LTStraipsnyje diskutuojamas toks probleminis klausimas: ar sąmoningųjų nuostatų lygmeniu paprasti kalbos bendruomenės nariai linkę hierarchizuoti skirtingas kalbos reprezentacines sistemas, t. y. kalbos atmainas. Straipsnyje svarstoma, kokie veiksniai gali būti lemtingi formuojantis tokioms hierarchijoms. Reprezentacinių sistemų įvairovę suponuoja geolingvistinis ir sociolingvistinis kalbos faktų vertinimas. Skirtingų atmainų, variantų pripažinimas, įvardijimas ir konceptualizavimas be to, kad pateikia tam tikrą atmainų nominacijų tinklą, iš karto implikuoja ir tam tikrą vertinimo aspektą. Nors mokslinė atmainų žiūra nėra hierarhizuojanti, tačiau tokių registrų atgarsiai visuomenėje gali veikti kaip tam tikri hierarchizavimo modeliai: bendrinė kalba vs tarmė; miesto kalba vs kaimo kalba ir pan. Paprastų kalbos bendruomenės narių variantų deskriptoriai, kitaip nei mokslinės žiūros atmainų nominacijų tinklas, ne tik suskaido kalbos kontinuumą, bet ir pasižymi vertinamaisiais bruožais. Straipsnio įžvalgų empirinis pagrindas – 2011 metų pavasarį Žemaitijos regione atlikto eksperimento, skirto sąmoningosioms nuostatoms tirti, duomenys. Straipsnyje aptariamas eksperimentas yra mokslinio projekto „Lietuvių kalba: idealai, ideologijos ir tapatybės lūžiai" (201–2013 m. vadovė – dr. Loreta Vaicekauskienė), skirto lietuvių kalbos atmainų prestižiškumui, kalbos idealams, kalbos ideologijoms, etc. tirti, dalis. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Atmainų hierarchizavimas; Kalbos atmaina; Sąmoningosios kalbinės nuostatos; Varianto deskriptoriai; Conscious linguistic attitudes; Hicrarchization of variations; Hierarchization of variations; Language variations; Variant descriptors.
ENThe object of the paper is the conscious linguistic attitudes. The author of the paper concerns a question whether typical members of a linguistic community tend to hierarchise different representational language systems, i.e. language varieties on the level of conscious attitudes. The paper considers what particular factors may determine the formation of such hierarchies. The diversity of representational systems is presupposed by geolinguistic and sociolinguistic evaluation of linguistic facts. Apart from providing a particular net of variety nominations, the acknowledgement, identification and conceptualisation of different variants immediately implicate a particular aspect of evaluation. Although a scholarly perspective towards varieties is not hierarchising, the echoes of such registers may act as certain hierarchising models: standard language vs. dialect, city language vs. country language, etc. The variety descriptors of the members of a typical linguistic community, contrary to scholarly net of variety nominations, not only segment the linguistic continuum but also possess particular evaluative features. The empirical basis for the insights shared in the paper concerns the data of the experiment carried out in a Samogitian region in the spring of 2011. The experiment was aimed at investigating the conscious attitudes, i.e. the subdialectal hierarchies formed by typical members of a language community. The research was carried out in 4 Samogitian localities, i.e. Varniai, Luokė, Tryškiai and Nevarėnai.The participants were given a list of "tags" of linguistic varieties. The young Samogitians were to rate the varieties from the most to the least preferable one. According to the research results, the system of factors which determined the model of the attractiveness of the images of the linguistic varieties is trinary. The conscious attitudes of the young Samogitians are influenced by their cultural and regional identity. This forms a positive image of the "linguistic homeland". Although on the level of the conscious attitudes a variety of the "linguistic homeland" prevails over the standard language, a hisgh position of the standard language in the image system of a typical member of the language community allows for predicting a scheme of competitive relations among these varieties. The third factor which determines the model of variety images is referred to as the capital syndrome. Undoubtedly, the subdialect of the main city (Vilnius) was evaluated positively firstly because of its image of a socially attractive city. Complex research is necessary to indicate the extent to which the images of the varieties arc implicated by a linguistic reality. [From the publication]