Abstract
The paper deals with the representative systems of the Lithuanian language from the perspective of ordinary members of language community. The empirical data includes the names and nominations of the language variants given by ordinary members of language community. The data for the research was collected during the preliminary stage of the implementation of the research project Lithuanian Language: ideals, ideologies and identity shifts focusing on the analysis of prestigious aspects of the varieties of the Lithuanian language, language ideals, language ideologies, etc.The paper is an attempt at the typologization of discourse variants identified by ordinary members of language community by estimating the (lack of) correspondence of the variants with geolinguistic and sociolinguistic language variants offered by scholars within certain scientific paradigms. Geolinguistic and sociolinguistic perspectives identify discursive variants according to objective differences and degree of their distinction.The investigation has manifested that the taxonomy of discursive variants suggested by ordinary members of language community helps locate oneself in the holistic space of the national language. The arguments raised in support of the above taxonomy include language facts as well as intuition, or the claim of I think that this is so type. Thus the isoglosses of perception of ordinary members of language community divide the national language continuum into a large number of segments.The respondents tend to give the status of 'variety' to the large, objectively independent representational systems, cf., Highland dialect, Lowland dialect, etc.; and to the representational systems that do not have the value of 'variety' from the perspective of a researcher, cf., regular vs irregular speech, sophisticated speech, etc.When speaking about the horizontal divisibility of language continuum offered by the ordinary members of language community and researchers, the most outstanding difference was that the ordinary members of language community had supplemented the binary dialect classification by two members. The taxonomy of the ordinary members of language community includes the Dzūkai and the Suvalkiečiai dialects alongside with the Highland and the Lowland dialects.When speaking about the vertical divisibility of language, it should be noted that no more such differences between the perspectives of the ordinary members of language community and sociolinguists have been observed; only the isoglosses of perception are much thicker.It should be noted that although the sample of the research is not large, the participation of the ordinary members of language community in the discussion has been definitely beneficial as it brought in the data contributing to the increasing awareness of the boundary problem both in geolinguistics and sociolinguistics.
Highlights
Kartu su aukštaičių ir žemaičių tarmėmis paprastųjų kalbos bendruomenės narių taksonomijoje yra dzūkų ir suvalkiečių tarmės
It should be noted that the sample of the research is not large, the participation of the ordinary members of language community in the discussion has been definitely beneficial as it brought in the data contributing to the increasing awareness of the boundary problem both in geolinguistics and sociolinguistics
Summary
Kiekvienos kalbos reprezentacinių sistemų kiekis ir įvairovė iš esmės parodo tos kalbos tyrimų išsamumą ir teorinius tyrėjų prioritetus. Taigi iš pasakytų dalykų matyti, kad ir geolingvistinė, ir sociolingvistinė perspektyva kalbėjimo variantus identifikuoja pagal objektyviuosius skirtumus, jų ryškumo laipsnis – tai jau mokslinių argumentų klausimas, tačiau viena yra bendra – kalbos kontinuumą suskaido tikros, kaip pasakytų H. Tačiau ir tokie duomenys yra pakankami teigti, kad bendrinės kalbos ir tarmės skirtis paprastajam kalbos bendruomenės nariui nėra visiškai nesvarbi. Kad taip gali būti verbalizuojami stereotipai arba inertiškai pakartojama beveik chrestomatine tapusi informacija, kad kaimuose funkcionuoja tarmės ir pan., taigi kaimietišką kalbėjimą atskirti nuo miestietiško kalbėjimo iš paprastojo kalbos bendruomenės nario perspektyvos derėtų. Kokį turinį numato toks konceptualizavimas nėra iki galo aišku, tačiau labai tikėtina, kad tokios nominacijos randasi dėl paprastojo kalbos bendruomenės nario profesionalių žinių, kurios gautos mokykloje per lietuvių kalbos pamokas ar universitete tam tikrų disciplinų, skirtų profesinei kalbai ugdyti, metu
Published Version (Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have