Autorinis tarminis grafolektas ir jo percepcijos galimybės

DAIVA ALIŪKAITĖ, VIOLETA MEILIŪNAITĖ Institute of the Lithuanian Language doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2022.95.09 AUTHORIAL DIALECTAL GRAPHOLECT AND ITS PERCEPTUAL POSSIBILITIES KEYWORDS: dialectal grapholect, perception, dialect transcription. ANNOTATION The article presents a study of written dialectality. The study sought to evaluate an authorial grapholect in terms of how spoken dialectality is conveyed and the orthographic choices made. The basis for the dialectological discourse consists of Facebook posts by a representative of the Eastern Aukštaitian Panevėžiškiai dialect, published in a dialectal grapholect. The article first analyzes the author-informant’s orthographic choices for conveying the distinctive features of Eastern Aukštaitian Panevėžiškiai, and then presents a study of the perception of the dialectal grapholect, examining how ordinary members of the linguistic community read and understand a text written in a dialectal grapholect. ABSTRACT This article discusses a study of written dialecticism, conducted in order to assess how the authorial grapholect conveys oral dialecticism and to analyse the spelling choices made by the author. The dialectal discourse used for this study consists of a number of Facebook posts published in a dialectal grapholect by a female informant. The first part of the article focuses on specific orthographic decisions made by the author-informant to convey the distinct features of her native Eastern Aukštaitian subdialect of Panevėžys. The second investigative section of the article examines the perception of a dialectal grapholect, looking closely at how ordinary language users read and understand texts written in it. INTRODUCTION Dialectologists, seeking to measure the vitality of dialect codes and assess their continuity, still focus primarily on the spoken word. Efforts to distinguish authentic expression from more dialectal vs. less dialectal simulations encourage researchers to diversify the principles for monitoring (regional) varieties and tech- 48 BENDRINĖ KALBA | 95 nologies (cf. direct and indirect observation methods, incognito technique, etc.). Of course, approaches to inventorying the research material (spoken word) ensure both more diverse and more precise studies of regional variation. Nevertheless, despite the fact that in the twenty-first century knowledge of dialects and dialectality is multidimensional—and this refers not only to approaches to collecting data on dialectality but also to the recognition of dialectality per se (cf. Mikulėnienė 2019: 60–61)—monitoring spoken language alone is insufficient for developing a focused dialectological narrative (insofar as secondary discourse about language can ever be precise). Walter J. Ong has suggested that writing empowers the grapholect, giving it power far exceeding that of any spoken dialect (Ong 2002: 8). Thus, there is no doubt that studies of written dialectality can not only legitimize a new layer of dialectological data but also offer new perspectives: first, for assessing the role of an ordinary member of a particular community in the history of a specific dialect code’s vitality; second, for identifying the salient features of dialect codes from the perspective of community members themselves; and third, for evaluating the functionality of the dialectal grapholect more generally—in other words, the prospects for new grapholects and their communicative value within the community. Accordingly, this article focuses on written dialectality, that is, it presents a study of an authorial dialectal grapholect. The aim of the study presented here has two aspects: first, to evaluate the authorial grapholect in terms of how spoken dialectality is represented and the orthographic choices made; and second, to evaluate it from the perspective of perception, that is, to determine what audience writing in a dialectal grapholect seeks to reach. The research material consists of Facebook posts by Danutė Montvilaitė, a representative of the Eastern Highlanders of Panevėžys, published in a dialectal grapholect. Danutė Motvilaitė is a writer born in Paežeris village (Panevėžys District), who studied biology at Vilnius University, later taught biology in Joniškėlis, and then returned to Panevėžys. In Standard Lithuanian, she has published a couple of autobiographical books (Pakelių žydėjimo šviesa, 2018; Prisiminimai apie Bernotus; Prie ežerėlio, 2010), and actively writes in the Panevėžys subdialect on topics concerning current social and cultural life and holidays in the Facebook Suskambėjimų group. It may be said that this author-informant1 meets the characteristics of a so-called local (Eng. indigenes) informant (cf. Chambers 2000: 181; see also Aliūkaitė et al. 2014: 57). Apart from her years of study, the informant has spent her entire life within the subdialect area. In the absence of additional information 1 To ensure consistency in the dialectological discourse, the article uses both the separate terms author, informant and the term author-informant. DAIVA ALIUKAITĖ, VIOLETA MEILIŪNAITĖ. Autorinis tarminis grafolektas ir jo percepcijos galimybės 49 about her parents’ origins and place of residence, the informant’s regionality index (Eng. regionality index; for further discussion of the regionality index, see Chambers 2000: 178–181) can be summarized as 1–3; in other words, she is a community member with true local status. A variant of the direct observation technique was used to collect the material. It should be acknowledged that the distinction between the direct observation method (Eng. direct method) and the indirect observation method (Eng. indirect method) in studies of regional variation—distinguishing the researcher’s role in collecting material by one method or the other (cf. in the first case, a direct data collector; in the second, the designer of a particular data-collection instrument, such as a questionnaire or task set, and more of a research coordinator2), while taking into account the risks to the material’s authenticity in both cases (cf. in the first case, the factor of the observer’s paradox (Eng. observer’s paradox)3; in the second, the reliability of recording dialect data, etc.)—has been conceptualized on the basis of the idea of monitoring spoken dialectality. Nevertheless, researchers’ own searches for texts in nonstandard orthography, like interviewing representatives of dialect codes and recording interviews to obtain primary dialectological material, would constitute a direct-observation approach. Thus, when focusing on written dialectality, the concept of the direct observation method is thereby even broadened: this way of collecting material entails collecting not only spoken but also written material. The research material was collected from January to September 2022. During that time, the author-informant of the dialectal grapholect published 39 posts. The posts (see examples in Table 1) provide the basis for developing a critical discourse on choices in representing and recording dialectality. The second layer of research material consists of data from a perception task involving an authorial dialectal grapholect. Such material is valuable for broadening the assessment of written dialectality and, at the same time, beginning to develop a discourse on the functionality of the dialectal grapholect. The exploratory perception task for the authorial dialectal grapholect was designed methodologically on the basis of the idea of the indirect observation method proposed by Georg Wenker, founder of the Marburg School of Linguistic Geography. To collect material for an atlas (Sprachatlas des Deutschen Reichs), G. Wenker prepared 404 sentences 2 Dėl metodų žr.: Seiler 2010: 502–506; Van Keymeulen 2018: 49–50. 3 Dėl termino žr. Labov 2006: 86. 4 It should be added that when G. Wenker studied dialects in northern Germany (the Prussian Rhine Province) in 1876, he initially used 42 sentences. For a time thereafter, a set of 38 sentences was used in the research, and only in 1881 were the 40 sentences finalized; to this day, they are used primarily in studies of German dialects, not only in Germany. 50 BENDRINĖ KALBA | 95 TABLE 1. Examples of authorial dialectal grapholect Time of post 2022 09 04 Post Transcription of the post Gamt su mum atsisveikin tykė, iš palungva. Time of post 2022 05 22 Post Transcription of the post BARAVYKS. It must have been the second half of summer. I don’t remember how old I was then, but I hadn’t started school yet. The incident itself was very simple. Dad really loved picking mushrooms. Whenever he had even a little free time, he was nowhere to be found—he’d set off into the woods. The woods were about a kilometer away, perhaps a little more. I used to ask to go along, but he wouldn’t let me; he’d say, “You’re still too young to pick mushrooms.” Our woods are mixed, wet, overgrown, and hard to walk through. Then you’ll just get tired and slow us down; it’ll be a nuisance for the mushroom pickers. <...> DAIVA ALIUKAITĖ, VIOLETA MEILIŪNAITĖ. Autorinis tarminis grafolektas ir jo percepcijos galimybės 51 Post time 2022 01 22 Post Transcription of the post Our neighbor Ladze had a cow for sale. They went to sell it. Both of them, he and his wife, were well into their seventies. They receive a pension, so why do they need all that trouble? Having to feed and milk it every day, never being able to go away. They can buy everything at the shop. You can’t live on sunshine. So they advertised and advertised, tried the market and tried the market. The buyer kept coming by. But look, she says—the cow’s just like any cow, but she couldn’t get used to it. We’ve never had a cow like that, well, it’s not the right kind, and it’s too skinny. And off she goes. Yesterday Ladzienė met me in the street. She asked whether her cow had been sold. She says—the trouble isn’t with the cow, but with the buyer, who wasn’t sensible. The cow is healthy, gives lots of milk, and is young. What good are looks and beauty if it’s no use, like a goat? But you can’t spoon-feed sense to a fool. So we’ll keep her until spring. Maybe when the grass is fresh, some more sensible buyers will turn up. standard German (e.g.: 1. Im Winter fliegen die trockenen Blätter in der Luft herum; 2. Es hört gleich auf zu schneien, dann wird das Wetter wieder besser; 3. Tu Kohlen in den Ofen, damit die Milch bald zu kochen anfängt), which informants were asked to translate into their native dialects. Without discussing in greater detail the studies of G. Wenker and his followers, it should be noted that the very idea of dialect translation is significant in preparing a perception task for authorial grapholekt. However, unlike the tasks used by representatives of linguistic geography (or, later, dialectologists in general), the authorial-grapholekt perception task asks ordinary members of a speech community to translate instances of written dialect into the standard language—in other words, to rewrite dialectal grapholekt using the standard-language code (see Fig. 1 for an example of a completed task). Two instances of written dialect were presented for perception: Nu i ronkių tuos ubalėls. Pakėlo galvo pažiūrėt a da daug unt medže likė (Well, I’m picking those little apples. I raised my head to see whether many were still left on the tree) from the author-informant’s Facebook post of August 24, 2022. 52 BENDRINĖ KALBA | 95 FIG. 1. Example of translating authorial dialectal grapholekt from the author-informant’s Facebook post dated August 24; We live for that time which we look forward to most all year. Perhaps not all year, but our whole lives (We live for that time of year which we look forward to most. Perhaps not for the whole year, but for our whole lives) from the author-informant’s Facebook post dated June 12, 2022) (see Fig. 1). Participants were asked not only to translate them and rewrite them in standard language, but also to evaluate them according to parameters for evaluating dialect codes characteristic of the perceptual dialectology research tradition (cf. Preston 1999: XXXIV–XXXV): comprehensibility, aesthetics, and correctness. As can be seen in Figure 1, a five-point semantic rating scale was used to explain the parameters of the dialect code. Relatively uncomplicated fragments of the dialectal grapholect were selected for the perception study; second, sentences were chosen to represent the distinctive features of Eastern Aukštaitian Panevėžiškiai (cf. the loss of the diphthongs an, am, en, em and the nasal vowels ą, ę), as well as the characteristics of the subdialect (cf. reduction of final vowels). Twenty students (aged 21–28) took part in the study of the perception of the authorial dialectal grapholect. The group of participants was deliberately made homogeneous; it is hoped that the perception results of a homogeneous group will provide a basis for formulating preliminary evaluative insights. In addition to the elements already discussed, answers to questions and tasks on self-assessment of competence in the dialect code and assessment of the markedness of the environment are also relevant to the consideration of perception data (see Fig. 2). DAIVA ALIUKAITĖ, VIOLETA MEILIŪNAITĖ. Autorinis tarminis grafolektas ir jo percepcijos galimybės 53 FIG. 2. Fragment of the research instrument The analysis of the author’s grapholect presented in this article should be regarded as qualitative and exploratory. The aim is to identify general principles: whether the author’s dialectal grapholect is consistent and established (or in the process of becoming established) as a unified orthographic system, and whether such a grapholect can be successful from a communicative perspective. When assessing the extent to which the research object—written dialectality in the broad sense—has been studied, it must be acknowledged that the tradition of systematic analytical discourse in Lithuanian dialectology is only beginning to take shape. Accordingly, the study presented here should be viewed not as definitive, but rather as a presentation of a model: how material involving written dialectality, even that of a single author (or, in dialectological terminology, informant), may be incorporated into dialectological analysis, why such material should be included, what risks are involved in generalizing about such an object, and so on. Iš atliktų tyrimų galima paminėti Violetos Meiliūnaitės (2015: 248–258; taip pat 2019) darbus, kuriuose tyrėja, vertindama kai kuriuos Antano Baranausko užrašytų tekstų netikslumus, yra aptarusi šnekamosios kalbos užrašymo specifiką. Vadinasi, galima pripažinti, kad iš esmės keltas tarminio grafolekto klausimas. Paskirų įžvalgų dėl tarminio kodo autofiksacijos teikė ir kiti tyrėjai (Balčiūnienė ir kt. 2019). The authors of this article have also begun a more systematic critical discourse on contemporary written dialectality. In analyzing Eastern Aukštaitian texts, 54 BENDRINĖ KALBA | 95 publikuotus almanachuose Bundanti versmė (2013, 2014), nagrinėta, ar rašytinis tarmiškumas yra tarminių kodų gyvybingumo ir tęstinumo indikacija, taip pat apžvalgiai vertinta, kaip tarminiuose grafolektuose perteikiamos skiriamosios rytų aukštaičių ypatybės (Aliūkaitė, Meiliūnaitė 2022). Galima teigti, kad šiuo – autorinio tarminio grafolekto – tyrimu tęsiamas pradėtas diskursas, tiek plėtojant konceptualias įžvalgas dėl rašytinio tarmiškumo ir jo vertės tarmėtyrinių tyrimų tradicijai, tiek tvirtinant tam tikras metodologines nuostatas, tiek vertinant autorinį tarminį grafolektą per percepcijos perspektyvą, kitaip – komunikaciniu požiūriu. 1. FROM STANDARD ORTHOGRAPHY TO NONSTANDARD SPELLING CHOICES 1.1. Spelling choices Researchers point out that the essential precondition for nonstandard spelling is the existence of standard orthography (cf. Bowdre 1964: 8). Thus, on the one hand, when dialects are positioned, standard orthography is departed from; on the other hand, a new grapholect is created. Consequently, this is a meaningful destructiveness, although researchers’ discourse sometimes describes cases of nonstandard orthography in both fiction and electronic discourse as misspelling or an ‘illiterate’ spelling (cf. Leech, Short 2007: 135). As will become clear in the analytical part of the article, this categorization appears justified at first glance, especially if we evaluate nonstandard orthography from the perspective of perception. But more on that later in the article. In analyzing nonstandard spelling practices for representing both regional and social varieties, the three-part typology of speech representation introduced by Dennis R. Preston in 1985 is most often used, namely, so-called allegro speech (English allegro speech), eye (visual) dialect (English eye-dialect), and dialect respelling (English dialect respelling) (Preston 1985: 328–329; see Aliūkaitė, Meiliūnaitė 2022 for more). The first type—allegro speech—is associated with the representation of word shortening and the blending of words or syllables (cf. Beal 2006: 84). The second type, as its label eye dialect aptly conveys, creates only a visual illusion of difference from standard orthography. For example, English ‘sez’ corresponds to ‘says’ (Lithuanian sako); thus, forms written in eye dialect have no phonological distinction DAIVA ALIUKAITĖ, VIOLETA MEILIŪNAITĖ. Autorinis tarminis grafolektas ir jo percepcijos galimybės 55 does not convey, so eye dialect is more a positioning of illiteracy for stylistic or other purposes (cf. Adamson 1999: 600). The third type—dialect respelling, unlike eye dialect, is based on the representation of actual differences. Extending the metaphorical terminology, one could say that dialect respelling corresponds to ear dialect, that is, when a text written in dialect respelling is read, the ear hears (and recognizes) differences (cf. Preston 1985: 328–329; see also Aliūkaitė, Meiliūnaitė 2022). Thus, eye dialect merely conveys the impression that pronunciation is nonstandard, whereas the variant recorded in ear dialect (dialect respelling) is in fact another one. Since nonstandard orthography is an expansive object associated not only with the grapholects of regional varieties, researchers have identified other types of writing as well. Besides the already mentioned types of incorrect or illiterate spelling (cf. Leech, Short 2007: 135), researchers distinguish semi-phonetic spelling (Eng. “semi-phonetic spelling”), the writing of regionalisms (Eng. “regionalisms”) (cf. Beal 2006: 84). Jannis K. Androutsopoulos’s study of German fanzines5 deserves separate mention; it presents one of the most detailed typologies of nonstandard spelling. In his analysis of fanzines, six types of nonstandard spelling are identified: phonetic spellings (Eng. “phonetic spellings”), colloquial spellings (Eng. “colloquial spellings”), regiolectal spellings (Eng. “regiolectal spellings”), prosodic spellings (Eng. “prosodic spellings”), interlingual spellings (Eng. “interlingual spellings”), and homophone spellings (Eng. “homophone spellings”), which include lexical substitutions (lexical replacements; Eng. “lexical substitutions”) and grapheme substitutions (grapheme replacements; Eng. “grapheme substitutions”) (for more, see Androutsopoulos 2000: 521–522). Given the genre’s specificity, not all strategies used in fanzine texts are necessarily useful for the analysis of written dialect. This is true, for example, of homophone spelling. In lexical substitution, homophonous words or numerals are written in place of certain words or word segments; for instance, in German, the numeral 1 replaces the syllable /ain/ in the word ‘Eintritt’—1-tritt (Lith. ‘entrance’) (Androutsopoulos 2000: 522). Nevertheless, some elements of this methodological approach may also prove useful when examining an author’s dialectal grapholect. It should be added, of course, that when comparing D. R. Preston’s three-part and J. K. Androutsopoulos’s six-part systems of nonstandard spelling6, a correspondence in subject matter is also evident; cf. the so-called dialect respelling has links to 5 Fanzinai – tai specializuota įvairių subkultūrų spauda (plg. Liubinienė 2009: 199–220). 6 J. K. Androutsopoulos, like D. R. Preston, merely presented systems; these are not their own models, as the researchers summarized research traditions and cases. 56 BENDRINĖ KALBA | 95 Alongside phonetic and regiolectal spelling, allegro speech is associated with the spelling of colloquial language. To refer to eye (visual) dialect, J. K. Androutsopoulas, in analyzing fanzine texts, used the more technical term grapheme substitutions (English grapheme substitutions) (Androutsopoulas 2000: 522). Initial studies of contemporary written dialectality (cf. Aliūkaitė, Meiliūnaitė 2022) revealed that so-called Lithuanian dialect grapholects (English dialect grapholect; for the term, see Redling 2006: 16) accord with D. R. Preston’s principles of dialect transcription, or, as we metaphorically termed this orthographic strategy in the article, an ear dialect. That is, on reading a dialect-transcription or ear-dialect text, one hears (and recognizes) differences, another code. Thus, with this understanding, we can begin analyzing an authorial dialectal (dialect) grapholect as well. 1.2. Motivation for writing Written dialectality exists visually and is more stable than spoken dialectality (see also Barton 2007: 89). It can therefore be argued that the decision to write in a dialectal code attests to a particular dialectal awareness. Writing expresses an intention to preserve and transmit. In the absence of standardized dialect orthography, every representative of a dialectal code who represents and, in some respect, “conserves” dialectality undoubtedly makes greater efforts to position their identity as a representative of a dialectal code, for one reason or another, than someone who represents a dialectal code simply by speaking dialect. Recalling Philippe Blanchet and Nigel Armstrong’s four-part typology of dialect users (Blanchet, Armstrong 2006: 254), representatives of written dialectality may, on the one hand, be associated with regular active speakers of a dialect (English regular active speakers), that is, dialect speakers who speak the dialectal code fluently and for whom it is the code of everyday life; on the other hand, the linguistic behavior of representatives of written dialectality can also be said to resemble that of symbolic users of a dialect (English symbolic users), that is, dialect speakers who feel loyalty to the dialect, support its dissemination, and value it as a symbol of cultural identity. At the same time, however, it is necessary to consider critically whether a representative of written dialectality really is a regular active dialect user. Since material on written dialectality is secondary, the researcher, unlike in the case of spoken dialectality, can observe only the outcome; they cannot ascertain how much of the expression is authentic and how much has been exaggerated or simu- DAIVA ALIUKAITĖ, VIOLETA MEILIŪNAITĖ. Autorinis tarminis grafolektas ir jo percepcijos galimybės 57 lated for one reason or another. It should also be noted here that it is precisely the observation of written dialectality that encourages critical assessment of the possibility of overcoming the so-called observer’s paradox (English observer’s paradox; for the term, see Labov 2006: 86). A researcher undertaking to study written dialectality can never be sure whether dialectality “frozen” by a particular orthographic choice attests to the vitality of the dialectal code in apparent time (English apparent time; for the concept, cf. Sankoff 2006: 110–116)—that is, whether it still has communicative value in the community—or is merely an indicator of a sustained local identity, very consciously revived from the past. Japanese dialectologist Fumio Inoue has proposed the particularly apt category of memory time (English memory time). Memory time is a technical term that primarily denotes researchers’ approach and is, of course, associated with the elicitation of spoken-dialect data, when a dialectologist asks a research participant about words used, variant features realized (or at least heard) in childhood, and so on, in order to determine the linguistic markedness and distinctiveness of an area (cf. Inoue 2022: 142–145; also Aliūkaitė, Meiliūnaitė 2022). Nevertheless, although representatives of written dialectality do not necessarily attempt to write down their own characteristic dialectality and may have adopted the memory-time technique to position the dialectality of an area as it once existed, from a dialectological perspective even such cases must be recognized as apparent-time data, because, as W. J. Ong’s already cited observation concerning the power of the grapholect compared with that of the spoken dialect would suggest, one or another dialect feature can be revived and established in a dialectal grapholect here and now. Researchers explaining the choice of nonstandard grapholects point to the factor of identification. Those who choose nonstandard codes seek, on the one hand, to distinguish themselves from representatives of other grapholects and, on the other, by writing in a particular grapholect, to position themselves as different and as belonging to a different community (cf. Fasold 1984: 248, cited in Unseth 2005: 22). Thus, even a revived dialect feature is significant, because it functions both as a differentiating and as a unifying marker—that is, as an identity marker. In essence, the identity aspect is probably the most important in assessing the motivation to seek nonstandard spelling solutions. First, the identity aspect is associated, on the one hand, with the effort to achieve communicative accuracy: a different spoken expression needs to be written differently so that essential and connotative dialect information is not leveled by the standard code. As Aleksas Girdenis observed, “<...> one must not think of dialect merely as a different pronunciation of roughly the same words, important though that is. One must have a very callous spirit not to feel that some easterners’ dungus or kolnas sounds much more 58 BENDRINĖ KALBA | 95 dignified than dangus and kalnas, for one not to notice the differing energy of eastern Lithuanian and northern Samogitian sentences” (Girdenis 2001: 457). Thus, nonstandard spelling solutions are needed to convey the identity of dialectality per se. Second, the motivational identity aspect is also associated with the user. Marked expression becomes a form of self-realization, both at the subjective level and as testimony to membership in a particular (rather than some other) community. 2. THE POTENTIAL OF AUTHORIAL DIALECTAL GRAPHOLECT 2.1. Authorial dialectal grapholect from the perspective of conveying spoken dialect features and orthographic decisions In the Facebook posts examined, Danutė Montvilaitė, a representative of the Panevėžys subdialect and creator of the authorial dialectal grapholect, demonstrates the expressive practices of a consistent, active dialect user. She consistently conveys, in her native speech, current observations, jokes, or phenomena related to traditional culture. Analysis of the available texts shows that they reflect essentially all the features of the central part of the Panevėžys subdialect (as noted, the author was born in Paežerys village, which would belong to the transitional zone between the northern and southern parts of the Panevėžys subdialect). The author-informant’s texts first allow us to judge the vitality of the distinctive features of Eastern Aukštaitian. The narrowing of the first components of the diphthongs an, am, en, em is evidenced by such orthographic choices as: A tarnaut reikėdava pinks mets (January 12 post); Kuntrė stov krumtydams pamesto šieno, aukštyn žemyn musikuodams galvo (March 6 post); Unt parunkių blizguns ridikulė (April 23 post); Da venuolek ilgejunčių denų lika (June 12 post); Paskutinė vasaras švintė, da šiułt, da graž, ale nebejilgė (September 13 post). It may be added that, as in the case of spoken dialect, inconsistency is observed: that is, within the same discourse fragment, the author may convey both a dialectal and a non-dialectal feature; compare: Pincijjėls gaun, kam jem tas klapats. Kasdien liuobt, melžt, niekur neatsitraukt. Užteks, viska krautuvė nusipirks. Su saul negivens. (January 22 post). The fact that the authorial dialectal grapholect also attests to accommodation processes (a case of vertical convergence) supports, in a certain respect, the authenticity of the expression. It can be argued that the author-informant does not “overdo” the positioning of dialectalness, but writes as she speaks; and if she speaks in different ways, this too is DAIVA ALIUKAITĖ, VIOLETA MEILIŪNAITĖ. Autorinis tarminis grafolektas ir jo percepcijos galimybės 59 reflected in the grapholect. Thus, recording the outcomes of accommodation processes in written dialect provides a certain basis for overcoming the observer’s paradox. The authorial grapholect also attests to another distinctive feature of Eastern Aukštaitian—the narrowing of the nasal vowels ą, ę, e.g.: Tėvs nutaikės kukio liusesne dieno čystė nusiskut barzdo, nusivaksavoj čebats, apsimaun galifė kelns (January 12 post); A nupiepės nubalės kėp meškašuds slabaks viso amžel trešk trešk i nelūžt (April 6 post); Ka tik nutaikis kiek liusesnė valundo, ja jo i nera, unt miško išlėkės (May 22 post). It may be summarized that, in seeking to reflect the vowel narrowing characteristic of the region in her grapholect, the author-informant does not create special signs, but draws on the graphemic resources of the standard language, adapting the graphemes o and ė for this purpose. From a dialectological perspective, one could argue that the informant-author is developing a fairly complete writing system—at a subjective level, of course (i.e., one that she herself applies with varying degrees of consistency). First and foremost, what is common to these choices is her effort to convey dialectal pronunciation, which allows us to speak of the so-called dialect transcription strategy. Nevertheless, it must be acknowledged that applying graphemes to denote different vowels (cf. Tėvs nutaikės) may mislead readers. As we shall see below, the grapheme ė is also used to represent the monophthong resulting from the merger of ai, ei; such ambiguous grapholectal choices may therefore be judged as illiterate spelling (see also section 2.2). A particularly strong reduction of word-final vowels is considered a distinctive feature of the Panevėžys subdialect. The texts consistently record the reduction of short vowels, most often to zero, e.g.: Gird tų žmonių šnekts, daug kas atsinaujin, sugrįžt (December 30 post); Kol žmogos given, tol ieška grožė (April 5 post); Didžiausss gamtas sujudims, augims i žydėjims. Kožns augalėls paroda savo žiedo, žėdel (June 12 post); ni či aš nor išsakyt kuks neigiams emocijs, ni pasidėjuot, ale buva kėp buva (September 18 post). As the examples show, both open and closed endings are strongly reduced. In almost all cases, the vowel disappears. In such cases, the reader is left to think and determine for themselves which vowel—front or back—was at the end of the word, since the author-informant uses no special signs to indicate that when a front vowel is reduced, the consonant remains palatalized. Stress placement is likewise not marked, implicitly presuming that the addressee is sufficiently competent to know the stress system of the author’s speech. On the one hand, such cases suggest a peculiar expectation of successful communication; on the other hand, 60 BENDRINĖ KALBA | 95 such an overestimation of the addressee’s perceptual competence also suggests that the writing is intended only for “insiders” At the formal level, one may consider whether the representation of word-final vowel reduction might correspond to the type mentioned by D. R. Preston—allegro speech—or to the type of colloquial speech spelling distinguished by J. K. Androutsopoulos, in which reduction characteristic of colloquial speech is represented in writing. Readers may get this impression. Nevertheless, it would not be accurate to claim this, either conceptually or methodologically, since the reduction of endings is per se a characteristic feature of the Panevėžys subdialect: it is simply inherent to it, rather than arising from particular circumstances. No special signs are created either to mark vowels lengthened under stress or to represent sounds specific to the Panevėžys subdialect, e.g.: Sekmadien atėjo unt mūsų Panioižė parko, kad nepražiupsot tų japoniškų sakurų žydėjima, katruos daba vis tep garbin. Saka jas žydž api dvi savaitį. Nugi gražūs medelė i žmonių nemažė apžiūrinėj, futigrafuojes. Da nepardidelė, tik prieš kels mets pasudint. Ale rado i daugiau gružybių, mum įprastų. I juodvarnių lizdų kulonijo, i žydinčių klevų, i slyvelių prie Nevėže (May 2 post). As the text shows, the author does not mark the length of short vowels lengthened under stress, and represents unstressed long vowels, which are shortened in pronunciation, with graphemes for long sounds. Essentially, the same writing principle as in the standard language is followed: positional quantitative changes in vowels are not marked separately in writing. Nor is the difference between the monophthongs arising from the merger of the diphthongs ai, ei indicated (cf. gražūs medelė (= medeliai) and žmonių nemažė (= nemažai)—in both cases the standard-language grapheme ė is chosen; recall that in scientific transcription these sounds are marked with two symbols—ɛ, e). It should be noted that unstressed o, which is weakened in pronunciation, is pronounced by speakers of the Panevėžys subdialect similarly to u, and is therefore also represented in writing by the grapheme u (nepražiupsot = nepražiopsot(i), gružybių = grožybių, kulonijo = koloniją). A review of the examples shows that the author consistently relies on standard-language spelling and uses the system of orthographic signs employed by the standard language—she does not seek special letters to represent sounds distinctive to the Panevėžys subdialect. Positional quantitative changes in vowels and consonant palatalization are likewise not marked separately in writing. Thus, it may be concluded that, to write in the subdialect, the author adopts the standard language’s grapheme inventory and general orthographic principles; therefore, at least in theory, texts written in this way can be read, more or less, by speakers of other varieties of Lithuanian as well. Of course, the accuracy of understanding what is read is a separate matter. DAIVA ALIUKAITĖ, VIOLETA MEILIŪNAITĖ. Autorinis tarminis grafolektas ir jo percepcijos galimybės 61 2.2. Perception of the authorial dialectal grapholect It is precisely the communicative success vs. failure of an authorial dialectal grapholect that should be assessed through a perception study. Of course, given the study sample, no firm conclusions can be drawn about the communicative success of a dialectal grapholect and so on, but the assumptions to be tested can be clarified. Thus, first, the sociolinguistic profiles of the study participants in terms of their relationship to dialectality should be presented; that is, it was determined what kinds of linguistic experiences the participants attempting to decipher the dialectal grapholect had. It can be stated that, for the participants in the dialectal-grapholect perception study, the dialectal code is more unfamiliar than familiar. Only four participants reported knowing a dialect. ADG_M017 reported knowing the Panevėžys dialect, and acknowledged using it often; she rated her knowledge of the dialect as good, and said she chose this way of speaking with peers with whom she had close ties or at least an acquaintance; participant ADG_M02 named the Varniai Samogitian dialect as one she used often and knew well, by her own assessment; she chose it when communicating both with peers and with close relatives or acquaintances of her parents’ generation. Participant ADG_M08 reported knowing the Highland dialect very well and using it with close relatives and acquaintances of all generations. Another participant, ADG_M15, reported knowing the Suvalkija dialect excellently, and said she sometimes used it with people of her own and her grandparents’ generations with whom she had close ties. In terms of their declared competence, all the other participants distanced themselves from the dialectal code, but acknowledged having opportunities to hear it in their microenvironment (family or among friends) or macroenvironment (the city) (see Fig. 3). Thus, in summary, it can be said that all the participants have had opportunities to acquire perceptual experience of the dialectal code. Nevertheless, the opportunity to hear a dialect code must be distinguished from the opportunity to read a text written in a dialect code. The participants considered sentences written in the authorial dialectal grapholect to be moderately comprehensible and more incorrect than correct. Although the mean attractiveness rating was higher than the comprehensibility and correctness ratings, it was still not high (see Fig. 4). In other words, this perception can be taken to reveal a certain distancing on the part of the participants. 7 The participants’ questionnaires were coded as follows: ADG denotes the authorial dialect grapholect, M identifies a participant, and the number identifies the participant’s questionnaire. This coding was chosen in anticipation of a continuation of the study and the inclusion of the data in other studies of dialect grapholects. 62 BENDRINĖ KALBA | 95 FIG. 3. Opportunities for using the dialect code and gaining perceptual experience A separate observation should be made regarding the correctness ratings. A certain methodological error in formulating this task must be acknowledged. The participants were not told whether they were being asked to assess the correctness of the written form, so this rating in particular may be associated both with a principled attitude toward the dialect code in general and with an attitude toward nonstandard spelling. Thus, it is possible only DAIVA ALIUKAITĖ, VIOLETA MEILIŪNAITĖ. Autorinis tarminis grafolektas ir jo percepcijos galimybės 63 Comprehensibility Aesthetics Correctness FIG. 4. Evaluation of texts written in dialectal grapholects to reason that the participants may also have assessed the texts so critically because of what Geoffrey Leech and Mick Short, to use their terms, call (Leech, Short 2007: 135) illiterate spelling. Continuing the discussion begun in Section 2.1 of the article on the readability and comprehension of texts written in dialectal grapholects, it must nevertheless be acknowledged that a dialect transcription conveying dialectality is only partially accessible to those without experience of the dialect code or with little perceptual experience of it. Of course, as Gladis Massini-Cagliari has observed, “[E]very speaker is necessarily a ‘polyglot’ in their native language” (Massini-Cagliari 2004: 16)8. Nevertheless, although the meaning of the sentences was understood holistically, the translations from dialect into the standard language are not entirely accurate (see Table 2). The accuracy vs. inaccuracy of the dialect translations was assessed from the perspective of individual distinctive and characteristic features of the Panevėžys dialect (see Table 3). Thus, the translated sentences displayed a variable reconstruction of the dialect transcription into the standard language. 8 This is what the scholar writes, having studied the linguistic situation in Brazil and analyzed the relationships between Portuguese and 200 other living languages (including 170 indigenous languages-dialects): every native speaker who has learned their language learns to distinguish its variants; every speaker is necessarily a “polyglot” in their native language; moreover, a native speaker knows which expressions belong to young people, which are appropriate only in informal situations, and so on (Massini-Cagliari 2004: 3–23). 64 BENDRINĖ KALBA | 95 TABLE 2. Dialect translations into standard language Participant First excerpt. Well, I’m picking those little apples. I raised my head to see whether many were still left on the tree (Well, I’m picking those little apples. I raised my head to see whether many were still left on the tree). Second excerpt. We live in these times that we look forward to more and more each year. Maybe not each year, but our whole lives (We live in that time which we look forward to most each year. Maybe not all year, but our whole lives). 1. 2. 3. ADG_M01 I’m picking apples. I raised my head to see whether many were still left on the tree. We live in times that we look forward to more and more each year. Maybe not the year, but our whole lives. ADG_M02 Well, she’s picking those little apples. She raised her head to see whether many were still left on the tree. We live in that time which we look forward to most all year. Maybe not all year, but our whole lives. ADG_M03 Well, I’m picking those little apples. I raise my head to see whether many are still left. We live in that time which we look forward to more and more each year. Maybe not all year, but our whole lives. ADG_M04 Well, you’re picking those little beetles. She raised her head to see whether many were still left on the trees. We live in a time that we looked forward to most all year. Maybe not all year, but our whole lives. ADG_M05 Well, take those little apples in your hand. He raised his head to see whether many were still left on the tree. We are living in the time we look forward to most all year. Perhaps not all year, but all our lives. ADG_M06 Well, go on and pick those apples. Lift your head and look to see whether many are still left on the tree. We are living in the time when we look forward to tomorrow all year long. Perhaps not the whole year, but all our lives. ADG_M07 I raised my head to see whether many were still left on the tree. We live in that time which, year after year, we looked forward to most. Perhaps not all year, but all our lives. ADG_M08 Well, I’m picking those apples. I raised my head to see whether many were still left on the tree. We live in that time that we look forward to very much all year. Perhaps not the whole year, but all our lives. ADG_M09 Well, they’re picking those apples. I raised my head to see whether many were still left on the tree. We live in that time in which we look forward to the years increasingly. Perhaps not for a whole year, but for a whole lifetime. DAIVA ALIUKAITĖ, VIOLETA MEILIŪNAITĖ. Autorinis tarminis grafolektas ir jo percepcijos galimybės 65 1. 2. 3. ADG_M10 Well, go on and pick those apples. She raised her head to see whether many were still left on the tree. We live in the time that we look forward to most all year. Perhaps not all year, but all our lives. ADG_M11 Well, those little apples are ripening. I raised my head to see whether many were still left on the tree. We live in the time we look forward to most at all times. Perhaps not at all times, but all our lives. ADG_M12 Well, go on and pick those little apples. She raised her head to see whether many were still left on the tree. We live in that time when we are always waiting for something. Perhaps not all year, but all our lives. ADG_M13 Well, go on and pick those apples. Raise your head to see whether many are still left on the trees. We live in such a time, in which we increasingly look forward to the year (?) Perhaps not to all the years, but to all of life. ADG_M14 Well, to pick those apples. She raised her head to see whether many were left on the tree. We live in that time which we looked forward to most throughout the years. Perhaps not throughout all the years, but all our lives. ADG_M15 And there it is, that little piece in my hand. I raised my head to see whether much was still left on the tree. We live in that time, waiting more eagerly all year long. Perhaps not all year long, but all our lives. ADG_M16 And there she was, picking those little apples. She raised her head to see whether much was still left on the tree. We live in a certain time, which we look forward to most throughout the year. Perhaps not throughout the year, but all our lives. ADG_M17 I picked those little apples. I raised my head to see whether much was still left on the trees. We live in that time, which we look forward to most all year long. Perhaps not all year long, but all our lives. ADG_M18 And she picks (gathers) the little apples. She raised her head to look around and see whether much was still left on the tree. We live in that time, which we look forward to most all year long. Perhaps not all year long, but all our lives. ADG_M19 And I pick those apples. I raised my head to see whether much was still left on the tree. We live in that time, which we look forward to most throughout the year. Perhaps not throughout the year, but all our lives. ADG_M20 And she picks those apples. She raised her head to see whether much was still left on the tree. We live in the time that we look forward to most throughout the year. Perhaps not throughout the year, but throughout our whole lives. 66 BENDRINĖ KALBA | 95 TABLE 3. Perception and translation of distinctive features conveyed through an authorial dialectal grapholect Participant ronkij ← rankioj(a) gal-vo ← galvą likė ← likę viso gyvenimo ← visą gyvenimą viss mets ← visus metus ADG_M01 I gather my head remained all life all year ADG_M02 I gather my head remained my whole life all year all year ADG_M03 I gather my head remained all life of each year of the whole year ADG_M04 gather your head remained my whole life all year all year ADG_M05 hand head remained my whole life all year all year ADG_M06 gather your head remained all life all year of the whole year ADG_M07 – head remained my whole life year after year all year ADG_M08 I gather my head remained all life all year of the whole year ADG_M09 gathers head remained all life year after year whole time ADG_M10 gather head remained my whole life all year all year ADG_M11 matures head remained my whole life at all times at all times ADG_M12 gather your head remained my whole life always (?) at all times ADG_M13 gather your head remained all life increasingly year after year ADG_M14 to gather head remained my whole life every year every year ADG_M15 gather head remained my whole life every year every year DAIVA ALIUKAITĖ, VIOLETA MEILIŪNAITĖ. Autorinis tarminis grafolektas ir jo percepcijos galimybės 67 Participant | ronkii ← rankioj(a) | gal-vo ← galvą | likė ← likę | viso gyvenimo ← visą gyvenimą | viss mets ← visus metusADG_M16 | gathered | head | remained | my whole life | all year | all yearADG_M17 | gathered up | head | remained | my whole life | all year | all yearADG_M18 | gathers (gath-ers) | head | remained | my whole life | all year | all yearADG_M19 | I gather | head | remained | my whole life | all year | all yearADG_M20 | gathers | head | remained | my whole life | all year | all year It can be summarized that three participants accurately translated the dialectal form into Standard Lithuanian for the distinctive Eastern Aukštaitian feature—the Panevėžys subdialect reflex on of the diphthong an. The most accurate was participant ADG_M09, who transcribed rankioja; ADG_M18 wrote it with a clarification: renka (rankioja). Regarding the transcription by participant ADG_M10, rankiok, it can be added that although reconstruction of the reflex on did not prove difficult, the participant understood the sentence somewhat inaccurately because she did not recognize the verb form written in the dialectal grapholect. It is likely that the reconstruction variants ranką (ADG_M05) or rankoj (ADG_M15) also indicate an accurate reading of the reflex an→on; however, the spelling ronkii is insurmountable for those who are not speakers of the dialectal code under study. It was noted that when writing a dialectal grapholect, one expects the recipient to be sufficiently competent; if this is not the case, the reading may be somewhat inaccurate. This is likely what happened here. From the perspective of comprehension, the variants renku, renki, rinkti should not be considered incorrect either; this is likely a matter of holistic perception, with the word recognized as a whole. To represent the dialectal reflexes ą and ę—the narrowed sounds—the author-informant of the grapholect uses the graphemes o and ė. In the sentences provided for perception, participants were to understand and transcribe into Standard Lithuanian the following words: galvo, likė and viso gyvenimo. All study participants accurately reconstructed ą from the dialectal variant o – galvą←galvo. 65 percent of the participants reconstructed it accurately—likę—while 35 percent wrote liko. 95 percent also accurately wrote the standard-language 68 BENDRINĖ KALBA | 95 form visą gyvenimą, with only one participant retaining viso gyvenimo. Participant ADG_M13 did not understand the second fragment being assessed at all (see Tables 2–3). 55 percent of the participants successfully restored the cases of vowel reduction viss mets accurately into Standard Lithuanian (Tables 2–3). It is likely that the other participants lacked some cue to markedness. It can be hypothesized that when the standard-language writing system can be applied consistently, the dialectal grapholect is understood more accurately, whereas this cannot be said of cases of ending reduction. Nevertheless, in an overall assessment, it must be acknowledged that, from a communicative perspective, the fragments of the authorial dialectal grapholect examined here were informative to the participants. CONCLUSIONS Following the study of the authorial dialectal grapholect from the perspectives of conveying and writing spoken dialect features and of perception, the following general observations can be formulated: 1. The dialectal grapholect of the author-informant, a speaker of the Panevėžys subdialect of Eastern Aukštaitian, is fairly systematic: transcription is most often based on the phonetic principle, while the morphological principle is used in cases involving positional quantitative vowel changes; variation occurring in individual word forms is not recorded in writing. The author-informant draws on the grapheme inventory characteristic of Standard Lithuanian—no new graphemes are created or borrowed from other languages’ orthographic sets to represent sounds specific to the Panevėžys subdialect. 2. In the author-informant’s linguistic homeland, stress retraction is often one of the causes of ending reduction. However, when neither stress nor the palatalization of the consonant remaining after vowel loss is marked in writing, it becomes exceedingly difficult for the reader—especially one representing another variety of Lithuanian, whether dialectal or standard—to clearly determine which grammatical form the author-informant recorded. The perception study also revealed this. Judging from their sociolinguistic profiles, the dialectal code is more foreign than familiar to the participants in the study of the perception of the authorial dialectal grapholect, in terms of active use; however, they had opportunities to gain perceptual experience with the spoken dialectal code. Nevertheless, although the authorial dialectal grapholect was comprehensible to them holistically, they were unable to translate it into Standard Lithuanian with complete accuracy. The translation of the dialect (both the first and DAIVA ALIUKAITĖ, VIOLETA MEILIŪNAITĖ. Autorinis tarminis grafolektas ir jo percepcijos galimybės 69 and the variant translation of the second fragment studied into the standard language reveals the communicative limitations of written dialectality. It must be emphasized that this is not a critical assessment of the author’s dialectal grapholect, since communicative limitations have not only disadvantages but also advantages. By marking distinction, the dialectal grapholect—in other words, when misunderstood or only partially understood beyond the boundaries of the variant community—functions (or can function) within the community as a fully-fledged code, one that even has a kind of self-regulation. Of course, in this respect, research on written dialectality should be expanded and deepened. 3. The case studied can serve as a basis for insights into the role of an ordinary member of a particular community in the history of a specific dialect code’s vitality. The Panevėžys dialectal features, “frozen” by a particular orthographic choice of the author-informant and representing both distinctive and characteristic features, do not necessarily attest to the vitality of the dialect code at the time observed, although such an assessment might be supported by the dialectal and non-dialectal features coexisting in the same discourse fragment, since the text is written as it is spoken, and speech varies. In any case, it must be acknowledged that the “conservation” of dialect features in the case studied—local, that is, accessible within the community (if only to some of its members), through reading on Facebook—may influence the dissemination of those features, unlike some dialect dictionaries. Of course, larger-scale studies are needed to confirm these assumptions. LITERATŪRA A d a m s o n S y l v i a 1999: Literary Language. – The Cambridge History of the English Language 4, ed. S. Romaine, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 589–692. A l i ū k a i t ė D a i v a, J a r o s l a v i e n ė J u r g i t a, M e i l i ū n a i t ė V i o l e t a 2014: Teoriniai medžiagos rinkimo pagrindai. Anketų (klausimynų) sudarymo principai. – XXI a. pradžios lietuvių tarmės: geolingvistinis ir sociolingvistinis tyrimas (žemėlapiai ir jų komentarai), sud. D. Mikulėnienė, V. Meiliūnaitė, Vilnius: Briedis, 49–62. A l i ū k a i t ė D a i v a, M e i l i ū n a i t ė V i o l e t a 2022: Tarminiai grafolektai XXI amžiaus pradžioje kaip tarminių kodų gyvybingumo ir tęstinumo apraiška. – Verbum 13, 1–15. A n d r o u t s o p o u l o s J a n n i s K. 2000: Non-Standard Spellings in Media Texts: The Case of German Fanzines. – Journal of Sociolinguistics 4, 514–533. 70 BENDRINĖ KALBA | 95 Balčiūnienė Asta, Meiliūnaitė Violeta, Rinkauskienė Regina 2019: Kupiškėnų, uteniškių ir panevėžiškių paribio šnektos XXI amžiuje, Klaipėda: Klaipėdos universiteto leidykla. Barton David 2007: Literacy: An Introduction to the Ecology of Written Language, 2nd ed., Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Beal Joan C. 2006: Language and Region, London, New York: Routledge. Blanchet Philippe, Armstrong Nigel 2006: The Sociolinguistic Situation of ‘Contemporary Dialects of French’ in France Today: An Overview of Recent Contributions on the Dialectalisation of Standard French. – French Language Studies 16, 251–275. Bowdre Paul Hull Jr., 1964: A Study of Eye Dialect: daktaro disertacija, Florida: University of Florida. Chambers Jack K. 2000: Region and Language Variation. – English World-Wide 21, 169–199. Chambers Jack K., Trudgill Peter 2004: Dialectology, 2nd ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Girdenis Aleksas 2001: Visa lietuvių kalba! – Kalbotyros darbai 3, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 456–469. Inoue Fumio 2022: Style, Prestige, and Salience in Language Change in Progress. – Handbook of Japanese Sociolinguistics 8, eds. Y. Asahi, M. Usami, F. Inoue, Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, 113–149. Labov William 2006: The Social Stratification of English in New York City, 2nd ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Leech Geoffrey, Short Mick 2007: Style in Fiction: A Linguistic Introduction to English Fictional Prose, 2nd ed. Harlow: Pearson Longman. Liubinienė Neringa 2009: Metalo muzikos gerbėjų fanzinai: subkultūrinės grupės tapatybės kodai. – Grupės ir aplinkos: tarpdisciplininis mokslo darbų 1, Kaunas: Vytauto Didžiojo universiteto leidykla, 199–220. Massini-Cagliari Gladis 2004: Language Policy in Brazil: Monolingualism and Linguistic Prejudice. – Language Policy 3, 3–23. Meiliūnaitė Violeta 2015: Antano Baranausko tarmių tekstai – kvazautentiškų tekstų chrestomatija. – Kalbos istorijos ir dialektologijos problemos 4, sud. V. Ragaišienė, V. Meiliūnaitė, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 248–258. Meiliūnaitė Violeta 2019: Tarmių gyvybingumo matmenys XXI a. pradžioje. – Res Humanitariae 26, 50–59. Mikulėnienė Danguolė 2019: Tarmiškumo bruožų nomenklatūra: nuo tarminių požymių prie tarmiškumo žymenų. – Respectus Philologicus 35(40), 51–62. Ong Walter J. 2002: Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word, London, New York: Routledge. DAIVA ALIUKAITĖ, VIOLETA MEILIŪNAITĖ. Autorinis tarminis grafolektas ir jo percepcijos galimybės 71 Preston Dennis R. 1985: The Li’l Abner Syndrome: Written Representations of Speech. – American Speech 60(4), 328–336. Preston Dennis R. 1999: Introduction. – Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology 1, ed. D. R. Preston, Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, XXXIV–XXXV. Redling Erik 2006: “Speaking of Dialect”: Translating Charles W. Chesnutt’s Conjure Tales Into Postmodern Systems of Signification, Würzburg: Königshausen. Sankoff Gillian 2006: Age: Apparent Time and Real Time. – Elsevier Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics 1, ed. K. Brown, 2nd ed., Oxford: Elsevier, 110–116. Schrambke Renate 2010: Language and Space: Traditional Dialect Geography. – Language and Space. An International Handbook of Linguistic Variation, Volume 1: Theories and Methods. HSK Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft, eds. P. Auer, J. E. Schmidt, Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter, 87–101. Seiler Guido 2010: Investigating Language in Space: Questionnaire and Interview. – Language and Space: An International Handbook of Linguistic Variation 1: Theories and Methods. HSK Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft, eds. P. Auer, J. E. Schmidt, Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter, 512–527. Unseth Peter 2005: Sociolinguistic Parallels Between Choosing Scripts and Languages. – Written Language & Literacy 8(1), 19–42. Van Keymeulen Jacques 2018: The Dialect Dictionary. – The Handbook of Dialectology (Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics), eds. Ch. Boberg, J. Nerbonne, D. Watt, Hoboken NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 39–56. Gauta 2022 11 25 Priimta 2022 12 30 DAIVA ALIŪKAITĖ, VIOLETA MEILIŪNAITĖ THE AUTHORIAL DIALECT GRAPHOLECT AND THE POSSIBILITIES OF ITS PERCEPTION Summary This article discusses a study of written dialecticism, conducted in order to assess how the authorial grapholect conveys oral dialecticism and to analyse the spelling choices made by the author. The dialectal discourse used for this study consists of a number of Facebook posts published in a dialectal grapholect by a female 72 BENDRINĖ KALBA | 95 informant. The first part of the article focuses on specific orthographic decisions made by the author-informant to convey the distinct features of her native Eastern Aukštaitian subdialect of Panevėžys. The second investigative section of the article examines the perception of a dialectal grapholect, looking closely at how ordinary language users read and understand texts written in it. The study shows that the dialectal grapholect used by the author-informant – a speaker of the Eastern Aukštaitian subdialect of Panevėžys – is relatively systematic. Her transcription is predominantly phonetic, with the morphological principle employed in cases of positional quantitative vowel changes, i.e., no variations in individual word forms were captured in the written materials. The author-informant utilises the grapheme inventory of the standard language, without inventing any new graphemes or borrowing them from the orthographic sets of other languages in order to reflect certain specific sounds of the Panevėžys subdialect. Stress retraction is one of the most common causes for ending reduction in the linguistic homeland of the author-informant. However, when neither the accent nor the consonant palatalization after dropping the vowel are marked in the written text, anyone reading it, especially speakers of other Lithuanian variants, may struggle to clearly identify the grammatical form recorded by the author-informant. This was also confirmed by the perceptual study conducted at the same time. The sociolinguistic portraits of its participants indicate that dialectal codes were more alien than familiar to them in terms of active usage, but that they have had opportunities to gain some perceptual experience in spoken dialectal codes. However, despite a relatively good holistic understanding of the authorial dialectal grapholect, the participants of this study were not able to translate it accurately into Standard Lithuanian. Variations in translating the transcribed dialect into the standard language indicate communicational limitations of written dialecticism. It is important to stress that this is not a critical evaluation of the authorial dialectal grapholect, as communicational limitation can have certain advantages, too. By distinguishing, a dialectal grapholect also designates. While it may be misunderstood or partially understood outside of the variant’s community, a dialectal grapholect functions (or can function) as a fully-fledged, even self-regulating, code within that community. However, this aspect of written dialecticism requires more in-depth research. The discussed case study provides certain insights into the role of an ordinary community member in preserving the vitality of their dialectal code. By making certain orthographic decisions, the author-informant “solidifies” the dialecticism of her native variant, with all its distinguishing and common features. But this does not necessarily confirm the vitality of the dialectal code in apparent time, despite the co-existence of certain dialectal and non-dialectal features in the same discourse fragment (spelling the way one pronounces but that pronunciation can DAIVA ALIUKAITĖ, VIOLETA MEILIŪNAITĖ. Autorinis tarminis grafolektas ir jo percepcijos galimybės 73 vary). Either way, it is clear that local “conservation” (i.e., within the community or at least amongst some of its members) of dialectal features, differently to dialect dictionaries, can have an impact on the spread of those features. However, this subject would undoubtedly benefit from further large-scale studies. KEYWORDS: dialect grapholect, perception, dialect respelling. DAIVA ALIŪKAITĖ Lietuvių kalbos institutas Petro Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius [email protected] VIOLETA MEILIŪNAITĖ Lietuvių kalbos institutas Petro Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius [email protected] DAIVA ALIŪKAITĖ, VIOLETA MEILIŪNAITĖ AUTORINIS TARMINIS GRAFOLEKTAS IR JO PERCEPCIJOS GALIMYBĖS Santrauka Straipsnyje pristatomas rašytinio tarmiškumo tyrimas. Atliekant tyrimą siekta vertinti autorinį grafolektą sakytinio tarmiškumo perteikimo ir užrašymo sprendimų požiūriu. Tarmėtyrinio diskurso pagrindas – vienos rytų aukštaičių panevėžiškių atstovės feisbuko įrašai, paskelbti tarminiu grafolektu. Straipsnyje pirmiausia analizuojami autorės-informantės ortografiniai sprendimai perteikti skiriamąsias rytų aukštaičių panevėžiškių ypatybes, paskui pristatomas dialekto grafolekto percepcijos tyrimas, analizuojama, kaip paprastiesiems kalbinės bendruomenės nariams yra perskaitomas ir suprantamas tarminiu grafolektu užrašytas tekstas. Atlikus autorinio tarminio grafolekto tyrimą, formuluojamos apibendrinamosios įžvalgos, kad rytų aukštaičių panevėžiškių patarmės autorės-informantės tarminis grafolektas yra gana sistemingas – perrašoma dažniausiai remiantis fonetiniu principu, morfologiniu principu remiamasi tais atvejais, kai kalbama apie pozicinius kiekybinius balsių pokyčius; atskirose žodžio formose atsirandantis įvairavimas rašte nėra fiksuojamas. Autorė-informantė remiasi bendrinei kalbai būdingu grafemų inventoriumi – specifiniams panevėžiškių garsams atspindėti naujų grafemų nei kuriama, nei skolinamasi iš kitų kalbų ortografijos rinkinių. Autorės-informantės kalbinėje gimtinėje kirčio atitraukimas dažnai yra viena iš galūnių redukcijos priežasčių, tačiau kai rašte nežymimas nei kirtis, nei nukritus balsiui 74 BENDRINĖ KALBA | 95 likusi priebal­sio palatalizacija, skaitytojui, ypač atstovaujančiam kitam lietuvių kalbos variantui, tampa pernelyg sunku aiškiai nustatyti, kokia gramatinė forma autorės-informantės fiksuota. Tai atskleidė ir percepcijos tyrimas. Autorinio tarminio grafolekto percepcijos tyrimo dalyvėms, sprendžiant iš jų sociolingvistinių portretų, aktyvios vartosenos požiūriu tarminis kodas yra labiau svetimas nei savas, bet jos turi galimybių įgyti percepcinės sakytinio tarminio kodo patirties. Nors joms autorinis tarminis grafolektas holistiniu požiūriu ir buvo suprantamas, vis dėlto jo išversti į bendrinę kalbą visiškai tiksliai nepavyko. Dialekto perrašos variantškas vertimas į bendrinę kalbą atskleidžia rašytinio tarmiškumo komunikacinį ribotumą. Būtina pabrėžti, kad tai nėra kritinis autorinio tarminio grafolekto įvertinimas, nes komunikacinis ribotumas turi ne tik trūkumų, bet ir pranašumų. Tarminis grafolektas atskirdamas pažymi, kitaip – nesuprastas ar iš dalies suprastas tarminis grafolektas už varianto bendruomenės ribų, bendruomenėje veikia (gali veikti) kaip visavertis kodas, kuriam netgi būdinga savotiška savireguliacija. Žinoma, šiuo aspektu rašytinio tarmiškumo tyrimas plėstinas ir gilintinas. Tirtojo atvejo autorės-informantės pavyzdžiu galima grįsti įžvalgas dėl paprastojo paskiros bendruomenės nario vaidmens konkretaus tarminio kodo gyvybingumo istorijoje. Tam tikru autorės-informantės ortografiniu sprendimu „sustingdytas“ panevėžiškių tarmiškumas, reprezentuojąs ir skiriamąsias, ir būdingąsias ypatybes, nebūtinai yra stebimojo laiko tarminio kodo gyvybingumo paliudijimas, nors tokį vertinimą grįstų tame pačiame diskurso fragmente koegzistuojančios tarminės ir netarminės ypatybės, nes rašoma taip, kaip tariama, o tariama įvairiai. Bet kokiu atveju reikia pripažinti, kad lokalus, t. y. pasiekiamas bendruomenėje (kad ir dalies jo narių), tarminių ypatybių „konservavimas“, kitaip nei kokie nors tarmių žodynai, gali turėti poveikį ypatybių sklaidai. Žinoma, siekiant tokių prielaidų patvirtinimo, reikalingi didesnės aprėpties tyrimai. ESMINIAI ŽODŽIAI: tarminis grafolektas, percepcija, dialekto perraša. DAIVA ALIŪKAITĖ Lietuvių kalbos institutas Petro Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius [email protected] VIOLETA MEILIŪNAITĖ Lietuvių kalbos institutas Petro Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius [email protected] DAIVA ALIUKAITĖ, VIOLETA MEILIŪNAITĖ. Autorinis tarminis grafolektas ir jo percepcijos galimybės 75