the development of the lexical structure of the speakers or a certain influence of the common language, it is almost impossible to say today. Since the lexicon of the dialects is only now being examined, the geography of the words is being shown, so we do not have any more detailed history of the lexicon of the dialects, 5 It is recorded in the surroundings of Akmenė and Šakyna. In the dialectologists' material funds, there is an inscription of the gdstatuto near Kelmė (Kušleikių k.). $ That dialectisms disappear in other e-speeches is already mentioned in our literature (see Grinaveckienė E., 19 67, 165—170; Vidugiris A., 1970, 255 and others). 8. Užs. No. 1554 113 we have no witnessed observations of how and when certain dialectisms began to disappear. Finally, the very accelerated disintegration of speech systems now makes it difficult to trace the pattern of word decay, to determine which words are forgotten and for what reason. Special systematic dialect dictionaries would help a lot. They allow us to get deeper into the system of phrases, to better understand the differentiation of the lexicon. Such a detailed examination of the lexicon reveals the composition of the spoken vocabulary, the stylistic use of words and the peculiarities of concrete existence. A good example of this would be the comprehensive dialect dictionary with special lexical groups prepared by the Polish dialectologist M. Kucata (1957) (according to the works of German, Swedish and other linguists). The dictionaries prepared by M. Kucata on a similar principle would help to look at the Lithuanian dialectal lexicon in detail and in depth, to determine which dialectisms are withdrawing from circulation. Kucala’s grouping of dialectal vocabulary into small subgroups (przyroda — praca — žycie fizyczne czlowieka — žycie umystowe i pszychiczne — žycie spoleczne) [Kucala M., 1957, 340] has many common features with the scheme of the universal ideographic dictionary of R. Hallig and W. von Wartburg (quoted from I lpununurbi, 1976, 340) and, therefore, can undoubtedly help to understand the peculiarities and essence of any schnekt of various languages, and thus also the vocabulary of our dialects, perhaps even allow to see the peculiarities of the decline of dialectisms. This requires considerable preparatory work, at least an ideographic dictionary of the common language, according to which dialect vocabulary could be divided into certain groups. Alphabetical dictionaries only provide all or part of the lexical material. Dialectisms (lexical, constructive, accentuative) are usually driven out of use by two factors: 1) terms coming from common language and already used by the whole nation, having great authority; 2) disappearing realities, various phenomena of life. These are axioms known to everyone and linguists of all nations, obviously convinced by the study of any dialect or dialect. The dependence of dialectal vocabulary on the common language is enormous, so dialectisms are better preserved in those dialects whose entire linguistic system is very different from the bk and remains traditional in general (northern Žemaites Kretingiškiai, western Varniškiai, eastern Vysočiny Panevėžio šnektai). This is also shown by the material of the first volume of the “Atlas of the Lithuanian language”, where it is clearly seen that various lexical dialectisms (kūlis, pūrai, pylė, cprulis, etc.) (cf. Vitkauskas V., 1966, 155—168) are well preserved in the western Zemgaly. In general, the names of those phenomena, objects, states, which common language either does not have, or they are characteristic of the traditional household environment —various dishes: patarmūsas,,mirkalas®, porridge „,kukulienė“ castinys, spirgūtis,,- rogintos kanapės“, snails „toks kūčių valgis“ (although the word „lapienė“ is almost completely forgotten DūnŽ 366; from the usage withdraws meisa „meat“, kiaušinis „egg“ —the latter word disappears for other reasons as well: when an old lady driving to the market in a car shouted nespd-usketies | tra'uketies | kaū.šūs sutraiski'ste, there was a great laugh —such an old lady will be afraid to say so the next time and will reluctantly use the common language word, although many still use the forms kiaušynė „egg-maker“, kiauspirkis „egg-seller“, kiaušininkas „likewise“, kiaušgeris, -ė „who drinks eggs“, cf. 134). There are still living names of diseases: fleas | flea diseases "measles", crusts "diphtheria", colic "such horse disease", sorbents, "chest burning", landuonis | landuéné, "attaka (Panaritium)", liepélé "such abscess about the nail", pdrauga "votis", sintis "asthma", pūtminys "tinning", rhinitis "snoring", sliogtis "slogutis", wolkis "cataract" (but there are also extinct or even disappeared: žibinkščiai "such children's disease, piglets", kūdugas "convulsions", kaškis,niezai®) and others. The names of common language are often incomprehensible to the speakers, medicine, cooking these things quite differently, so the influence is smaller, although there are cases of change. Of course, in this case, the order of synonyms in the conversation is sometimes determined by the word that essentially coincides with the common language. For example, in the past, these conversations were said kaskis, su.skis and ni*Zas, žibiūkšte: | Zibi'nksté: and kaulikes | kaulėkes. These forms of the synonymic sequence, based on the common language words niėžas and kiaulytes, are now universally accepted, while others are used only by the older generation or in more common comparisons: prisikabina ka'p kaskis 114 ko Krš, nanosekrati-u kap so.ske nu VAT and so on. Emus nagrinéti ryty varniškių (north-eastern Samogitian poet) spoken vocabulary according to R. Halligo ir W. of Wartbug's universal lexical scheme, here we want to look at just a few such subsections: į Part of the "universe" "Sky ir bodies of the sky" su with branches ,,Sky ir bodies of the sky“ ir ,,Weathir er winds“ and The Human Subsection ‘Parts of the body’ ir ,,Description of man (life) in general“ (from section "Man as a Living Being"). Nors dialectisms ir of the theme „sky of heavenly bodies“ are not very diverse, but they are well preserved in na traditional conversation: sietinis „,sietynas“, grigo rūtai "the wheels of the circle", "dawn", "stars". The younger generation is no longer inherited, jų uses more general forms of language, although the names of the moon phases are fuller ‘,full’’, spaces "time between the old ir and new moon", dėlčius „delčia“ is used by almost everyone. The names-dialectics of atmospheric phenomena are quite fluctuating. Some used by the majority (mudra, brėkšma, „,prietemo“, brėkšti „darti“, drabna "snowstorm", "thunderstorm", "snowstorm" "southern wind", lightning, lightning, lightning | Zéibas ,,zaibas®), others start to vary (hydra ir pagada, oraryksté ir rainbow | rainbow), the third gradually forgotten (gas,,,småregn’’, gajéti ,,smalkai lyti“, gaidryčio „„giedrytis“, apyžlėja, žlėja ,,prietema*). Quite well preserved are various dialectisms belonging to the subsection according to this classification of lexicon ,,Parts of the human body“. Although medical workers here can particularly influence the sniffing according to the current increased medical protection, but the distinctive naming of human no organs does not circulate. iš For example, as often as doctors are said names Zarna, skraiidis, tempinis, but own words grobas, pilviūkas, lieknumas plényma | firmly remains, sometimes only said stomach, smilkyps as a new (?) ir organ for village people blind ždrna (changed pronunciation). Firmly, even the younger are used words bulé ,,one butt side”, chiurnis wrist, bottom ,,large intestine”, mominé,,momus”, spinal cord,,spinal cord” | "Brain", ankle ‘leg bone’, ‘rib bone’, ‘arm bone’, ‘arm’ "mustache- ", another pronunciation is maintained: gerklė, gerklę, subiné. changed trunk: buck ‘,palm’, nose "nose", "nosepiece" ‘kulšis’". Especially popular, even used by representatives of ir towns and cities interdialect pictorial, humorous names of the head, mouth, eyes, throat, bones, lips: kramė "head", "murz", "putrulaka", "smoke" "mouth, face", vezolai "eyes", "gamar" "throat- ", "wepshla", "zabtai", "ziplos" “places around the lips”, pithoid, pithoid bone “large bones”, stibyn, stibyn bone “calf bones”. A little bit “deflated” phonetic features: gunsla changing string, ninkštis (approx. The mouth of — the shark is (1), rounded, with — an ear-shaped opening (or ear-shaped opening). — ir It is well preserved the greater part of the characterizing man, especially the pictorial dialectizmy. Jų even the representatives of the interdialects (Kuršėnai, UZventis) still use a lot of them: baddvisa „poor”, bėbis, „fool”, -ė blérbyné „pleasant”, cipyné „whoever , chimps, crises”, érgla "Joker", gagris "Storgrievis- ", gargoyles „kas landus“, girmakšlys- -ė ,,,pagyrūnas“, gribišas, -ė, krūčas, „,vogelis“, -ė išpėpa, ištiža neikėlis“, knėpšė "missing woman", larva, larva ,begédis, nevala“, mautūvas ,who eats a lot,’ lutis,,who has short -ė legs,’ sleeper,,,sleepy®, mugul, -ė šūtulis "Who does not act seriously", paližokas,,,palaižūnas", -ė smūrgliža, snarglaéda ",vaikėzas", snopa “screw”, rod „very grown man“, pushtuvas, šliaužtūkas | šliauštuvas , who does all the work“, šatrija, „mad woman“, šavalka „walkata“, škrūbalas, „sudzilives old man“, tepérna “who iš speaks slowly”, terliūzas “a sluggish one”, -ė , ūdžmiršoklis, who forgets everything”, vébra "snobber- ", , "snobbery", "snobberir y" and many others. Noras kal7 The fluctuating stem of this word already K. In the days of Donelaitis (see section 4.4). Donelaitis K., 1977, 174; plg. Cable ka J., 1964, 120). About i-kam. for the į transition from e to trunk, see Zinkevičius Mr., 1966, 224—225. 8% 115 bėti (to speak) in a picturesque, enigmatic way, apparently, does not allow us to forget these lexical dialectisms, although one another is rarely used, e.g., luibis, „žioplys“, pludungis,,,la- -ė ižuvis, palaidūnas“, -ė phonetics is changed: malūgis, liegis. -ė — A similar situation exists in many other semantic groups. Although the old dialectisms are still preserved in some ir places, the influence of the common language is significant: a large number of synonyms are replaced by iš common language equivalents. Especially very quickly disappear words of old beliefs (gabija "Holy Fire", indy „evil spirit, etc.), names of ir former crafts, various tools, objects, known now only by the very old ones are no longer used at all. ar ir Thus, the existence of dialectisms depends on many factors: the rise of culture, the establishment of a common language in various areas of life, the needs of the internal dialect ar processes of the schnekt. ar Especially important for ir science is the passive dialectal lexicon, which must be registered, which, while rapidly disappearing in the dying old su generation of our village, still remains expressive, used in figurative meanings. Here, for example, in these descriptive conversations the Žemaičių verb kditéti disappeared „rūpėti“, but used as a noun in one form in the fixed sentence kas kaitė jo ne ‘bepigu’ (who ne kd-iti vi'na" buoba gi'vė'nti Krš DūnŽ 1188). When the connections su with the former verb are broken, completely incomprehensible forms appear: kas ne kaitra | ka muoti'na vai.kų privė'iz The Word 118. of the Day ",torn, faded clothing" now disappears, here o appears a more common figurative saying dupsti muši "a complete fool." Even the church has abandoned the term of the initiation ir rites, the o first time where he comes easily says: pė'rma ka'rta | če mg.na i‘vedi-bas Pvn, I'm če gonna get you a | fuckin' uii.tra psi. Break. Apparently, bruZo nobody is musing anymore, in fact there is no longer such a phraseology of the game, ir this is how o about fornication comes into the talk, often said musa brūza bledi-nums niegražė“ got sick su i Krš (Urkuvėnų k.), ddr vé'pslas pi'ninū'tas puo | kkirmus brūza mus Krš (A.K.A.) Ripkas is also no one beats, but comparatively niiosi ka'p ripkas keini“s ,,uzZknebusi* can still be heard. Some words only remain in comparisons, prepositions: ir nelika nieka spa-ga ne "not at all" (o L. For Ivinski it was a generic noun meaning "Ilash"), kū'p vi'nc kū"p saula-bruolé: do | Pvn (DūnŽ 315) ir kt Previously used to say Lithuanian words mefgvaikis "illegal child", prisoner "prison", skdrda, mixed mix | „tokie javai“, dviliūikės , antklodés antvalkis“, o now mostly benkartas, turma (often replaced by prison), bleach, meal, chikel. Common ir language does nothing here. The functioning and decay of dialectisms in present-day speeches has no clearer laws. This is largely determined by the social and cultural life of ir the nation, the system of the schnect itself (smaller differences disappear even faster in the su dialects closer to the common language), and finally the dialectal needs of the speakers (expressive vocabulary remains longer). One thing is clear, dialectal vocabulary į must now be drawn to our attention, the eyes of linguists, must be recorded at a fast pace. sų Literature ji Būga K. Sensuous for the studio. Peterburgas, 1908. Donelaitis K. Writings. V., 1977. Grinaveckienė E. The interaction of dialects ir of Lithuanian literary language. — Kn. : Lithuanian language in Soviet years. V., 1967. Grinaveckis V. Phonetic characteristics of Žemaičių interdialects. — Lietuvos TSR Scientific The Academy. Batch A, 1974, t. 1 (46). Jonaitytė A. The phenomena ir of dialectal interaction leveling in Northwestern Altay dialects. — Kn. : Lithuanian language in Soviet years. V., 1967. Handbag J. Kristijono Donovan's Letters. V., Kucala 1964. M. Porėwnawezy stownik trzech wsi Mažtopolskich. Wroclaw, 1957. 9 Paulauskas J. (1977, 117) made the verb form: kas kaitėja, but this is already ne a translation into common language, į o ne transposition: kaitéja in conversation would sound *kd.itie. 116 Paulauskas J. Dictionary of English Phraseology, K., Vidugiris 1977. A. The Song of the People. — Kn. : Merkinė. V., 1970. Vidugiris A. Lexical dialectisms of Gervėčių dialect. — Lietuvos TSR Scientific The Academy. Batch A, 1974, t. 1(41). Vitkauskas y. About some Zemaitiskiy word usage. — Lithuanian Linguistics. V., ite Fe Vitkauskas V. Notes on the language of the Žemaičių raštai. — Kn. : Earth. V., 1972. Vilkauskas V. Principles of the composition of a group of dialects. — Lithuanian Linguistics. V., 1972 t. 13. Vitkauskas V. Vocabulary assets on maps (rec.) — Culture bars. V., No. 1977, 12. Zinkevičius Z. Lithuanian dialectology. V., 1966. Henokynnsiū A. II. 1998-1999 Basrro-cjnaBaHcKHne s3bIKOBBIE CBS3H. — Kues, 1976. Mpuruuns OnKHcaHHS s3eikos MHpa. M., Ounun 1976. O. II. 1998-1999 Ilpoekr ‘CjioBaps pycckHx HAPOAHBIX roBopoB’. — M. —JI., 1961. Ounun O. It. C.10Baps pyccKHX HApoOjIHLIX roBopoB. JI., 1965, ų. 1. , Lietuvos TSR Scientific Academies Institute of Lithuanian ir Language and Literature BJIHS1HHE COLIMAJIbHBIX GAKTOPOB HA ĮHMAJIEKTHYPO JIEKCHKY Pe3t0omMe B Hacrosmee BpeMs JiuTOBCKHe. HapogHbie FOBODpbI ObiCTpO HUBEJAHPYIOTCH. Y CKOpEHHBIMH END H3 YNOTDpeOJIEHHA BLIXOAAT JEKCHYECKHE, CEeMAHTHUECKHe H ApyrHe AHaJIeKTH3MSI. OcHoOBHBIE npHuHHbI 3TOTAL MPONECCa: a) HAT/ILIB B TOBODBbI CJIOB - What's the matter? I'm sorry, 6) I'm sorry, I'm sorry. What a riot! JieKCcHueCKHil MaTepHa)Ji JKeMai TCKHX roBopos (OkpecTHocrH Kypuwenait, Ykesiutuc, ITaBanusue, Bujcoauc), OTHOCHTEJIbHO XOpOWIO COXpaHSIOTCH B STHX TOBOpaX HA3BAHHA CNEUH(HYECKAX NPEAMETOB, SIBJIEHHII, IKCIPECCHBHAS JEKCHKA, YACTO ynoTrpedjisteMas1 Rake Map. 1sIMH HHTepAHaJeKTa (r. Kypurekau, r. Yxkssuric).