DAIVA ALIŪKAITĖ

Vilnius University Kaunas Faculty of Humanities

ERIKA MERKYTĖ-ŠVARCIENĖ

Vilnius University Kaunas Faculty of Humanities

REGIONS OF STANDARD LANGUAGE FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF YOUNG MEMBERS OF THE LITHUANIAN SPEECH COMMUNITY: COMPETENCE AND PERCEPTIONS

KEYWORDS: standard language, regions of the standard language, ordinary member of a speech community, standard language competence, image of the standard language, perceptual dialectology.

INTRODUCTORY NOTES

It can be argued that a reference to place is an accompanying feature¹ when speaking of a user of the standard language (bk). A description of a representative of bk typically mentions a system of factors that includes the user’s education and sociocultural experience. Ultimately, even a user’s particular profession or activity may clearly indicate that they are a representative of bk². In any case, place is not counted among the significant factors³.

It should be noted that, when discussing bk, the urban–rural opposition cannot be completely disregarded, since this distinction is usually often associated with the already mentioned educational…

¹ Of course, such an observation would not apply to the standard languages of countries (bk in our case) whose basis is the language of the capital.

²Bk is generally associated with representatives of public-speaking professions, i.e., television, radio, and the like, although, as recent sociolinguistic studies show, these fields too display more varied forms of expression, primarily because television and radio presenters are not exclusively people with specialized training in these fields (see Tamaševičius 2012 for more).

³ Of course, taking into account the layers of users’ dialect experience and the dialect underlying bk, representatives of some regions of Lithuania might a priori be assumed to be better representatives of bk than those of other regions; however, without specific data, this is merely speculation. Unlike the speech of regional dialect users, the speech of representatives of bk does not reveal their origin or place of residence. Admittedly, this is an optimistic scenario. More precisely, one should say that the speech of representatives of bk ought not to reveal their origin or place of residence.

D. ALIŪKAITĖ, E. MERKYTĖ-ŠVARCIENĖ. Bendrinės kalbos regionai jaunųjų lietuvių kalbos bendruomenės narių požiūriu: kompetencija ir vaizdiniai

155

…education (and social and cultural experience) is a factor that often has a decisive influence on the formation of a user’s bk skills, primarily because the field of education a priori is associated with bk. For objective reasons (cf. developed infrastructure, the presence of educational institutions, the diversity of the labor market, and so on), cities are undoubtedly centers of attraction for educated members of the language community; thus, the attempt to associate representatives of bk primarily with cities may be partly justified. Moreover, traditional dialectology also draws a distinction between town and countryside, on the basis of which dialect speakers are sought primarily in villages (cf. the NORM criterion⁴), although representatives of bk should also be sought in cities. Of course, it would be inaccurate to regard an educated member of the language community unequivocally as a more likely representative of bk, and someone with little education as a likely representative of other varieties, most often dialectal or semi-dialectal codes. Such an approach greatly oversimplifies the concept of linguistic variation. On the other hand, the subject of this article does not require us to consider exact correspondences between a particular user’s sociolinguistic profile and their speech code. Given the very different histories of the creation and development of bk, and traditions of its use, in different countries, even the theoretical models of the social distribution of language varieties proposed by geolinguists or sociolinguists (cf. Peter Trudgill’s trapezoid or triangular diagram depicting a system of barriers between regional accents and social codes; see Trudgill 1983: 41) are accurate only in part, that is, they are suitable for generalizing the situation of linguistic variation in a particular country when that society’s social structure is very clearly defined, the models of language education applied in that society are well known, and so on. Thus, what has been said makes it clear that researchers—for example, sociolinguists, geolinguists, and representatives of normative linguistics—can verify the place label in the sociolinguistic profile of a typical (or, perhaps more accurately, stereotypical!) bk user only by studying a particular language community (or perhaps, more precisely, a generation of that language community).

Theorists who devote considerable attention to the concept of the standard language (in our case, bk) (see Hilton 2010: 58–69; for theoretical discussions of bk, see also Aliūkaitė 2009a: 164–168) express doubts as to whether an oral form of the standard exists at all. For example, according to Deborah Cameron, essentially only writing realizes the myth of the standard language (i.e., bk) (quoted in Jafte 2000: 500). These insights could be explored in greater depth if we had such a speci-

⁴ The acronym NORM encapsulates the following sociolinguistic profile of a dialect speaker: nonmobile, older, rural male = nonmobile, older, from the countryside [emphasis ours – D. A. and E. M.- Š.] male (see Chambers, Trudgill 1998: 29).

156

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 85

…scope, after choosing a particular theoretical perspective and gathering data. The aim of this article is to consider why, from the perspective of ordinary members of the language community, bk becomes a localized code—that is, a variety associated with a particular city, region, or other place.

THE TRADITION OF PERCEPTUAL DIALECTOLOGY RESEARCH AS A WAY TO STUDY IMAGES OF BK

The paradigm of perceptual dialectology (English perceptual dialectology) (for more on the principles of perceptual dialectology, see Preston 1988: 373–395; 1989; 1999: xxiii–xl; Long 1999: 198–226; Inoue 1999: 147; Diercks 2002: 51–70; Evans 2002a: 95–97⁵; see also Aliūkaitė 2006: 88–89; 2007: 52–61), which established the perspective of the ordinary member of the language community⁶ primarily in dialectological research, essentially made it possible for the so-called perspective of language sense (German Sprachgefühl)⁷ to emerge beyond research concerned with dialectal discourse. Thus, the research problem—the regions of bk as seen by young members of the Lithuanian language community—is examined by studying ordinary members’ images of bk variants. An almost objective projection of these images, which becomes the object of analysis in this article, consists of language users’ and evaluators’ linguistic attitudes toward the correctness, comprehensibility, similarity to bk, and appeal of the stimulus texts, and, of course,

⁵ It should be noted that only canonical works by representatives of the perceptual dialectology paradigm are cited here—works in which the methodology is developed, refined, or supplemented in one way or another. For more on perceptual dialectology research around the world, see HPD1 1999; HPD2 2002; PD 2010.

⁶ In this article, the term ordinary member of the language community refers to those members of the language community who lack professional linguistic knowledge. This year, representatives of perceptual dialectology and folk linguistics (English folk linguistics) considered at one of the closing discussions of the 19th Sociolinguistics Symposium in Berlin, “Folk linguistics and society: Discussion,” what kind of research participant meets the criterion of a nonprofessional member of the language community. No consensus was reached. The professional vs nonprofessional dichotomy must be related to the subject of investigation in each case. Even in the present study, it is not entirely accurate to claim that the participants have no professional knowledge. Pupils acquire knowledge of bk at school; they are taught bk in Lithuanian lessons, and even the instrumental language used by subject teachers is often bk, or at least an effort is made to ensure that it is. On the other hand, it is precisely this “degree of professionalism” among the participants that makes the study intriguing: does school have a significant effect on the linguistic impressions of an ordinary member of the language community?

⁷ For more on the distinction between “language sense” and “language reality” (German Sprachwirklichkeit), formulated by H. Būldo in 1939, see Goeman 1999: 136.

D. ALIŪKAITĖ, E. MERKYTĖ-ŠVARCIENĖ. Bendrinės kalbos regionai jaunųjų lietuvių kalbos bendruomenės narių požiūriu: kompetencija ir vaizdiniai

157

localization of text stimuli on so-called mental maps (English mental map)⁸.

Tasks involving the correctness, comprehensibility, similarity to standard Lithuanian, and attractiveness of text stimuli, as well as mental mapping, are traditional components of perceptual dialectology research. These studies identify the dialect codes that members of a speech community consider the most correct, attractive, and so on. The mental mapping task, in which participants must locate dialectal text stimuli they hear on a map, establishes users’ awareness of the dialect continuum (and of its spatial dimension). Likewise, including standard Lithuanian text stimuli in perceptual dialectology studies allows researchers to assess ordinary speech community members’ attitudes and beliefs about standard Lithuanian, as well as the value of place in a standard Lithuanian speaker’s sociolinguistic profile—that is, to determine whether ordinary members of the speech community associate a standard Lithuanian representative with any particular region. It can be argued that establishing the parameters of the place of standard Lithuanian in ordinary speech community members’ perceptions also helps determine, to some degree, users’ perceptual competence in standard Lithuanian. This segment of sociolinguistic competence is important for refining, on the one hand, native-language education guidelines and, on the other, for cultural education more broadly, of which dialect education is (or should be!) an integral part. In addition, to some degree, the system of representations of standard Lithuanian also reveals users’ dialect competence—that is, the study establishes whether a dialectal code is distinguished from a non-dialectal one. This knowledge is important to geolinguists, sociolinguists, and representatives of prescriptive linguistics alike.

It should be noted that, when preparing the research instrument for the study discussed in this article, it was decided to include standard-language texts as stimuli in the perceptual study, following a certain research tradition and drawing on prior experience. In conducting the 2004–2006 study “Perception and Evaluation of Dialectal Speech,” data obtained from one of the evaluated dialectal stimulus texts, in which only the so-called accompanying features of the Eastern Aukštaitian Anykščiai dialect had been realized, made it possible to record an inaccurate image of the standard language among ordinary members of the speech community. As many as 40.63 percent of all res-

⁸ Greta Willio Dierckso (2002) pasiūlyto mentalinio žemėlapio termino perceptyviosios dialektologijos tyrėjų darbuose vartojamas ir pažintinio, kognityviojo žemėlapio (angl. cognitive map) terminas (pvz., Clopper 2004: 6). Be to, kad kartais tyrėjai panašia reikšme pavartoja ir okazinius terminus (labai tikėtina, kad pačių susikurtus, be aiškios tradicijos), pavyzdžiui, kognityvusis peizažas (angl. cognitive landscape) ir mentalinis peizažas (angl. mental landscape) (žr. Wales 1999, paskaitos medžiaga). Daugiau apie mentalinio žemėlapio užduotis perceptyviosios dialektologijos tyrėjų darbuose žr. Aliūkaitė 2007: 174–182; Aliūkaitė 2009b: 164–179).

158

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 85

and 31.92 percent of all respondents⁹ stated that the aforementioned dialectal text did not differ from standard Lithuanian (for more on this study, see Aliūkaitė 2009a: 160–187). Similar data were obtained in the 2008 study of dialect attitudes (see Aliūkaitė, Merkytė 2009: 259–274)¹⁰. The inaccurate representation of standard Lithuanian that was recorded prompted further research to clarify other aspects related to standard Lithuanian. Thus, in this case too, the basis for considering the problem of the localization of standard Lithuanian localization is a portion of the data from a comprehensive perceptual dialectology study, primarily designed to investigate the perception and evaluation of dialectal speech (tk). The study took place in November 2009, December 2010, and January 2011. The perceptual dialectology study examined a priori attitudes toward the evaluation of dialectal speech, features of the sociolinguistic profile of the creator of dialectal discourse, and the perception and evaluation of specific dialectal text stimuli according to the criteria of comprehensibility, correctness, aesthetics, and similarity to standard Lithuanian. Data from the mental mapping task were used to study ordinary speech community members’ orientation within the dialect continuum. Among the 13 text stimuli presented to participants for evaluation were also 3 standard Lithuanian text stimuli. These 3 text stimuli unquestionably represent standard Lithuanian norms (at the level of pronunciation and others), because they were assembled from recordings on the compact disc accompanying the booklet Lietuvių kalbos bendrinė tartis (2004). The disc recordings were intended to teach correct pronunciation to journalists, actors, educators, and lawyers¹¹. In terms of the variety of linguistic resources, all 3 standard Lithuanian text stimuli are equivalent: they are verbally rich, vivid excerpts in an artistic style. The speaker of the first text stimulus is a woman; the speakers of the second and third are men.

Participants evaluated both the dialectal text stimuli and the standard Lithuanian text stimuli according to the criteria of correctness, attractiveness, comprehensibility, and similarity to standard Lithuanian.

⁹ The study sample comprised 548 respondents aged 13–17. The study involved students from Ukmergė Dukstyna Basic School, Ukmergė Šilas Secondary School, Kaunas Ąžuolas Catholic School, Marijampolė Sixth Secondary School, Pivašiūnai Secondary School in Alytus District, Bartuva Secondary School in Skuodas District, Kartena Secondary School in Kretinga District, and Pandėlys Secondary School in Rokiškis District.

¹⁰ The study involved 46 students from Kaunas Milikoniai Secondary School (teachers Audronė Babajan and Violeta Sventkauskienė assisted with the study) and 40 students from Lukšiai Vincas Grybas Secondary School (teacher Aldona Urbaitienė assisted with the study).

¹¹ The dialectal text stimuli were selected with the aim of representing the full dialectal diversity of Lithuania. Six text stimuli belong to the Aukštaitian dialect (i.e., Western Aukštaitian Kauniškiai [2 texts], Western Aukštaitian Šiauliškiai, Southern Aukštaitian, Eastern Aukštaitian Panevėžiškiai, and Eastern Aukštaitian Širvintiškiai), while 4 belong to the Samogitian dialect (i.e., Western Samogitian, Southern Samogitian Raseiniškiai, Northern Samogitian Kretingiškiai, and Southern Samogitian Varniškiai). Nine dialectal text stimuli were taken from LKTCH (2004), and the Western Aukštaitian Kauniškiai (Šakiai District) text stimulus from LT (2005). This article discusses their perception and evaluation only to the extent necessary to clarify the research problem under consideration.

D. ALIŪKAITĖ, E. MERKYTĖ-ŠVARCIENĖ. Bendrinės kalbos regionai jaunųjų lietuvių kalbos bendruomenės narių požiūriu: kompetencija ir vaizdiniai

159

It should be noted that, when evaluating the standard-language text stimulus, the criterion of similarity to the standard language may seem excessive and illogical from the researcher’s perspective; however, when designing the research instrument, such a strategy is justified for an ordinary member of the language community. The study seeks to investigate not the value of the standard language as an abstract system, but the image of the standard language in the consciousness of an ordinary member of the language community; thus, this task (i.e., the criterion of similarity to the standard language) makes it possible to establish whether the image of the standard language held by an ordinary member of the language community corresponds to, or differs from, its actual realization. Moreover, the semantic differential rating scale provided to participants to express their evaluations made it possible to record how closely the text stimulus being evaluated corresponded to the standard language (see Fig. 1).

FIG. 1. Semantic differential rating scale¹²

The mental mapping task used in perceptual dialectology research is of greatest importance to the research problem discussed in this article.

In the mental mapping task, participants were asked to mark and write down the locality from which they believed the speakers came. The task included a map showing municipal boundaries and centers, given that the participants were representatives of the younger generation and might lack geographical knowledge. This assumption is also made by Dennis R. Preston (1989), the originator of the principles of perceptual dialectology.

This article examines data from a study conducted in the cities of Kaunas, Klaipėda, Panevėžys, Šiauliai, Telšiai, and Alytus¹³. The survey of participants in each city was conducted anonymously and lasted 30–40 minutes. The total sample consisted of 276 respondents. The participants were 14–18 years old.

¹² Other scales, for example, 5-, 6-, or 9-point scales, may also be used in research (for more, see Al-Hindawe 1996: [1–9]).

¹³ The study under discussion was conducted not only in the aforementioned cities. In total, more than 500 questionnaires were collected from across Lithuania (e.g., in Šakiai, Kalvarija, Kartena, Kretinga, Varniai, Radviliškis, Ramygala, Varėna, and elsewhere); however, the article focuses on data from participants in only six cities with geographically distinct linguistic environments, because the participant samples at the other research sites were highly uneven (from a few to a dozen or so people). Thus, it would be premature to discuss tendencies before a sufficient and evenly distributed body of data has been collected.

The questionnaires from the study are held by the Department of Lithuanian Philology at the Kaunas Faculty of Humanities of Vilnius University.

160

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 85

STANDARD LANGUAGE RECOGNITION AND LOCALIZATION: COMPETENCE AND PERCEPTIONS

It should be noted that the study involved participants from different linguistic environments (see Table 1).

TABLE 1. Study participants

Linguistic environment

City

Number of participants

Western Highlanders of the Kaunas subdialect¹⁴

Kaunas

35

Western Highlanders of the Šiauliai subdialect

Šiauliai

40

Eastern Highlanders of the Panevėžys subdialect

Panevėžys

53

Southern Highlanders

Alytus

46

Western Samogitians of the Klaipėda subdialect

Klaipėda

56

Northern Samogitians of Telšiai

Telšiai

46

Although in the 21st century there is a highly developed (and, let us admit, justifiably so) discourse about dialects becoming more uniform, mixing, and converging with the standard language, the latest geolinguistic studies in Lithuania show that the dialect code is not inclined to relinquish all domains¹⁵. At the level of conscious attitudes, one can even speak of a revival of dialects. Of course, it should be acknowledged that it is often more appropriate to speak not of a traditional dialect, that is, a clear, discrete speech variety associated with a particular area, but of a certain continuum of codes between the standard language and the dialect, that is, a regiolect. A regiolect denotes a particular formation of relations between the standard language and the dialect, of convergence and leveling (direction: dialect → standard language) (more about regio-

¹⁴ The following coded abbreviations for groups are used in the article: VAK – participants from Kaunas Milikoniai Secondary School (Lithuanian language teacher Audronė Babajan helped conduct the study), VAŠ – Šiauliai Lieporiai Gymnasium (with assistance from Reda Šteimantienė, head of the Social Sciences, Lithuanian Language, Technology, Arts, and Physical Education Department), RAp – participants from Panevėžys “Aušra” Secondary School (with assistance from deputy head Daina Jasiūnaitė), PA – Alytus Adolfo Ramanauskas-Vanagas Gymnasium (with assistance from deputy head Rita Baubonienė), VŽk – Klaipėda “Ąžuolynas” Gymnasium (with assistance from deputy head Vida Rudokienė), ŠŽt – participants from Telšiai “Džiugas” Secondary School (assisted by deputy head Janina Šalkauskytė).

¹⁵ See the website www.tarmes.lt for the project “Contemporary Geolinguistic Studies in Lithuania: Optimization of the Network of Survey Points and Interactive Dissemination of Dialect Information” (project code No. VP1-3.1-ŠMM-07-K-01-028, led by Prof. Danguolė Mikulėnienė), which presents data from the most recent dialect study, namely short excerpts from conversations and monologues from across Lithuania. The published material shows that dialect-marked expression is characteristic of representatives of different generations.

D. ALIŪKAITĖ, E. MERKYTĖ-ŠVARCIENĖ. Bendrinės kalbos regionai jaunųjų lietuvių kalbos bendruomenės narių požiūriu: kompetencija ir vaizdiniai

161

FIG. 2. Mental map task

lektą žr. Hoppenbrouwers 1982: 186–196). Olandų tyrėjo Kornelijaus Antonijaus Johannes[o] Hoppenbrouwerso pasiūlytas regiolekto terminas kai kurių autorių (plg. Bellmann 1998: 23–34) dažnai pasirenkamas ir kelių panašėjančių tarmių dariniui įvardyti.

In constructing the sample, the primary consideration was that the study participants should come from different linguistic environments, as this is important when analyzing the research data obtained. Although, given the mixing and convergence of different forms of expression, that is, the emergence of a regiolect, classifying participants as speakers from the Western Aukštaitian Kaunas, Šiauliai, and other dialect environments is more conditional and somewhat too rigid. Nevertheless, it is correct to say that the participants come from different linguistic environments. There is no doubt that the attitudes of participants from different groups toward dialect and the standard language, as well as their systems of dialect images and standard-language images, depend on their place of residence, which bears the imprint of a distinctive form of expression (dialect, regiolect, etc.—this is no longer so important). It is important to add that even in a major city, one can still hear purely dialectal or otherwise dialect-marked expression, or at least have images of dialectal expression¹⁶. This is, of course, related to the relatively recent migration to cities and, consequently, a fairly short urban tradi-

¹⁶ Data from the “Cities and Languages” project team show that residents of all the main cities (Vilnius, Kaunas, Klaipėda) report being fairly good at distinguishing dialects (see Kliukienė 2010: 95, 99).

162

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 85

tion. On the other hand, the density of so-called social networks (English social network)¹⁷ with relatives or acquaintances in a diverse dialect environment is also important here; this determines at least perceptual skills for different forms of expression and may therefore influence not only so-called dialect competence but also standard language competence.

When unpacking the evaluations of the three standard-language text stimuli, which were coded with the letters F, I, and M in the study questionnaire (see Figure 2, which shows excerpts from the questionnaires with the mental-map task completed¹⁸), it should first be noted that the study data provide grounds for speaking of an inaccurate image of the standard language among members of the younger generation of the language community.

It would not be entirely accurate or fair to state categorically that competence in perceiving the standard language is limited, since participants rate all three standard-language text stimuli very highly according to the criteria of correctness and similarity to the standard language (on a 7-point semantic differential scale), thus clearly distinguishing them from the ten other dialect text stimuli evaluated (see Table 2 and Figure 3)¹⁹.

TABLE 2. Correctness and similarity-to-standard-language ratings for standard-language text stimuli (points)

Criterion

Standard-language text stimuli

Participant group

F

I

M

RAp

Correctness

6,0

5,3

5,8

Similarity to the standard language

5,9

5,2

5,9

PA

Correctness

6,5

6,2

6,1

Similarity to the standard language

6,5

6,3

6,3

VAš

Correctness

6,4

6,2

6,2

Similarity to the standard language

6,3

6,1

6,0

¹⁷ Apie socialinių tinklų sampratą daugiau žr. Milroy, Milroy 1992.

¹⁸ We note that standard-language text stimuli are associated with major cities. This tendency is one of the most common among participants in all groups; see further in the article.

¹⁹ It has already been mentioned that the data on the evaluation of the text stimuli in this article are not analyzed; this is the subject of other articles. For comparison, we will briefly note that the highest mean correctness rating for the stimulus text in the Western Aukštaitian Kaunas subdialect, which was rated highest by respondents in all groups, is 5.5 points, while the highest mean rating for similarity to Standard Lithuanian is 5.8 (as rated by respondents in the VŽk group); the correctness and similarity-to-Standard-Lithuanian ratings for the other nine stimulus texts are much lower. For example, the similarity of the Southern Aukštaitian stimulus text to Standard Lithuanian is rated at 4.1 points, and its correctness at 3.7 points (as rated by respondents in the RAp group); the similarity of the Northern Samogitian Kretinga stimulus text to Standard Lithuanian is rated at 3.2 points, and its correctness at 3 points (as rated by respondents in the PA group), and so on.

D. ALIŪKAITĖ, E. MERKYTĖ-ŠVARCIENĖ. Bendrinės kalbos regionai

jaunųjų lietuvių kalbos bendruomenės narių požiūriu: kompetencija ir vaizdiniai

163

Respondent group | Criterion | Standard Lithuanian stimulus texts | F | I | M | Northern Samogitian | Correctness | 6.2 | 5.6 | 6.0 | Similarity to Standard Lithuanian | 5.6 | 5.9 | 5.7 | VŽk | Correctness | 6.6 | 6.4 | 6.5 | Similarity to Standard Lithuanian | 6.6 | 6.5 | 6.4 | VAk | Correctness | 6.3 | 6.1 | 6.3 | Similarity to Standard Lithuanian | 6.4 | 6.0 | 6.2

This essentially supports the insight that the respondents certainly do not regard them as dialectal texts. It should be noted that respondents were not very active in justifying one rating or another; nevertheless, although rare, their arguments support this view, for example: KaunM69²⁰ – spoke correctly, pronounced all the words very clearly; PanvžV159 – completely correct; ŠiaulV201 – genuine Lithuanian; ŠiaulV202 – speaks correctly when pronouncing the words; AlytV238 – because everything is correct, because this is Standard Lithuanian; AlytM270 – completely correct; KlaipV448 – almost correct; KlaipM495 – the same as Standard Lithuanian.

The diagram’s data on correctness and similarity to Standard Lithuanian show that the Standard Lithuanian stimulus texts were recognized as Standard Lithuanian. Thus, when evaluating respondents’ mental image of Standard Lithuanian, varying degrees of inaccuracy can be discussed.

The ratings for the stimulus texts’ similarity to Standard Lithuanian suggest that the Standard Lithuanian comprehension ability of only a very small proportion of respondents can be called into question. For example, the similarity to Standard Lithuanian of the stimulus text in questionnaire I was rated at only 3 points by respondent AlytM264, and that of the text in questionnaire M at 2 points; respondent TelšV391 rated the similarity of stimulus text F to Standard Lithuanian at 3 points, and that of text M at 2 points; respondent KlaipV458 rated the similarity of stimulus text I to Standard Lithuanian at only 2 points, and so on. In summary, only 11.7% of all respondents tended to rate stimulus text F as dissimilar to Standard Lithuanian; only 14.9% did so for stimulus text I; and only 13.7% for stimulus text M. Correctness ratings essentially correspond to similarity ratings; compare F

²⁰ The respondent code abbreviations used in the article are: Kaun – respondent from Kaunas Milikoniai Secondary School, Šiaul – respondent from Šiauliai Lieporiai Gymnasium, Panvž – respondent from Panevėžys “Aušra” Secondary School, Alyt – respondent from Alytus Adolfo Ramanauskas-Vanagas Gymnasium, Klaip – respondent from Klaipėda “Ąžuolynas” Gymnasium, Telš – respondent from Telšiai “Džiugas” Secondary School. The letter M denotes a female respondent, V a male respondent; the number is the questionnaire number. The language of comments and responses has not been corrected.

164

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 85

FIG. 3. Correctness and similarity-to-Standard-Lithuanian ratings for Standard Lithuanian stimulus texts (points)

Only 10.8% of respondents consider stimulus text F incorrect; only 14.4% consider stimulus text I incorrect; and only 13% consider stimulus text M incorrect.

Data from the mental map task allow us to discuss much more precisely the inaccuracy of young members of the language community’s mental image of Standard Lithuanian. Despite the fact that the ratings for correctness and similarity to Standard Lithuanian indicated that the majority of respondents recognized Standard Lithuanian, only a small proportion of respondents identified it precisely—that is, stated that the spoken texts were in Standard Lithuanian (see Fig. 4). Respondents who indicated this did not mark the texts on the mental map at all.

Thus, the research data make clear that the location of Standard Lithuanian matters only from a scholarly perspective; in the taxonomy used by members of the language community, this code is associated with specific places. The place attribution is not stereotypically unequivocal or precise, but certain tendencies can be observed.

We should add that respondents from different linguistic environments vary in their tendency to associate Standard Lithuanian with a particular place (see Fig. 3). The research data show that the respondents in the PA group have the most accurate mental image of Standard Lithuanian. More than half of all respondents in the PA group (i.e., 54.4%) did not mark the Standard Lithuanian stimulus texts on the mental map at all. It should be emphasized that respondents distinguished all three Standard Lithuanian stimulus texts in this way.

The other data from respondents in the PA linguistic environment are not very representative or significant. The tendency to locate the Standard Lithuanian stimulus texts is itself important, however

D. ALIŪKAITĖ, E. MERKYTĖ-ŠVARCIENĖ. Bendrinės kalbos regionai165jaunųjų lietuvių kalbos bendruomenės narių požiūriu: kompetencija ir vaizdiniai

FIG. 4. Young respondents’ precise identification of standard language

it cannot be claimed that standard language expression is consistently associated with one or another Lithuanian city. In any given city, only 2–7% of respondents (i.e., 1–3 young people) localized the standard-language stimulus texts (cf. Vilnius – 4.3% (stimulus texts F and I); 6.5% (M); Kaunas – 6.5% (F); Trakai – 2.2% (F, I, and M); Marijampolė – 2.2% (I), etc.).

Another important aspect of the Alytus respondents is that only participant AlytM266 localized the standard-language stimulus text (i.e., stimulus text I) in Alytus. These results show that the southern Aukštaitian respondents have an almost precise mental representation of the code of their linguistic homeland (English linguistic homeland²¹). More precisely, it would be appropriate to say that young Alytus residents distinguish the code of their linguistic homeland from the standard-language code. These data are informative for geolinguistics. These results concerning the perception of standard language show that dialectal codes of varying degrees of salience (a dialect, regiolect, or similar) function in Alytus, and, importantly, that the degree of salience is sufficient for ordinary members of the language community to distinguish their own dialectally marked code from that of standard-language users. Incidentally, the participants in the southern Aukštaitian group recognized the southern Aukštaitian dialect stimu-

²¹ Dėl termino kalbinė gimtinė (angl. linguistic homeland) žr. Diercks 2002: 51.

166

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 85

lus text (in the study, this was A, i.e., the first dialectal stimulus text assessed) and localized it quite accurately. As many as 65.2% of participants localized this stimulus text in the southern Aukštaitian dialect area (most often around Varėna, Lazdijai, and Alytus).

Figure 4 shows that the other group in which some participants almost recognized the standard-language stimulus texts consisted of participants from Klaipėda. 17.9% of participants considered the speaker of stimulus text F to be a standard-language representative; 16.1% of respondents said that the speakers of stimulus texts I and M spoke standard language. Incidentally, one participant (KlaipM472), when evaluating stimulus text M, even comments in surprise: standard language (again?), so it is likely that some participants, unsure, may have guessed.

Considering only the mental-map task, the data from the VŽk group participants are certainly not significant and, at first glance, there seems to be no basis for discussing the precision of their mental representation of standard language. Nevertheless, their competence in perceiving the standard-language stimulus texts—that is, their ratings of the stimulus texts’ similarity to standard language and their correctness (see Table 2 and Fig. 2)—clearly shows that young people from Klaipėda have a mental representation of standard language that almost matches standard language (with a small margin of error on a seven-point scale); thus, the representation is distorted only by the place label.

Two stereotypical markers of the sociolinguistic profile of a standard-language user already emerge in this group of participants: 1) a standard-language user is more often associated with large cities (Vilnius or Kaunas) than with other cities; 2) a standard-language user may use the code of the participant’s linguistic homeland. Thus, these tendencies indicate that the standard-language code has connotations of distinctiveness for the participants.

When evaluating the first standard-language stimulus text in the study (F), the largest proportion of participants—23.2%—localized it in their native city of Klaipėda. Of course, it cannot be ruled out that the code of the participants’ linguistic homeland actually corresponds to the standard language they heard and evaluated during the study, but such a claim should be substantiated with empirical observational data. 17.9% of participants thought this mode of expression was characteristic of Vilnius residents; 16.1% of participants in the VŽk group assigned this standard-language stimulus text to Kaunas. The other markings on the mental map do not seem to show any trend: this text was assigned to Alytus, Raseiniai, Šiauliai, and other places once or twice each. In total, 11 Lithuanian localities were mentioned.

The second standard-language stimulus text (I) was most often localized in Vilnius—this was the view of as many as 41.1% of participants in the VŽk group. 7.1% of participants assigned the second standard-language stimulus text to Klaipėda, and 3.6% assigned it to Kaunas. However, neither Klaipėda nor Kaunas stands out in this case. In total, when considering where the speaker of stimulus text I might be from, participants mentioned as many as 14 Lithuanian localities.

D. ALIŪKAITĖ, E. MERKYTĖ-ŠVARCIENĖ. Bendrinės kalbos regionai jaunųjų lietuvių kalbos bendruomenės narių požiūriu: kompetencija ir vaizdiniai

167

The third standard-language text stimulus is localized even less consistently. A total of 22 cities are mentioned; for example, 10.7% of the VŽk group participants localized the text stimulus M in Kaunas; 8.9% in Vilnius; 5.4% in Panevėžys; 5.4% in Kėdainiai, and so on. It is likely that this inconsistency is partly related to the position of the text stimulus in the study. The participants listened to this text stimulus last. This factor cannot be disregarded; on the other hand, it should not be overemphasized either, since according to other criteria, cf. correctness, similarity to standard language, and attractiveness, this text stimulus was evaluated quite consistently, and this insight is also supported by the open-ended comments.

Thus, in summary, it can be said that the participants from the city of Klaipėda have a more accurate than inaccurate perception of standard language, but the stereotypical association of standard language with certain cities significantly distorts the overall image of standard language from a sociolinguistic perspective. It should be noted at the outset that the standard-language image model among the VŽk group is essentially characteristic of the other participant groups as well.

Summarizing the data from the RAp, VAš, VAk, and ŠŽt areas, it can be said that participants generally tend not to claim that the speakers in text stimuli I, F, and M speak standard language; only a very small proportion of participants think so (see Fig. 3). In the RAp linguistic environment, 7.6% of participants identify text stimuli F and M as standard language, while 3.8% of this group evaluate text stimulus I in this way. In the VAš linguistic environment, 5% of respondents identify text stimulus F as standard language, while only 2.5% of participants evaluate text stimuli I and M in this way. In the ŠŽt linguistic environment, 4.3% of participants tend to regard text stimuli F and M as standard language, while 2.2% evaluate text stimulus I in this way. Participants in the VAk linguistic environment are even stricter in their evaluations of standard language: only 5.7% of participants are convinced by the expression in text stimulus F, and no one classified text stimuli I and M as standard language.

It should be noted that participants who usually say that the text stimulus they are listening to is in standard language give the text its highest similarity-to-standard-language rating, i.e. they mark 7 points on the semantic differential scale. For example, participant PanvžM92 assigns 7 points to text stimulus F when evaluating its similarity to standard language; ŠiaulV219 assigns 7 points to text stimuli F and I; KaunM58 assigns 7 points to text stimulus F; TelšM405 assigns 7 points to all three standard-language text stimuli in the study, and so on.

Thus, standard language is explicitly recognized only a few times in all the groups under discussion (RAp, VAš, VAk, and ŠŽt) (i.e. only 1–3 participants in each group stated that they were listening to standard language and did not associate the text stimulus with a specific place in Lithuania). Consequently, in these cases it is possible to speak only of a fairly good competence in perceiving standard language, as indicated by similarity-to-standard-language and correctness

168

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 85

ratings (see Table 2 and Fig. 2). The data from the mental map task for these groups further confirm that young members of the language community have formed an inaccurate image of standard language.

It can be argued that the image of standard language among the RAp, VAš, VAk, and ŠŽt groups, owing to the tendency to associate standard language with Lithuania’s major cities, corresponds to the VŽk group’s image of standard language and is even more pronounced in some groups (see Fig. 4).

39.6% of the RAp group participants assign text stimulus F to Vilnius; 32.6% of the ŠŽt group participants do so; as do 22.5% of the VAš group and 14.3% of the VAk group. As many as 57.5% of representatives of the VAš group tend to localize this text in Kaunas; 34.3% of young people from Kaunas are also convinced that text stimulus F comes from their linguistic environment, as are 17.4% of members of the ŠŽt group; 13.2% of RAp participants localize the first standard-language text in Kaunas.

When evaluating the second and third standard-language text stimuli, participants are no longer as consistent, but the metropolis remains part of the sociolinguistic portrait of a standard-language speaker. Although the disaggregated data are not all equally significant (see Fig. 5), the main tendency among young members of the language community can nevertheless be stated: they associate standard language with Vilnius and Kaunas more often than with other Lithuanian cities.

RAp VAš F I M F I M Vilnius 39,6 17,0 15,1 22,5 25,0 15,0 Kaunas 13,2 18,9 15,1 57,5 15,0 5,0 VAk ŠŽt Vilnius 14,3 28,6 5,7 32,6 21,7 17,4 Kaunas 34,3 17,1 20,0 17,4 21,7 8,7

FIG. 5. Tendency to associate standard language with major cities

It is important to note that in none of the RAp, VAš, or ŠŽt participant groups did a tendency emerge to associate standard-language text stimuli with linguistic homeland.

In the RAp group, only two participants (PanvžV100 and PanvžV101) localized text stimulus F in Panevėžys; only one participant (PanvžV99) localized text stimulus I there; and only one participant (PanvžV84) localized text stimulus M there. In the VAš group, only one participant (ŠiaulM213) assigns the third standard-language text stimulus (M) to lingu-

D. ALIŪKAITĖ, E. MERKYTĖ-ŠVARCIENĖ. Bendrinės kalbos regionai

jaunųjų lietuvių kalbos bendruomenės narių požiūriu: kompetencija ir vaizdiniai

169

to their linguistic homeland, i.e. Šiauliai. Of course, it is a very expected and anticipated result that none of the participants from the ŠŽt group associated the bk code with their linguistic homeland. It should be added that such data are also important from a geolinguistic perspective. Thus, it can be seen that a pronounced dialectal substratum refines bk competence.

Different insights concerning linguistic homeland are prompted by the assessments of bk text stimuli made by participants from the city of Kaunas (VAk). One can speak of an autostereotypical attitude among young Kaunas residents: the most correct speech is spoken in Kaunas, and therefore it is bk. The Lithuanian character of the city of Kaunas is not questioned, as confirmed by the latest sociolinguistic data (cf. Ramonienė 2011); in this respect, it seems entirely reasonable that the bk text stimuli are attributed to the city of Kaunas. Researchers note (cf. Milroy 2001: 539) that ordinary members of a speech community often identify the standard language (in this study, bk) with the national language. It may be that in this case, too, abstract language concepts—namely, bk and the national language—are conflated. Some participants attribute the texts they rate most highly for correctness and as most similar to bk (as reflected in the corresponding scores) to Lithuania’s most Lithuanian city. Of course, the previously mentioned linguistic-homeland factor cannot be ruled out either. It is logical and predictable to associate the text receiving the highest scores with one’s place of residence. This is particularly true when evaluators feel linguistically secure and their code has overt prestige. It may be that precisely this model of merging bk with one’s native code is characteristic of some young people from Kaunas.

Regarding the VAk participant group, it should be noted that another tendency was recorded. Some participants from the city of Kaunas tended to locate the bk text stimuli as close to Kaunas as possible, for example, in Kėdainiai (the F text stimulus—17.1%, the I text stimulus—5.7%) and Kaišiadorys (the I text stimulus—8.6%, the M text stimulus—5.7%). These data may partly have been influenced by the previously mentioned linguistic-homeland factor: participants may have reasoned according to the following model: this is how people speak, if not in the immediate vicinity, then certainly somewhere nearby.

Overall, data from some participant groups suggest the existence of bk zones near major cities. The study shows that Kaišiadorys, Kėdainiai, Vilkaviškis, Šakiai, and Trakai fall within the bk zone.

Only participants in the PA group did not attribute bk texts to Kaišiadorys. Participants from all groups localized at least one of the bk texts in Kėdainiai on at least one occasion (as already noted, a tendency was even recorded among participants in the VAk group). In Vilkaviškis and Šakiai, too, there were participants from each group who attributed at least one of the bk texts to these towns.

170

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 85

It may be that participants frequently mark Trakai as a bk zone and do not distinguish it from Vilnius. There is no other way to explain why Trakai is a fairly important zone on the mental map; cf.: 27.5% of participants in the VAš group locate the I text stimulus in this town and 10% locate the M text stimulus there; 10.9% of the ŠŽt group also attribute the M text stimulus to Trakai; and 5.7% of participants in the RAp group locate the M text stimulus in Trakai.

It is worth noting the surprising fact that Marijampolė²² does not feature among the stereotypical bk towns. The bk text stimuli were attributed to this town only a few times: the F text stimulus was localized once each by participants in the VAš and ŠŽt groups; the I text stimulus was attributed once each by participants in the PA, VAk, and VAš groups; and one participant from the VŽk group attributed the M text stimulus to Marijampolė. Such data allow us to make a fairly tentative inference. Marijampolė may have greater geolinguistic significance for ordinary members of the speech community, being associated more with dialectal speech than with bk. On the other hand, it is also possible that the image of bk is so inaccurate in terms of linguistic expression and so far removed from actual bk that ordinary members of the speech community no longer consider codes objectively closer to bk to be similar to it. This would undoubtedly indicate a particularly poor level of bk competence among ordinary members of the speech community. Of course, given that we have only attitudinal data, it would be wrong to generalize categorically. Participants were not asked where people speak most correctly, where bk is spoken, where people speak most like bk, and so on. Thus, we cannot be certain that, had different questions and different text-comprehension tasks been presented, Marijampolė would have been assessed in the same way as a marked town associated not with bk but with tk.

It can be said that in the mental-map task, participants marked a total of 41 locations (cities or towns) (Table 3 shows how many different cities were mentioned in each case). Some cities (locations) are beginning to acquire the status of prototypical bk cities (locations) (for the assessment of Vilnius in this way, see Čičirkaitė, Vaicekauskienė 2011: 57–76). This, of course,

²² Cf. the subjective language assessment examined using sociolinguistic methods by Laima Grumadienė in 1980. The data obtained by the researcher revealed that attitudes at the time were different. The study involved 45 upper-grade pupils from schools in Vilnius. Forty-four percent of respondents stated that the residents of Vilnius spoke the standard language. Nearly the same proportion of pupils indicated that literary language (i.e. bk) was spoken in Suvalkija and Kapsukas (now Marijampolė) (42% each); 31% of responses considered the speech of Kaunas residents to be standard, and 24% identified eastern Aukštaitija. When the questionnaire asked whether the speech of Vilnius residents or that of Suvalkija residents was more like literary language, 56% of respondents named the latter, 27% the former, and the rest did not answer. Asked to compare the speech of residents of Marijampolė and Kaunas, 49% of pupils rated the former more highly, while 22% rated the latter more highly (for more, see Grumadienė 1980: 91–93).

D. ALIŪKAITĖ, E. MERKYTĖ-ŠVARCIENĖ. Bendrinės kalbos regionai 171 jaunųjų lietuvių kalbos bendruomenės narių požiūriu: kompetencija ir vaizdiniai

are matters at the level of attitudes and beliefs. The sociolinguistic conception of standard Lithuanian, which distinguishes it within a system of language varieties, is not clear to the participants. On the other hand, only systematic studies of language codes in use could provide data on linguistic reality (German Sprachwirklichkeit) (for more on H. Būilda’s distinction between linguistic reality and language awareness, see Goeman 1999: 136) and provide a basis for speaking of an accurate or inaccurate representation of standard Lithuanian; however, these are the aims of other studies.

TABLE 3. Number of cities and towns named on the mental map

Participant groupNumber of cities and towns mentionedF text-stimulusI text-stimulusM text-stimulusRap 16 16 20PA 9 10 8Vaš 7 13 17ŠŽt 14 12 16VŽk 11 14 22Vak 11 15 15

CONCLUSIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS

In addressing the research question—why, from the perspective of ordinary members of the language community, does standard Lithuanian become a localized code?—two key aspects should be noted. The perceptual study data were evaluated as diagnostic. On the one hand, folk taxonomy per se comes to light; on the other, this brings into focus practical and applied avenues for language researchers’ work, guidelines for language education that need refinement, and so on.

The young members of the language community have a good level of competence in understanding standard Lithuanian, which suggests that it undoubtedly functions in the field of education. On the other hand, the mental-map task makes clear that this code is not clearly conceptualized, that is, in language education it is not properly distinguished from regional and social varieties, and so on. The results clearly show that the conception of standard Lithuanian presented in the paradigms of normative linguistics and sociolinguistics is little known to the participants, and that in their minds standard Lithuanian becomes a localized code; consequently, it almost falls within the system of regional varieties. Of course, it is fundamentally erroneous to claim that standard Lithuanian is a member of the system of regional varieties.

172

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 85

However, such a paradoxical schema for understanding standard Lithuanian operates among its users and, arguably, may even influence their linguistic taste and language preferences.

The emerging tendency to associate standard Lithuanian with Vilnius and Kaunas shows that members of the younger generation’s language community have confused representations of centers of sociocultural attraction and linguistic ideals. This localization of standard Lithuanian can be explained by a particular complex associated with the capital and with large cities in general. Of course, this is highly predictable and natural when speaking of an ordinary language evaluator. A large city is a social aspiration and therefore also becomes a linguistic aspiration. Thus, from the ordinary evaluator’s perspective, standard Lithuanian is more the code of a large city than of any other kind of city. It is highly likely that the competitive relationship emerges specifically between Vilnius and Kaunas: Vilnius owes its position to its status as the capital, while Kaunas is associated with the image of the most Lithuanian city. Scholars of perceptual dialectology in very different countries²³ obtain similar data: places with positive cultural and social connotations typically receive positive ratings on evaluators’ mental maps of speech varieties. The same is true, more generally, of the image of a linguistic homeland on mental maps (in this study of standard Lithuanian, only Klaipėda and Kaunas are noteworthy). Thus, the beliefs and representations of ordinary members of the language community should never be dismissed.

An inaccurate representation held by an ordinary member of the language community cannot be considered incorrect. It is simply necessary to distinguish clearly between the researcher’s and the user’s perspectives. From the researcher’s perspective, it would be incorrect to claim that standard Lithuanian is a localized code, since the researcher operates with the scientific definition and conceptualization of standard Lithuanian. From the user’s perspective—that is, from the perspective of an ordinary member of the language community—it is correct to claim that standard Lithuanian is a localized code, because the user relies on firmly established²⁴ or highly ephemeral stereotypes, attitudes, linguistic taste, and so on—that is, on factors to which the criterion of error cannot in principle be applied, since doing so would immediately place the ordinary member of the language community at the level of an expert. Consequently, the two systems of knowledge, that of the professional and that of the layperson, would also be conflated, and these are cognitive matters that must be taken into account. There is no doubt that the inaccurate representations of standard Lithuanian held by ordinary members of the language community constitute a distinct and fairly important object of study.

²³ Pavyzdžiui, tirti prancūzų kalbos variantai Kanadoje Kvebeke (žr. Evans 2002b: 83–86), Turkijos dialektai (žr. Demirci, Kleiner 1999: 263—282), olandų bk ir tarmės Olandijoje (žr. Bezooijen 2002: 13–30) ir kt.

²⁴ It must be acknowledged that some claims even have a real basis—cf. Kaunas is the most Lithuanian city, so where else could there be users of standard Lithuanian?

D. ALIŪKAITĖ, E. MERKYTĖ-ŠVARCIENĖ. Bendrinės kalbos regionai

173

jaunųjų lietuvių kalbos bendruomenės narių požiūriu: kompetencija ir vaizdiniai

LITERATŪRA

Ali-Hindawe J. 1996: Considerations when Constructing a Semantic Differential Scale. – La Trobe Papers in Linguistics 9, [1–9].

Aliūkaitė D. 2006: Perceptyvinės dialektologijos tyrimai: dialekto vaizdinys. – Valoda dažādu kultūru kontekstā. Zinātnisko rakstu krājums 16, Daugavpils: Saule, 87–95.

Aliūkaitė D. 2007: Tarminis kalbėjimas ir bendrinė kalba: objektyviųjų ir subjektyviųjų skirtumų kultūrinė vertė. Daktaro disertacija, Vilniaus universitetas.

Aliūkaitė D. 2009a: Bendrinės kalbos vaizdiniai: kvazistandarto problema. – Respectus Philologicus 16 (21), 160–187.

Aliūkaitė D. 2009b: Perceptyviniai dialektų tyrimai: mentalinis žemėlapis. – Respectus Philologicus 15 (20), 164–179.

Aliūkaitė D., Merkytė E. 2009: Sociolingvistinis tarminių kodų taisyklingumo tyrimas. – Kalbos kultūra 82, 259–274.

Bellmann G. 1998: Between Base Dialect and Standard Language. – Folia Linguistica XXXII 1–2, 23–34.

Chambers J. K., Trudgill P. 1998: Dialectology. Second Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Clopper C. G. 2004: Linguistic Experience and the Perceptual Classification of Dialect Variation. Dissertation, Stanford.

Čičirkaitė R., Vaicekauskienė L. 2011: Vilniaus klausimas bendrinės lietuvių kalbos sampratose: metalingvistinių vilniečių komentarų tyrimas. – Darbai ir dienos 56, 57–76.

Demirci M., Kleiner B. 1999: The Perception of Turkish Dialects. – Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology 1. Ed. by D. R. Preston. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 263–282.

Diercks W. 2002: Mental Maps. Linguistic-Geographic Concepts. – Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology 2. Ed. by D. Long, D. R. Preston. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 51–70.

Evans B. 2002a: An Acoustic and Perceptual Analysis of Imitation. – Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology 2. Ed. by D. Long, D. R. Preston. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 95–112.

Evans B. 2002b: Attitudes of Montreal Students towards Varieties of French. – Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology 2. Ed. by D. Long, D. R. Preston. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 71–93.

Goeman A. C. M. 1999: Dialects and the Subjective Judgments of Speakers: Remarks and Controversial Methods. – Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology 1. Ed. by D. R. Preston. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 135–146.

174

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 85

Grumadienė L. 1980: Subjektyvycis kalbos vertinimas. – Kalbos kultūra 39, 91–93.

Hilton N. H. 2010: Regional Dialect Levelling and Language Standards: Changes in the Hønefoss Dialect. PhD thesis, University of York.

Hoppenbrouwers C. A. J. 1982: Language change: A Study of Phonemic and Analogical Change with Particular Reference to S.E. Dutch Dialects, Meppel: Knips Repro.

HPD1 1999: Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology 1. Ed. by D. R. Preston. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

HPD2 2002: Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology 2. Ed. by D. Long, D. R. Preston. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Inoue F. 1999: Classification of Dialects by Image: English and Japanese. – Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology 1. Ed. by D. R. Preston. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 147–160.

Jafte A. 2000: Introduction: Non-standard Orthography and Non-standard Speech. – Journal of Sociolinguistics 4/4, 497–513.

Kliukienė R. 2010: Tarmės mieste: mokėjimas, vartojimas ir kalbinės nuostatos. – Miestai ir kalbos, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla, 91–105.

LKTCH 2004: Lietuvių kalbos tarmių chrestomatija (su kompaktine plokštele). Sudarytojai R. Bacevičiūtė, A. Ivanauskienė, A. Leskauskaitė, E. Trumpa. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla.

Long D. 1999: Mapping Nonlinguists’ Evaluations of Japanese Language Variation. – Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology 1. Ed. by D. R. Preston. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 198–226.

LT 2005: Lietuvių tarmės, 2 dalis. Sudarytojai R. Bacevičiūtė, K. Juškevičius, A. Leskauskaitė, K. Morkūnas, D. Mikulėnienė, E. Ožeraitis, L. Telksnys, D. Vaišnienė, A. Vidugiris ir kt. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, Matematikos ir informatikos institutas.

Milroy J. 2001: Languages Ideologies and the Consequences of Standardization. – Journal of Sociolinguistics 5/4, 530–555.

Milroy L., Milroy J. 1992: Social Network and Social Class: Toward an Integrated Sociolinguistic Model. – Language in Society 21, 1–26.

Pakerys A., Pupkis A. 2004: Lietuvių kalbos bendrinė tartis (su kompaktine plokštele), Vilnius: Gimtasis žodis.

PD 2010: Perceptual Dialectology: Neue Wege der Dialektologie. Ed. by Ch. A. Anders, M. Hundt, A. Lasch. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.

Preston D. R. 1988: Methods in the Study of Dialect Perceptions. – Methods in Dialectology. Ed. by A. R. Thomas. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 373—395.

D. ALIŪKAITĖ, E. MERKYTĖ-ŠVARCIENĖ. Bendrinės kalbos regionai jaunųjų lietuvių kalbos bendruomenės narių požiūriu: kompetencija ir vaizdiniai

175

Preston D. R. 1989: Perceptual Dialectology: Nonlinguists’ Views of Areal Linguistics, Dordrecht: Foris.

Preston D. R. 1999: Introduction. — Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology 1. Ed. by D. R. Preston. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, xxiii–xl.

Ramonienė M. 2011: Kalbų vartojimas darbe didžiuosiuose Lietuvos miestuose. – Lietuvių kalba 5, [1–15].

Tamaševičius G. 2012: Žiniasklaidos lyderių lingvistinė kompetencija visuomenės transformacijų kontekste. Daktaro disertacija, Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas. Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

Trudgill P. 1983: Sociolinguistics: an Introduction to Language and Society. London: Penguin Books.

Van Bezooijen R. 2002: Aesthetic Evaluation of Dutch. – Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology 2. Ed. by D. Long, D. R. Preston. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 13–30.

Wales K. 1999: North and South: A Linguistic Divide? – Inaugural Lecture, June 10.

Gauta 2012 11 05

REGIONS OF THE STANDARD LANGUAGE FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF YOUNG MEMBERS OF THE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE COMMUNITY: COMPETENCE AND IMAGES

Summary

System of factors which is referred to when modelling a representative of a standard language includes education as well as social and cultural experience of a user. User’s profession or activity could also become a clear reference to the potential representative of the standard language speakers. From a theoretical perspective location mark is not one of the important factors, though theoretical models not always precisely correspond to the system of user’s attitudes and beliefs.

The aim of this article is to discuss why the standard language becomes a localized code in the point of view of the young members of the language community. The researched problem – regions of the standard language from the point of view of the young members of the Lithuanian language community – is being discussed researching the images of the standard language variants prevalent in this group of users. Linguistic attitudes of the language users and estimators towards correctness, intelligibility, similitude to the standard language and appeal of text-

176

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 85

stimuli and localization of text-stimuli in so-called mental maps provide more or less an objective projection of these images.

The investigation of the standard language localization issue is based on a part of the data collected during a complex research of perceptual dialectology carried out in November 2009, December 2010 and January 2011.

A task of mental map of perceptual dialectology is the most important for the research of this issue. The research was carried out in schools and gymnasiums of Kaunas, Klaipėda, Panevėžys, Šiauliai, Telšiai and Alytus. A total sample of the research included 276 respondents at the age of 14–18.

The research data shows that the standard language is unlocalized only in scientific perspective. In the taxonomy of the members of the language community this code is associated with particular places. The place marker is not stereotypically unambiguous and accurate, but certain trends can be established.

Two clear markers of the sociolinguistic portrait of the standard language user can be brought out: more frequently the standard language user is associated with major cities of Lithuania (Vilnius or Kaunas) rather than other towns and the standard language user can be the user of the respondent’s linguistic homeland code.

Data from some of researched groups suggests an idea about the standard language zones near the cities or major towns. The research shows that Kaišiadorys, Kėdainiai, Vilkaviškis, Šakiai and Trakai could be included into such zones.

During the task of mental mapping the participants of the research marked 41 places (large or small towns) in total. Some of these places start gaining the value of prototypic standard language place. This is the matter of attitudes and views and the respondents are not aware of the sociolinguistic concept of standard language. Only systemic research of the code observation would ensure “linguistic reality” of the data and become the basis for talking about the precise image of the standard language.

KEYWORDS: standard language, regions of the standard language, ordinary member of the language community, standard language competence, standard language image, perceptual dialectology.

DAIVA ALIŪKAITĖ

Vilniaus universiteto Kauno humanitarinis fakultetas

Muitinės g. 8, LT-44280 Kaunas

[email protected]

ERIKA MERKYTĖ-ŠVARCIENĖ

Vilniaus universiteto Kauno humanitarinis fakultetas

Muitinės g. 8, LT-44280 Kaunas

[email protected]

D. ALIŪKAITĖ, E. MERKYTĖ-ŠVARCIENĖ. Bendrinės kalbos regionai jaunųjų lietuvių kalbos bendruomenės narių požiūriu: kompetencija ir vaizdiniai

177