Lietuvos lenkų tarmės

CURRENT SITUATION OF DIALECTS OF POLISH LANGUAGE IN LITHUANIA

The aim of his article is to reveal a situation of the Polish language used by inhabitants of Lithuanian villages with reference to the newest expeditionary researches. The article discusses major aspects of the Polish language functioning in Lithuania, characterises the main areas where the Polish language is spoken, introduces attitudes towards the national consciousness and presents regional onomastic data. The article also includes a map, in which areas with the presence of the Polish language have been marked on the Atlas of the Lithuanian language. This will help to investigate the interferences of varieties of both languages.

THE POLISH LANGUAGE IN THE KAUNAS REGION — ITS SITUATION, EVOLUTION AND STATE  AT THE TURN OF THE 20TH AND THE 21ST CENTURIES

The paper outlines the situation of the Polish language in the Kaunas region (a former major Polish-speaking enclave) on the basis of field research conducted between 1997 and 2003. The dataset encompasses recorded conversations led in the Polish language in 90 places all over the Kaunas region. Over 150 informants for whom Polish was their primary code, i.e. one acquired within their family, without mediation of a different language, participated in the project.

The term 'Kaunas Polish language' pertains to varieties of Polish language as it has been used in the regions to the north of Kaunas up to the historical region of Liaudė, to the west of Kaunas up to Čekiškė and Ariogala, and to the east – as far as Ukmergė. Hence, it comprises the language used by Poles from the districts of Kaunas, Kėdainiai, as well as in the borderland of Kėdainiai – Panevėžys  – Radviliškis regions, in the Jonava region, and partly also in the Ukmergė region.

The research allowed me to distinguish four centres consolidating the Polish-speaking community. These still relatively well-established (regardless of the assimilation processes that are currently at work) areas include:

a) The region lying to the north of Kaunas, i.e. around Babtai, Čekiškė, Vandžiogala, Lapės, Karmėlava; it covers the northern part of the Kaunas district and the southern part of the Kėdainiai district.

b) The region lying around Kėdainiai and Dotnuva, in the centre of the Kėdainiai district; it comprises i.a. villages such as Urnėžiai, Ruoščiai, Mištautai, Lipliūnai, Valučia,i Ąžuolaičiai, Vainotiškiai, Pajieslys, Keleriškiai, Bartkūniškiai.

c) The Liaudė region, lying around Vadoktai, Počiuneliai, Mitrunai to the south of Panevėžys; in the borderland of Kėdainiai—Panevėžys—Radviliškis regions.

d) The region extending from Jonava up Ukmergė in the east, and up to Šėta in the north; it covers the borderland of the Janova and the Kėdainiai districts, as well as a part of the Ukmergė district.

The situation of Polish in these regions changed significantly due to the sharp shrink of the Polish-speaking community over the 20^th century, as well as to the range and function of the language becoming more restricted, and its prestige decreasing. There is currently no continuity in the language transfer practices within families.

In the 20^th century, especially in the second half of it, the Kaunas region used to be the largest area of Polish-Lithuanian bilingualism, a noticeably mixed one (primarily due to the post-war changes) as far as both ethnic and linguistic factors are concerned, with a clear generational variation with respect to the competence in Polish. At the turn of the 20^th and 21^st  centuries, it subsides as a vanishing Polish language centre, with only a small percentage of Poles residing there, and the Polish language use being extremely restricted (basically merely home use, and primarily by the oldest generation, occasionally used by the middle generation where the Lithuanian language has become dominant). The majority of the middle generation as well as the youngest generation has decidedly abandoned the Polish tradition. It is only occasionally that Polish remains the language of social contact, and it is true solely in the case of the oldest generation.

The Polish language in the Kaunas region was socially, geographically and idiolectally diversified. It has preserved the remnants of the former social classes in its three-fold variation: the superior variant represented by the descendants of nobility and intelligentsia; the middle variant exposed by the gentry; and the low (folk) variant employed by the peasants.

The first half of the 20^th century saw Polish as a significantly prestigious language, an interdialect enabling the communication of all people, the language of the gentry, a “better” language, adding social regard to its user. The Polish dialect in the Kaunas region is currently no longer in good standing. The informants themselves state that the language is considered to be “spoilt,” “unjust,” “dirty,” incorrect; it is a language one needs to be ashamed of. The people using this variant of Polish were dubbed “the jargons.” The prestige of Lithuanian as the official language, as well as that of the church and education, has in turn increased.

The Polish language in the Kaunas region is a local variety of Polish of the Northern Borderlands. Its specificity resides in the fact that – as compared to other Polish dialects in Lithuania – it displays a larger range of interference of the Lithuanian language due to active Polish-Lithuanian bilingualism, as well as more archaic forms (because of its peripheral status). The dialects also differ as far as the frequency of various linguistic features and their configuration are concerned.

LANGUAGES USED IN THE VILNIŠKIAI SUB-DIALECT OF EASTERN AUKŠTAITIJA

Based on the data collected during dialectological expeditions in 2009–2012 in the districts of Švenčionys, Ignalina and Utena, the article discusses the state of the languages used in the area under investigation. Since the expeditions were more of a pilot study type of research, the data provided in the article are preliminary and are indicative of possible guidelines for a further, comprehensive and thorough investigation.

With respect to the languages used, the whole region under investigation could be divided into the following areas:

1. Linguistically homogeneous or more or less homogeneous areas:

1. the area of dialectal language, marked by the usage of either the subdialect of Vilniškiai or Uteniškiai (the area of Labanoras–Ignalina–Salakas);
2. the areas of the variations of Slavic languages in which: a) Slavic language variations are dominant with minimal use of Lithuanian (area of Gaidė), b) there is some linguistic dynamics and change in linguistic attitudes (area of Bačkininkai).

1. Linguistically heterogeneous areas:
   1. Slavic language variations are used together with partially non-dialectal Lithuanian, however, Slavic language variations dominate. These areas include the regions of Pabradė-Joniškis and Turmantas;
   2. the dialect is used together with Slavic language variations, but the Lithuanian language is dominant (the dialect and partially non-dialectal language). This area encompasses Strūnaitis-Švenčionėliai, Didžiasalis, Neverėnai;
   3.  the dialect, Slavic language variations and non-dialectal Lithuanian are used (Svirkos-Adutiškis area).

This division could be useful for prospective sociolinguists and especially valuable in the research of language contacts; in addition, it may facilitate researchers in their choice of methodology for studies of this kind.

WHO AM I AND WHAT MY LANGUAGE IS? DETERMINANTS OF THE NATIONAL CONSCIOUSNESS IN POLISH NARRATIVES IN LITHUANIA

The article discusses the determinants of the individual’s ethnic self-identification in multinational society, under the conditions of multilingualism and multiculturalism. The so-called national consciousness, when the individual endeavours to answer the question “who am I?”, is investigated. The investigator only documents the sense of national identity without influencing its content.  The paraphrases of the representatives of the Polish-inhabited land in Lithuania give background for this investigation. As the results of researches show, it is the language itself that determines ethnic self-identification. Though such determinants, as - the Polish genealogy, historically understood territorial dependence, culturalization, - are also mentioned.
 

A SOCIOLINGUISTIC ASSESSMENT OF DIALECTAL SPEECH IN DZŪKIJA BASED ON QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY AND IN-DEPTH INTERVIEW DATA

The article deals with the results of the comprehensive study “A Sociolinguistic Map of Lithuania: Towns and Villages”, conducted in 2011-2012 and related to the attitudes towards the usage of languages and dialects and value orientation among residents of Dzūkija, one of the five ethnographic regions of Lithuania (the concept of a “sociolinguistic map” is the same as in “The Multilingual Early Language Transmission Project” [MELT] funded by the EC). The research was carried out with support of the Science Council of Lithuania (Contract No. LIT-2-18, Manager—Prof Dr Meilutė Ramonienė, Vilnius University). There were two main data collection methods: questionnaires (64 questions, 4,697 respondents) and in-depth interviews (about 300 interviews).

The results of the research confirmed the assumption that when people are neither related by any social ties nor bound by any common social network, then their speech has no common grounds: in the absence of close communication, there is no reason to use the same language variety. In the current times, the historical region of Dzūkija is no longer homogeneous in terms of the usage of both the dialect and the spoken language. Therefore, the region should be divided into the following three parts: 1) the Southern Dzūkian part, which includes the towns of Alytus, Varėna, Druskininkai and Lazdijai; 2) the middle multilingual part, which includes the towns of Lentvaris, Trakai, Vievis, Nemenčinė, Pabradė, Šalčininkai, Grigiškės, Elektrėnai and Eišiškės, and 3) the Northern Aukštaitian part, which includes the towns of Ignalina, Švenčionys and Švenčionėliai. The majority of the results of the research in the above-mentioned parts of the region were different. For example, in the Dzūkian part of the Dzūkija region, i.e. in the area of Alytus-Varėna, 20% of respondents indicated that they used dialectal speech in their daily communication, whereas in the multilingual area of Trakai-Šalčininkai respondents indicated that they almost did not use any Lithuanian dialect in their daily communication (only 4% of respondents answered positively).

From the answers of respondents it becomes clear that dialects are falling into disuse in both public and private life throughout Lithuania, especially in Dzūkija: only a small portion (8%) of respondents indicated that they communicated with their parents in the Dzūkian dialect, while the average in the whole of Lithuania is 21%, i.e. every fifth person. The prestige of dialects has dropped considerably: even in the Dzūkian part less than half of Dzūkian people—39%—indicated that they considered their dialect to be a prestigious one. One-third (36%) of respondents in the Aukštaitian part of the region indicated that they did not consider any dialect to be of prestige. However, every second (59%) respondent indicated that they considered the Aukštaitian dialect to be of the highest prestige. Every second (53%) respondent in the multilingual part of the region did not distinguish any dialect as prestigious, which could be explained by non-usage of any dialects in their environment.

The fact that the majority—as many as 88%—of respondents in the Dzūkian part of the region and 80% of respondents in the Aukštaitian part of the region (60%  in the multilingual part of the region) indicated that they considered the Žemaitian dialect to be the most difficult to understand, evidences that respondents, however, managed to quite adequately assess dialectal speech—the Žemaitian dialect is objectively known in the region of Dzūkija as the most distant from both the standard Lithuanian language and the Dzūkian dialect. 

This article covers the dialects considered by the residents of the ethnographic region of Dzūkija as ordinary, common, everyday dialects, and the dialects considered as difficult to understand. The answers from the Dzūkian part of the region concentrated on the Dzūkian dialect as being the most common dialect, indicated by three out of four respondents (76%), while in the Aukštaitian part, the area of Ignalina-Švenčionys, the majority of respondents—82%—indicated the Aukštaitian dialect as the most common to them. In the multilingual part of the region, which stands out from the other two regions by the need to choose not from dialects, but rather  from languages, the number of respondents who had no answer as to the most common dialect was the highest— one-fourth (25%). Incidentally, more than half (61%) of the residents of the region of Dzūkija indicated they considered their own dialect to be the most beautiful one.

An opinion on encouraging young people to use dialectal speech is quite pessimistic: although in the Dzūkian part as many as half (61%) of respondents stated their wish that young people should be encouraged to speak their dialects, many of them do not see any real prospects, because since Soviet times children and youth at schools have been asked to speak only the standard Lithuanian language, while the use of dialects has been considered an attribute of a lower social status.

THE MAIN PHASES OF THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE POLISH LANGUAGE IN THE NORTH-EAST BORDERLAND (A SURVEY OF SCIENTIFIC CONCEPTIONS)

One of the most controversial problems in the Polish historical dialectology is the question of the genesis of the Polish language in the North-East Borderland of Poland, i.e. the variety of the Polish language which has developed in the former territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Some important aspects of the evolution of this language, first of all — its dialectical substrate and the chronology of the development of its different variants, still have not received an unambiguous interpretation, and this has inspired further scientific research. The subject of this paper is: (1) systematization of various scientific conceptions of the genesis of the Polish language in the North-East Borderland and (2) the definition of the main evolutional phases starting with the earliest Polish-Lithuanian contacts. The paper includes systemic survey of the concepts made by important researchers of the Polish language of the borderland, such as: K. Nitsch, H. Turska, J. Trypućko, Z. Kurzowa, J. Rieger, I. Grek-Pabisowa, I. Maryniakowa and others.

The article contains a description of the third Polish language area in Lithuania - the Smalvos area. It stretches in a narrow strip along the Belarusian-Lithuanian border from Vidžiai in the south to Zarasai in the north. This area is characterized by a very complicated linguistic situation: there are as many as six language varieties (Lithuanian language, Aukštaičiai dialects, Polish dialects, Belarusian dialects, the language of the Old Believers and the Russian language). The study presents the language situation in this area in the past and present as well as the analysis of the basic phonetic features, allowing to show the specificity of this area. The Polish language in the area of Smalvos is characterized by a very diverse set of linguistic features that may have its source in: a) the Polish cultural dialect, which made the basis for the formation of folk dialects; b) the Lithuanian dialects with slightly modified language structure under Slavic influence; c) the Belarussian dialects, created on the Lithuanian substrate and subjected to interference in the border zone; b) the Russian language, functioning in this area in the written and spoken form (Old-Believers' dialects and the general language); d) the contact with the Lithuanian general language, currently acting as a state language. According to the research, intensive linguistic contacts have contributed to the creation of a specific language community in this area, where languages that coexist side by side contain similar language features in their system. This is best illustrated by the phenomenon of how e and o vowels are implemented in Polish, Lithuanian, Russian and Belarusian dialects. As a result of long-lasting and multidirectional influences, vowels with similar acoustic properties are pronounced in all co-occurring languages. Similar observations are not currently based on any experimental studies that could confirm the existence of a common articulatory base in different languages. The need for this type of research at a given borderland is very current and necessary, especially in the period of leveling of the dialects and disappearance of dialectal features in the languages.

LITHUANIAN SLAVISMS: HISTORY AND PERSPECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The article consists of two parts. The first part gives an overview of the directions and research problematics of the study of slavisms. This part consists of three smaller chapters, which overview the slavisms in old Lithuanian writings, present the investigations of the slavisms of Lithuanian dialects and other areas of slavisms research. In other words, this part gives a brief overview of the history of Lithuanian slavisms research. Separate directions are attempted to be reviewed in chronological order. The article does not focus on the detailed revision of the individual works on slavisms research, here it is more important to show the course of the research itself and its contexts. The chapter of the slavisms in old writings highlights the main areas of research and related issues: the lexicographic aspect, the etymology of slavisms, the problem of the identification of the source of loanwords, the ratio of the loanwords sources, and the issues of the integration of slavisms. The chapter of the slavisms in Lithuanian dialects also deals with the directions and issues of the research, presents the similarities and differences between the studies of the old writings and slavisms in dialects. The following research areas are emphasized: lexicographical, the problem of the identification of a loanword source and the problem of its reference provision, the use of slavisms and its development, phonological and semantic integration of slavisms. Another problematics of the slavisms research is related to the loanwords’ chronology, the semantic integration of polonisms, the synthesis of the directions of previous slavisms studies and the problematics of research. The second part of the article deals with the future of the study of Lithuanian slavisms, and proposes several perspectives for the study, taking into account the context of the study and the tendencies prevailing in the European linguistics. One completely new slavisms research perspective in Lithuanian language could be related to the typological research of loanwords. The slavisms of the Lithuanian language could be completely feasibly and quite usefully researched using the methodology of the “Loanwords in the World’s Languages” research. Another way and the possibility of research could arise from dialectic and sociolinguistic works and their results, focusing not only on language contacts (which are self-evident in loanwords research), but also on language variations – variatets and variants. I would suggest that a complex analysis of Lithuanian slavisms could be performed creating a profile or mechanism of research based on the so-called “language architecture” model, which consists of diatopic, diastratic, diaphasic and diachronic axes. Although the field of Lithuanian slavisms research is quite wide and many important works have been carried out so far, there are still clear loopholes in the study of slavic loanwords. One of them is the lack of the comprehensive and complex examination of standard Lithuanian slavisms, the second, more general loophole is that, in general, there is still a lack of complex studies of slavisms integration. Taking into account the wider context of the research and what European linguists focus on, it is possible to draw at least two just discussed prospects for the study of Lithuanian slavisms.

In this paper the most widespread lexical archaisms of the Polish dialect in Lithuania are described. The material is taken from various sources: both from dialect dictionaries and works dedicated for the Polish North Borderland dialect. Not only the words originating from Slavic languages but also foreign words from other languages are analyzed. The most important criteria on defining a lexical unit as an archaism is the presence of chronological qualifiers in the dictionaries of the common Polish language. The chronological documentation of each word is based on the comparison with the data in the historical Polish dictionaries. For the verification of the origins and the semantic evolution of the analyzed words, the analogs from East Slavic languages and in some cases Lithuanian are given.

The subject of the description in this article is a large amount of lexical borrowings from the Lithuanian language which function in Polish dialects in Lithuania. The expressions recorded in the dense areas where the Polish language is primary, that is in the Vilnius and Trakai regions as well as in parts of the Širvintos and Molėtai regions, have been analysed. The comparative chronological analysis of lithuanian borrowings as well as the analysis on the transfer of the Baltic lexis into the Slavic dialects have been made. The verification of the historical dictionaries and vocabulary collected in the lexical studies of dialects shows that these expressions form several chronological layers (from the sparsely used 16th centuary borrowings till the latest borrowings that continue penetrating). The thematic comparison may indicate the variety of inter-ethnic relations on the former lands of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The inderect borrowings dominate due to the fact that a lot of borrowings penetrated into the Polish dialects through Belarusian. This fact may be used as a linguistic evidence confirming the thesis about the Belarusian origins of the new Polish dialects in Lithuania.

The lexis of Polish language in Lithuania includes many borrowings from the Belarus dialects, from literary Russian and from the dialects of Russian Old Believers. The Belarusianisms are mainly the names of flora and fauna, dishes, household, agricultural and rural terms, names of soil, weaving and rural clothing, nicknames etc., and Russianisms are mainly administrative, military, educational terms which entered Polish language in the 19th century (through the intelligentsia studying in Russian schools) and in years 1939-1989 (soviet borrowings). These borrowings have attracted researchers’ attention for many years. The article presents the ways the borrowings permeated the language: from substrate and from adstrate. Moreover, Lithuanian or Russian words could permeate the Belarus dialects, and Belarus words could be passed on to Polish dialects in Kaunas Region through Polish language, used by the educated sphere from Vilnius Region, which was full of Belarus borrowings. The article also presents the difficulties of defining the direct source of borrowings, differentiating between Russian and Belarus borrowings and between Belarus borrowings and native words. Therefore, the article shows how phonetic features help to distinguish borrowings, e. g. in the word holobla there is an East Slavic group -olo-. The presence of -h- shows that the word is borrowed from the Belarus language; the presence of -g- could however be based on the substitution of the Belarus -h- by the Polish -g- (garbuszka). The accent and the suffix also show that the word is a borrowing (kaczan'ok), though the foreign suffix borrowed can be used in composing other Polish words (bociani'uk). Belarus language can also support Polish dialecticisms (chto, chwost) or certain forms (cybula). The borrowings are adapted in various ways (e. g. klišáva through kliszawie).

The article analyses the dances of Lithuanian and non-Lithuanian origin performed in Lithuania and describes their choreographic performance. The aim of the research is to distinguish the dances of non-Lithuanian origin while analysing authentic folk choreography. The analysis of ethnic and foreign dances raised the problem of their interrelation, which has been relatively weakly analysed. The research objectives are: to discuss the peculiarities of Lithuanian folk choreography using written and archive sources; to reveal the influence of other nations’ dances on Lithuanian folk choreography. The methods used in the research are: analysis, comparison and generalisation. Though choreography has been present in people’s lives for thousands years, most data on Lithuanian choreography dates back to the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century. The description of choreography contains many borrowings: the names of foreign dances which in some cases entered Lithuanian choreography, in other cases replaced it. The dances of non-Lithuanian origin raised the popularity of partner dances as well as the general pace of choreography and the variety of steps. Every foreign dance added variety to Lithuanian choreography, but was also adapted to Lithuanian choreographic manners. Polish dance Krakowiak was analysed in details. There is a vast number and variety of the collected and described variants of this dance, which was known and danced in almost entire Lithuania. Few foreign dances reached the popularity of this level.

The aim of this article is to spread information on the research started in Lithuania under the multifunctional (multimodal) dialectological model. It was developed by the Centre of Geolinguistics of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and was already presented to the international dialectological and geolinguistic community in 2018. According to this model, the development of the regional dialectology (in Lithuania it began in the second decade of the 21st century) expands not only the possibilities of studying the variation of one language, but also facilitates simultaneous analysis of all local language versions used in one residential area. The model is based not only on the analysis of language features (1), but also on the analysis of socio-cultural networks of local inhabitants (2), the research of the residential environment (3), the inhabitants’ individual attitudes (4) and the public opinion (5) on the exploratory variant. A more detailed and also more objective analysis of the current linguistic situation allows us to create a more vivid picture of the present, as well as the linguistic past, to predict the future of the analysed language variant. The article is based on the data from recent expeditions (2014–2018). Multimodal dialectology differs from the traditional one not only by its multilevel research. It is also based on both qualitative and quantitative linguistic research (the latter is new in Lithuania) for the beginning of which dialectometry methods are used. They help to objectively evaluate the linguistic variants of just several respondents of the same area. The description of this model shows that the research of socio-cultural networks according to the inhabitants’ movement directions helps to define the changes and the movement of possible linguistic variant (or variants). Therefore, it is likely that multimodal dialectological model will give new impetus to further studies on the variations of the local Polish language in Lithuania.

The article is based on many sound and written resources from the period including the second half of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century and describes the influence of Polish on the system of nominal words’ accentuation in the subdialects of Seinai and Punsk. It is explained that Polish language, having fixed stress on the penult had the influence on: 1) dual stress of singular instrumental, plural accusative and other forms of nominal words’ cases; 2) the composition and (or) retention of suffixal nominal words’ adjacents of the first or second accentuation class; 3) the tendency to generalise the column accent for the whole type of derivatives independently on the accentuation of their base words. Accentual model of two types is one of the reasons determining the variation of the nominal words’ accentuation. The majority of cases, accentuated according this model, were found in the Lithuanian part of the area: in the inhabited localities which are closest to south-western Southern Aukštaitian region. The area of the spread of column and inflectional accentuation forms coincides with the areal of the largest accentual variability of Southern Aukštaitian subdialect. The cooperation of two strong accentual models: the reconstructed simple / collective plural and the entrenched column / inflectional accentuation paradigms, determines the overlap of oxytonesis and barytonesis in Seinai and Punsk subdialects. In the second half of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century the material collected in the whole area of the dialects analysed supports the researchers’ assumptions that the changes in the accentuation of nominal words are determined not by a single reason but the whole bunch of reasons: 1) the influence of Polish accentuation system; 2) the formation of two accentuation types – column and inflectional; 3) the accentual and semantic model of two plurals: simple and collective; 4) the analogy in the accentuation of the same stem words and the formation type derivatives and other.