AREALINIS TIPOLOGINIS LIETUVIŲ KALBOS TARMIŲ KOMPLEKSIŠKUMAS
AREAL-TYPOLOGICAL COMPLEXITY OF LITHUANIAN DIALECTS

Summary/Abstract: This article deals with one of the most promising stages in Lithuanian dialectology discussed in the article “Seven stages of Lithuanian dialectology” published in the 2016 issue of the scientific electronic journal “Lietuvių kalba” (‘The Lithuanian Language’) (see Kardelis 2016). I referred to this stage as typological; however, now I think that the best term for this stage is the term areal-typological complexity (arealtypologische Komplexität) which originates from works by Alfred Lameli (2013). The concept of complexity is not associated with the attempt to classify dialects according to different “distinctive features” but rather with an idea, clearly supported by empirical facts that diatopical variation in language is highly complex. A closer look at the context of Lithuanian dialectology research reveals that the concept of complexity is still not discussed thoroughly; while specific studies are practically non-existent. The most general methodological principle which should be applied in carrying out an areal-typological study of the complexity of Lithuanian dialects could be referred to as the principle of offside. This means that studies of Lithuanian dialectology should offside from the conventionally applied research tradition and from: a) the aim to classify dialects typologically; b) all classifications of Lithuanian dialects published up to date; c) distinctive features described in the contemporary classification (as well as earlier classifications); d) the goal to specify the boundaries of dialects and subdialects. The second general theoretical criterion is related to the approach to the linguistic system. Here I rely on the concept of a diasystem introduced into the field of dialectology by Uriel Weinreich (1954; 1974). The whole area of the Lithuanian language together with its diatopical variants may be interpreted as a diasystem of Lithuanian which consists of separate systems. The most suitable, convenient and universal criteria for the analysis of empirical data established by the long-standing theory and practice of research into phonology are the following: 1) the quality of the elements of a vocalism system; 2) the quantity of the elements of a vocalism system; 3) the interrelationship between the quality and quantity of a vocalism system. Since here we are dealing with the Lithuanian language which features a complex prosodic system, we must introduce an additional criterion, i.e. 4) stress. Empirical data for the present study were collected from modern, phonological “grammars of dialects”.

• Details
• Contents