Tarmės mokėjimas, vartojimas ir nuostatos Žemaitijos regione

Mokslo publikacijos / Scientific publications
Document Type:
Knygos dalis / Part of the book
Lietuvių kalba / Lithuanian
Tarmės mokėjimas, vartojimas ir nuostatos Žemaitijos regione
Alternative Title:
Knowledge and use of the local dialectand linguistic attitudes in Žemaitija
Daugiakalbystė; Kalbos miestuose; Tarmės miestuose; Sociolingvistika
Multilingualism; Languages in cities; Dialects in cities; Sociolinguistics
Summary / Abstract:

LTŠiame skyriuje analizuojami tik Žemaitijos regiono kiekybinės apklausos duomenys (skirstymas pagal Etninės globos tarybos patvirtintą etnografinių regionų žemėlapį), taip pat naudojamasi giluminiais interviu, atliktais ir iššifruotais šio skyriaus autorės. Mums buvo svarbūs respondentų, iš kurių 98 proc. yra lietuviai (Žemaitijos duomenimis, apklausta 780 respondentų), kurių gimtoji kalba lietuvių ir kurie tapatina save su Lietuva, atsakymai. Be to, mums rūpėjo tokios Žemaitijos regiono respondentų grupės: a) ką nors žinančios apie tarmes (780 respondentų); b) mokančios tarmę (552 respondentai); c) bent kartais šnekančios tarmiškai (493 respondentai); d) vartojančios tarmę tam tikrose situacijose (į skirtingus klausimus atsakė skirtingas žmonių skaičius, pavyzdžiui, į klausimą „kurią tarmę vartojate, kai rašote“ – 16 respondentų, „kai kalbate su tėvais“ – 276 respondentai ir t. t.). Pagrindinis šio skyriaus tikslas – išanalizuoti atliktos apklausos rezultatus ir atskleisti respondentų tiesiogiai pareikštas nuostatas dėl tarmės mokėjimo ir vartojimo. Tam aiškinamasi, koks santykis lietuvių, mokančių tarmę ir kalbančių tarmiškai, mokančių tarmę, bet nekalbančių tarmiškai, kokios dažniausios ir rečiausios tarmės vartojimo sferos Žemaitijos regione, taip pat koks santykis tarp žmonių, turinčių „teigiamas“ nuostatas dėl tarmių, ir žmonių a) nemokančių tarmiškai, b) nenorinčių kalbėti tarmiškai, c) nekalbančių tarmiškai. Be abejonės, svarbus ir tarmės prestižo klausimas, kurį čia taip pat stengiamasi gvildenti. [Iš teksto, p. 91-92]

ENThis chapter deals with the quantitative survey data from the region of Žemaitija, designated in accordance with the map of ethnographical regions approved by the Council for the Protection of Ethnic Culture. The data is supplemented with observations from in-depth interviews conducted and transcribed by the author of the chapter. All in all, 780 respondents have been surveyed, all of which are native speakers of Lithuanian and identify themselves with Lithuania. The study was specifically focused on the following target groups: a) people having some awareness of dialects, b) people who can speak a dialect, c) people who sometimes speak a dialect, d) people who use a dialect in certain situations, e.g. “which dialect do you use when you write?” (16 respondents answered this question), “which dialect do you use when speaking with your parents?” (276 respondents), etc. The quantitative and qualitative analysis revealed the following tendencies in the use of the local Žemaitian dialect: a small proportion of the respondents admitted to having no interest at all in the dialects and never using them; the majority of the respondents are people who can speak their local dialect, and they do it often; the analysis of responses from those participants who sometimes speak the dialect proves that the local dialect is not the only language variety used in family communication. The data, however, does not provide conclusive evidence allowing us to establish whether this is a new trend that reflects deliberate choices to use the official language variety and its semi-dialectal variant at home, or it is a sign of decreasing dialect prestige, as an outcome of a mixed family context or merely a changing linguistic situation in Žemaitija. These are research questions for the future;the elder generation shows a more consistent use of the local dialect. Moreover, elderly respondents tend to use dialects equally often in their interaction with the younger generation and in the public domain, namely in contacts with medical staff (34%), authorities (28%), and at work (20%); the analysis has revealed the following linguistic attitudes of the population towards dialects: a) one’s native language is considered to be the most common language; b) the beauty of Žemaitian is identified with its simplicity, clarity, and pleasantness; c) the most beautiful language is not one’s dialect but rather Standard Lithuanian, because this is something the respondents have been taught at school; d) Aukštaitian rather than Žemaitian is seen as a more prestigious and valuable language which guarantees a social-economic basis and more opportunities as it is used in public life, is not restricted to private contexts, and has many more functions; the analysis of the social context proves that there is a clear correlation between the unofficial and official, familiar and formal, private and non-private contexts. During the in-depth interviews, the respondents stressed the vitality and perseverance of their local dialect, which, in their opinion, is unavoidable at home; the study confirmed the survival tendencies of the local dialect of Žemaitija: half of respondents from urban areas of the region expressed their positive appreciation of the dialect; a similar proportion of people think that dialects are not a sign of rural life, yet another 50% relate the use of dialects to the countryside. While the positive attitudes prevail, the respondents do not show strong opinions on this issue and often acknowledge the existence of the so-called “literary“, or standard, language; finally, the most positive attitudes towards dialects have beed established among those respondents who both know a dialect and use it. [From the publication]

Related Publications:
2020-05-27 17:36:51
Views: 15