LIETUVIŲ KALBOS GRAMATIKOS TYRINĖJIMAI LIETUVOS TSR MOKSLŲ AKADEMIJA

PHENOMENA OF GRAMMATICAL CONTACT BETWEEN LITHUANIAN AND SLAVIC LANGUAGES IN SOUTHEASTERN LITHUANIA

E. GRINAVECKIENĖ

In southeastern Lithuania there are places where residents speak several languages. For example, south and southwest of Vilnius (the southwestern part of Vilnius district, the eastern part of Trakai district, and Eišiškės district), Belarusian is spoken predominantly; younger local residents tend to speak Polish, almost everyone knows Russian, and some elderly people aged 70 or older also know Lithuanian. School-age children understand some Lithuanian and sometimes speak it, as do individual members of the middle generation. In many places in this area, older people still remember well the days when their grandparents and parents spoke Lithuanian to one another, but had already begun speaking “plain” (i.e., Belarusian) with their own children and grandchildren. In the vicinity of Šalčininkai, for instance, Lithuanian disappeared from everyday use some 70–80 years ago, although before World War I there were still quite a few people here who spoke Lithuanian¹. In villages farther from major administrative and cultural centers, along poorer roads and in more remote locations, Lithuanian was spoken freely even until the occupation by bourgeois Poland, i.e., until 1920. This occupation contributed considerably to the displacement of Lithuanian. However, Lithuanian was not entirely forgotten in this area². At that time, it was spoken mainly by the older generation. Nowadays most of the older people in this region who spoke Lithuanian have died, and the small group who remain is visibly dwindling day by day. Among the elderly there are some who have forgotten so much Lithuanian that they can now say little in the language, although more than one admits: I recognize everything you say^³ “I understand everything you say—

¹ Cf. the material of the Atlas of the Lithuanian Language, recorded in Šalčininkai, Šalčininkėliai, Butrimonys, Daugidonys, Didžiosios Sėlos, and Barčiai (manuscript collections of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature, Lithuanian SSR Academy of Sciences).

² For example, statistical data from the 1942 census of the population of Šalčininkai rural district, held in the manuscript collections of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature, Lithuanian SSR Academy of Sciences, show that at that time 26 people still spoke Lithuanian in Šalčininkai, 56 in Ažulomys, 30 in Mažieji Baušiai, 5 in Milvydai, 86 in Mikantonys, 27 in Kliūnai, 16 in Širviai, 17 in Kameninkė, 5 in Vincipolis, 47 in Dainiškės, 6 in Stakų Ūta, 1 in Tribonys, 1 in Pamūrinė, and 7 in Pašalčys.

³ Dialect examples in the article are presented mainly using the orthography of the standard language; only the vowels i, y, i and ė after hardened consonants are represented by ы, э. The length of these unstressed vowels is indicated by a dot high to the right of the letter; the accent mark indicates the length of stressed vowels, e.g.: krūto ~ krīto, rītas ~ rītas, grūžo ~ grīžo, pėlė ~ pėlė, pelė ~ pelė Btrm. The letter ė denotes a broadened vowel e, e.g.: bernėlis — bernėlis SM. In examples from Belarusian, the consonant represented by the letter э is pronounced fricatively in all cases.

219

“I understand what you say.” They usually remember only some Lithuanian words, names of objects, know how to count in Lithuanian at least up to one hundred, recall a fragment or two of a Lithuanian song, can curse a rascal in Lithuanian, and so on. There is also the occasional local elderly person who still speaks Lithuanian relatively well and can tell about olden times, their life and daily circumstances, sing old Lithuanian folk songs, tell fairy tales, pose riddles and puzzles, and so forth. The researchers sought out precisely such informants most actively in the study area. Finally, there are quite a few people of the middle generation here who speak Belarusian or Polish among themselves but understand Lithuanian and can speak it to some extent. They can usually say a phrase or two in Lithuanian, answer everyday questions, etc. Young people in this area have learned a little Lithuanian at school, but they hardly ever speak it among themselves.

To observe the linguistic processes taking place in this area, the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature of the Lithuanian SSR Academy of Sciences organized a dozen or more dialectological expeditions during 1952–1967. One of them, in 1966, was conducted jointly with dialectologists from the Janka Kupala Institute of Linguistics of the Belarusian SSR Academy of Sciences.

A total of 17 settlements were studied here: Marijampolis (Vilnius district), Trakai, Barčiai, Šklėriai, Lygainiai, Paneriai (Trakai district), Senieji Macėliai, Rūdininkai, Didžiosios Sėlos, Šalčininkai, Šalčininkėliai, Daugidonys, Butrimonys, Vežionys, Eišiškės, Kaniūkai, and Dieveniškės (Eišiškės district)⁴. The material from these settlements is not uniform or equally representative. In some places the local Lithuanian dialect has been more strongly influenced by Slavic languages, in others less so. The most Lithuanian-speaking among them are Marijampolis, Senieji Macėliai, Didžiosios Sėlos, Butrimonys, and Dieveniškės. During the research, 3–6 older local residents were interviewed in greater detail in each of these settlements; only 1–2 such people were found in Trakai, Lygainiai, and Paneriai.

During the expeditions, most attention was devoted to the local Lithuanian dialect, which is gradually disappearing and in some places is on the verge of extinction, particularly its grammatical structure, phonetics, vocabulary, and place names, as well as the substratal phenomena occurring in it as a result of the influence of languages in contact. In the 1966 joint expedition, the author of this article also observed the influence of local Lithuanian on other languages in contact (mostly Belarusian) at three settlements (Senieji Macėliai, Senieji Trakai, and Butrimonys).

When observing the mutual contact of the languages in this territory and their influence on the word formation and grammatical structure of those languages, the first things that catch the eye are derivational-semantic calques and borrowings.

The local Lithuanian dialect contains a considerable number of semantically calqued verb prefixes that have taken over the functions of the usual verb prefixes in Lithuanian, e.g.: atbyrėj (= fell off) apples; ragutėlės palāužysi (= you will break); po cýltu duobābl· pȧkasė (= dug out) Dv; pàmūšė (= smashed) pots; a soldier fired at him (shot him) (= shot) the man; stole the rings (stole them) (= stole) Šlč; aplàisk (= let go) gýrną — ploniaũ (= finer) grind DS; pálku (=stick) leans on it (= leans on it) Šlčn; pralydėjau (= accompanied) my sister; the rain won’t stop (= won’t stop) quickly Mrj; turned into (= into) a bow (= turned into); atšālo (= froze) cherries; we endured everything (= endured); then drove them away (= drove them away) from themselves; his arms were broken (= broken—

⁴ See the dialect material from these settlements, held in the manuscript collections of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature, Lithuanian SSR Academy of Sciences.

220

(broke); anà àtsku̇ta (= peeled) potatoes Kn; atpjóu (= cut off) a piglet’s tail; usirġsit (= you will get sick) from that bread; usisùko (= turned around) his head; vyro motkà (= mother) praskaitė (= read through) a letter; tore apart the fence (= tore to pieces) a jacket (=); sùkepa (= bakes) sausages; pračýrškino (= fried, crisped) with cracklings; apsižagnóju (= cross myself) in Lithuanian; ažverkė (= burst into tears) bitterly; pagùrino (= knocked out) the window; all the girls patékėj (= got married); sùvirė (= boiled) ten pounds of sausage Lg; atkirto (= cut off) a man's hand Trak; all my friends died long ago (= died out), and their bones rotted (= decayed) SM. Derivational calques of this type are abundant in the dialect, and ever more of them appear there.

The dialect has quite a few verbs with prefixes of Slavic origin, e.g.: razbrínko (= swelled up) udder; razdàrė (= opened) the door; razbaidė (= frightened away) the chickens Dv; raspióu (= cut in half) across the middle; razmaišo (= mixes up) potato mash; rasižóji (= gaping) listens Lg; rasivéikino (= said goodbye) to everyone Trak; the cuckoo pàdmetė (= laid) eggs; pàdnešė (= brought) under the door SM⁵.

The Belarusian prefix pa- is sometimes added to a Lithuanian prefixed verb as well. Such a verb usually acquires the meaning of repeated action in the past, e.g.: paišmirė (= died out one after another) people; papamiršo (= forgot one after another) the Sundays Dv, Lg; paapklóstė (= covered them all one by one) her children; papariniko (= gathered up) apples Btr; paažukėlė (= raised one after another) trees; paažùrišė (= tied up) the apple trees; paapšluostė (= wiped them all one after another) noses SM⁶; cf. Belarusian папазбітацца, папрагуляваць, папрагалупліваць, папракаіцца, панакарыць, паатхадзіць, папаезжаць, папрылятаць, etc.⁷

In rare cases, an adverb or two with a prefix of Slavic origin is also found, e.g.: panedaũgi “little by little, gradually” Lg, DS; panedaũgelio “little by little” Btrm.

Examples of Belarusian-language adjectives expressing possession are also rendered here by Lithuanian nouns of corresponding meaning with pronominal adjective endings, e.g.: sénioji (= grandfather’s) little shop; óškioji (= goat’s) hide (= skin), baràninoj mésa “mutton”, kárvysis (= cow’s) milk SM; Gabrukėj (= Gabruk’s) fields, Petrukój (= Petruk’s) land Lg; cf. the local Belarusian dialect бабіные гуці, каровінае малако, Антонаўная хaтa. Nouns with pronominal adjective endings are also found in isolated Lithuanian dialects in the Byelorussian SSR⁸.

The formation of adjective degrees has also been influenced somewhat by Slavic languages. Following the Belarusian pattern, superlative forms are often used here in place of comparative forms, e.g.: geráusio (= better) life nėrai (= is not) kap kalkozi (= than in the kolkhoz) Lg; nėrai gardžiausio (= tastier) per (= than) a tench or a bream SM (cf. Belarusian у мяне быў старэйшы брат; ён быў цвярдзейшы за мяне). Superlative forms are most often formed with the Slavic-origin affix nai-,

Žr. dar Z. Zinkevičius, Lietuvių dialektologija, Vilnius, 1966, p. 30.

For more examples, see J. Lipskienė and A. Vidugiris, Dieveniškių tarmė, — Lietuvių kalbos gramatinė sandara (LKK, IX), Vilnius, 1967, pp. 203—204.

Dar plg. Курс сучаснай беларускай літаратурнай мовы, Мінск, 1957, p. 156.

Žr. J. Senkus. Kai kurie Lazūnų tarmės ypatumai, — MAD, A, I, Vilnius, 1958, p. 187; E. Grinaveckienė, Tarmių medžiagos rinkimas lietuvių kalbos atlasui, — LKK, III; Vilnius, 1960, p. 193.

221

e.g.: naigardžiausi (= tastiest) apples; naigeriausia (= best) fish Btrm; cf. Belarusian наибышэйшы, найлепшы, Polish największy, najlepszy, najświętszy. To form the absolute superlative, a Lithuanian derivational component is also added to the indicated superlative form, namely kuo-, e.g.: kuonai-gražiausia “the most beautiful of all”, kuonaimėiliausia “the most beloved of all”.

In certain cases, Slavic inflectional forms, or their contamination with Lithuanian forms, are also familiar in the Lithuanian dialect of this area. Belarusian and Polish may have encouraged the reflexive particle of Lithuanian prefixed reflexive verbs to be used not only between the prefix and the root but also at the ending (though much less often), e.g.: netāpinosi “did not drown,” nelūposi “did not fight” SM, Lg; įnkasėse “dug oneself in,” ažjuokėse “burst out laughing” Btrm; cf. Belarusian таніцца, біцца, заканапацца. Sometimes verbs with two reflexive particles are found here, one between the prefix and the root, the other at the ending, e.g.: we wanted to live, but (= but) nezgy-vėnas Kn. Sometimes a reflexive particle is also attached here to verbs (and participles) when the word does not have the meaning characteristic of reflexive forms, e.g.: the sons have become bent over (< bent over) completely Kn; you will get soaked (= get wet) in the water Dv; cf. Belarusian апалячыцьца, вымочвацца. The reverse cases are also familiar in the Lithuanian dialect of this area, when verbs with reflexive meaning lack the reflexive particle and express this meaning by analytic means, e.g.: take for yourself “take for yourself” Dv; takes to his own yard, puts a wreath on his own head “puts a wreath on his head”, pulled out his own hair “pulled his hair out” Lg. Occasionally, simple verbs are used instead of reflexive verbs (as in Belarusian and Polish), e.g.: put on (= put on oneself) a ring and began to wave his hand Lg; sūmušė (= fought) with his hand, even cries Btrm; put (= put on himself) a wolf’s leg on the cart Brč. Alongside shortened and regular third-person conditional forms (if he loved, he would not do that), forms with fuller endings and the formant b also occur, e.g.: so that no one would carry my firewood Trak; if people (= people) lived as () SM; cf. Belarusian прынес б ты вады; зайшоў б ты. The verb to be in the present tense here, as in Belarusian, is usually not conjugated, and its third-person form has taken over the functions of all the other persons, e.g.: I am sinful “I have sinned” Dv; let him be (= be) he Mrj; you are (= are) people Kn; cf. Belarusian я (ёсць) чалавек; вы (ёсць) людзі. The first-person plural of verbs occasionally has the ending -ma here, e.g.: we drive the animals= () along the line Trak; all winter we milked= () the cows Lg. The first-person plural ending -ma is generally characteristic of Samogitian dialects. It also occurs occasionally in folk songs in the Kupiškėnai dialect area⁹. In southeastern Lithuania, this ending, alongside the ending -me used throughout the area, is found mostly only in places where the Lithuanian language system is most weakened; therefore, in our view, it is more closely connected with the corresponding Belarusian ending: заплачымы, пабачыма¹⁰.

The local Lithuanian dialects contain quite a few syntactic constructions formed on the model of Slavic languages. The following are worth noting:

1. Use of the preposition ant in constructions expressing direction of action, purpose, the quality of an object, and the quantity of an action, e.g.: sets snares (= loops) for a hare and a stag Lg; went to the German Mrj; daughter came to three eyes SM; looks toward the forest;

⁹ See Z. Zinkevičius, Lietuvių dialektologija, p. 336.

¹⁰ Plg. Т. П. Ломтев, Белорусский язык, Москва, 1951, p. 102.

222

ran off at the sound of the piglets; it needs to be divided into three Brč, cf. Belarusian пятля на зайца; дачка на тры очи; дзяліць на тры часці.

2. Use of the prepositional dėl construction to express the object and purpose of an action, e.g.: I am a father-in-law because of my daughter-in-law SM; old bast shoes are good for old people Kn; I will not say “friend” because of you “I will not call you a friend” Škl; the husband gives bread because of his wife Mrj; pripečka (=fireplacefor the fire; dzieška (=trough⟧) for the meat Lg; I play the little violin (=the little violin) because of father Dv, cf. Belarusian я зраблю гэта дзеля вас; дзеля навесткі я дзевер.

3. Use of the prepositional palei construction with the genitive to express the location of an action, e.g.: the bear laid the pine branches beside this woman Brč, cf. Belarusian каля бабы.

4. Use of the prepositional po construction with the nominative to express the object of an action, e.g.: she wept for her mother Dgn, cf. Belarusian плакаць па мацеры; he patted the bear on the head Brč, cf. Belarusian ударила па спіне.

5. Use of the prepositional prieš construction with the instrumental to express the time of an action, e.g.: before the three kings Škl, cf. Belarusian перад адьездам.

6. Use of the prepositional už (ažu, až) construction with the genitive:

a) to express the time of an action instead of a construction with the preposition prie, e.g.: that was in the time of Mikalójas (=in the time of Nicholas) SM; in the time of the tsar (=tsar⟧) the language was suppressed: young people were ashamed of their language Lg; during the time of Poland (=in the period of bourgeois Poland) we spoke (=we talked) Lithuanian Btrm; that was before my memory “I do not remember that yet” Trak., cf. Polish za życia, za króla, za mojej pamięci;

b) to express the time of an action instead of a construction with the preposition po, e.g.: during that war (=after the war) he died Mrj;

c) to express the duration of an action instead of constructions with the preposition per, e.g.: during the summer he does not do much; in one hour I will leave Kn.

d) to express the location of an action instead of a construction with the preposition iš už, e.g.: the man is looking from behind a bush Trak, cf. Belarusian з-за куста;

e) to express the cause of an action instead of a construction with the preposition per, e.g.: I have not seen the world (=people) because of tears; I cannot live because of those children Lg, cf. Belarusian з-за слёз; з-за вадь;

f) to express the cause of an action instead of a construction with the preposition dėl, e.g.: I stood for a litre of water (=a litre) Škl; then we will quarrel (=we will quarrel with each other) because of the chickens Kn.

7. Use of the prepositional už (ažu, až) constructions with the accusative:

a) to express the time of an action, instead of the preposition už (or po) with a genitive construction, e.g.: in three weeks (= weeks) there was a wedding (= wedding) Dv; in three months there will be four; returned in a year; I’ll return in a year, in two; in about (= how many) years the Gypsies (= Roma) invaded Lg, cf. Belarusian усё адбылася за адну мінуту; Polish wrócę się za godzinę;

b) to express the direction of an action instead of a construction with the preposition prie, e.g.: the children fly (=run) toward those fires SM;

c) to express the cause of an action instead of a construction with the preposition dėl, e.g.: because of those horses, he both lies down and gets up Mrj, cf. Belarusian з-за каня;

d) to express the cause of an action, instead of the prepositional construction with per, e.g.: ažu duūnių (=foolvisų bažnyčių pragaišino (=destroyed), cf. Belarusian з-за дурня;

e) to express the object of an action, instead of the preposition į construction, e.g.: už lankų pervirto Kn; ánas jūnkės (=learned aż kūnigų Lg, cf. Belarusian вучыцца за доктара;

223

f) to express the object of an action, instead of a genitive construction, e.g.: ādau dukte- ri už jį Lg; ana už plaukus ēm mani Kn, cf. Belarusian адаць за яго;

g) to express the object of an action, instead of a prepositionless instrumental construction, e.g.: susiedas (=neighborapsirangė už velnių Lg; rankų už sūktuvį padarė, pirštų — už klėmkų (=handle; have oneself as beautiful; Belarusian ён пераадзеўся за чорта.

8. Constructions with the preposition už (už) and the instrumental are used instead of genitive constructions to express place, e.g.: šienāuna až Merkiu SM, cf. Belarusian касілі за ракой.

9. There are cases in which the verbs tęsti ‘continue’, iškišti ‘stick out’, atminti ‘remember’, šaukti ‘call’, imti ‘take’ are sometimes used here not with the accusative, as in the literary language, but with the genitive, e.g.: pull him up (= drag him) by his long snout Brč; remembered his name DS; why are you calling on God Slč; called the police (= militia) Dv; the parents wanted them to take Škl., cf. Belarusian цягнуць у сябе паветра; носа высунуць; успомніць чалавека; прасіць дапамогі; прасіць слова; узяць слова.

10. Following the Belarusian model, the verb dalyti ‘share’ is used here with the instrumental, e.g.: they will sit and share money Dv, cf. Belarusian дзяліцца хлебом.

11. The adverb around is in certain cases used as a preposition governing the genitive, e.g.: hares have surrounded it all around; around the huts—trees (= forest) Brč, cf. Belarusian навокал возера растуць дрэвы.

Other individual syntactic constructions—calques of Slavic origin—are also found here, e.g.: arrived at about twelve o’clock (= at twelve o’clock) Brč, cf. Belarusian прыйшоў у дванаццаць часоў; there will be about six kilometers (= kilometers) Kn, cf. Belarusian будзе кілометроў шэсць; one after another (= another) ties one to the birch; one from another (= another) takes away Dv, cf. Belarusian ціснуць адзін аднаго; went to graze cows DS; drove the sheep to pasture Dv; led the sheep to market Kn, and so on.

In general, most Slavic-derived word-formation and grammatical-structure borrowings and calques occur in everyday speech, whereas they are far less common in folk narrative, especially in its sung folklore.

On the other hand, some word-formation and grammatical-structure elements characteristic of Lithuanian are also found in the local Belarusian dialect. Here, for example, the diminutive suffixes -уля || -коля¹¹ and -ук || -юк¹² (and their derivatives — -укуць, -ейчук, -улюк, эйчук) are common. Derivatives with these suffixes correspond to formations with the suffixes -ulis, -ulė, -(i)ukas, -uliukas, -ukucis (= ukutis), and -eiciukas (< -evičiukas), which are actively used in Western Dzūkian dialects. The suffixes -уля||-коля and -ук || -юк are most often used to form diminutive and affectionate personal names and common nouns, e.g.: Адулія “Adulė,” Пятруля “Petrutė,” Стасоля “Stasytė”; Пятрюк “Petrukas,” Янук “Jonukas,”

¹¹ The diminutive and affectionate formations with the suffix -уля, widely used in the Belarusian dialect of this area, should in our view be regarded as Lithuanianisms, since formations with this suffix are rare in Polish—which is in close contact with the local Belarusian and Lithuanian dialects—and generally have different meanings; cf. Jan Łoś, Gramatyka polska, Cz. II, Słowotwórstwo, Lwów, Warszawa, Kraków, 1925, p. 48; also cf. J. Otrębski, Wschodnio litewskie narzecze trockie, I, Kraków, 1934, pp. 153–154; Gramatyka języka litewskiego, II, Warszawa, 1965, p. 128; LTSR MA Lietuvių kalbos ir literatūros institutas, Lietuvių kalbos gramatika, I, Vilnius, 1965, pp. 274–275, 352.

¹² In the Belarusian dialects of southwestern Lithuania, as in the territory of the Belarusian SSR along the border with the Lithuanian SSR, diminutive formations with the suffix -ukas, used extensively, should be regarded as Lithuanianisms, since they are rare and generally have other meanings in the rest of Belarusian territory; cf. Курс сучаснай беларускай літаратурнай мовы, p. 59.

224

Габрук “Gabrukas”; мамуля “mamulė”; дачоля “dukrėlė”, сяструля “sesutė”, цятуля “tetulė”, жануля “žmonelė”, бацюля “tėvelis”, дзіцюля “vaikelis”, братуля “brolelis”, бальшуля “didžiulė”, сладулля “saldulė”; бацюк “tėvelis”, дзядук “senelis”, братук “brolukas”, цятулюк “tetulytė”, дзядуляк “seneliukas”, мамулюк “mamulytė”, etc. Trak. The suffix -ук || -юк is fairly common also in family names formed from the father’s name, e.g.: Габрукі “Gabrio N. children”. Дамі-нокі “Daminiko N. children”, Юзюкі “Juozo N. children” Trak, cf. Lithuanian dialect Gabrūkai “Gabrio N. children”, Daminiukai “Daminiko N. children”. The compound suffixes -укуць, -эйчук are used quite widely in the surnames of unmarried young sons, formed from their fathers’ surnames, e.g.: Карпукць “Karpuko’s son”, Жвірб-лукуць “Žvirbluko’s son”, Тамашэйчук “Tamaševičius’s son”, Трусейчук “Trusevičius’s son”, etc. The suffix -укуць is also added to the father’s name. Such formations generally denote nicknames of unmarried sons, e.g.: Антукуць “Antanuko’s son”, Пятрукуць “Petruko’s son”, Габрукуць “Gabruko’s son”, cf. Lithuanian dialectal counterparts Karpukučius, Gabrukučius, Žvirblukučius¹³.

Some nouns in the local Belarusian dialect, unlike those in literary Belarusian, have the same gender as the corresponding nouns in the Lithuanian dialect, e.g.: чарны крой, вялікі печ, адзін канаў, cf. standard Belarusian чорна крой, вялікая печ, адна канава and the local Lithuanian dialect juodas kraujas, didžiulis pečius, vienas kanalas.

In the Belarusian dialect around Trakús, Senúosius Macelius, Lygáinius and Butrimónis, the singular third-person form of present-tense verbs, together with the particle няхай, is also used with the meaning of the third-person plural of the permissive mood, probably under the influence of Lithuanian, e.g.: няхай ляціць дзеці ў лес; няхай яны ідзе дзеля нас. Also compare the use of singular third-person present-tense forms with the meaning of the third-person plural in other cases: шэсць братоў жыве; пчалы рукой ідзе; тры сыны служыць у арміі; яны ненавідзе сіроткі; яны ганяе яе вон; further cf. standard Belarusian пчалы рукой ідуць; яны ганяюць яе вон.

Several syntactic constructions resembling those of Lithuanian have also been observed in the local Belarusian dialect. The goal genitive characteristic of Lithuanian is used here, e.g.: прыйшла пазьчыць нажа; я пайшоў паглядзець сваёй сястры; яна пайшла паглядзець карціны, пайшоў травы касіць Trak, Lg, cf. standard Belarusian пайшоў траву касіць; прыйшли паглядзець карціну. The partitive genitive is also characteristic of the Belarusian dialect of this area, e.g.: ёсць такіх людзей; ёсць ваўкоў; ёсць ягадоў; ёсць баравікоў “there are boletus mushrooms” Btrm, Brč, Lg, Trak, cf. Belarusian Ck, ёсць такіе людзі; ёсць ягадЫ; ёсць такія справы, and so on.

At the same time, it has been observed that some derivational and other elements of grammatical structure common or similar to both language systems do not disappear from the contact dialects. Although the grammatical system of the local Lithuanian dialect has been somewhat unsettled in many respects by the influence of the languages in contact, and alongside Lithuanian forms borrowed and calqued forms are gradually also beginning to be used, the formations with the suffixes -očius, -ūnas, -okas, -inykas, -ynė, -ata do not disappear from it at all. This may be because the corresponding suffixes are relatively productive in the local Belarusian dialect as well, e.g.: Lithuanian Trak, SM, Lg Btrm pilvočius, šakočius, galvočius, barzdočius — Belarusian сілач, барадач, вусач;

¹³ Cf. E. Grinaveckienė, Lietuvių literatūrinės kalbos ir tarmių sąveika, in: Lietuvių kalba tarybiniais metais, Vilnius, 1967, pp. 172–173.

15 Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos tyrinėjimai

225

keikūnas, režūnas “glutton”, pasalūnas, bastūnas — шантун “буртинінкас”, балбатун “плепуѕ”, свістун, дзікун, крыкун; šaipōkas, viliōkas, pirmōkas, variōkas — гуляк “idler”, медзяк “copper coin”, середняк “average one”, пяршак “first-grader”; bicinýkas, nakčigonykas “dormitory warden”, gyvãtnykas “snake catcher and seller”, tárpinykas “a beam in a barn separating the hayloft from the threshing floor”, grãbinnykas — wydatnik “traitor”, пакупнік “buyer”, падлазнік “sycophant”, ваяўнік “warrior”, ляснік “forester”; saldžynė “honey cake”, žemynė “wild strawberry”, tolynė “distance”, šlapynė “wetness”, tankynė “thicket” — гарачыня “heat”, цвёрдзіня “hardness”, быстрына “speed”, вышыня “height”, цялпіня “warmth”; gyvatà “life”, balbatà “chattering”, lūpata “someone ragged, in a single patch” — пустата, дабрата, чыстата, цесната, and so on.

Both Lithuanian and local Belarusian dialects actively use prefixed imperfective verbs with iterative and frequentative meanings (Lithuanian with the suffixes -inėti, -dinėti, -dyti; Belarusian — -іваць, -ываць, -аваць, -яваць, -оўваць, -ёваць), e.g.: Lithuanian ateidýzė “to keep coming”, atbėgdzinėc “to come running often”, atvažiuodzinėc “to arrive often”; Belarusian — залепліваць, затрымліваць, папры-лятаць, расцягніваць, etc. Collective numerals are also used quite widely in both dialects, e.g.: ašūn (= shot) dvėjētu vilkų Btrm, penkētu vištų turiu Dv; atāj trājetas cigōnų (= Roma) DS, būvo šašetas vaikų SM, Belarusian — двух салдат прыйшло; у мяне трох сыноў і дачка; cirot чатырох нас было. In literary Belarusian (and likewise in Lithuanian), however, there has recently been a greater tendency to use cardinal numerals in such cases, e.g.: у мяне тры сыны і дачка; два сыны жывуць, cf. Lithuanian aš turiu tris sūnus ir dukterį; dù sūnūs gyvena, and so on. The instrumental without a preposition is also highly characteristic and widely used in both dialects, e.g.: spárdos kõjom; ãrė: jaučiais; ýlu prãdūra; vienu rankų papjõu vilkų, cf. Belarusian нагой пастукау; рукой касілі, and so on. In neighboring Lithuanian dialects, the instrumental of means is sometimes tending to be used with the preposition su “with”, but this process is scarcely observed in the local Lithuanian dialect. Although the instrumental of state is used in both dialects (e.g.: ãnas yrai dãktaru “he is a doctor”, bocià buvo aiguliu “father was a forester”, cf. Belarusian яна была настаўніцей “she was a teacher”, пражый жыць лясніком “lived a lifetime as a forester”), lately constructions with the accusative and the preposition už have increasingly taken hold alongside it, e.g.: visų sa būici buvai až aigulių, cf. Belarusian быць за правадніка; яна была за гаспадыню, ён стаў за старшыну; вы вучыцеся за вучыцеляй, and also cf. Polish wynając się za stróża, etc. In both dialects, neuter forms are widely used in place of the nominative singular and plural of past passive participles, e.g.: drōbinės kelnės pasiūta Eiš; pievos išarta ir žolių prisėta SM; žmogus maiši skepanī (= cellar) įmesta Lg, cf. Belarusian санажа́ць вы́арано і травы пасеяно, портки пашыто. Both dialects abound in cases where an attribute follows the word it modifies, e.g.: užprūole· jų vilkai trįs Lg; giedōj giesmes šventàs SM; paar dė (= tore down) cýltus visùs Btrm; suvàrė· kap gyvūlius kokiùs Dv, cf. Belarusian на яго напалі воўкі тры; пайшоў духом святым “went wherever his feet carried him”; пяе песню святую, and so on. These dialects also widely share a number of other similar syntactic constructions, e.g.: ãnas juōkias iš manį, cf. Belarusian яны смяюцца з нас; Polish on śmieje się ze mnie, but Russian смеются

226

above us; sweeter than honey, cf. Bel. саладзейшы за мед; Polish jestes starszy niż ja, but Russian слаже меда; the wolf came and slaughtered the calf, cf. Bel. воўк прыйшоўшы з лесу і зарэзаўшы цяля, but Russian волк пришел с леса и зарезал теленка. A considerable number of grammatical elements that are disappearing and characteristic only of its own system have also been noted in the Lithuanian dialect in contact. They are disappearing, undoubtedly, because there are no direct correspondences in the other languages in contact, and their existence is not sustained by the surrounding linguistic environment. Initially, the sphere of use of such linguistic elements usually narrows sharply, their meaning begins to fade, and they themselves disappear and become fossilized, although they persist in the dialect for some time. It has been observed, for example, that in the local Lithuanian dialect the meaning of the disappearing plural numerals has faded considerably. They are usually replaced by cardinal numerals. Since the meaning of plural numerals has faded considerably, in the dialect they are sometimes confused with collective numerals and used in the latter’s sense, e.g.: we lived five or six versts from Valkininkai, Škl; she raised five children SM, and so on. The category of the half-participle, also unknown to the other languages in contact, has likewise become greatly depleted here. Recently, the rare forms of half-participles in the dialect have become fossilized and are sometimes used in place of participles, e.g.: ảńys aina ir aidamu (= walking) all (= all) sing Dv; kąsėm bulbàs an šóknõs sėdėdama (= sitting) Eiš; rādoma kiškį kÿlposa gulėdamų (= lying) Lg; the wolf pvuolė ganydamų (= grazing) the cows, the shepherd SM; juokdami (= laughing) važu Btr; žmonių aidamų (= people walking) ragėjau Dv; I heard that it was getting darker and coming ever closer, uždama (= closing); another person in the forest (= in the forest) stovėdama (= standing) ragėj Ds. Similar cases of half-participle usage also occur in isolated Lithuanian dialects in the Byelorussian SSR¹⁴. Compound verb tenses are also relatively rare here. The forms of the participles used in them have undergone considerable leveling. In place of the singular masculine and feminine forms of the past-tense participle, only its masculine plural nominative form is now used in all cases; functionally, it is close to the Belarusian adverbial participle¹⁵, e.g.: the wolf atskridi (=having run up) Lg; the girl (=girl) apsraudōji (=having burst into tears) SM; the mare: aširgi (=having fallen ill); ãnas nuzgañdi (=having become frightened) Dv, and so on, cf. Bel. муж на вайне нагипшы; вада дарогу заня ўшы; ён з Мінска прыехаўшы. In general, simple verb forms are increasingly used here instead of compound tenses, but their use, too, is often considerably confused, sometimes quite unusual or uncharacteristic of Lithuanian, e.g.: if I go (=had gone), then I would do it (=would have done it) Brč, and so on.

The following grammatical phenomena have emerged or become prominent in the Lithuanian and Slavic languages in contact in southeastern Lithuania:

1. The local Lithuanian dialect uses a considerable number of words and syntactic constructions modeled on Slavic languages. These include semantic calques and borrowings involving verb prefixes, semantic borrowings in adjective degrees of comparison, Slavic usage of certain prepositions and their government of cases, and so on. Elements of Lithuanian word formation and syntax have been observed in the local Belarusian dialect. These include

¹⁴ See J. Senkus. Lazūnai Dialect Texts, LKK, vol. 2, Vilnius, 1959, p. 220; E. Grina veckienė, LKK, vol. 3, Vilnius, 1960, p. 193; cf. also J. Lipskienė and A. Vidugiris, Dieveniškės Dialect, in: The Grammatical Structure of the Lithuanian Language (LKK, vol. 9), Vilnius, 1967, p. 211.

¹⁵ Cf. Т. П. Ломтев, Беларускский язык, p. 113; Нарысы па беларускай дыялекта- логіі, Мінск, 1964, p. 286, 288—290.

15*

227

the use of diminutive suffixes -уля, -ук, -укуць, -эйчук, etc., and genitive constructions expressing purpose and partitive meaning, etc.

2. The grammatical systems of the languages of this area are losing linguistic phenomena shared or closely related across the languages in contact (observed mainly in the local Lithuanian and Belarusian dialects). Although the grammatical system of the local Lithuanian dialect has been considerably affected by Slavic influence, formations with the suffixes -očiųs, -inas, -okas, -inykas, -ynė, -ata are not disappearing in it, most likely because the corresponding suffixes are productive in the local Belarusian dialect as well. It has many prefixed imperfective verbs with iterative and frequentative meanings and the suffixes -dyti, -inėti, -dinėti; in meaning, these are analogous to formations with the suffixes -іваць, -оўваць, -аваць, etc., widely used in the Belarusian dialect. The two dialects in contact also share common or similar syntactic constructions.

3. The grammatical structures of the languages in contact are losing those elements that the other languages in contact do not have. In the local Lithuanian dialect, the use of plural numerals and half-participles has become very weak and has largely faded; their functions and meanings are changing, and their forms are becoming fossilized. Compound verb tenses are now encountered relatively rarely here; the forms of the participles used in them have undergone considerable leveling.

The features of Lithuanian and Slavic languages in southeastern Lithuania outlined above should be regarded as the most prominent consequences of contact between these languages.

SOME PHENOMENA OF GRAMMATICAL CONTACT BETWEEN LITHUANIAN AND SLAVIC LANGUAGES IN SOUTHEASTERN LITHUANIA

Э. ГРИНАВЯЦКЕНЕ

Summary

In the linguistic area of southeastern Lithuania, Lithuanian and Slavic languages (mainly Belarusian, and to some extent Polish) have been in relatively intensive contact since ancient times. As a result of their interaction, certain features appear in the system of each language in contact, distinguishing local dialects from the system of the respective language and bringing the contact dialects together. The article uses specific examples to illustrate some phenomena of contact reflected in the grammatical structure of the local Lithuanian (and partly Belarusian) dialect. The following features stand out in the contact dialects; in our view, they may be considered the principal result of this contact.

1. The local Lithuanian dialect uses a considerable number of words and individual syntactic constructions formed on the model of Slavic languages. These include semantic calques and borrowings of certain verbal prefixes, semantic calques of the comparative forms of adjectives, the use of certain prepositions, and so on. Some elements of word formation and syntax characteristic of Lithuanian have been noted in the local Belarusian dialect.

2. Common or similar phenomena do not disappear from the grammatical systems of the languages in contact. Although the grammatical system of the local Lithuanian

228

dialect is under relatively strong influence from Slavic languages, some stability has nevertheless been observed in the use of formations with the suffixes -očius, -ūnas, -okas, -inykas, -ynė, -ata. This is most likely explained by the fact that the corresponding suffixes are also productive in the local Belarusian dialect. Prefixal imperfective verbs with the suffixes -inėti, -dinėti, -dyti, which have iterative and frequentative meanings, are also widespread in the Lithuanian dialect. Verbs with the corresponding meaning are widely attested in the local Belarusian dialect as well.

3. Elements absent from the other languages in contact disappear from the grammatical system of each language in contact. In the local Lithuanian dialect, for example, some narrowing of the functions of collective numerals and the half-participle has been noted, as well as a leveling of participle forms, and so on.