Jaunųjų vakarų aukštaičių kauniškių kalbinės gimtinės vaizdiniai: Kauno, Jurbarko, Šakių ir Marijampolės kalbinis (ne)giminiškumas

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ University of Vilnius JAUNŲJŲ VAKARŲ AUKŠTAIČIŲ KAUNIŠKIŲ KALBINĖS GIMTINĖS VISUALS: KANŲ, JURBARKO, ŠAKIŲ AND MARIJAMPOLĖS LINGUISTICAL (NON)RELATIVITY KEY WORDS: perceptive dialectology, western Kaunas Highlanders, linguistic homeland, linguistic kinship, drawing maps. INTRODUCTION In the works of perceptual dialectology, the linguistic homeland is referred to as the individual’s linguistic surrounding and is associated with the linguistic and spatial distances of that environment (Diercks 2002: 51; Aliūkaitė et al. 2017: 106–121). The images of the native neighbourhoods, which have become established in the self-consciousness of the members of the ordinary language community, are revealed by the data of the mental, or pictorial, variants map (see Preston 1999b: XXXIV–XXXV; Aliūkaitė 2009: 164–179). Mental maps, according to Dennis Preston (1989: 1–23; 1993: 335), are 1 the simplest way to determine what ordinary language users think about a location (see Preston, 1989: 1–23; Preston, 1993: 335). Aliūkaitė et al. 2017: 42). Although the number of perceptual dialectology works in Lithuania has increased in the last decade, only a few of them pay greater attention to images of the linguistic homeland. The material of the project Place of the Common Language in the Mental Map of the Lithuanian Language is based on the analysis of the relationships with the linguistic homeland and 2 the attitudes towards the neighboring areas that emerged in the maps drawn by young people from Šiauliai, Vilkaviskis and other cities (Aliūkaitė, Mikulė nienė 2016: 89–120; Geržotaitė 2016: 121–142; Geržotaitė, Čepaitienė 2016: 84–100; Merkytė-Švarcienė 2016: 139–154; Aliūkaitė et al. 2017: 108). It has been established that the linguistic homeland as a part of dialectal expression, for example, from the point of view of students from Vilkaviškis, includes adjacent areas or almost coincides with the boundaries of the western Kaunas dialect. Vilkaviškis, assigned to the area of common language, is inseparable from Marijampolė (Geržotaitė, Perceptual dialectology studies, the concept of mental map refers to the way in which a locality or a group of localities is represented in the mind of ordinary language users. This reveals the 1 spatial-linguistic judgment of ordinary members of the language community (Diercks 2002: 52; Aliūkaitė 2009: 1 66). 2 The project was funded by the State Lithuanian Language Commission (Contract No. K-5/2014). The aim of this 2014 06 02–2016 12 31, vadovė – prof. dr. Daiva Aliūkaitė. LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ. Jaunųjų vakarų aukštaičių kauniškių kalbinės gimtinės vaizdiniai: The (non-)relativity of the districts of Kaunas, Jurbarkas, Šakiai and Marijampolė | 2 Čepaitienė 2016: doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.05 BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 84–100). Such results are obtained by systematizing maps, in which the subjects Relevance and lokalizavo tarmės ir bendrinės kalbos arealus, duomenis. novelty. Studies of the affinity of the linguistic homeland with other localities, showing the ability of ordinary members of the language community to distinguish the expression of their linguistic environment, have only just begun in Lithuania (Geržotaitė 2018: 76–101). According to the classification of Lithuanian dialects presented by Zigmas Zinkevičius and Aleksas Girdenis, the analysis of the images of the linguistic homeland of Šiauliai, the West Highlands, the gymnasium students, highlighted a fairly accurate system of isoglosses for the perception of the variant of the local linguistic environment. In this respect, the closest dialects to the common Lithuanian language – the western Kaunas Kaunas – are not yet studied. nuostatos. article is to investigate, based on the methodology of perceptive dialectology and the images of the linguistic nuostatomis, pagal pieštinius žemėlapius išnagrinėti Kaũno, Jùrbarko, Šakių, Marijámpolės homeland of secondary school students, i.e. the (non-)relativity of the native neighborhoods with other zones and the possible linguistic expression in them. The object of the article is young people aged 15-18 years Jurbarko, Šakių, Marijámp olės gimnazijų moksleivių kalbin ės gimtinės vaizdiniai. Tiriamieji yra studying in four secondary schools in Kaunas (see table). TABLE. Char akteristika Residentvietovė ial Total tiriamųjų Total merginų Total vaikinų Dialect moka Dialects nemoka Dialectickalba ally nekalba Dialectickalbos ally Kaunas 3 45 23 22 7 38 3 12 Jurbark100,00 % 51,11 % 48,89 % 15,56 % 84,44 % 6,67 % 26,67 % as 4,36 50 28 21 10 40 10 8 3,92 100,00 % 56,00 % 42,00 % 20,00 % 80,00 % 20,00 % 16,00 % Šakiai Dialect frequency 47 29 18 29 17 27 4 36 17 19 20 16 19 5 Marijam100,00 % 61,70 % 38,30 % 61,70 % 36,17 % 57,45 % 8,51 % polė 3,59 100,00 % 47,22 % 52,78 % 55,56 % 44,44 % 52,78 % 13,89 % The students surveyed can be assigned to one age group. The study is based on Penelope Eckert’s view that the basis of age classification is not exact chronology but periods. Subjects are assigned to the same generation according to their linguistic, cultural, social experience and adolescence identity stage (Eckert 1997: 151–167; Aliūkaitė 2007: 145). LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ. Jaunųjų vakarų aukštaičių kauniškių kalbinės gimtinės vaizdiniai: The (non-)relativity of the language of Kaunas, Jurbarkas, Šakiai and Marijampolė | 3 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.05 BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 Research material – project Regional variants and the spread of spoken common language (quasi-standard) at the beginning of the 21st century: perceptual study 3 during the Kaunas Jono 178 questionnaires were filled in the Basanavičius, Jurbarkas Antanas Giedraitis-Giedrius, Šakiai Žiburis and Marijampolė Sūduva gymnasiums. 4 The questionnaire consists of four parts. In the first and second sections, sociodemographic data are recorded: gender, age, origin and place of residence of the respondent, as well as the questions dialekto kompetencijai ir vartojimo aktyvumui nustatyti. Perceptyviosios dialektologijos modelį presented in the third (marking of linguistic homeland and common language areas on maps) and fourth (evaluation of audible text stimuli and localization on maps, etc. ) sections of the questionnaire (more apie anketą žr. Aliūkaitė 2019: 72). 1) to discuss the data of the questionnaire questions for determining linguistic behaviour (code selection); 2) to present objective, i.e. scientifically based, existing in the self-consciousness of the vietovių kalbinį (ne)giminiškumą su kitomis zonomis; 3) išnagrinėti subjektyvųjį, t. y. eilinio member of the language community under consideration, drawing map material revealing the linguistic (non-)affinity of the areas under consideration with other zones; 4) to distinguish the kalbinių gimtinių (ne)giminiškumo su kitomis vietovėmis modelius ir apibendrinti jaunuolių self-conscious images of the linguistic homeland. In total, the students visualized their views on 10 maps. The first task is to mark on the map where, in the opinion of the students, the language is spoken similarly to their home area. On the second map, respondents had to mark where the common language was spoken. In the other eight maps, they located the areas of audible language variants, or text stimuli. The maps are provided with indicated municipality boundaries and centers. 5 The article examines the maps of the first task, highlighting the (non-)affinity of linguistic relatives with other localities. The responses are summarised in two stages. Firstly, it is analyzed which and with what frequency representatives of all the investigated areas marked areas close, near and far from their linguistic homelands. Apart from the models of linguistic (non-)affinity of localities with other zones, it was attempted to kalbos vartotojų kalbinės gimtinės ribos. Remiantis pagal perceptyviosios dialektologijos 3 The project is funded by the State Lithuanian Language Commission (Contract No. K-2/2017). Duration of the project 2017 06–2 019 12, vadovė – prof. dr. Da iva Aliūkaitė. 4 Anonymous questionnaire prepared and completed in 2017-2018 during the project Assessment of language variants saugomos Viln iaus universiteto Kauno fakulteto Kalbų, literatūros ir vertimo studijų institute. 5 In perceptual dialectology, using the map technique (see Preston 1989; 1999a: 359–373; 1999b: XXIII–XL), the subjects are presented with both blank maps (Evans 2002: 76–83) and, for easier orientation, maps showing the boundaries of the largest administrative territorial units (see Long 1999: 178) and major cities (see Dailey-OʼCain 1999: 228). LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ. Jaunųjų vakarų aukštaičių kauniškių kalbinės gimtinės vaizdiniai: The (non-)relativity of the language of Kaunas, Jurbarkas, Šakiai and Marijampolė | 4 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.05 BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 methodology in the dialects of young people from different linguistic environments and in the 6 linguistic homelands defined by the students of Kaunas, Jurbarkas, Šakiai and Marijampolė bendrinės kalbos žemėlapių duomenimis, papildomai aiškintasi, kokia kalbinė raiška vartojama schools. The areas of study, as shown by recent ge olinguistic studies, are located in the area of one of the new local formations – the South-West Highlands regiolect (Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė 2014: gyvybingiausių tradicinių patarmių (vakarų aukštaičių kauniškių) pagrindu besiformuojančio 261; Geržotaitė, Mikulėnienė 2014: XIII map and commentary). One of the locations included in the study – Marijampolė – is considered to be the centre of the regiolect due to its high mental urbanization index (see Marshal 2004: 111) and higher dialect values than those of the surrounding locations (see Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė 2014: 261). In the surroundings of the other two localities – Jurbarkas and Šakiai – smaller linguistic structures, or geolects, are distinguished. The area around Kaunas, where the local language variant closest to common Lithuanian is spoken, is indicated as the common language standard zone. Thus, the dimension of the common language or, more precisely, the imaginary common language as a prestigious code is undoubtedly important for young members of the language community in assessing their linguistic environment and neighbouring areas. It is likely that for this reason the images of the linguistic homeland of the surveyed students may differ from the images that emerged during the research in other Lithuanian regions. 1. USE OR NON-USE OF LANGUAGE CODE FOR KAUNAS, JURBARKAS, ŠAKIAI AND MARIJAMPOLĖ THE VIEWS OF YOUNG PEOPLE The analysis of the data shows that Kaunas high school students hear the least dialectal expressions in their language home (macroenvironment). According to these young people, the dialect code is very rarely used both in their hometown (8.89%) and in their families, i.e. in the microenvironment (13.33%). (see Figure 1). 6 For more information about the project and its results, see Aliūkaitė et al. (2017). LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ. Jaunųjų vakarų aukštaičių kauniškių kalbinės gimtinės vaizdiniai: Kauno, Jurbarko, Šakių ir Marijampolės ka lbinis (ne)giminiškumas | 5 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.05 BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 Kaunas residential area Jurbarkas residential area Šakiai residential area Residential area of Marijampolė 1 PAV. (No) Use of Dialect Code (DC) in the Micro and Macro Environment from the Perspective of the Young People of the Study Areas Thus, the frequency of dialect speaking declared by these pupils is lower than the average – 3 out of 7 (see table). Only 2 of the 8 young people living in Kaunas who evaluated dialect speaking by scores on the semantic differential scale came from a dialectally more marked environment – Alytus (or from the neighboring area of the southern Altay dialect). Their grandparents, with the exception of those two cases, also live in Kaunas. It should be added that those students from Kaunas who do not think they speak dialectically (so they did not indicate the frequency of their dialectic speaking) could be more associated with a certain dialect expression, because they do not live in this city, but in its surroundings (e.g., in the villages of Paparčiai, Giraitės). Some of their grandparents also live there. In other residential areas, as can be seen from the researched provisions, the language code used is considered to be closer to dialect (see Figure 1). Although the pupils of Jurbarkas, like those of Kaunas, indicated that they do not know dialect, they noted that in their city both dialect (42%) and non-dialect (44%) variants of the language are used similarly often (see Figure 1). However, more than half of these young people (56%) have no dialect in their families. Higher than average frequency of dialectal speaking of Jurbarkas high school students (4.36 out of 7) may indicate that the dialectal code in their linguistic environment LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ. Jaunųjų vakarų aukštaičių kauniškių kalbinės gimtinės vaizdiniai: Kauno, Jurbarko, Šakių ir Marijampolės ka lbinis (ne)giminiškumas | 6 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.05 BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 is used much more intensively than indicated (see table). In addition, the subjects live not only in the city itself, but also in the surrounding villages. Their grandparents also live in Jurbarkas and neighbouring Šakiai districts. Previous studies of attitudes show that the language expression of Jurbarkas is fairly well recognized by the local and neighboring localities (Bakšienė 2015: 1–20). A similar attitude to dialect use in different environments connects respondents from Jurbarkas and Marijampolė (see Figure 1). The only difference is that a significant part of Marijampolė students (38.89%) say they do not recognize when dialect is spoken in their hometown and surroundings (where their grandparents also live). Accordingly, the frequency of dialect speaking among these respondents is lower than among students from Jurbarkas (3.59) (see table). There may be several reasons for this. It is possible that Marijampolė is trying to distance itself from the dialect code. According to research, it is also well recognized, but more negatively than positively evaluated not only by local residents, but also by residents of neighboring localities (Dabašinkienė, Dagilytė 2013: 114–117; Bakšienė 2016: 33–37; 2019: 7). It is very likely that the students of Marijampolė state that they do not recognize their own dialect because they believe that it is not only close to the common language, but is also a common language (Dabašinkienė, Dagilytė 2013: 117–119; Bakšienė 2016: 35–37). Perhaps the most dialectal expression, according to the evaluations of the researchers, is found in Šakiai (see table). More than half of the students in this city say they hear it both in their native language (61.70%) and in their families (51.06%) (see Figure 1). Nevertheless, the frequency of speaking dialectically declared by the students of Šakiai (3.92) is only slightly higher than the frequency determined on the basis of the task performed by the researchers of Marijampolė (see table). It is believed that some of the respondents in Šakiai (17.02%) indicated that they do not recognize dialect expression in their environment also because of its slight difference from the common language (Aliūkaitė et al. 2014: 150; Bakšienė 2015: 11; 2016: 33–37). Thus, the data on the attitudes of young people from Jurbarkas, Šakiai and Marijampolė suggest that the respondents identify weaker or stronger dialects of their native languages. However, some of them do not identify with this k alb expression. The language code used in Kaunas in the imagination of the students of this city is apparently associated with a variant close to the common language. 2. OBJECTIVE LINGUISTICAL (NON)RELATIVITIES OF THE STUDIED AREAS According to the current classification of Lithuanian dialects presented by Z. Zinkevičius and A. Girdenis (Girdenis, Zinkevičius 1966: 139–147; Zinkevičius 1969: 365–380), the investigated areas of Kaunas, Jurbarkas, Marijampolė and Šakiai fall into the closest to the common language Western Highland dialects. kauniškių patarmės plotą (žr. 2 pav.). LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ. Jaunųjų vakarų aukštaičių kauniškių kalbinės gimtinės vaizdiniai: (Non-)relativity of Kaunas, Jurbarkas, Šakiai and Marijampolė districts | 7 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.05 BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 2 PAV. In the western part of the study area, the Kau-Skai dialect maintains the unchanged an, Kaip ir visi aukštaičiai, šių apylinkių gyventojai taria sveikus ie, uo, kaip vakarų aukštaičiai, am, en, em and the former nasal ą, ę, and like the Kaunas dialect does not divert the accent, well distinguishes the long vowels of the unpronunciated endings (Girdenis, Zinkevičius 1966: 139– 147; Zinkevičius 1969: 365–380; LKTChr 2004: 39–44; VAKKKA 2005: 39). There are some differences between the dialects, and therefore between the dialects of some areas. Dialectologists’ works indicate that the surroundings of Šakiai are characterized by the continuous pronunciation of the strong-end prefix through both diphthong and diphthong elements and other characteristics (VAKKKA 2005: 60–62; GAT 2008: 14–28). According to the pronunciation of the vowels of the tuos balsius trumpinančią šiaurinę dalį, paprastai įvardijamą kaip Šakių šnekta (ji sutampa su unpronounced ends, this area can be divided into two parts: the northern part of this district ), and the southern part that preserves such vowels (Bacevičiūtė 2004: 12–13). 14; 2006: 12; LKTChr 2004: 38–41; VAKKKA 2005: 45, 60; Aliūkaitė ir kt. 2014: 151; Bakšienė 2015: 3). According to the researchers, the surroundings of Šakiai and Jurbarkas, located on different sides of panašios nei skirtingos (Sakalauskienė 2013: 17; Bakšienė 2015: 6). Su Jurbarko šnekta tradiciškai the Nemunas, are more closely connected in the western part of the district and in the areas of the northern side of the Nemunas, as well as on the southern side of the river around Šakiai, a continuous prefix is pronounced, vowels of unpronounced ends are abbreviated (Grinaveckienė 1957: 119–180; 1996: 88; VAKKKA 2005: 83–84; Sakalauskienė 2015: LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ. Jaunųjų vakarų aukštaičių kauniškių kalbinės gimtinės vaizdiniai: The (non-)relativity of the language of Kaunas, Jurbarkas, Šakiai and Marijampolė | 8 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.05 BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 312, 317). Since the surroundings of Jurbarkas border with other municipalities, more diverse features are recorded at the edges of the schneck area (Bacevičiūtė 2008: 5–18; 2010: 235–243; Bakšienė 2012: 19–23; 2015: 7; Sakalauskienė 2013: 17; 2015: 315–316). In the southwestern part of the Kaunas area of the western Altai people around Marijampolė, as in the southern Šakiai area, long vowels are not abbreviated. But here, unlike about Šakiai, there is no continuous anticipation. The surroundings of Marijampolė also show elements of narrow, tense use of the vowel e (VAKKKA 2005: (VAKKKA 2005: 93; Bakšienė 2016: 27–28). Jose pailginami pirmieji tvirtapradžių dvigarsių 93–95). The linguistic characteristics of the area under consideration reflect the objective of the area, (moksliškai pagrįstą) šio arealo vaizdą. Vienos iš jų būdingos visam vakarų aukštaičių kauniškių and thus of all the areas discussed in the article. According to other characteristics, the surroundings of Jurbarkas (and the north-western part of Kaunas district) and Šakiai are closer. In terms of language, the southwestern part of Kaunas area around Marijampolė (as well as Vilkaviškis) and other localities differs more from them. 3. THE SUBJECTIVED LINGUISTICAL (NON-)RELATIVITY OF THE STUDIED AREAS The frequency of markings on the maps shows that secondary school pupils in all localities tend to associate their linguistic homelands with 5-6 surrounding localities through the strongest links of linguistic affinity (see Figure 3). 3 PAV. Number of areas linked by different linguistic affiliations to linguistic families LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ. Jaunųjų vakarų aukštaičių kauniškių kalbinės gimtinės vaizdiniai: The (non-)relativity of the language of Kaunas, Jurbarkas, Šakiai and Marijampolė | 9 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.05 BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 Such marking represents between 92 and 20% of all questionnaires analyzed. For example, students from Kaunas indicated 6 zones as the closest to their language home (see Figure 3). did Didžiausia žymėjimų žemėlapiuose dalis (75,56 proc.) tenka Kaunui. Kai kurie iš respondentų not mark their city at all (such maps make up 24.44% of all maps submitted by students from Kaunas). This should probably be explained by the wording of the questionnaire question: “Mark on 7 the map where, in your opinion, the language is spoken similarly as in your city”. Thus, Kaunas, although not marked on some maps, is directly or indirectly associated with other surrounding localities from the linguistic point of view by local young people. More than a third of the students of this city identified the areas of Viilnius (46.67%) and Jonava (44.44%) as the most similar to their native language. Another fifth of Kaunas respondents considered Kėdainiai (22.22 per cent), Kaišiadorys and Klaipėda (20 per cent). It is likely that the young people could rely on personal experience when indicating areas close to their linguistic homelands by similarity. Zones close to the linguistic origins, which are linguistically similar (geographically closest variants), may have been the most familiar to the students. Thus, the respondents were able to recognize their own characteristic language expression. Averagely or relatively strong links of all students, including some students from Šakiai, connect their hometowns with one another in a more distant area (such a marking comprises 18– more distant 11 proc. visų anketų). Mažiausiai su kalbinėmis gimtinėmis moksleiviai linksta sieti geografiniu areas (from 9 to 1 per cent of all questionnaires). In identifying the localities more distant from their native neighborhoods with the expression of their native neighborhoods, the researchers, kolektyvine patirtimi (plg.: Inoue 1999: 174; Aliūkaitė ir kt. 2017: 122–124). apparently, rely on both individual and collective language. Thus, the three-fold linguistic models of (non-)relatedness of native localities with other zones that emerged from the maps marked by high school students should be distinguished and discussed more broadly. 3.1. Kalbinis Kauno (ne)giminiškumas su kitomis vietovėmis Kaunas pupils indicated the most localities with expressions close to their language code on the maps (see Figure 4). 7 This is also reflected in the maps marked by young people from other cities. They make up 36 per cent of all Jurbarkas, 41.67 per cent. Marijampolė and 14.89 per cent. The respondents of Šakiai marked them on maps. LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ. Jaunųjų vakarų aukštaičių kauniškių kalbinės gimtinės vaizdiniai: The (non-)relativity of the language of Kaunas, Jurbarkas, Šakiai and Marijampolė | 16 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.05 BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 Mrj_M14 Mrj_V05 Mrj_V17 Mrj_V10 9 PAV. Marking of the language homeland of Marijampolės students with other places on maps pavyzdžiai The linguistic connections between Marijampolė and the neighbouring city of Vilkaviškis are confirmed by previous perception studies (Geržotaitė, Čepaitienė 2016: 84–100). It has been established nurodytą, jų teigimu, suvalkiečių tarmės dalį pieštiniuose žemėlapiuose visada patenka arba abi that in Vilkaviškis young people are in two areas (Vilkaviškis and Marijampolė), or only one of them (Geržotaitė, Čepaitienė 2016: 90). The results of the subjective evaluation of the western Kaunas dialect of the Alytaus region confirm the similarity of the code used in Marijampolė and Vilkaviskis, as well as in Kalvarija and Šakiai, which is usually described as dialectal (Dabašinskienė, Dagilytė 2013: 111–112; Bakšienė 2016: 36–37; Geržotaitė, Čeptaitienė 2016: 89). LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ. Jaunųjų vakarų aukštaičių kauniškių kalbinės gimtinės vaizdiniai: Kauno, Jurbarko, Šakių ir Marijampolės ka lbinis (ne)giminiškumas | 17 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.05 BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 (see map Mrj_V05, p. 9). It should be added that Marijampolė tends to be considered more dialectal not only by the inhabitants of Vilkaviškis, but also by those of other neighbouring areas. As a distant snee from a linguistic point of view, the gymnasium students in Marijampolė indicated only the Lazdijai area (11.11 per cent), which belongs to the neighbouring Southern Highlands (see Figure 9, map Mrj_V10). It has been found that in this area, the young people of Vilkaviškis also tend to expand the boundaries of their linguistic homeland as a dialect zone (Geržotaitė, Čeptaitienė 2016: 89). The weakest linguistic ties of Marijampolė are associated by the young people of this city with the big cities (Kaunas and Vilnius) and several southern Highland zones (Alytus and Trakai) (see fig. 9, map Mrj_V10). Another area of Lithuanian language is not marked on the maps of these students, so it is not related to Marijampolė by any linguistic relationship. Thus, the young people of Marijampolė tend to consider the language code used in almost the entire area of the western Kaunas dialect as the most similar to the language of their native country. 3.4. Linguistic (non-)affinity of Šakiai with other localities The students of Šakiai gymnasium marked the locations on the maps that are least similar to the language of their native language (see Figure 10). 10 PAV. Zones in which, in the view of the students of Šakiai, the language is spoken similarly to the language of the native country As similar to the language of Šakiai (markings comprise 85.11 per cent of all the questionnaires filled out by students of this city), the young people mainly indicated the neighboring zones of Vilkaviškis (61.70 per cent), Kazlų Rūda (57.45 per cent), Jurbarkas (42.55 per cent), Marijampolė (31.91 per cent) and Kaunas (29.79 per cent) (see Figure 11, map Šk_M02, M18, V09). 0 % 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 % 100 % Šakiai VilkaviškKazlų JurbarkMarijampolėKaunas as Tauragė Rūda Kalvarija is Prienai LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ. Jaunųjų vakarų aukštaičių kauniškių kalbinės gimtinės vaizdiniai: Kauno, Jurbarko, Šakių ir Marijampolės ka lbinis (ne)giminiškumas | 18 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.05 BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 Šk_M02 Šk_V09 Šk_M18 Šk_M20 11 PAV. In contrast to the students of Jurbarkas, the students of Šakiai tend to associate their pavyzdžiai linguistic homeland more with the areas of Vilkaviškis and Kazlų Rūda, which are located further south, than with Jurbarkas (see fig. 11, map Šk_M02, V09). According to young people from Šakiai and Jurbarkas, similar linguistic affinity links their language homelands with Kaunas. The different attitudes of Marijampolė pupils (their linguistic homeland is linked to Kaunas by the weakest links) discussed in this perspective were apparently determined by both linguistic and non-verbal reasons (Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė 2014: 261). The weakest linguistic links between the linguistic homeland of the young people of Šakiai and several of the same (Kalvarija – 6.38 per cent, Prienai – 4.26 per cent) or closer (Šk_M20). Other gretimos pietų žemaičių raseiniškių (Taũrage – 8,51 proc.) patarmės vietovėmis (žr. 11 pav. žemėl. Lithuanian-speaking areas are not marked by Šakiai youths. LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ. Jaunųjų vakarų aukštaičių kauniškių kalbinės gimtinės vaizdiniai: The (non-)relativity of the language of Kaunas, Jurbarkas, Šakiai and Marijampolė | 19 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.05 BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 Thus, the localities indicated by the students of Šakiai as the closest to their linguistic homeland are almost identical to the zones marked by the students of Marijampolė in their land sheets. Like the rest of the region, the area of the municipality is heavily populated with the majority of Skirtumas tas, kad į Šakiuose vartojamą kalbą, šio miesto moksleivių nuomone, mažia u panašios the population living in the suburbs. Kalvarija and Prienai regions, which are geographically farther away from their linguistic homeland but closer to Marijampole. On the contrary, from negiminiškos) šalia Šakių esančios Jurbarko ir Kauno zonos. Taigi, subjektyvusis šių vietų kalbinis the point of view of the young people of Marijampolė, their linguistic affinity to their linguistic homeland (or to it at all) almost coincides with the objective one. CONCLUSIONS In accordance with the methodological principles of perceptive dialectology, the study of the images of the linguistic homeland of the localities of the western Kaunas dialect area – Kaunas, Jurbarkas, Šakiai and Marijampolė – confirms and supplements the subjective and objective picture of the region closest to the common Lithuanian language summarized in previous works. the subjects of the Duomenų analizė rodo, kad su tarmine raiška kalbines gimtines labiau linksta sieti centrinių localities of the subdivision under consideration – Šakiai and Marijampolė. It is likely that due to the specificity of the variant, i.e. the slight difference from the common language, some of them do not Kalbinę gimtinę vertindami ir kaip tarminės, ir kaip netarminės kalbos zoną, Jurbarko, arba recognize their own linguistic code. dialect border zone, students confirm the existence of several language variants in this zone. The language code used in Kaunas is apparently associated by local youth with a variant close to the common language. Such attitudes of the surveyed respondents almost coincide with the objective linguistic significance of the native neighborhoods. Similar results were highlighted by the three-fold models of linguistic kinship (non-kinship) with other zones identified on the basis of drawing maps marked by students. They show that the localities, which respondents from Šakiai and Marijampolė indicated as the closest to their linguistic homelands, almost do not go beyond the boundaries of the western Kaunas dialect. kalbiniai ryšiai, šio miesto jaunuolių teigimu, sieja su tos pačios ir gretimos žemaičių tarmės paribio Jurbarkas in the strongest areas. The areas identified by young people of Kaunas as the most similar to their linguistic homeland almost coincide with the area of the common language standard Verbalizuotos ir vizualizuotos nuostatos atskleidžia jaunųjų kalbos vartotojų santykį su identified by geolinguists in the second decade of the 21st century. objective linguistic variability not only of the native and surrounding areas, but also of the whole Lithuanian language area. It is LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ. Jaunųjų vakarų aukštaičių kauniškių kalbinės gimtinės vaizdiniai: (Non-)relativity of the language of Kaunas, Jurbarkas, Šakiai and Marijampolė | 20 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.05 BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 likely that the students of the areas close to their linguistic homelands (except Kaunas and its surroundings) are more identified with dialectal expression. Localities covering almost the entire area of the Lithuanian language, where young people have the weakest or no linguistic affinity with their linguistic homelands, are most likely associated with a language variant closer to the common language. LITERATŪRA Aliūkaitė D. 2007: Tarminis kalbėjimas ir bendrinė kalba: objektyviųjų ir subjektyviųjų skirtumų kultūrinė vertė. Daktaro disertacija, Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas. Aliūkaitė D. 2009: Pe rcep tyviniai dialektų tyrimai: mentalinis žemėlapis. – Respectus Philologicus 15(20), 164–179. Aliūkaitė D. 2019: Objektyvusis tarmiškumas: požymiai ir vertė. – Respectus Philologicus 35(40), 63–91. Aliūkaitė D., Bakšienė R., Jaroslavienė J. ir kt. 2014: Punktų tinklo tankis geolingvistinės sk irties aukštaičiai : žemaičiai požiūriu. – XXI a. pradžios lietuvių tarmės: geolingvistinis ir sociolingvistinis tyrimas (žemėlapiai ir jų komentarai). Sud. D. Mikulėnienė, V. Meiliūnaitė, Vilnius: Briedis, 129–196. Aliūkaitė D., Merkytė-Švarcienė E. 2012: Bendrinės kalbos regionai jaunųjų lietuvių kalbos bendruomenės narių požiūriu: kompetencija ir vaizdiniai . – Kalbos kultūra 85, 155– 177. Aliūkaitė D., Mikulėnienė D. 2014: Geolektų ir regioninių dialektų formavimosi ypatumai Lietuvoje. – XXI a. pradžios lietuvių tarmės: geolingvistinis ir sociolingvistinis tyrimas (žemėlapiai ir jų komentarai). Sud. D. Mikulėnienė, V. Meiliūnaitė, Vilnius: Briedis, 257– 262. Aliūkaitė D., Mikulėnienė D. 2016: Perceptyviosios dialektologijos instrumentai ir tyrimų kryptys: variantų a realai mentaliniuose že mėlapiuose (Biržų atvejis). – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 74, 89–120. Aliūkaitė D., Mikulėnienė D., Čepaitienė A., Geržotaitė L. 2017: Kalbos variantiškumas ir jo vertinimas perceptyviosios dialektologijos požiūriu: variantų ir vietų vaizdiniai, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. Bacevičiūtė R. 2004: Šakių šnektos prozodija ir vokalizmas, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos ins tituto leidykla. LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ. Jaunųjų vakarų aukštaičių kauniškių kalbinės gimtinės vaizdiniai: Kauno, Jurbarko, Šakių ir Marijampolės ka lbinis (ne)giminiškumas | 21 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.05 BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 Bacevičiūtė R. 2006: Šakių šnektos tekstai, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla. Bacevičiūtė R. 2008: Tarmių są veikos p ožymiai Klaipėdos krašto „suvalkietiškajame “ idiolekte. – Baltu filoloģija 17(1/2), 5–18. Bacevičiūtė R. 2010: Lietuvių kalbos žemaičių tarmės ypatybės vakarų aukštaičių kauniškių šnektose. – Respectus Philologicus 18(23), 235–243. Bakšienė R. 2012: Klaipėdos krašto aukštaitiškosios dalies naujosios tarmės formavimasis. – Žmogus ir žodis 1, 19–23. Bakšienė R. 2015: Tarminio kalbėjimo savivertė ir gyvybingumas: XXI a. pradžios Šakių ir Jurbarko šnektos. – Lietuvių kalba 9. Prieiga internete: http://www.lietuviukalba.lt/index.php/lietuviu-kalba/article/view/174. Bakšienė R. 2016: Vakarų aukštaičių kauniškių priegaidės: Marijampolės šnekta, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Bakšienė R. 2019: Tarminio kalbėjimo vertinimas Paprūsėje: XXI a. pradžios Vištyčio arealo tyrimas. – Lietuvių kalba 13. Prieiga internete: http://www.lietuviukalba.lt/index.php/lietuviu-kalba/article/view/267/199. Bakšienė R., Vaišnienė D. 2014: Klaipėdos krašto aukštaičiai: tekstai ir kontekstai, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Dabašinskienė I., Dagilytė E. 2013: Suvalkiečių išskirtinumas: būdo savybės ar kalbėjimas? – Miestai ir kalbos 2. Moksl. red. M. Ramonienė, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla, 105–123. Dailey-OʼCain J. 1999: The Perception of Post-Unification German Regional Speech. – Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology 1. Ed. D. Preston, Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 227–242. Diercks W. 2002: Mental Maps. Linguistic-Geographic Concepts. – Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology 2. Ed. D. Long, D. Preston, Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 51–70. Eckert P. 1997: Age as a Sociolinguistic Variable. – Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Ed. Florian Coulmas, Oxford: Blackwell, 151–167. Evans B. 2002: Attitudes of Montreal Students towards Varieties of French. – Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology 2. Ed. D. Long, D. Preston, Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 71–93. GAT 2008: Griškabūdžio apylinkių tekstai. Sud. R. Bacevičiūtė, V. Sakalauskienė, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2008. LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ. Jaunųjų vakarų aukštaičių kauniškių kalbinės gimtinės vaizdiniai: Kauno, Jurbarko, Šakių ir Marijampolės ka lbinis (ne)giminiškumas | 22 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.05 BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 Geržotaitė L. 2016: Jaunųjų šiauliškių ir panevėžiškių tarminė savimonė: ribos mentaliniuose žemėlapiuose. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 74, 121–142. Geržotaitė L. 2018: Šiaulių jaunuolių kalbinė gimtinė mentaliniuose žemėlapiuose. – Kalbos istorijos ir dialektologijos problemos 5. Sud. R. Bak šienė, N. Morozova, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 76–101. Geržotaitė L. 2019: Bendrinės lietuvių kalbos vaizdinių kalbinio standarto plote tyrimas: vienos Kauno rajono gimnazijos atvejis. – Lietuvių kalba 13. Prieiga internete: http://www.lietuviukalba.lt/index.php/lietuviu-kalba/article/view/278 (žiūrėta 2019 09 27). Geržotaitė L., Čepaitienė A. 2016: Vilkaviškio jaunuolių kalbinė gimtinė: ribos, taisyklingumo ir patrauklumo vertės. – Verbum 7. Prieiga internete: http://www.zurnalai.vu.lt/verbum/issue/view/889. Geržotaitė L., Mikulėnienė D. 2014: Geolektų ir regiolektų formavimasis Lietuvoje: žemėlapis ir komentarai. – XXI a. pradžios lietuvių tarmės: geolingvistinis ir sociolingvistinis tyrimas (žemėlapiai ir jų komentarai). Sud. D. Mikulėnienė, V. Meiliūnaitė, Vilnius: Briedis. Girdenis A., Zinkevičius Z. 1966: Dėl lietuvių kalbos tarmių klasifikacijos. – Kalbotyra 14, 139–147. Grinaveckienė E. 1957: Mituvos upyno tarmės fonetika. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 1, 119– 180. Grinaveckienė E. 1996: Jurbarkiškių šnekta. – Jurbarkas: istorijos puslapiai. Ats. red. A. Piročkinas, Vilnius: Pradai, 88–98. Inoue F. 1999: Subjective Dialect Division in Great Britain. – Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology. Volume 1. Ed. D. Preston, Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 161–176. LKTChr 2004: Lietuvių kalbos tarmių chrestomatija. Sud. R. Bace vičiūtė, A. Ivanauskienė, A. Leskauskaitė, E. Trumpa, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbo s instituto leidykla, 2004. Long D. 1999: Geographical Perception of Japanese Dialect Regions. – Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology 1. Ed. D. Preston. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 177–198. Marshal J. 2004: Language Change and Sociolinguistics: Rethinking Social Networks (Palgrave Studies in Language Variation), Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Merkytė-Švarcienė E. 2016: Tarmių mentalinio žemėlapio (ne)tikslumo veiksniai: tarmės vartojimas vs. nevartojimas. – Respectus Philologicus 29(34), 139–154. LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ. Jaunųjų vakarų aukštaičių kauniškių kalbinės gimtinės vaizdiniai: Kauno, Jurbarko, Šakių ir Marijampolės ka lbinis (ne)giminiškumas | 23 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.05 BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 Preston D. 1989: Perceptual Dialectology: Nonlinguistsʼ Views of Areal Linguistics, Dordrecht: Foris. Preston D. 1993: Folk Dialectology. – American Dialect Research. Ed. D. Preston, Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 333–377. Preston D. 1999a: Introduction. – Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology 1. Ed. D. Preston, Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, XXIII–XL. Preston D. 1999b: A Language Attitude Approach to the Perception of Regional Variety. – Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology 1. Ed. D. Preston, Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 359–373. Sakalauskienė V. 2013: Jurbarko apylinkių tekstai, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Sakalauskienė V. 2015: Jurbarko šnekta – žemaitiško ir aukštaitiško arealų susikirtimo vieta. – Leksikografija ir leksikologija 5, 309–329. Vaicekauskienė L. 2014: Didmiestis ir sostinė geriausios lietuvių kalbos percepcijose. – Taikomoji kalbotyra 6, 1–31. Prieiga internete: https://taikomojikalbotyra.lt/ojs/index.php/taikomoji-kalbotyra/article/view/52. Vaicekauskienė L., Čičirkaitė R. 2011: Vilniaus klausimas bendrinės lietuvių kalbos sampratose: metalingvistinių vilniečių komentarų tyrimas. – Darbai ir dienos 56, 57–76. VAKKKA 2005: Vakarų aukštaičiai kauniškiai ir Klaipėdos krašto aukštaičiai. Lietuvių kalbos tarmės mokyklai. Sud. R. Bacevičiūtė, D. Mikulėnienė, V. Salienė, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Zinkevičius Z. 1969: Apie lietuvių kalbos tarmių sk irstymą. – Lietuvos TSR mokslų akademijos darbai. A serija 3(31), Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla, 365–380. Zinkevičius Z. 2006: Lietuvių tarmių kilmė, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Gauta 2019 10 10 Priimta 2019 12 18 LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ. Jaunųjų vakarų aukštaičių kauniškių kalbinės gimtinės vaizdiniai: Kauno, Jurbarko, Šakių ir Marijampolės ka lbinis (ne)giminiškumas | 24 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.05 BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 IMAGES OF THE LINGUISTIC HOMELAND OF THE YOUNG WESTERN AUKŠTAITIANS OF KAUNAS: THE LINGUISTIC (NON)AFFINITY OF KAUNAS, JURBARKAS, ŠAKIAI, AND MARIJAMPOLĖ Summary The article is concerned with an analysis of a research of images of the linguistic homeland of young people from the locations of the Western Aukštaitian Subdialect of Kaunas: Kaunas, Jurbarkas, Šakiai, and Marijampolė. The subject material constitutes the data from a research conducted under the principles of perceptual dialectology. The images of the linguistic homeland embedded in the consciousness of the respondents can be uncovered through a discourse of the frequency of choice of linguistic codes and an analysis of the drawn (mental) maps of the tendencies of the localisation of the (non)affinity between the linguistic homeland and other locations. The analysis of the data has revealed that it is the subjects from the central locations of the area covered (meaning Šakiai and Marijampolė) who tend to associate their linguistic homelands with dialectal expression. It is likely that, owing to the singularity of a particular variation (the low degree to which it differs from the standard language), some of them are unable to recognise their own linguistic code. In recognising the existence of dialectal and non-dialectal expression in their linguistic homeland, subjects from Jurbarkas, a border zone of a subdialect, potentially confirm a coexistence of several linguistic variations in it. The linguistic code used in Kaunas most probably connects in the images of local school youth with a variation that approximates the standard language. Drawn maps show that, as far as linguistic affinity is concerned, local young people associate Šakiai and Marijampolė with the major part of the area of We stern Aukštaitian Subdialect of Kaunas. The neighbouring border areas of Aukštaitians and Samogitians are considered linguistically closest to Jùrbarkas. The locations specified by Kaunas respondents as being closest to their linguistic homeland almost mirror the area of the standard language as identified in the second decade of the 21st century. The images of variation revealed by the attitudes of the young language users mirror the objective linguistic variation both of the subjects’ linguistic homeland and its surroundings, and of the entire area of the Lithuanian language to an almost exact degree. LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ. Jaunųjų vakarų aukštaičių kauniškių kalbinės gimtinės vaizdiniai: Kauno, Jurbarko, Šakių ir Marijampolės ka lbinis (ne)giminiškumas | 25 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.05 BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 KEYWORDS: perceptual dialectology, Western Aukštaitian subdialect of Kaunas, linguistic homeland, linguistic affinity, drawn maps. LAURA GERŽOTAITĖ Vilnius University, Kaunas Faculty Muitinės g. 8, LT-44280 Kaunas, Lithuania [email protected]