| Title |
Rodomojo įvardžio šìtas, šità vartosena kai kuriose rytų aukštaičių uteniškių pašnektėse / |
| Translation of Title |
The usage of the demonstrative pronoun šìtas, šità in some Eastern Aukštaitian subdialects. |
| Authors |
Judžentytė-Šinkūnienė, Gintarė |
| DOI |
10.15388/Baltistica.54.2.2399 |
| Full Text |
|
| Is Part of |
Baltistica.. Vilnius : Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. 2019, t. 54, Nr. 2, p. 317-347.. ISSN 0132-6503. eISSN 2345-0045 |
| Keywords [eng] |
Eastern Lithuanian dialects ; pronoun ; šìtas, šità |
| Abstract [eng] |
There are plenty of cases, when the speaker makes a different choice to refer to some entities in space. For instance, by saying (1) Tas atrodo geresnis ‘That one looks better’ the speaker refers to a juicer among many other juicers located at the distance of one meter from the interlocutors; yet by questioning (2) Kam priklauso šis namas? ‘Who owns this house?’ he/she points out to the visible referent about one kilometre away. It seems from the given examples that proximity and distance do not play any important role in the current speaker’s choice as it is stated in ‘Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika’ (‘A Grammar of Modern Lithuanian’). It was influenced by other factors surely. The present paper aims to discover the reasons why ‘proximal’ demonstrative pronouns are used where ‘distal’ ones are expected. In other words, it focuses on cases presented by the second example above. For the analysis, some Eastern Lithuanian (Uteniškiai) subdialects were chosen. In my research I have shown that physical proximity or distance from the interlocutors is not the only determinant of using and selecting (nominal) exophoric demonstratives in some Eastern Lithuanian dialects; rather, these deictics are used according to the degree of access that the interactants, the addressee in particular, have to the referent. The features that can be considered as the determining factors for high accessibility of a referent within the perceptibility domain in researched Lithuanian subdialects are as follows: 1) the referent is the only one of its type in perceptible, sensory context; 2) the referent is familiar to the speaker; 3) the referent is visible; 4) it is in the shared focus of attention. As it was proved by the examples, there is no correlation between the referent’s degree of accessibility and its distance from the interlocutors. If the objects are distant, this does not essentially make them poorly accessible – they can be highly accessible still. This is the main reason why ‘proximals’ are used in some contexts where ‘distal’ ones are expected in the researched Eastern Lithuanian dialects. |
| Published |
Vilnius : Vilniaus universiteto leidykla |
| Type |
Journal article |
| Language |
Lithuanian |
| Publication date |
2019 |
| CC license |
|
