Latvian Dialects Research Articles

On the issue of the development of adjective degree forms in the Western Lithuanian and Latvian dialects

Abstract In the Lithuanian and Latvian languages, forms of adjective degrees do not have a common etymological basis. The New Curonian (Kuresnieku) language which is a relatively new Baltic geolect has preserved a fairly distinct archaic layer of phonetics and grammar, where one can look not only for the archaisms of the western dialects of the Latvian language but also for traces of the substrate of Old Curonian. Although synthetic forms of the degrees of adjectives with the suffix -āk- are used in the current Latvian language area they are almost unknown in New Curonian. The forms of the comparative degree are made with the particle juo and an adjective of the positive degree. Analytical forms with the pronoun visu and the pronominal form of an adjective express the superlative degree. In the western Latvian and Lithuanian dialects and the Livonian language in Latvia, the relics of the analytical forms of the comparative and superlative degree are recorded in written sources and rarely in modern spoken language. Since a large part of the western dialects of the Lithuanian and Latvian languages take up the former territory of the old tribe, it may be assumed that the analytical forms of adjective degrees are possibly a sign of the substrate of Old Curonian.

Lexis of Latvian-speaking Communities at the Baltic Sea Coast in Latvia and Lithuania: Denominations of the Object kitchen

Until now, little attention has been paid to studies of Latvian language vocabulary on a thematic aspect related to the traditional homestead on the Baltic Sea coast once inhabited by the Curonians. This article presents names denominating the object of a kitchen in a traditionally built dwelling house, their diversity, origins, and prevalence in Latvian-speaking communities on the coast of the Baltic Sea in Latvia and Lithuania. The analysis is based on Latvian material from various written sources, using descriptive, partly historical and mapping methods. The vocabulary analysed in the sources of this article shows lexemes that denominate both the separate, enclosed room and the part of the room used for food preparation and cooking. The prevalence of analysed lexemes in the meaning of a ‘kitchen’ is not uniform. In the coastal areas of Kurzeme, the names ķēķis, kukņa, plītsistaba, virtuve and their variations were identified, but in the vocabulary of the Latvian dialect of Šventoji, the morphological variant ķēķe inherited from the dialectal vocabulary of Kurzeme has been recorded. In the vocabulary of Kurzeme, names denominating a kitchen are mainly of Germanic and Slavic origin. The emergence of Germanisms in the Latvian vocabulary related to the kitchen is directly related to the material cultural peculiarities, which were encouraged to Latvian peasants in Kurzeme by the German nobility, and to the Baltic German everyday speech. The impact of Lithuanian as an intermediary language has been recorded mainly in the Latvian dialect of the Curonian Spit. The borrowed names with the meaning of a ‘kitchen’, such as kukne || kukine, can be explained by the close contact of New Curonians with the Lithuanian-speaking community on the eastern coast of the Curonian Lagoon; New Curonians not only had economic ties with them, but also formed mixed families.

Vienojuma, pretstata un šķīruma saikļi Lejaskurzemes izloksnēs

The article analyses the use dynamic of cumulative, adversative, and disjunctive conjunctions in sub-dialects of Lower Kurzeme in the 20th – 21st centuries, based on the survey data of the Atlas of Latvian Dialects (ALD) in comparison with the texts in the collections of Kurzeme Institute of Humanities at Liepāja University and Latvian Language Institute at the University of Latvia, and published texts. The texts of the latest sources are written down by hand or recorded in the speaker’s conversation with the interviewer, which allows us to determine the use of connecting words in live speech. It is concluded that in the second half of the 20th century and the 21st century, the coordinating conjunctions characteristic of Latvian literary language dominated the sub-dialects of Lower Kurzeme (an observation made in the ALD survey already in the middle of the 20th century). The conjunction i < ir in the second half of the 20th century and the 21st century is much rarer than un but has not disappeared entirely from everyday speech and is usually used to connect several equal components, e.g. in Rucava, a riteni braûcu uz dârbu: piêci kilometri i rîtâ, vakarâ, i pusdiênâ. In the ALD survey, the conjunction bet dominates in the expression of the contrary, although in some sub-dialects, dialectal conjunctions have been recorded (abar in Rucava, aba in Grobiņa). In the second half of the 20th century and the 21st century in Lower Kurzeme, the colloquial adversative conjunction a is also in use, e.g. in Bārta, cic izvãra un sastampâ tuõs kartfeļus, a mana mamma vis:us kuõpîgi vãrija. In the ALD survey, as well as in the second half of the 20th century and the 21st century in Lower Kurzeme, mostly the conjunctions vai // va and jeb are used to express disjunction; jeb is more uncommon, it has both an explanative meaning, e.g. in Gramzda, ķeblis jeb kraģîtis – tas tâc krêsliņš mas:, kur pasēdēt, and a disjunctional meaning, e.g. in Rucava, gã a kũrpemis jeb pastalamis. The amount of available texts yet does not allow for quantitative research on the choice of coordinating conjunctions and the use of coordinating conjunctions not mentioned in the ALD.

Establishing the Age of the Latvian Debitive Mood: the Evidence of Latgalian

This article attempts to determine the age of the Latvian debitive mood with the help of a systematic investigation of its attestation in Latgalian, the variety of High Latvian dialects spoken in Latgale. While the debitive in older Standard and Central Latvian sources has been studied extensively, the debitive in older Latgalian sources has not met with equivalent interest yet. It is against this backdrop that, for the first time, the present article seeks to provide a systematic historical survey of the debitive as attested in 18th and 19th-century Latgalian sources. This survey will show that the debitive is well-attested in Latgalian since the very beginning of its written record, and that it has most likely always constituted a genuine part of Latgalian morphosyntax. As Latgalian developed free from Standard/Central Latvian influence up until the 20th century, these findings have major implications for establishing the age of the debitive: the cooccurrence of the debitive in Latgalian and Central/Standard Latvian suggests that the debitive is a shared innovation of the Latvian dialects dating back to Proto-Latvian times.

The dative and instrumental dual in East Baltic

The paper deals with two case-forms of East Baltic nominals, the dative and the instrumental dual. It summarises what is already known about these case-forms from Lithuanian and Latvian dialects as well as from Old Lithuanian sources. It is demonstrated that these data imply a particular reconstruction of the dual inflectional endings in these cases for Proto-Baltic. Subsequently, the paper shows that etymological matches of the reconstructed Proto-Baltic endings of the dative and instrumental dual may be attested in two further branches of Indo-European. Such endings are found in Gaulish, which is a member of the Celtic branch, and in Ancient Greek.

Tagadnes pasīvo divdabju substantivēšanās: dialektālo vārdnīcu dotumi

In Latvian dictionaries, the word-formation has been analysed focusing on word-formation means different from those in written language, but there are few observations and conclusions about conversion. The dictionary of Vainiži subdialect and the dictionary of Nīca subdialect representing, respectively, the Livonian dialect (Vainiži – one of Vidzeme Livonian subdialects) and the Middle dialect (Nīca – one of Curonian dialects), have been used to establish similarities and differences in substantivization in two Latvian dialects. Notwithstanding substantial differences (differential/full type dictionary; publishing finished/unfinished), both dictionaries contain substantivizations of participles, which had been examined mostly using the descriptive method because quantitative methods could not be applied due to different types and scopes of the dictionaries. The process of participle substantivization has the potential for nomination – both the synonyms for already existing names and names for new facts and objects can be created on the grounds of the basic verb’s semantics. It is possible to create a name for a concrete object, e.g. dẽjamais ‘a tool for filling sausages’ in Nīca, uzliêkams ‘a compress’ in Vainiži, as well as create substantivized participles with the meaning of generalization, e.g. dzeramais, also dzerams ‘that what is drinkable; a beverage’ in Nīca, piêkuôžams ‘a snack’ in Vainiži. Differences in the use of present passive participles had been ascertained: in the dictionary of Nīca subdialect, the definite ending predominates, but the indefinite ending predominates in the dictionary of Vainiži subdialect. The conversion of compounds in the Livonian dialect is based on dialectal differences in word-formation, e.g. zâbakvȩlkams, zâbakvȩlkameš ‘a tool for taking off boots’ in Vainiži subdialect; whereas word-group names with a substantivized present passive participle are characteristic to the Middle dialect, e.g. linu laũzâmaîs in Nīca subdialect.

Leivu influence in the Latvian dialects of northeastern Vidzeme

This article examines features of several northeastern Vidzeme Latvian subdialects (spoken in Ilzene, Zeltiņi, Kalniena, Lejasciems, Sinole, etc.), which may have developed due to influence from the Leivu language historically spoken in this area. This influence is found at all levels of language. Finnic borrowings are typical of local vocabulary. The morphology shows characteristic phonetic changes like reduction of final-syllable vowels and diphthongs. Unfortunately, nearly all of these features have been lost in the 21st century and the only evidence of the Leivus’ presence exists in place names. Most Finnic-origin place names are found in the names of villages and homes; however, they are also found in the names of hills, swamps, and other objects. The most ancient examples are found among hydronyms. Even just based on the place names still existing in the 20th century, it can be safely said that Estonians, i.e., Leivus, settled in northeastern Vidzeme before 1600.
 Kokkuvõte. Ilga Jansone: Leivu mõju Kirde-Vidzeme läti murretes. Artikkel käsitleb läti keele Kirde-Vidzeme murrakute (mida on räägitudIlzene, Zeltiņi, Kalniena, Lejasciems, Sinole jms piirkonnas) keelejooni, mis on võinud seal kujuneda ajalooliselt leivu keele mõjul. Läänemeresoome laenud on tüüpilised kohalike läti murrakute sõnavarale. Sõnavormides tuleb esile ka iseloomulikke foneetilisi muutusi, nagu sõnalõpuliste vokaalide ja diftongide reduktsioon. Kahjuks peaaegu kõik need jooned on 21. sajandil kadunud ja ainult kohanimedes püsib leivu keelepärand. Enamik läänemeresoome päritolu kohanimesid on küla- ja talunimed, siiski on leida ka kõrgendike, soode ja teiste loodusobjektide nimesid. Kõige vanemaid näiteid on hüdronüümidega. Isegi arvesse võttes ainult 20. sajandil kasutusel olnud kohanimesid, võib kindlalt väita, et eestlased, st leivud elasid Kirde-Vidzemes juba enne 1600. aastat.

Darbības vārda tagadnes no-celmi latviešu valodas izloksnēs

The article deals with the no-stem forms of the verb, their use and distribution in Latvian dialects. The no-stems of the verb in the Latvian Standard language are quite common, e.g., brist-brienu, skriet-skrienu, siet-sienu, etc., but in some dialects, verbs with -au- in the root also are conjugated as no-stems (aut-aunu, šūt, šūnu, etc.), as far as the verb gūt. The article analyzes all forms of persons, both singular and plural. As shown by geolinguistic maps, verb no-stems are distributed throughout the territory of Latvian dialects. The distribution areas of no-stem forms are similar in all persons. They make large compact area in High Latvian dialect, they are less common in the Middle and Livonic dialects. Verbs with person endings are characteristic of the Middle and High Latvian dialects; there is also generalized 3rd person form (aun, šun, etc.) mainly in the Livonic dialect. Forms with ļ such as aunļu, aunli, etc. are fixed in some eastern subdialects of Latgale; phonetically ļ could have originated from j or could be interpreted morphologically, too. Analysis of no-stem forms of the verbs found in the dialect materials collected in the second half of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century shows that they are quite common alongside the forms of io-stem forms. New comparative studies that reflect their dynamics would be very useful. Two geolinguistic maps illustrating variations of n- and other related stems of verbs are added.

Lībiskā dialekta un vidus dialekta kursisko izlokšņu atspoguļojuma problemātika akadēmiskajā izdevumā „Latviešu tautasdziesmas”: 11. sējuma piemērs

The first volume of the academic edition entitled “Latvian Folksongs” was published in 1979, thus starting the publication of the largest collection of Latvian folksongs. Until now, eleven volumes have been arranged and published. The newest volume consists of wedding songs, and it was published in 2018. The publishing of the twelfth volume is currently in progress. The twelfth volume will continue the previous one, adding wedding customs songs, including naughty folk songs. In the academic edition of Latvian folksongs, the texts in High Latvian dialect are especially separated from Standard Latvian, thus creating their own unique set of texts. However, there are other dialects different from Standard Latvian – Livonian dialect and Curonian variety of Central dialect, which have been represented significantly less frequently. Based on the research of academic publications and questionnaires for the compilers of “Latvian Folksongs”, the research analyses why the situation with the representation of Livonian dialect and Curonian variety of Central dialect is so different from the representation of High Latvian – is it because there are fewer texts in these two dialects that are available or maybe there are more complicated reasons.

Ieskats baltu dialektu pētniecībā Latvijā un Lietuvā: paralēlais un atšķirīgais

Both Baltic languages, which are still alive, have preserved their historical territorial dialects. The article gives a brief insight into the research of Latvian and Lithuanian dialects, which are the continuation of ancient languages of Baltic tribes, perhaps with many changes and mutual influence. Only the Livonian dialect of Northern Kurzeme has to be mentioned as an exception because of the Livonian language and the Couronian tribe language as the basis of it. Subdialects, as the smallest territorial units of language in Latvia and Lithuania (points) had formed themselves during feudalism, when peasants did not have the right to change their place of residence. The first recordings of the peculiarities of Latvian and Lithuanian dialects have been known since the 17th-century dictionaries and grammars. The systematic classification of both Latvian and Lithuanian dialects began in the second half of the 19th century. In Latvia, the first who described all three Latvian dialects in his Lettische Grammatik was Gotthard Friedrich Stender. In Lithuania, both Lithuanian dialects were distinguished by August Schleicher. The first research in Latvian and Lithuanian dialectology and geolinguistics dates back to the second half of the 19th century. The first map of Lithuanian dialects was published by Friedrich Kurschat in 1876. The first geolinguistic maps of the Latvian language were developed by August Bielenstein. They were published in 1881 and 1892. The early programmes of collecting the cultural and linguistic heritage of the Lithuanian and Latvian folklore and language were published at the end of the 19th century. They are very different. The boundaries of the territorial dialects of Latvian, unlike the Lithuanian, are not determined by one or two dialectal features, but by a set of isoglosses, reflecting phonetic and morphological features. In Lithuanian dialectology, the system of settlements (points) was chosen – language material was collected within approx. 10–12 km radius around them. In the 1950s, geolinguistic research in Lithuania and Latvia are connected with the creation of national dialectal atlases. In 1977, for the first time in the history of Baltic geolinguistics, the material of Lithuanian and Latvian dialects was collected according to a united program for the Atlas linguarum Europae. In it, Latvian was represented with 36 subdialects and Lithuanian with 42 subdialects. At the beginning of the 21st century, Latvian and Lithuanian linguists have launched a joint project, the Atlas of the Baltic Languages. We can draw the conclusion that the research of dialects in Latvia and Lithuania for more than a century have been parallel but different, dialectal material was collected according to different programmes.

Darbības vārdu raksturojums Miķeļa Bukša gramatikā latgaliešu rakstu valodas kontekstā

The Latgalian written language, based on Latgalian vernaculars of the High Latvian dialect, began to develop at the start of the 18th century in Latgale. Many sacred and secular works, press publications, teaching aids, and several texts for grammar norms and spelling were published. Only when the print prohibition was lifted at the beginning of the 20th century, the intellectuals of Latgale could focus on the preparation of Latgalian written grammar and the development of orthographic norms. The purpose of this article is to characterise the morphological system of the verb detailed in Miķelis Bukšs’ „The Grammar of Latgalian Language” in the context of the Latgalian written language by evaluating the usability of the material for the development of morphology in part 2 of the „Atlas of Latvian Dialects”. The work was published during exile in 1973, where refuge was taken not only by multiple Latgalian culture workers but also by the Latgalian language itself, as it was once again banned in Latvia in the second half of the 20th century. The Grammar consists of 9 chapters. The verb is mentioned in multiple chapters, with a significantly wider description of the verb conjugation and conjugatable participle system provided. The overview of the system largely corresponds to the description of verbs in Latgalian written language grammar. The author has used a few variants of subdialects, mainly from his native North Latgale. However, it is evident that the author had limited factual information about dialects, therefore, the work contains multiple disputed claims about the prevalence of certain language phenomena. It can be concluded that, although this work has made an important contribution to the development of Latgalian written language and theoretical description of its constituent parts as well as to the development of linguistic terminology, it contains a limited amount of linguistic information that can be used to describe verb forms in the morphological section of the atlas.

Ieskats Virgas izloksnes fonētikā un morfoloģijā

Virga subdialect is one of the subdialects of Southwestern Kurzeme, which belongs to Semigallian subdialects of the Middle Latvian dialect. The characteristics of Virga subdialect can be traced by using mostly three sources: materials of Latvian folklore, the compiled answers to the questions of the Dialectal Atlas of Latvian collection programme, and collected texts of the subdialects, including the materials of expeditions in Virga subdialect collected in the 21st century. These three sources are the primary material for the article. The phonetic and morphological features of Virga subdialect are generally consistent with the phonetical and morphological features typical throughout the Southwestern Kurzeme region. The sections of the article focus on the typical and most representative features in phonetics and morphology of Virga subdialect and reveal their relationship with the typical features of the subdialects used in the whole area. Phonetics of Virga subdialect is characterised by the use of broad e, ē in infinitives, palatal consonant ŗ, assimilation of ln to ll, the loss of sounds in different positions, anaptyxis, and vowel extension before the consonant r. Morphology of Virga subdialect is characterised by the abbreviation of verbs (ne)būt, (ne)iet in the past tense, the third person; ē-stem substantives; āio-stem verbs; the use of suffix ūz-. In the future, further research of Virga subdialect is important in order to determine the stability of the use of the registered features and register other features of the subdialect. Studies of the nearest neighbouring subdialects should also be carried out to allow a wider scientific in-depth analysis of the subdialects used in the area.

Par dažām verba formām Ērģemes izloksnē un tās apkaimē

This article pays attention to the supine forms and future tense of the verb with a vowel -ī- between the root and future suffix, and to those 1st conjugation verbs that don’t have s, z, t, d at the end of the root (e.g., nākt, mirt, dzimt). These forms of sub-dialect of Ērģeme and its close area – Turna and Strenči – have been registered as sporadic, but recent observations of the usage of these forms make to review the materials once more, question informants, and focus more on these forms’ usage and distribution in a wider area, also comparing new findings with the materials from the Atlas of the Latvian Dialects. In the result, it was concluded that these verb forms are spread throughout the sub-dialects studied, especially the future tense of the verb with a vowel -ī- between the root and future suffix, and to those 1st conjugation verbs that don’t have s, z, t, d at the end of the root. Less often, the use of supine forms was registered, although speakers of the Ērģeme sub-dialect recognize that this form is not unusual and it is used.

POSSIBILITIES OF USING DIALECT ATLASES IN THE ACQUISITION OF LATVIAN LANGUAGE

The creation of a modern lesson increasingly uses open data, a variety of digital resources, electronic teaching tools etc. In addition to books, electronic teaching tools, information resources, etc., come into the training process as a way to portray linguistic information and the writers' creative thought. One of the resources that can be successfully exploited in promoting the growth of a fully developed and skilled pupil, as well as in-depth learning of the Latvian language, is dialect atlases. The aim of the research was to understand the functionality and effectiveness of the dialect atlases in lear ning lexicology and dialectology. The study combined the descriptive method and content analysis, and was conducted with the help of experiments and questionnaires.The article describes the experience gained through the use of the „Atlas of the Latvian Dialects” in learning Latvian. It characterises the use of maps within the „Lexicon” part of the Atlas to develop pupils' socio-cultural competence, to enhance text composition, analytical, digital and self-guided learning skills and it outlines the role of phonetics and morphology parts of the Atlas in the development of pupils' linguistic competence.

An elusive experiental tense construction in Latvian

The article is a contribution to the study of experiential and indefinite past-tense forms. It offers an analysis of the Latvian past-tense construction tikt + PPA, which is now a feature of the Latvian standard language though it was originally restricted to Eastern Latvia (probably mainly the High Latvian dialects). It can be characterised as an experiential but has a wider scope than the prototypical experiential, which refers to event types in the past without precise location in time. The Latvian construction with tikt can also refer to events that are more precisely anchored in time and then develops into a non-resultative and non-narrative past-tense form reminiscent of the factual imperfective in Russian. The question is also raised whether differences can be found between the use of the construction tikt + PPA in texts reflecting its distribution in the regional dialects where it used to be indigenous and in the modern standard language.

Latgalian surnames as a source of research in dialectology and language contact studies

AbstractThis article is focused on the analysis of surnames used in the eastern part of Latvia, i.e., Latgale, the history of which to a certain extent differs from other regions of Latvia. This is due to almost 300 years (1629–1917) of isolation from the territory inhabited by other ethnic Latvians, during which this region was under Polish and later Russian rule. During this 300-year-long separation, Latgale developed its own culture, a written tradition based on the local Latvian dialect, etc. The introduction of surnames for the Latvians of Latgale also differed from other regions. As Latgale is a multi-ethnic region, the system of surnames used there reflects not only the peculiarities of the local sub-dialects in vocabulary and semantics, but also contacts with other languages – Lithuanian, Estonian, Polish, Russian, Belarusian.This article is based on research results acquired within the framework of the project “Latvian surnames in archival materials. Latgale” directed by the Latvian Language Agency. Its main objective was to systematise Latgalian surnames registered in the 1935 census. The research data were summarised in a book “Latvian surnames in archival materials. Latgale”, compiled by historian Ilmārs Mežs. This book comprises about 4000 Latvian surnames from Latgale. Each surname is provided with statistical information and a description of its historical place of origin (sometimes even a particular village). Whenever possible, one or several versions of the meaning of each surname are given.

The incomplete story of feminine gender loss in Northwestern Latvian dialects

The aim of this paper is to show that Northwestern Latvian dialects (also called Tamian) are insufficiently characterized by placing them on a simple linear hierarchy of feminine gender loss, which is how they are traditionally approached in Latvian dialectology. While Lithuanian and Central and High Latvian dialects all have very similar and fairly canonical gender systems, various Northwestern Latvian dialects display a wealth of underexplored non-canonical gender properties, such as the reactivated topic marker gender relic, honorific feminine gender, pronominal adjectives behaving differently from attributive adjectives, the noun ‘boy’ turning into a hybrid feminine noun, and a third controller gender restricted to some diminutives. Feminine gender loss is traditionally explained by Livonian (Finnic) substrate. It is shown in this paper that the developments in NW Latvian have multiple causes, one of them being apocope (loss of short vowels in final syllables), a common feature of NW Latvian dialects which prompted many developments making NW Latvian different from Central Latvian dialects and which is also ultimately due to language contact. Apocope and other developments made the system more complex. The non-canonical gender properties described in this paper are the effect of subsequent developments reducing system complexity again.
 

LATGALIAN COMPONENT IN THE LEARNING OF LATVIAN LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE: FROM PRESCHOOL TO SECONDARY SCHOOL (1990–2015)

The conditions of language development and preservation are the quality of its acquisition in the early childhood, in-depth usage and study in the educational process and formation of positive and responsible attitude towards language and national literary heritage. The quality of the development of child’s Latvian language is determined by several environmental factors: the language environment in the family, the language environment in preschool, basic and secondary educational institutions and the language environment in public space.In Latgale most children learn Latvian in heterogeneous sociolinguistic environment. Child’s acquisition of the Latvian language in the family occurs in one of the following ways: in the native dialect (variant of dialect), if all the family members communicate only in one of our dialects, the High Latvian dialect; in the Latvian standard language, if the family members communicate in the standard language; in the so-called “third variant”, if the communication is in the Latvian standard language with a strong dialectal influence; or bilingually (dialect – Latvian standard language, dialect – Lithuanian, Polish, Russian, Belarusian or some other language, Latvian standard language – Lithuanian, Polish, Russian, Belarusian or some other language).Experience acquired during the project “Latvian Language in Monolingual and Bilingual Acquisition: tools, theories and applications” (LAMBA) shows that a part of our High Latvian dialect-speaking parents found it difficult to answer MacArthur-Bate Communicative development test questions, which were formed according to the Latvian standard language system. As communication with children takes place only in their native dialect, there are differences between child’s speech and the standard language at phonological and morphological level. At the same time, parents, after consultation on how to complete the test, noted that the quality of learning Latvian at school is better than learning at home where incorrect colloquial Latvian is used. Latvian language users in other parts of Latvia faced a similar problem, but in general it did not seriously affect the performance of the test. Students emphasize that more knowledge about interrelation between the Latvian dialectal and standard language would make the Latvian language acquisition process easier and help avoid interference of the native dialect. Language learning at school takes place in a monolingual environment, but some schools offer optional courses also in the Latgalian written (standard) language and literature. Outside the classroom, communication goes on in both, standard Latvian and native dialect and other languages.Language environment of the public space is heterogeneous; children hear different High Latvian variants as well as the so-called “third variant” which causes the most harm, both to Latgalian and Latvian standard languages and other languages. Taking into consideration the fact that two traditions of the written language have historically developed in Latvia – the Latvian standard language, and the Latgalian standard language tradition – and the Latgalian standard language is a very important component of Latgale regional and cultural identity and significant cultural value of Latvia, State Language Law 3 (4) determines that “the State ensures the preservation, protection and development of the Latgalian standard language as a historical option of the Latvian language”. Language knowledge, its usage in the learning process and the knowledge of literary and cultural heritage in close connection with national values are preconditions of language development and retention. Therefore, it is important that the school curricula and literature contain both Latvian and Latgalian. This report focuses, firstly, on how the school curricula and learning standards reflect the necessity to form and develop the Latgalian standard language and literature, secondly, how these issues are revealed in the text books of the Latvian language and literature developed from 1990 to 2015 and thirdly, it deals with secondary school students’ survey results on the knowledge of the Latgalian standard language and literature. Analysis of the standards and curricula of the primary school and secondary school subject “Latvian language” and “Literature” reveals that neither the Latgalian standard language as an option of the Latvian language, nor fiction written in the Latgalian standard language are reflected in text books. The text books developed during the last 20 years deal with these thematic issues only sporadically.

Latvian dialects in the 21st century: old and new borders

Latvian dialects in the 21st century: old and new borders

Recent developments in Latvian dialectology

Trumpa, Edmunds. 2012. Latviešu ģeolingvistikas etīdes [Studies in Latvian Dialect Geography]. Rīga: Zinātne. ISBN 978–9984–879–34–5.Sarkanis, Alberts. 2013. Latviešu valodas dialektu atlants. Fonētika. Apraksts, kartes un to komentāri [Latvian Dialect Atlas. Phonetics. Description, Maps and Commentaries]. Rīga: LU Latviešu valodas institūts. ISBN: 978–9984–742–68–7
 The last year saw the appearance of two significant contributions to the study of Latvian dialects. These are the phonology part of the Latvian Dialect Atlas prepared by Alberts Sarkanis (2013) and Latviešu ģeolingvistikas etīdes by Edmunds (Edmundas) Trumpa (2012a). The two are very different in their aims and methods, even though both deal with phonetic isoglosses of traditional rural dialects. In fact, traditional rural dialects are still considered as the only object of research by Latvian dialectologists in spite of the considerable changes to the field elsewhere, marked by the breakdown of the barriers between dialectology and sociolinguistics (see e.g. Chambers & Trudgill 2004 and Auer & Schmidt 2010). However, of the two reviewed books, Trumpa (2012a) seems to be closer to the modern understanding of research into language and space, and therefore his work can be seen as a promise of changes in Latvian dialectology, whereas Sarkanis (2013) almost entirely belongs to the traditional approach. Nevertheless, in the context of Trumpa’s rather innovative book, Sarkanis’ Phonological Atlas serves as a summary of achievements from the previous stage.