Latvian dialects in the 21st century: old and new borders [Dialekty łotewskie w wieku XXI: stare i nowe granice]

Although historical regional dialects are still relatively well preserved in Latvia, nowadays one can no longer speak of dialects and sub­dialects in the traditional sense because, due to changes of administrative borders, the traditional sub­dialects are subject to attrition and gradual loss. In particular, the contact zone of Central and High Latvian dialect has changed markedly. The border of High Latvian dialect has moved to the east. Since 2013, a project “Latvian Dialects in the 21st Century: a Socio­ linguistic Aspect” is being carried out in order to gain an insight into contemporary Latvian dialect situation, analyzing  at least three sub­dialects in each dialect. However, we can speak of dialect borders in another aspect. For instance, the borders between the preservation of dialectal features and the impact of standard language, as well as the borders of maintenance of sub­dialectal feature among the speakers of different age groups. Attention is also paid to the use of sub­dialects in central and peripheral parts of territories. The first research results showed that people who live Anna Stafecka Latvian dialects in the 21st century: old and new borders 13 further from the centre use the sub­dialect more often ­ especially in communication with family members (including the younger generation), relatives and neighbours. The preliminary results show a different situation among dialects. In the sub­ dialects of the Middle dialect, which is closest to Standard Latvian, the borderline between sub­dialect and standard language has almost disappeared, since the infor­ mants practically do not feel any difference between them. In the Livonianized dialect, there are several features that are still more or less present in the speech of all generations – generalization of masculine gender, reduc­ tion of word endings, etc. However, in this dialect, too, the language used by younger speakers is gradually losing the dialectal features. The situation differs in various sub­dialect groups of High Latvian dialect. The Selonian sub­dialects spoken in Zemgale show traces of dialectal features (syllable tones, irregular vowel shifts, etc.); they are found mainly in the speech of older genera­ tion. The Latgalian sub­dialects in Vidzeme are mainly spoken by older respondents and usually among family members; while in public spaces the sub­dialects practi­ cally cannot be heard. However, many dialectal features have been retained in the speech of middle and even younger generations. The most stable are the sub­dialects spoken in Latgale because of their use not only in everyday speech but also in cultural activities. The presence of the Latgalian written language, too, helps to maintain local sub­dialects; it is also used in Roman Catholic church services in Latgale. In Latgale, the sub­dialects are spoken by all generations. However, the younger people sometimes use the standard language to communicate among themselves. This study provides new facts and might be the basis for further research. It might allow to predict the development of native language and its dialects as an important component of national and local identity respectively. Comparative analysis of mate­ rial acquired at different periods allows us to conclude which dialectal features are more viable and which are more likely to change and disappear.


Latvian dialects in the 21st century: old and new borders
In Latvia, as well as in many other cultural traditions, one of the most important com ponents of national identity is the language, including its regional variants -dialects and subdialects which form the local identity.
In the Latvian language, there are approximately 500 subdialects of minor teri torial units, which traditionally are grouped into three regional dialects: the Middle dialect which forms the basis of Standard Latvian; Livonian (also called Livonian ized) dialect which arose as a result of LatvianLivonian language contact; and High Latvian dialect which in the 18 th century formed the basis of another written variant of Latvian, the Latgalian written language which is used in the region of Latgale.
Traditionally, Latvian subdialect borders coincided with the borders of rural communities (after their division in 1939), but later on these administrative borders have been changed several times.Nowadays in Latvia one cannot speak of dialect and subdialect borders in their traditional sense because 1) the borders of the rural communities have changed and no longer coincide with those of the prewar epoch (and thus -with the subdialect borders); subsequently the local identity is lost, 2) due to migration of inhabitants and the impact of standard language through mass media, the traditional dialects are subject to levelling and attrition, and gradual loss, 3) the subdialect area nowadays sometimes coincides with the territory of church parish. 2 Especially the borderline between the High Latvian and Middle dialect has changed extensively.According to Edmunds Trumpa, this border has moved east wards -i.e. the territory of the use of High Latvian is decreasing (more on this see E. Trumpa, 2012, pp. 65-75).
In the Latvian linguistics, the dialect borders are not determined by one or two dialectal features (which would make it much easier), but by sets of isoglosses reflecting both phonetic and morphological phenomena.In fact, we can speak of the narrowing of borders of one or another dialectal feature.
However, we can speak about dialect borders in another aspect as well -for instance, the borders between the area of maintenance of dialectal features and that of the standard language impact; or the borders of dialect maintenance among different age groups.
In different parts of the world, more and more attention is devoted to local identi ties, including dialects.Dialectological data are often combined with archeological, ethnographical, etc. findings in order to determine borders of areas inhabited by pre historic ethnic groups or tribes.Dialect use in contemporary communication (taking into account generational differences, frequency of use of various dialectal features, standard/dialect relations, etc.) is being analyzed in many countries.For example, the dialectologists of Lithuania have conducted a major sociolinguistic survey of Lithuanian dialects in the beginning of the 21st century -the results of this research were published in 2014.(Lietuva_projekts 2014).In Latvia, following the example of Lithuania, a project "Latvian Dialects in the 21st Century: a Sociolinguistic Aspect" (Latviešu valodas dialekti 21. gadsimtā: sociolingvistisks aspekts) was initiated in 2013, with the aim to obtain an insight in the contemporary situation.At least three sub dialects of each dialect are surveyed.

Sub-dialect and its borders: a historical insight
The first records concerning regional differences in the Latvian language date from the 17 th century (Mancelius, 1638).G. Mancelius emphasized the fact that there were noticeable differences in Latvian spoken in practically every parish (more on this see Zemzare, 1961, pp. 11-63;Laumane, 1999, p. 6).First accounts of the Latvian language put more emphasis on the differences between various dialects, rather than focusing on how these dialects are called, or their geographical area.
The first study of the two different forms of pronunciation of Latvian, i.e. the dialects spoken in the region ruled by German speakers, and the one spoken in Polishadmi nistered territory, is to be found in the grammar "Dispositio imperfecti…"1, published 3 in 1732 in Vilnius by Georgius Szpungianski.These two variants of pronunciation are still found today in the Low Latvian dialects (as the Middle and Livonianized dialect are sometimes collectively called) and High Latvian dialect, respectively.
The first scholar to describe all three dialects of the Latvian language was August Bielenstein, a German Lutheran minister, in 1863 (Bielenstein, 1863).A. Bielenstein described the phonetic and morphological differences between the dialects and gave quite an accurate description of the areas in which they were prevalent.This was the first extensive account of the dialects of the Latvian language.

The borders of dialectal features in geolinguistic maps
The area of distribution of certain dialectal features is best shown by geolinguistic maps.The first geolinguistic map of the Latvian language was published in 1892 also by August Bielenstein (Bielenstein, 1892).This map was an Appendix to the main body of his book, Die Grenzen des lettischen Volksstammes… The map contains 33 isoglosses that mostly represent phonetic and morphological features of Latvian dialects and subdialects and mark the boundaries of their distribution.These isoglosses can be used to identify boundaries between various dialects; they also are an evidence of the distribution of subdialects.However, the map does not explicitely show the regional areas of the dialects of the Latvian language.
Latvian linguist Janis Endzelins wrote that: following the example set by A. Bielenstein, it is now possible to gather information about material expressions of culture […] as they are to be found in different regions.This information should help to identify the borders of territories inhabited by ancient tribes (Endzelīns, 1933, p. 105).
During the second half of the 19 th century several questionnaires for gather ing immaterial cultural data were elaborated.One of the most important among them was the program created by Eduards Volteris, a professor at St.Petersburg university.(Volteris, 1892).Although the main emphasis was on ethnography and folklore, it contains questions regarding language, dialects and subdialects as well (more on this see Mikulėnienė & Stafecka, 2011, pp. 123-133).During the first half of the 20 th century main attention was paid to subdialectal phonetics and morphology, and the descriptions of almost 110 subdialects were published (following a unified system).On the basis of these descriptions, Velta Rūķe cre ated several geolinguistic maps.In 1939, she published an article The Sub-dialect cum Adjuncta Catechesi Apostolico Missionarium Zelo Suppeditata Permissu Superiorum.Anno Loquentis nobis in Verbo Infante Dei 1732.Vilnae typis Collegii Academici Societatis Jesu.

4
Groups of Latgale in Volume 19 of the journal Filologu biedrības raksti, including three maps (Rūķe, 1939): 1) Isogloss map of Latgale.Phonetic variations.14 isoglosses depict the distribution borders of the most characteristic features of Latgalian subdialects, e.g., the border of broken and rising tone, the shift of sounds: i, ū, ē, ir and ur, ie, uo, ei, au, ei, and ai following k and g, ķ, ģ > č, dž or k', g', distribution area of endings as, es > ys, is, etc., 2) Isogloss map of Latgale.Morphological variations.They are shown with the help of 17 isoglosses, including the most characteristic features of nouns, numerals, pronouns and verbs, 3) On the basis of the distribution of phonetic and morphological differences, V. Rūķe in her map sketches in the borders of the three main subdialect groups of Latgale -northern, southwestern, and eastern.
In 1940, V. Rūķe published an article Livonianized Area of Kurzeme and Vidzeme in Volume 20 of Filologu biedrības rakst.This article demonstrates the phonetic and morphological differences in the area of the Livonianized dialect in Kurzeme and Vidzeme.Two geolinguistic maps are included (Rūķe, 1940): 1) Isogloss map of Western Vidzeme.All 13 isoglosses, as the author points out, are included in one map -both phonetic and morphological features.The map shows, for instance, the variations of syllable tones, the quality of the vowel e in monosyllabic infinitive forms of verbs, the form of the diminutive suffix and ending -iņš, as well as some inflectional endings of nouns and verbs, 2) Subdialectal features of Northern Kurzeme are shown in two maps: a) Isogloss map of Northern Kurzeme.Phonetic variations.13 isoglosses depict such phonetic differences as, e.g., the pronunciation of ir and ur; the shifts of diphthongs ei and au; the distribution of the palatalized ŗ, b) Isogloss map of Northern Kurzeme.Morphological variations.These are shown with the help of 16 isoglosses, reflecting some inflectional endings of nouns; the forms of some prefixes and suffixes, the reflexive ending of 3rd person verb forms, etc.On the basis of the areas of distribution of some dialectal features reflected in the maps, V. Rūķe contrasts the similarities and differences in the Livonianized subdialects in Northern Kurzeme and Western Vidzeme, as well as shows the borders of the said features with the help of isoglosses.
The most intense period of collecting and studying Latvian dialectal material was the second half of the 20th century.The subdialects were traditionally described, analysing their morphological, phonetic and lexical qualities in contrast with Standard Latvian norms.During that time one of the most important researcher of Latvian dialects and their borders was Marta Rudzīte.In the summary of her doctoral thesis, she has published 36 geolinguistic maps (Rudzīte, 2005, pp. 100-101).
In the end of the 20th century and early 21st century, several geolinguistic atlasses have been elaborated (LVDA Leksika, 1999;LVDA Fonētika, 2013;ABL, 2009ABL, , 2012)).However, until now there has been very little sociolinguistic research carried out in the field of Latvian dialects.

Dialect borders and the local cultural environment
Since language, as well as its regional variants, is ever changing, it became evident that it is necessary to research Latvian dialects in a sociolinguistic aspect as well.Therefore, the project "Latvian Dialects in the 21st Century: Sociolinguistic Aspect" was initiated to analyse the situation of Latvian dialects in the 21st century and to study their subdialects from a geolinguistic and sociolinguistic aspect: • looking at the differences in the use of subdialects in central and peripheral parts of respective areas, as well as determining the dynamics of borders of dialectal features, • gathering information about the possible link between the regional language variant and the local cultural environment, the perception of the subdialect as a marker of identity, the vitality of subdialects in areas with a functioning school, church, culture institutions, etc.
It is envisaged to survey and analyse the linguistic situation and cultural envi ronment in at least three subdialects of each of the three dialects, thus obtaining an insight in their situation in the beginning of the 21st century.
Fragmentary information about the usage of various dialectal features in Latvia can be found, for example, in the commentaries of the abovementioned geolinguis tic maps, as well as in several monographs devoted to particular thematic groups of dialectal vocabulary (see, for instance, Jansone, 1993;Bušmane, 2007;Kurzemniece, 2008;Laumane, 2013).As one of the most significant recent studies we can point out the research conducted by Edmunds Trumpa within the framework of European Social Fund project "Changing Development Strategies and Cultural Spaces of Latvia's Rural Inhabitants (2010-2012)" about the contact zone of Latgalian and Selonian sub dialects of the High Latvian dialect in Western Latgale and Eastern Vidzeme (Trumpa, 2012, pp. 51-97).He analyzes various issues related to borders between subdialects, administrative units and church parishes in a geolinguistic or areal linguistic context.E. Trumpa provides a critical overview of the concept of subdialect in the light of cultural history (e.g., describing the changing borders of administrative territories and parishes which might have influenced the subdialect borders), as well as defines one of the main borderlines separating the Selonian and Latgalian subdialects -the isogloss of rising and broken tone.
Similarly as in the Lithuanian project, it is envisaged to characterize the locality of the subdialects (obtaining information in the local municipality).It is planned to describe the culturally historical situation -whether the area of the subdialect contains an admin istrative centre, as well as school, library, museum or other cultural institutions, church, post office, cemetery, marketplace, shopping centre, cafe, etc.; and whether there exists an internet homepage devoted to the respective area.Objects of historical or architectural heritage (castles, manor houses, castle mounds, watermills, parks, etc.), as well as art monu ments (sculptures, etc.) and significant objects of nature (rocks, large trees, landscapes) are also described.The inhabitants are questioned about ethnographical heritage (festivals, local traditions, food or clothes), the mythological explanations of local placenames and other legends; religious practices and the use of the local subdialect in religious events.The sources of written heritage are also important -including historical documents and other archived information about the respective area, inscriptions on gravestones, etc.
Proper names (and the presence of local subdialect in their use) are also investi gated -placenames (including microtoponyms), personal names and nicknames, etc.The use of the subdialect in local oral culture traditions (e.g. in folk music groups) or in Internet homepages and local publications is also analyzed.
It is important to show the ethnic characteristics of the local inhabitants, the number of imigrants from other areas, and other reasons of change in the number of dialect speakers.
Another sociolinguistic questionnaire contains data about the respondents -their name and surname, year and place of birth, ethnicity (both in official documents and in their own perception); the ethnicity of their spouses is also questioned, as well as the language used among different family members, the knowledge of other languages, and the education and occupation of the informant.A special attention is devoted to the choice of language or language variant in the public sphere -for example in a shop, administrative institution, or church; when addressing an acquaintance or a stranger; when talking to people of a younger generation.The attitude of the respon dent towards the use of subdialect is questioned by asking whether, in their opinion, a typical speaker of a subdialect is: • an elderly person, • a person residing in countryside, a person without higher education, • a person who respects the native subdialect as the language of their ancestors, • a patriotic person, etc.
The primary results showed that the overall attitude towards subdialects is positive.The prevailing answer is that a subdialect speaker is one who respects their native language variant, and is patriotic.
Respondents are asked which is their preferred language or language variant of everyday communication, and to explain the difference, in their opinion, between a dialect or subdialect and the standard language, and their use in different situations.Thus, a speaker of the Livonianized dialect replied that he speaks the standard language when in Riga (the capital city) but when he returns to his native place he speaks "properly" (i.e., in the native subdialect or at least using some of its features).A speaker of a Latgalian subdialect of the High Latvian dialect admit ted that she speaks both the subdialect and standard language in her everyday life but regards the subdialect as her native language, while Standard Latvian as a foreign language was taught at school.In Latgale, one can often encounter ref erences to the opposed concepts of "speaking Latgalian" (in the subdialect) and "speaking Latvian" (in standard language).The subdialect is regarded as a value and a symbol of local identity.
The attitude towards one's native subdialect and other subdialects is also inves tigated.Sometimes the informants regard their own subdialects as "correct" but the neighbouring subdialects -as "incorrrect".

Border between the dialect and standard language
The preliminary results showed differences in the situation of various dialects.In the Vidzeme subdialects of the Middle dialect (e.g.around Strenči) which are closest to Standard Latvian, the border between the dialect and standard language is practically lost because the respondents do not feel any difference between these language vari ants.Only separate dialectal features can be discerned in their speech.More stable dialectal features can be observed in the Middle subdialects spoken in Southwestern Kurzeme -an area of rich cultural heritage.However, these features are mostly pres ent in the speech of the older and middle generation only.
In the Livonianized dialect, there are some characteristics that are observed in the speech of all generations -for example, the generalization of the masculine gen der, the shortening of word endings.However, the dialectal features are undergoing certain attrition in the use of the younger generation.
In High Latvian dialect, the situation differs in various subdialectal groups.In the Selonian subdialects of Zemgale only traces of subdialectal features can be observed (some tones, irregular vowel shifts, etc.), and mostly in the speech of older people.In the Latgalian subdialects of Vidzeme the respondents of the older generation sometimes speak their subdialect at home but in the public sphere the subdialect practically cannot be heard.However, some of its features has been preserved in the speech of middle and even younger generation.For example, in the phonetic aspect, the use of narrow [e] instead of the subdialectal [a], where the sound [ae] might be expected.Some morphological and lexical particularities can also be observed.
The most stable are the subdialects spoken in Latgale because of their use not only in everyday speech but also in cultural activities.Latgalian written language, too, helps to maintain the local subdialects.For instance, it is used in Roman Catholic church in Latgale.Practically all generations there use their subdialects; at least the younger generation uses it when speaking to older people.Among themselves the younger people sometimes use standard language as well, but some of them speak local subdialect even with the speakers from other dialects.
Thus, the main objective of this project is to analyse the situation of Latvian dialects and subdialects in the 21st century, studying their dynamics; finding those dialectal features that have been preserved in the speech of the youngest generation; making sure if speakers of different generations today still recognize the lexical units registered during the 20 th century.
For the lexical survey, the program for gathering data for the Atlas of the Latvian Dialects was used.The results obtained in 2013 were then compared to those of the second half of the 20 th century.As it turned out, much of the dialec tal vocabulary is still used by middle and older generations, but the influence of standard language can be felt in their speech.Sometimes the dialectal vocabulary is in the socalled passive use -respondents give standard language words in their replies but, when asked if they know another word for the respective object or phenomenon, remember the dialectal word as well.Less frequently, the interviewer has to suggest the dialectal vocabulary to the informant in order to make sure if they are familiar with it.
Attention is paid to the use of subdialects in the central and peripheral parts of the respective areas.The preliminary research showed that the inhabitants living further from the centre are most likely to use the subdialect -especially with family members (including the younger ones), relatives, and neighbours.

Borders of age-graded linguistic change
Another border in dialects is more or less relatively metaphorical -it is connected with agegraded linguistic change.One of the aims of this research was to find those dialectal features that have been preserved in the speech of the youngest generation, and to make sure if speakers of different generations today still recognize the lexical units registered during the 20 th century.
Change (including the impact of standard language) affects all levels of language, but especially the vocabulary.Elderly speakers still know or use the dialectal vocabu lary.They have partly preserved some of the oldest thematic groups of vocabulary, e.g.those referring to earlier agricultural practices.In the middle generation, these words are usually are in the passive knowledge, they have heard them from the older speakers.
The middle generation often still speaks the subdialect, but with a more or less discernable impact of standard language -especially in the speech of local intellectuals (teachers, clerks).The younger generation uses the subdialect most seldom.However, when asked about their attitude towards the subdialect, they often express regret about its disappearance.In Latgale, however, many of the younger people still use their subdialect consistently, even outside Latgale, out of patriotic feelings.Nevertheless, many people (of different generations) are using dialectal features when speaking in the standard language, and are not aware of it themselves.Thus, the present research is providing new facts and might form the basis for future studies, attempting to pre dict the development of native language and its dialects as an important component of national and local identity respectively.The material acquired at different periods allows to conclude which dialectal features are more viable and which are more likely to change and disappear.Although everyday observations show that the use of subdialects is diminishing (especially in the speech of the younger generation), there has been so far too little academic study to prove this fact.Thus, the current research will be an essential source of data about the situation in Latvian dialects in the early 21st century.

Conclusion
The preliminary results of the project show differences in the situation of various Lat vian dialects.In the territory where the Middle dialect is spoken, the border between the dialect and Standard language is almost lost (except for subdialects spoken in Southwestern Kurzeme -an area of rich cultural heritage).In the territory of Livo nianized dialect, there are some dialectal features that are observed in the speech of all generations.The most stable are the subdialects of High Latvian spoken in the Latgale region because of the Latgalian Written Language, the use of subdialects also in Roman Catholic church and cultural activities.

Słowa kluczowe: dialektologia; socjolingwistyka; dialekty łotewskie
Latvian dialects in the 21st century: old and new borders Abstract Although historical regional dialects are still relatively well preserved in Latvia, nowadays one can no longer speak of dialects and subdialects in the traditional sense because, due to changes of administrative borders, the traditional subdialects are subject to attrition and gradual loss.In particular, the contact zone of Central and High Latvian dialect has changed markedly.The border of High Latvian dialect has moved to the east.Since 2013, a project "Latvian Dialects in the 21st Century: a Socio linguistic Aspect" is being carried out in order to gain an insight into contemporary Latvian dialect situation, analyzing at least three subdialects in each dialect.
However, we can speak of dialect borders in another aspect.For instance, the borders between the preservation of dialectal features and the impact of standard language, as well as the borders of maintenance of subdialectal feature among the speakers of different age groups.Attention is also paid to the use of subdialects in central and peripheral parts of territories.The first research results showed that people who live further from the centre use the subdialect more often especially in communication with family members (including the younger generation), relatives and neighbours.
The preliminary results show a different situation among dialects.In the sub dialects of the Middle dialect, which is closest to Standard Latvian, the borderline between subdialect and standard language has almost disappeared, since the infor mants practically do not feel any difference between them.
In the Livonianized dialect, there are several features that are still more or less present in the speech of all generations -generalization of masculine gender, reduc tion of word endings, etc.However, in this dialect, too, the language used by younger speakers is gradually losing the dialectal features.
The situation differs in various subdialect groups of High Latvian dialect.The Selonian subdialects spoken in Zemgale show traces of dialectal features (syllable tones, irregular vowel shifts, etc.); they are found mainly in the speech of older genera tion.The Latgalian subdialects in Vidzeme are mainly spoken by older respondents and usually among family members; while in public spaces the subdialects practi cally cannot be heard.However, many dialectal features have been retained in the speech of middle and even younger generations.The most stable are the subdialects spoken in Latgale because of their use not only in everyday speech but also in cultural activities.The presence of the Latgalian written language, too, helps to maintain local subdialects; it is also used in Roman Catholic church services in Latgale.In Latgale, the subdialects are spoken by all generations.However, the younger people sometimes use the standard language to communicate among themselves.
This study provides new facts and might be the basis for further research.It might allow to predict the development of native language and its dialects as an important component of national and local identity respectively.Comparative analysis of mate rial acquired at different periods allows us to conclude which dialectal features are more viable and which are more likely to change and disappear.