Phonetic change of peripheral subdialects of the residents of Kupiškis and Utena regions in the twenty-first century: the case of Vabalniñkas, Daršiškiai and Salãmiestis points

Straipsnyje aptariama paribinių rytų aukštaičių punktų – Vabalniñko, Daršiškių ir Salãmiesčio – dabartinė situacija, t. y. koks fiksuotinas tarpusavio šnektų (horizontalieji santykiai) ir bendrinės kalbos (vertikalieji santykiai) fonetikos sąveikos rezultatas XXI a. rytų aukštaičių kupiškėnų ir uteniškių paribio šnektose. Analizuojamas gretutinių patarmių – uteniškių ir kupiškėnų – supanašėjimo lygis‚ patarmių ribų mažėjimas / didėjimas ar „persidengimas“. Tyrimas rodo, kad šių paribio plotų kalbinių ypatybių raida tiesiogiai priklauso ne nuo kalbinių, o nuo socialinių priežasčių. Stipresni ryšiai su rytine dalimi stiprina uteniškių patarmei būdingesnių ypatybių radimąsi, o sociokultūrinių ryšių plėtojimasis į vakarus lemia stipresnę panevėžiškių bruožų plėtrą.The research aim is an apparent-time study of the outcome of phonetic interaction among subdialects (horizontal relations) and between subdialects and the standard language (vertical relations), which can be recorded in the peripheral subdialects of the residents of Kupiškis and Utena regions (Eastern Aukštaitian) in the twenty- first century. The research object is three dialectal points: Vabalniñkas (142), Dašiškiai (172), and Salãmiestis (143). The material was collected in the course of dialectological fieldwork carried out in 2015–2016. The qualitative interview was the key method applied in the study. The research revealed the following tendencies: 1. The major factor determining the phonetic change of the subdialects in question is vertical relations, i.e., Standard Lithuanian. The most evident effect of the standard language is revealed in the phonetic expression of lexemes belonging to the active lexis. 2. Horizontal relations, i.e., the relations with other traditional dialects, are slightly weaker than the vertical ones. Their intensity largely depends on the location of the informants’ social life: stronger sociocultural ties with larger cities of other traditional dialects add new features to the subdialect. 3. The degree of refusal of the general phonetic features of the Eastern Aukštaitian is far higher compared to the distinctive/primary features of the subdialects. 4. Taking into account the social, administrative, and linguistic facts of the twenty- first century, it is recommended to distinguish the following dialectal points: Vabalninkas, Antašava (moved from Daršiškiai), and Salamiestis. From the dialectal perspective, they are all considered heterogeneous, i.e., they are considered transitional areas between Eastern East Aukštaitian (formed on the basis of the traditional residents of Utena and Kupiškis regions) and Western East Aukštaitian (formed on the basis of the residents of Panevėžys). It can be predicted that the development of linguistic features in the aforementioned transitional areas will directly depend on social rather than linguistic reasons. Stronger ties with the eastern part will strengthen the emergence of the features more characteristic of the residents of the Utena region, whereas the development of sociocultural ties westwards will result in a stronger expansion of the features associated with the inhabitants of Panevėžys