Abstract
The paper sets out to discuss character features attributed to Byelorussians, Latvians, Poles, Russians, Germans, i.e. representatives of neighbouring nations or those most prominent in the history of Lithuania as identified in the world outlook of the Lithuanian language. In other words, the paper aims at identifying ethnical stereotypes entrenched in the world outlook of the Lithuanian language. The data includes all collocations with all the words baltarusiškas (-a), latviškas (-a), lenkiškas (-a), rusiškas (-a), vokiškas (-a) in all their forms collected from the Corpus of Contemporary Lithuanian compiled at the Centre of Computer Linguistics of Vytautas Magnus University in Kaunas. The results of the analysis into actual usage have been supplemented by the results of the content analysis of international anecdotes. The methodology of research is based on conceptual analysis.The results of investigation have shown that the closest neighbours are unlikely to be the best known. Representatives of Latvia and Belarus, or countries bordering on Lithuania, have been only fragmentary reflected in the world outlook of the Lithuanian language. Poles, Russians or Germans, the latter are usually not treated as neighbours, are much better known. The language world outlook has identified Polish patriotism and sometimes self-esteem going to the extremes. Russians are thought of as open, ingenuous people whose patriotic feelings might overstep certain boundaries and pose danger. The dominant feature of German national character is their inclination to order, sometimes also rather extreme.Such features might be due to several causes. Russians and Poles make up a large part of the population of national minorities of Lithuania, which is why they are seen as slightly closer. On the other hand, Lithuania is historically related to Poland, Russia and Germany.The language world outlook tends to provide more details on negative features. The tendency also applies when discussing the national character of representatives of other nations. Most outstanding features are verbalised hyperbolically and ironically.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
Most read articles by the same author(s)
-
Diana Liepinytė-Kytrienė,
Functions of the opinion leader and he or she performs
,
Lietuvių kalba: No. 9 (2015)
-
Aurelija Gritėnienė,
The mental image of the hepatica in modern Lithuanian prose
,
Lietuvių kalba: No. 8 (2014)
-
Daiva Aliūkaitė,
Sustainability of dialecticity in the regions of Lithuania: the perspective of the EMIC narrative constructor
,
Lietuvių kalba: No. 15 (2020): Lietuvių kalba
-
Vytautas Kardelis,
Three questions regarding the prosodic system of the Lithuanian language
,
Lietuvių kalba: No. 11 (2017)
-
Simona Vyniautaitė,
The geolect of Plungė in terms of regressive assimilation of vowels I, U
,
Lietuvių kalba: No. 14 (2020): Lietuvių kalba
-
Anželika Smetonienė,
Loanwords in the catechism of M. Petkevičius (1598): slavisms of unknown origin
,
Lietuvių kalba: No. 11 (2017)
-
Aldona Paulauskienė,
On interpreting Lithuanian past tenses in major linguistic works on Lithuanian grammar
,
Lietuvių kalba: No. 4 (2010)
-
Daiva Murmulaitytė,
Word Formation Guide for the general public and specialists
,
Lietuvių kalba: No. 17 (2022): Lietuvių kalba
-
Laura Kamandulytė-Merfeldienė,
Productivity of noun paradigms: the morphological integrations of loanwords and the variation of inflectional paradigms
,
Lietuvių kalba: No. 4 (2010)
-
Birutė Spraunienė,
The category of definiteness and its investigation in Lithuanian linguistics
,
Lietuvių kalba: No. 2 (2008)