I.

ARTYKUŁY – ARTICLES – СТАТЬИ

DOI: 10.11649/abs.2013.002 Acta Baltico‑Slavica, 37
SOW, Warszawa 2013

Leszek Bednarczuk
Kraków

LANGUAGES IN CONTACT AND CONFLICT

ON THE TERRITORY OF THE GRAND DUCHY
OF LITHUANIA (GDL)1

1. Introduction
Professor Uriel Weinreich (1926–1967), born and raised in Wilno / Vilnius, in his
exploratory work Languages in contact (1953/1970) in fact does not mention the lin-
guistic contacts in Wilno, which were known to him from personal experience, but
while discussing the sources of language loyalty he notes:
“Occasionally, language loyalty can even be made subservient to aggressive pur-
poses […]. The Russians have toyed with the idea of changing certain forms of Slavic
languages in Soviet-occupied countries. For example, after invading Poland in 1939

1 A preliminary draft of this paper was published in ABS XXII (1994). Then it was presented at
the Second International Symposium of Eurolinguistics (Pushkin 1999 / Berlin 2003), and in enlarged
version as Językowy obraz Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego (Kraków 2010) – Linguistic Picture of the
Grand Duchy of Lithuania [GDL]. Contents: I. The ethnolinguistic relationships in the GDL, II. The
ways of Christianization of Lithuania, III. The origin of the Belarusian ethnos and language, IV. The
Polish language on the territory of the GDL, V. The Republic of Two Nations (Polish-Lithua­nian Com-
monwealth), VI. The names of Wilno / Vilnius and its inhabitants in documents of the GDL, VII. The
families of ethnical origin of the inhabitants of the GDL, VIII. The innovations in toponymy on the
territory of the GDL, IX. The hydronymic differentiation of the territory of the GDL, X. Why over Nie-
men?, XI. The vocabulary of the raftmen in the Wilia / Neris river, XII. The linguistic situation on the
Berezyna river, XIII. The language of the town chronicles of Mohylev and Vitebsk, XIV. The Polish
influence in ancient texts and dialects of Smolensk area, XV. Linguistic heritage of the GDL in Adam
Mickiewicz’s literary works.
20 Leszek Bednarczuk

they found the fact that ‘Jew’ was called in Polish Żyd distasteful, since žid in Rus-
sian is a term of contempt. Consequently, they ordered Polish newspapers to write
Jewrej, coined on the model of the non-pejorative Russian Jevrej. […] After World
War II, the Russian occupation authorities in Poland again felt misgiving about the
use of pan as a pronoun of polite address, since pan also means (in Russian as well
as in Polish) ‘squire’, and was found to be an inappropriate remnant of feudalism in
a People’s Democracy” [Weinreich 1970: 99].
In his other papers Weinreich dealt with the North-East variety of Yiddish
used in the territories of the GDL, pointing, among others, to its peculiarities (1952,
1958). It is only natural that it was in Wilno that an international publication “Bal-
ticoslavica” (I–III, 1933–1938) appeared, in which scholars from many countries
collaborated in friendly manner (Russians, Belarusians, Latvians, Estonians; po-
litical conflicts made the participation of Lithuanians impossible). Its editor, pro-
fessor of archaeology, Włodzimierz Antoniewicz renewed the publication in 1964
in Białystok under a new name “Acta Baltico-Slavica”, but since volume IX (1976)
it was published by the Instytut Słowianoznawstwa (now Instytut Slawistyki) PAN,
first under the editorship of professor Jan Safarewicz, and since volume XXII (1994)
under the of editorship professor Iryda Grek-Pabisowa, under whose successful
editorship it remains until today.

2. The ethnolinguistic situation of the GDL

The Grand Duchy of Lithuania was a multiethnic and multinational state. Thanks
to the tolerant policy of its rulers, it provided a haven for various religious and ethnic
minorities persecuted by the neighbours of the Polish-Lithuanian State, which its elites
called Rzeczpospolita Obojga Narodów (Republic of Two Nations).
Apart from Lithuanians, who had built the State and given it its name, the
Grand Duchy of Lithuania was populated by ethnic groups of Baltic provenance.
The Latgalians, who spoke a Latvian dialect, inhabited Livonia, politically linked
with the GDL since the mid-16th century. The Prussians and Jatvingians sought
refuge from the Teutonic Knights on the territory of the Grand Duchy, and traces
of yet another pagan Baltic tribe have been found in the Białowieża Forest. A glos-
sary has been discovered that contains elements of its language alongside their
Polish equivalents.
Within the political boundaries of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the East Slavic
tribes of Kriviči, Dregoviči and Radimiči gave rise to the Belarusian nation and lan-
guage. After the Union of Lublin (1569), the Grand Duchy saw the spread of Polish
language and culture. Local varieties soon evolved. In the 19th century, the Grand
Duchy found its way into Polish literature thanks to Adam Mickiewicz.
In the 14th and 15th centuries, Moslem Tartars and the Mosaic sect of Karaites
came to the Grand Duchy from the Crimea. There was also an influx of Jews from
 Languages in contact and conflict on the territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) 21

the West. As a result, a local language variety was formed called “Eastern Yiddish”,
which became the main vehicle of communication as well as the medium of Jewish
lay literature in this part of Europe. There is evidence that Romanies had lived in
the Grand Duchy since the 15th century (a charter from 1501). Russian Old Believers
(mostly peasants from the region of Pskov) fled from religious persecution and began
to take refuge in Lithuania in the late 17th century. Lutheran and Calvinist communi-
ties widely used a German dialect called “Baltendeutsch” in towns, especially in the
western part of the State, and in Livonia.
Thus the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was a conglomeration of languages, ethnic
groups and religions, and its most mobile and politically mature segments of society
(administration, nobility, soldiers, merchants, and craftsmen) were by necessity multi-
lingual. This led to interactions between languages (interference) and to the emergence
of shared innovations, particularly in the fields of vocabulary and onomastics. Inte­res­
ting­ly, the boundaries between particular languages and dialects coincided with the
administrative divisions of the GDL.
All the inhabitants of the Grand Duchy were referred to as “Lithuanians”, regardless
of ethnicity, language and religion. Even today inhabitants of the Mazowsze (Mazovia)
region apply these terms to Poles and Belarusians living in Podlasie (Podlachia). This
is also true of Belarusians: those living in Polesie (Pripet Marshes) use the same de-
notations speaking about their compatriots from the north-eastern part of the coun-
try [Klimčuk 1985]. In Muscovite Ruthenia, the Belarusian and Polish inhabitants of
the Grand Duchy were called Litovcy or Litwini ‘Lithuanians’, while the name Litwak
signi­fied a Jew living therein. Finally, Lithuanian Tartars were known in the Crimea
as Lipka < Litwa ‘Lithuania’ [Łapicz 1986].
The Grand Duchy of Lithuania ceased to exist as a political entity toward
the end of the 18th century in the aftermath of the partitions of Poland. However,
the awareness of common cultural roots and psychological community survived
(in spite of national conflicts since the second half of the 19th century) in certain
sense even to this day.
Literary works are written in various vernacular languages of those lands, and
ethnic stereotypes are ascribed to Lithuanians: inertia and attachment to the native
land, reticent and distrustful disposition, unforgiving nature, sensitivity and sentimen-
tality, piety and immunity to foreign influence. Such features supposedly have allowed
the nation to survive the vicissitudes of the last centuries and to retain the memory of
a glorious past. As regards linguistic aspects, certain structural similarities have long
been observed between Lithuanian and Belarusian [Wiemer 2003]. These structural
similarities are also shared by the dialect of Polish spoken in Wilno / Vilnius and,
to a lesser degree, by the other varieties of the Grand Duchy. Borrowings pertaining
to nature, material and spiritual culture, and geographical names are numerous and
reflect multidirectional influences. This allows us to speak about the Grand Duchy
of Lithuania as a multilingual system of communication – not unlike the Balkan
“Sprachbund” and other linguistic communities in some respect.
22 Leszek Bednarczuk

3. Languages and dialects of the GDL

3.1. Lithuanian
The Christianization of Lithuania began in 1009 with St. Bruno’s mission and for-
mally ended in 1386 with Jagiełło / Jogaila’s baptism in Roman-Catholic rite, but the
oldest layer of the Lithuanian Christian terminology is of the Church Russian origin.
The Christianization of the tribal Lithuanian territories was determined by continuous
immigration – from the East and South – of the Old Belarusian population, which is
documented by the ethnic toponomastics (Krywicze, Połoczany, Rusaki). The Lithua­
nian conquest of the Ruthenian territories which had started in the 13th century led
to consecutive attempts toward Orthodox Christianization of Lithuania during the
reign of Mendog / Mindaugas, his son Wojsiełk / *Vaišvilkas and in the next century,
of Giedymin / Gediminas and his successors. Apart from the basic Christian terms
of Church Russian origin, one finds the Orthodox personal names of the Lithuanian
princes installed in the Ruthenian lands, as well as the West Ruthenian (Old Bela-
rusian) language used in documents of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. It indicates
that the Christianization of Lithuania was initiated by Orthodox Russia during the
13th–14th centuries, and the direct source of the borrowings was Old Belarusian, which
is documented by the form of certain terms and names.
As far as the direct contacts of Lithuania with Poland are concerned, they take
place in Mazovia in the 13th century. These are Lithuanian military raids, as well as
dynastic marriages, and conflicts alternated with political alliances, which culminated
in the union and Christianization of ethnic Lithuania. The two nations first united in
1385 as a result of the personal union in Krewo / Krevas. This was formalized in 1569
by the Union of Lublin. Then, the Constitution of 3 May 1791 confirmed their status
as a single state. This Commonwealth was broken up by the partitions of Poland, but
the cultural unity it created lasted well into the 19th century.
In reality, contacts between the two nations date back to at least the 13th cen-
tury, when the first marriages between the Mazovian line of the Piast dynasty and
the Lithuanian dukes (kunigaikščiai) took place. These contacts are reflected in
onomastics. Princess Gaudemunda (?) [*Gaudi-manta] / Zofia, the daughter of the
Lithua­nian duke Traidenis, married Prince Bolesław II of Płock in 1279. Their son,
the Prince of Czersk and Sochaczew Trojden I (1284 or 1286–1341), was named after
his grandfather Traidenis. In 1325, King Kazimierz Wielki (Casimir the Great) mar-
ried Aldona / Anna, the daughter of Duke Gediminas. Danuta / Anna, the daughter
of Duke Kiejstut / Kęstutis married Prince Janusz of Mazovia before 1377. The ducal
names Witold / Vytautas, Olgierd / Algirdas, Kiejstut / Kęstutis became popular in
Poland in the 19th century thanks to Mickiewicz, Kraszewski, Sienkiewicz and other
authors. It is a well-known fact that the mutual influence of the two languages was
not limited to onomastics. Indeed, besides the considerable influence of the Polish
language on Lithuanian, certain Lithuanian borrowings can be found in Polish from
 Languages in contact and conflict on the territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) 23

the time of the oldest contacts between the two nations. In the Diplomatic Code of
the Cathedral and Diocese of Wilno (KDW, 1387–1507) and other documents of the
GDL [Jablonskis 1941] one finds numerous Lithuanian terms pertaining especially to
husbandry, for example: cywun ‘administrator’, dziakło ‘a form of tribute in the GDL
paid in grain and hay’, gryka ‘buckwheat’, punia ‘shed, barn’, rykunia ‘housewife’,
sterta ‘pile, hayrick’, świren ‘granary’, wicina ‘barge’, etc.
Nearly the whole area where the Lithuanian language evolved lay within the
boundaries of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, whose administrative divisions gave
rise to the main dialectal isoglosses. Contacts with the neighbouring Slavic lands
enriched the vocabulary and remodelled the grammatical structure. The historical
boundary of Samogitia / Żmudź / Žemaitija on the Szuszwa / Šušvė and Niewiaża /
Nevėžis rivers delimits the West Aukštaitian dialect. Together with the West Dzukian
dialect (both preserve e/aN), West Aukštaitian is spoken in the former domain of
Duke Kiejstut / Kęstutis (1297–1382) that became the province of Troki / Trakai. It is
located to the West of the line defined by Kiernów / Kernavas, Muśniki / Musninkai
and Olkienniki / Valkininkai, or Lithuania proper. The part of ethnic Lithuania within
the domain of Duke Olgierd / Algirdas (1300–1377) included Dziawołtwa / Deltuvė
(at later times the Zawilejski district) and Wiłkomierz / Ukmergė – Brasław , where
the East “Dzukian” dialect was spoken (shift of e/aN to uN ).
The eastern boundary of the Lithuanian ethnic element is a problem that has been
addressed by scholars representing various disciplines. It is inseparable from questions
concerning the ancestral homeland of the Balts. According to K. Būga [1924–1961,
III: 728–742], the early eastern Balts lived in the upper part of the Dnieper Valley.
Retreating under the pressure of the East Slavs (the Kriviči, Dregoviči and Radimiči
tribes), the Proto-East-Baltic language must have survived longer to the west of the
Berezyna and to the north of the Pripet. This survival rate is based on the abundance
of hydronyms and the occurrence of toponyms of Baltic origin. Subsequently, the
Lithuanian–Ruthenian border (until the Christianization of Lithuania towards the
end of the 14th century) followed a line defined by the Brasław Lakes, the Miadziołka
River, Lake Narocz, and then along the rivers Naroczanka, Wilia and Berezynka to
Niemen. Toponyms in -iszki [Safarewicz 1956], as well as Lithuanian names of land
features, become widespread to the West of that line. At the same time, it is the East
border of Catholicism which in the 14th and the 15th centuries became the religion
of the Lithuanians who lived there. It is only in historical times that the East Slavic
elements reached the present-day status. The same line later became the boundary
of the Wilno / Vilnius province, which marked the outer limit of borderland Polish
dialects. The current geographic extent of the Lithuanian language occurred between
the 16th and mid-19th centuries as a result of depopulation in the wake of wars and
disasters. Polonization of the Lithuanian ethnic element took place in the second half
of the 19th century as a reaction against forcible russification which entailed a reli-
gious conversion (for a different opinion cf. [Zinkevičius 1993/1995; 1996: 286–332]).
In the old Lithuanian language area, a series of “Dzukian” dialect islands has been
24 Leszek Bednarczuk

preserved in hard-to-reach places: Gierwiaty / Gervėčiai, Łazduny / Lazunai, Dzie­

wie­nisz­k i / Deveniškės. In addition, a West Aukštaitian dialect with certain features
of suspected Jatvingian origin (č, ž, š > c, z, s) is used in the vicinity of Zdzięcioł /
Zietela / Djatłovo [Vidugiris 1998].

3.2. Belarusian
The oldest linguistic stratum, which may be observed in the territory of Belaru-
sia, is the Finno-Ugric hydronymy in Latgalia, Estonia, the Pskov lake district. Some of
them bear the seal of the Baltic mediation (e.g. formant -el- in Nev-el , cf. Lith. Nevel-lis
– Finnish Neva). The numerous Baltic hydronyms constitute the successive stratum of
Belarusia and the adjacent territories (Niemen, Dvina, Volga, Dnieper, Pripet, Narew
interfluve). The areal differentiation of the Baltic hydronymy of Belarusia speaks for the
hypothesis according to which it is just here that (under the influence of geographical
conditions) the differences between the Baltic tribes started to be formed: West Baltic
(South-West part), East Baltic (northern Lakeland) and the Dnieper Balts (South-East),
who were the earliest to be assimilated by the Slavs. The original territory of the East
Balts became populated with Slavic Kriviči, that of the West Balts – Dregoviči, whereas
the territory of the Dnieper Balts was peopled by Radimiči. Thus the division between
historical White and Black Russia, where North-East and South-West Belarusian dialects
were formed, seems to reflect the difference between Eastern and Western Baltic tribes.
The consecutive stages of slavization can be indirectly observed thanks to the progres-
sive condensation in the North-West of Baltic elements in onomastics, vocabulary and
folklore of Belarusia. As it seems, these ethnolinguistic changes, were not caused by great
migrations, but rather the outcome of progressive assimilation with the range of a long
time: since the arrival of Ugro-Finnic people in the 3rd millennium B.C., through the
formation and disintegration of the Proto-Baltic community in the 2nd millennium B.C.,
up to the East Slavic expansion, lasting from the middle of the 1st millennium A.D.
The cause of the assimilation of the Balts was not only the quantitative preponderance
of the Slavic elements, but also most probably cultural factors, and since the 11th century
political and religious ones (cf. more exhaustively [EB 1973]).
The name Bełaruś (White Ruthenia) has yet to be explained satisfactorily
[Łatyszonek 2006: 17–70]. Until the 19th century, it encompassed the territory of the
former provinces of Witebsk, Połock and Smolensk, which roughly corresponds to
the extension of the north-eastern Belarusian dialect. The provinces of Nowogródek
and Minsk, as well as the region of Grodno, were called Czarna Ruś (Black Ruthenia).
The South-Western Belarusian dialect was spoken in Czarna Ruś, which abutted on
the Ukrainian dialects of Polesie in Ruś Litewska (Lithuanian Ruthenia) covered the
entire area of present-day Belarusia, approximately defined by the political border of
the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the 16th to 18th centuries.
The western variety of the Old Ruthenian legal language was the language of offi­
cial documents in the Grand Duchy until the 17th century [Stang 1935]. Referred to as
 Languages in contact and conflict on the territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) 25

“Old Belarusian” it is full of local, dialectal features, especially in the phonetic and lexi-
cal systems. Another variety of that language served as the language of religious litera-
ture and abounded in Church Slavic features. After the establishment of the Mohylan
Academy in Kiev, it also was marked by Ukrainisms. Polish increasingly influenced
both varieties, especially after the Union of Lublin [Martel 1938]. On the other hand,
the Belarusian language was probably spoken by the Lithuanians who came to Poland.
Thus no wonder that the words used by king Jagiełło / Jogaila before his baptism, were
uttered in Belarusian: ha ssto [a što] ‘what’s the matter?’ [Łoś 1922: 17].
Polonisms penetrated the spoken language and dialects, particularly in the western
area, reaching the line defined by Dryssa – Dokszyce – Łohojsk – Wołożyn – Prużana
[SPNZ I–V, 1979–1986]. Numerous Lithuanian borrowings have been identified in
the Belarusian language [Anikin 2005]. These are mainly the names of land features,
plants, as well as terms pertaining to animal breeding, fishing, building, utensils, etc.
On the other hand, Lithuanian dialects abound in manifestation of early Slavic
influence [Brückner 1877; P. Skardžius 1931]. These are mostly East Slavic and, since
the 16th century, Polish. The Belarusian influence on Lithuanian dialects is defined
by the range of the change of t’(v’), d’(v’) into c’(v’), ʒ’(v’), which occurred under the
direct influence of Belarusian, not Polish. This Belarusian influence is comparable
to the previously mentioned “Dzukian” dialect, which extends up to the line defined
by Jeziorosy / Zarasai, Łabonary / Labanoras, Jewie / Vievis, Olita / Alytus, Simno /
Simnas, Puńsk / Punckas. This is an area where Slavic derivational affixes and other
grammatical phenomena can be encountered.
The national self-consciousness of Belarusian is weakly developed. Part of them,
especially in the Polesie region, considered themselves as locals (tutejsi). In Polish-
Belarusian borderland self-identification was associated with religion: Catholics = Pole
(“Polish faith”), Ortodox = Belarusian (“Rusian faith”). The national conflicts on the
territory of the GDL were incited by Soviet-Russian and Nazi-German authorities,
but did not succeed in Belarusia. Its inhabitants have remained until today bound by
moral and cultural community inherited from the GDL times, cf. [Smułkowa, Budźko,
Guščeva, Kazanceva, 2009–2011].
At the end we should answer the following question: how was it possible that in
spite of such remarkable geographical, cultural and linguistic differentiation of Bela-
rusian territory, in spite of the lack of an integrating center and of natural boundaries
the Belarusian language and national separateness of Belarusians were nevertheless
formed. The East Slavic origin and the transitional position between Ukrainian and
Russian designate the position of Belarusian in Slavic family, but do not account for
the linguistic problems connected with the issue of the ethnogenesis of Belarusians.
This cannot be explained without taking into consideration original ethno­‑linguistic­
‑cultural relations prevailing on their territories. These were determined (to a con-
siderable extent) by the geographical position of Belarusia, which has neither natural
boundaries nor a distinct center. The three main regions, which go to the making
of the country – Pojezierze [Lake Region], Polesie [Pripet Marshes] and Podnieprze
26 Leszek Bednarczuk

[Dnieper Upland] – situated in the confluents of the rivers flowing in different di-
rections, go beyond its limits and gravitate towards neighbouring territories. At the
same time, bigger concentrations of settlement, are situated mainly on the periphe­
ries. As a result of this, the most important anthropo-geographic confines (as well as
the linguistic ones), do not unite but partition the territory of Belarusia, making out
of it a conglomerate of transitional zones.
It seems that a separate Belarusian ethnos and language were formed thanks to
the affiliation to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, whose political boundaries almost
exactly encompass the ethnographic Belarusia. Due to this, the Belarusian language
did not become a transitional zone of East Slavic dialects, but an independent lan-
guage, which has become the official language of Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

3.3. North-Eastern borderland Polish

Scientific investigations of the Polish languages in the territory of historical
Lithuania were started by scholars who were natives of this part of the former Polish­
‑Lithuanian Commonwelth – J. Karłowicz [SGP, 1900–1911: ustnie z Litwy ‘oral in-
formation from Lithuania’], H. Turska [1930; 1939/1982], O. Chomiński [1928–1933/
2010] and J. Trypućko [1955–1957]. After the World War II, the speech of the expatri-
ates from various parts of the Wilno and Nowogródek regions was documented by
A. A. Zdaniukiewicz [1999: 337–359], who published the monograph of a dialect of his
native village Łopatowszczyzna near Wilno (1972). At the same time V. Verenič with
a group of collaborators in Minsk started the local investigations of Polish dialects in
the Soviet Union (I–II, 1973), which were published since 1982 with the co-authorship
of J. Rieger in “Studia nad Polszczyzną Kresową”. Simultaneusly, researchers from the
Instytut Slawistyki PAN in Warsaw (I. Grek-Pabisowa, I. Mary­niakowa, E. Smułkowa)
with collaborators (H. Karaś, A. Zielińska, M. Ostrówka and others) started document-
ing the contemporary linguistic situation in Belarusia, Lithuania and Latvia. Apart
from Warsaw, a research center investigation Polish language of Wilno region was
formed in Bydgoszcz (J. Mędelska, Z. Sawaniewska­‑Mochowa, M. Marszałek). Worth
mentioning are the papers of the youngest generation of scholars born in Lithuania
(M. Dawlewicz, B. Dwilewicz, K. Geben, K. Rutkowska, I. Masojć, H. Sokołowska,
K. Syrnicka) and Belarusia (J. Gurskaja, Ż. Jeroma, K. Konczewska, A. Pawlukiewicz).
We should also mention the discovery of the “Polish language islands” in Lithuania
by the team of V. Čekmonas from Vilnius and socio-linguistic studies of K. Morita
from Japan. The Polish language from the GDL epoch (16th–17th c.) was investigat-
ed by Z. Kurzowa (1993), M. Lizisowa (2000), A. Pihan­‑Kijasowa (1999) and others
(cf. bibliography: [Sawaniewska-Mochowa 1991, 1995]).
Cultural polonization of the Lithuanian and Belarusian nobility, burghers and
clergy after the Union of Lublin (1569), and a population influx from Poland, resulted
in the rise of a local variety of the Polish language, attested also in administrative
texts and literature production. The local Polish language are used today in Li­thuania,
 Languages in contact and conflict on the territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) 27

Bela­rusia and Podlasie, this vernacular is permeated with Belarusian features and
lexical borrowings from Lithuanian. An enormous body of writings exists in the
territorial variety of Polish. We can distinguish the following Polish regiolects in the
territory of the GDL, where one finds common features attributable to the influence
of the Lithuanian Belarusian substratum and considerable regional variations marked
the Polish languages of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.
1. Wilno / Vilnius and its region. Wilno as the capital of the GDL and now
Republic of Lithuania was still a multilingual town. In the Wilno region the Polish
language (in spite of 19th–20th c. russification and contemporary lithuanization) has
been best preserved till now, also in literary from the 16th century.
2. Kowno / Kaunas and Lauda region. Polish languages is used till now also
in Wiłkomierz / Ukmergė and the Jeziorosy / Zarasai subregion, strongly influenced
by Lithuanian environment.
3. Suwałki / Suvalkai on Jatvingian substrate, influenced in North-East by Lithu-
anian, in the West from the Mazurian Polish dialect and German.
4. Podlasie–Grodno. Baltic and Belarusian adstrate, traces of German and Yid-
dish influence (Tykocin, Białystok). Grodno and Bohatyrowicze features were attested
in Eliza Orzeszkowa’s literary works.
5. Polesie. Polish Mazurian dialect influenced by East Slavic idioms with Bela-
rusian and Ukrainian features without national consciousness (tutejsi).
6. Nowogródek. Local Polish dialect, formed on Belarusian substratum, intro-
duced to Polish literature by Adam Mickiewicz (Zaosie), Władysław Syrokomla (near
Nieśwież) and Jan Czeczot (Maleszyce), who produced poems and described the Bela­
rusian language in Latin letters in Piosnki wieśniacze znad Niemna i Dźwiny (1846).
7. Minsk–Bobrujsk (central Belarusian), where at the beginning of the 20th century
the Polish dialect could be heard, recorded by Florian Czarnyszewicz in Nadberezyńcy
(1942). The slang of Minsk thieves and smugglers introduced to literature by Sergiusz
Piasecki in Kochanek Wielkiej Niedźwiedzicy (1937) and his other novels.
8. Mohylew–Witebsk (East Belarusian), where in the 17th and the 18th c. Polish
language was used. In Mohylew it was Kroynika of Trofim Sutra and Jerzy Trubnicki and
his son Aleksander (till 1841), where many regional features of pronunciation with a Bela­
rusian substrate and some Ukrainian characteristics as well as colloquial expressions.
Similar is the case in Dzieje miasta Witebska of Michał Pancerny and Gabriel Awierka
(till 1768), whereas in Połock it was the Polish borrowings in commercial correspon­dence
with Riga in the 16th c. [Stang 1939].
9. Smolensk, originally inhabited by the Eastern Slavic tribe Kriviči, which in
the West of the region was the forerunner of the Belarusian ethnos and its dialects.
Between 1611 and 1654 Smolensk and its region was a part of the Polish-Lithuanian
Commonwealth and then it returned to Moscow. In the Russian texts (16th–18th c.
[RIS 2000]) and in dialects (19th–20th c. [SG 1974–2005]) we find the numerous
Polish borrowings.
28 Leszek Bednarczuk

10. Inflants (Latgalia). Polish dialects in the Dyneburg / Daugavpils, Krasław,

Indryca, Waraklany area with Latvian and Belarusian features can still be encoun-
tered also in the Latvian capital Riga. We can find Polish borrowings in Old Latvian
religious texts and contemporary dialects.

3.4. Lithuanian Tartars

Three closely related languages from the Turkic family existed in the eastern parts
of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth: (1) Armenian-Kipčak, used in Red Ruthenia
since the 14th century by the majority of Polish Armenians; (2) West Karaite, the north-
ern dialect which will be discussed below; (3) the language of Lithuanian Tartars, who
had been migrating to the Grand Duchy from the Golden Horde and the Crimea since
the 14th century, as recorded in the entry for 1324 in the Franciscan Annals by Waddingo.
The influx of Tartars into the Grand Duchy of Lithuania reached its largest proportions
during the reign of Grand Duke Witold / Vytautas. Some seventy Tartar villages still
existed there in the 20th century [Talko-Hryncewicz 1924: 37]. Military service became
the main Tartar occupation. They retained their old tribal organization in units, which
were named after their former settlements (called ulus) in the Horde. One of the units
was commanded by the Assanczuk princes from the Ułan ulus (cf. the Turkish-Oguzian
oghlan ‘a youth of noble birth; a princely title’) – a name which came to be used in the 18th
century to denote a type of military formation. The language of the Lithuanian Tartars
was of Kipčak origin. Over the centuries, it incorporated a large number of Turkish
(Ottoman) and Arabic lexical borrowings, which reached it from Crimea. The language
fell into disuse in the 16th century. Sacred writings and prayer-books (kitabs, and kha-
mails) from the 17th to 19th centuries written in Belarusian and Polish, using the Arabic
alphabet, have been preserved [Antonovič 1968] . The Arabic alphabet was used for wills,
notes and tomb inscriptions as well as the Koranic texts that were incomprehensible to
most of the population. It performed the double role of a holy and secret script. Religious
and lay texts written in Belarusian and Polish are so full of Turkish and Arabic terms
that their language can be described as a remodelled Belarusian (or Polish) ethnolect, in
which Slavic endings are affixed to Oriental lexemes. Its phonemic and word-building
characteristics resemble other ethnolects of the Grand Duchy. Palatal consonants occur
in the context of front vowels, as in the following examples:
Oriental (Tartar) lexemes in Belarusian / Polish: biesz ‘five’, fierej (name of a de-
mon), iślam ‘Islam’, mieczeć ‘mosque’, resiul (Turkish resul) ‘envoy, prophet’, sielam
(Arabic salem), szerbiet (Turkish śerbet) ‘sherbet, beverage’, ziereć ‘cemetery’, etc. Slavic
suffixes are also in frequent use, e.g. ahreć-ka ‘kinswoman’, moll-ina ‘mullah’s wife’,
chodz-ina ‘teacher’s wife’, mekkiej-skij ‘Meccan’, ramazan-wyj ‘of Ramadan’. Verbs
distinguish perfective forms: za-haremić ‘to cover the bride’s face at the wedding ce­
re­mo­ny’ (from harem), po-guślić ‘perform ablutions’, etc. There also exist participial
forms, as in the other dialects of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, e.g. Nu tak spiewszy
ajety, treba dusjaka pieć ‘after singing the Koran verse, it is time to sing the hymns’
 Languages in contact and conflict on the territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) 29

[Borawski, Dubiński 1986: 255–264]. Family names of Tartar origin, based on Orien­
tal stems, but adapted to the Polish / Belarusian system, include the following ones
and many others [Dziadulewicz 1929]: Abakanowicz, Abłamowicz, Aksak, Birbasz,
Bohatyrowicz, Bułhak, Eliaszewicz, Kajdasz, Kryczyński, Kudasiewicz, Mordasewicz,
Nurkiewicz, Safarewicz, Sułkiewicz, Szabunia, Szyryński, Tuhanowicz, etc.
It has yet to be determined which was the contribution that the Lithuanian
Tartars, who often functioned as interpreters in contacts with the Crimea and the
Otto­man Porte, made to the transfer of Oriental borrowings into the languages of
the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. A Turkish-Tartar origin is plausible for the
diminutive-patronymic suffix -(cz)uk (also -(cz)uk-o/ewicz in family names), wide-
spread in Belarusian, West Ukrainian and borderland Polish areas ([Lindert 1972], cf.
Assan-czuk-owicz, Plan-ciuk-iewicz). As this suffix was not recorded prior to the 15th
century, and does not occur in other Slavic languages, it most probably owes its wide
range of occurrence to the ethno-onomastic processes that went on in the Grand Duchy.

3.5. Karaites of Troki / Trakai

Another ethnolect in the territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania is the northern
dialect of the West Karaite language, the speakers of which call themselves Karajłych
[Musajev 1964]. It is still used by a small group of inhabitants of the former Karaim-
szczyzna borough of Troki / Trakai. Until recently, Karaites lived also in Poniewież /
Panevežys and Birże / Biržai. The first group of Karaites was brought to Lithuania by
Grand Duke Witold / Vytautas from the Crimea around 1397. Probably in the 15th cen-
tury, Karaites using the south-western dialect came to Halicz and Łuck [Grzegorzewski
1916–1918]. In the central Crimea (Yevpatoriya, Bakhchisarai, Feodosiya), remnants
of the East Karaite language have been preserved that allow one to distinguish Slavic
influence from native innovations. The origin of the Karaites has not been explained
conclusively as yet [Musajev 1964; Németh 2011]. Links with the Kipčaks, Kumans,
and Polovtsy tribes have been suggested, but they also may have been descendants of
the Khazares, whose religion was based on the pre-Talmudic Bible as the only source
of revelation. The liturgical language of the Karaites is Hebrew, but a number of Bibli-
cal books have been translated into Karaite. The Karaite literature comprises prayers,
songs, folklore (divination formulae, proverbs, even epic literature), travelogues, his-
torical writings, theological and scientific treatises, and translations (for example the
Crimean Sonnets by Adam Mickiewicz). In contrast to everyday language, the written
language has fewer Slavisms and Lithuanisms. The influence of Lithuanian and the
Slavic languages is seen in the existence of palatal consonants. These are particularly
widespread in the dialect of Troki / Trakai [Csató 1997: 68–83; Németh 2011: 13–18],
where they occur throughout the phonemic system (in the dialect of Łuck and Ha-
licz, only dental and velar consonants exist; the Crimean dialect has no palatalized
consonants at all). In the dialect of Troki /Trakai, various processes have increased
the frequency of occurrence for the vowel a which is similar to the phenomenon of
30 Leszek Bednarczuk

“(j)akanie” and the shift [e] > [ä] in Lithuanian. Since Turkish languages have no
grammatical gender, feminine forms are built with borrowed word formation affixes
(e.g. Karai-ka ‘Karaite woman’, adjuv-ka ‘she-bear’; diminutives: at-ulju! ‘daddy!’) and
inflectional suffixes (as in adjectives: karaj-ski ‘Karaite (adj.)’; superlatives: naj-burun
‘the very first’). The family-name forming suffixes -ski, -e/owicz, -uk are added to
Turkish stems: Azar-ewicz, Soł-tań-ski, Ur-czuk, as well as to Slavic ones. In present-
day spoken language, code-switching is a frequent phenomenon, e.g. Eto nevažno,
bart kahyt ‘It doesn’t matter, we’ve got paper’ [Musajev 1964: 10].

3.6. “Litwak” Yiddish

Three territorial varieties of Yiddish existed within the boundaries of the former
Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth: central, south-eastern and north-eastern. The
north-eastern dialect was called “Litwak” from the name denoting the Jewish popula-
tion of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania within its borders (prior to the Union of Lublin
in 1569). Apart from Lithuania and Belarus, Litwak extended into Podlasie (behind
Brześć and Białystok in the West), Volhynian Polesie (reaching Kiev and Poltava) up
to Vitebsk and Riga. All three dialects are sometimes called “East Yiddish” [Wein-
reich 1958; Jacobs 2001; Krogh 2002]. Slavic influence is seen in the loss of rounded
front vowels and in the palatalization of consonants. The phenomena of “ciakanie”
and “dziakanie” appear occasionally in the Litwak dialect [Weinreich 1958: 6]. The
dialect’s greatest peculiarity is the so-called sábesdiker losn ‘Sabbath language, solemn
pronunciation’, not unlike Polish “mazurzenie” [Weinreich 1952]. Also the morphosyn-
tactic system of East Yiddish was remodelled under the Slavic influence as shown by
word-building morphemes and patterns (diminutives of the type žuk-ele ‘little beetle’,
łošad-ka-lja ‘little horse’), the aspect opposition (iber-gelejen ‘has read [perfective]’),
and syntactic constructions. This is also the case with vocabulary and anthroponyms
(diminutive first names, family names in -ko, -owicz, -owski). The neuter gender was
probably lost in the Litwak dialect under the influence of Lithuanian.
The earliest evidence of the Jewish presence in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania is
the privilege granted by Grand Duke Witold / Vytautas to the Jewish commune of
Troki / Trakai [Heller 1930: 262]. In the centuries to follow, Wilno / Vilnius and other
towns of the GDL became the centers of Jewish culture. At the beginning of the last
century, A. Wasilewski (1905) observed that Yiddish was in use even among Slavic
workers in factories owned by the Jews in Białystok.

3.7. A Baltic idiom from Narew

A hitherto unknown Baltic language was identified from a small dictionary en-
titled Pogańskie gwary z Narewu [The pagan dialects from Narew] compiled in the
late 16th or early 17th century and consisting of some 200 translated Polish words.
V. Zinov discovered the dictionary in 1978 at the eastern perimeter of Białowieża
Forest. Z. Zinkevičius (1992) has interpreted its copy (the original had disappeared in
 Languages in contact and conflict on the territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) 31

the meantime!) as a Jatvingian document. The Polish elements in the dictionary show
features of the north-eastern borderland variety. The Baltic elements reveal a certain
affinity with Latvian (palatalization of k, g + E, voicing of word final consonants as
in Livonian dialects; Finno-Ugric borrowings, including some unknown in Latvian).
The dictionary also contains Germanic borrowings (but no Slavic ones) and indicates
some Lithuanian influence. Moreover, the existence of some archaic forms shows links
with Old Prussian. All this suggests that the speakers of the ethno­lect arrived on the
Narew from Courland, perhaps to avoid Christianization by the Livonian Order. Thus
it could not have been a Jatvingian document contrary to what Z. Zinkevičius sug-
gests. According to all that is known about Jatvingian, it was related closely to Prus-
sian, and it is unlikely that it would show signs of Germanic and Finno-Ugric (but
not Slavic) borrowings, as well as Latvian influence. The dictionary is now an object
of intensive investigation and, sometimes, far-fetched speculations. Regardless of
particular interpretations, the phonetic structure of both parts of the dictionary fits
the patterns of the language community of the Grand Duchy of Lithua­nia, and it is
an established fact that paganism existed in the borderlands between Lithuania and
Latvia as late as the first half of the 17th century [Jablonskis 1941: 309].

3.8. Russian Old Believers

Latest of all, at the end of the 17th century, but mainly in the 18th and 19th centuries
the Russian Old Believers (raskol’niki ‘schismatics’) arrive from the regions of Velikie
Łuki, Tropec and Opočka, bordering upon the GDL, similarly to the strigol’nici from
Novgorod, who escaped from Ivan the Third’s persecutions at the end of the 15th [EP,
1862, XXII: 289]. Probably, they first reached Latgalia, and from here they moved to the
neighbouring Brasław, Święciany, Jeziorosy / Zarasai, Kowno / Kaunas and in the end
of the 18th century, to the Suwałki–Augustów regions. According to O. Chomiński’s
meticulous calculations (1927–1934/2010) in the Brasław and Święciany regions Old
Believers constituted 6–8 % of the population, most of them in Widze and Melegiany
(10%), whereas to the south of Wilno there was practically no trace of them.
According to investigations of I. Grek-Pabisowa (1968, 1983, 1999), I. Marynia-
kowa (1976), A. Zielińska (1996), M. Głuszkowski (2011), the language of the Polish
Old Believers belongs to the Middle West Russian dialect of the Pskov type, in­fluen­
ced by Belarusian language “ciakanie” / “dziakanie”, “(j)akanie”, prothetic v-) and
Polish (numerous borrowings, also in territory of Lithuania and Latgalia). Among
these lexemes even Catholic religious terms appear, e.g. birmovať ‘to confirm’, kaplica
‘chapel’, parafia ‘parish’, pateri ‘prayers’, rožancy ‘rosary’, škapleri ‘scapular’, šljub
‘wedding’, žegnat’sja ‘to bless’ [Nemčenko 1968: 57–58].
The Old Believers from the former Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth were reset-
tled by the tsarist authorities to Siberia, where they were called poljaki or raskol’niki
[Dal 1955, III: 268]. It is probably from them that Polish vocabulary was borrowed
to the local Russian dialects [Doroszkiewicz 1991: 137, 151].
32 Leszek Bednarczuk

4. Inter-lingual transpositions on the territory of the GDL

Multilingualism common on the territory of the GDL was the cause of mutual
borrowings, which were taken over according to habits of articulation and phono-
tactic rules of particular languages and dialects in common nouns (appellativa) as
well as in proper names.

4.1. Transpositions in appellativa

Ample Old Lithuanian material can be found in P. Skardžius’ study (1931), whereas
J. Otrębski (1932) provided a subtle analysis of phonetic, morphemic and phraseologi-
cal Slavic-Lithuanian transpositions in East Lithuania dialect of Twerecz / Tverečius.
The absence of certain phonemes and consonantal groups in Lithuanian led to the
following transpositions:
f > p: Pol. oficer ‘officer’, felczer ‘assistant surgeon’ > Lith. dial. apićeŕus, pelč'ėŕus;
x, f > k: Pol. grzech ‘sin’ > Lith. griekas; Brus. funt ‘pound’ > Lith. dial. kuntas;
h > zero, dial. h-, v-: Pol. herbata ‘tee’ > Lith. arbata; Pol. honor ‘honour’ > Lith. dial.
vonaras; Brus. hadina ‘hour’, ahurka ‘cucumber’, bahaty ‘rich’ > Lith. dial. (Zietela)
h
adina, ahurka, bahotas [Rozwadowski, Gregorski 1995: 113–115];
c > č hydronyms: Lith. Avier-nyčia, Rat-nyčia = Pol. Rot-nica, Awier-nica;
-z- > -zd-: Pol. obraz ‘picture’, rozum ‘mind’ > Lith. abroz(d)as, raz(d)umas;
-šk- > -čk-: Pol. flaszka ‘bottle’ > Brus. plaška > Lith. pleška / plečka; Pol. puszka ‘cannon’
> O. Lith. pučka ‘cannon, musket’; Pol. podkowa ‘horse-shoe’ > Lith. dial. paćkava;
-st-, -št- > -kšt-: Pol. baszta ‘tower’ > Lith. bokštas, O. Brus. xrest ‘baptism’ > krikštas;
-šč-, -č- > -kšt-: hydronyms: Lith. = Dysna > Dysn-ykštis = Pol. Brus. Dzisna > Dzisn-iszcze;
Lith. Salčia > Salč-ykščia = Pol. Solcza > Solcz-yca;
-nsk- > -nck-: toponym Lith. Punckas = Pol. Puńsk;
-mn- > -min-, -vn- > -vin-, -vd- > -vid-: Pol. mnich ‘monk’, grzywna ‘fine’, krzywda
‘wrong’ > Lith. minykas, O. Lith. griv(i)na, kriv(i)da.

On the other hand, in Slavic transpositions of certain Lithuanian proper names voice-
less obstruent consonants may be softed (-jt- > -jd-, -tr- > -dr-, nt- > -nd-, -lk- > -lg-, -sk- >
-zg-, -ćv- > -dźv-), e.g. ethnonym: Žemaitija, Žemaitis > Pol. Żmu(j)dź, Żmudzin, Brus.
family name Že/amojda; name of prince Svitrigaila > Świdrygiełło; toponyms: Lentvaris
> Landwarów, Linkmenis > Łyngmiany, family name Švolka /Svolka, Svolkenis > Swolkień
[Svolg’eń]; Druskininkai > Brus. and Pol. regional (Grodno) Druzgieniki; Baltic ethnonym
*Jotvingas > Brus. Jaćvjaha, Pol. (ancient and dialectal) > Jadźwing(a), etc.
 Languages in contact and conflict on the territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) 33

In some Lithuanian and Belarusian dialects before certain initial consonant

groups a prothetic vowel may appear, e.g. Pol. szkoła ‘school’, szkoda ‘damage, harm’,
zbroja ‘armour’, dzban ‘jug, pither’ > Lith. dial. i-škala, i‑škada, O. Lith. i‑zbraja,
i‑zbanas, dial. u‑zbanas; Brus. i‑ržyšča ‘staubble-field’, i-mšar ‘morass’, i-mhła ‘mist,
fog’ i-hruška ‘pear’, i-štuka ‘piece’. Similarly to Lithuanian in Belarusian, Polish and
Russian f is repalaced by p, χf, χ, e.g. Pol. kartofle ‘potato(es)’, oficer ‘officer’, pantofle
‘slippers’ > Brus. kartoplja, katoχlja, kartoχfel, aχficer, pantopli; also personal names,
e.g. Russian Afanasij, Filip, Josif, Sofronij > Brus. Apanas, Pilip, (V)osip, Supron, etc.
[Karskij 1955: 342].

4.2. Transpositions in proper names

Particularly ample material is provided by transpositions of the early documented
name of the capital town of the GDL and the rivers, which flow here. The name of
Wilno / Vilnius appears in 1323 in the form Vilna in Latin documents of the Grand
Duke Gedymin / Gediminas, among others in the letters to Franciscans of the Ger-
man province, whom he asks to send to Wilno and Nowogródek priests who know
Lithuanian, Ruthenian and Polish:
„Volumus enim episcopos, sacerdotes, religiosos ordinis cuiuscunque colligere,
praecipue de vestris, quibus iam ereximus duas ecclesias in civitate nostra regia,
dicta Vilna, et aliam Novgardia, ad quasi nobis hoc anno quatuor fratrem scientes
polonicum, semigallicum [i. e. Lithuanian] ac ruthenicum ordinetis, tales ut nunc
sunt et fuerant” (26 V 1323 GL, nr 19). Later on, the form Wilno appears in a letter
to the bishop and the inhabitants of Riga: „Datum Wilno in die sancti trinitatis”
(2 VI 1325 GL, nr 60).
Vilna. As the name of the town predominates in Latin documents and it entered
West European languages. On the other hand, the form Wilno was recorded several
times in the 14th century and is used until today in Polish. Both have a direct source
in the Old-West-Ruthenian (i. e. Old Belarusian) town name Vilna, which is testified
in GDL documents, where it later appears in the form Vilnja (still present in Belaru-
sian). It is the name of small river (Lith. dial. Vilnia, Vilnė, now Vilnelė, Pol. Wilejka,
now Wilenka), which flows here into the Wilia. Its Belarusian name Vilnia, Vilna was
transferred as the name of the town and appears in Latin documents, whereas the form
Wilno represents the Polish transposition. The contemporary Lithuanian form Vil-
nius is documented from the beginning of the 17th century (1600 M. Dauksza Postilla;
1653 D. Klein Grammatika), but it became common in the period of the Lithuanian
national rebirth at the end of the 19th century.
Wilija. The Lithuanian name of the lower riverside Neris [Njaris] was recorded
in the Teutonic Order sources as Nerge [Nerje] (1294) as well as in the name of sub-
urban settlement Ponary (1390). The form Vilija is the Lithuanian name of the upper
riverside, from where the Belarusian and Polish names of the river are recorded in
KDW since the end of the 14th century as Wigilia [Wilija] (1390, 1397), Wilia (1434).
34 Leszek Bednarczuk

In Old Russian sources the name Velja was formed probably under the influence of
adjective velьja ‘big, great, vast’. Both names of the river are of Lithuanian origin
[Vanagas 1981: 382–384; 2004: 254–262].
Wilejka, Wilenka, the main confluent of Wilia in the area of the town Wilno.
Form Wilejka (16th–19th c.) was derived from Vilija with help of Lithuanian for-
mant -ejka. Form Wilenka (1592 till now) was derived from Lithuanian dialectal
and Belarusian form Vilnia (1430 – half of the 18th c.), which is identical with Lith.
appellativum vilnia ‘wave’. In documents of the GDL one finds yet two derivates:
Viln(j)ovka (1663: do rzeki Wilniowki; przy rzece Wilnowce) and Wilnejka (1715:
do rzeczki Wilneyki).

5. The linguistic community of the GDL

The above review demonstrates that the languages and dialects used in the ter-
ritory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania belong to various branches (Baltic, Slavic,
Germanic and Turkic) and represent different structural types, but prolonged con-
tacts led to their mutual assimilation through lexical borrowings and grammatical
interference. This interference has resulted in common structural innovations and
loan translations. The following features can be mentioned in this context.
A. PHONOLOGY
1. Correlation of palatalization. This phenomenon concerns the entire
consonant system, occasionally leading to a modified manner of articulation: in
Belarusian and in the “Dzukian” dialect of Lithuanian, t’(v’), d’(v’) changed into
c’(v’), ʒ’(v’), presumably under the influence of the general change of t’, d’ into ć, 
in Polish. Palatal consonants also appear with varying intensity in the remaining
languages and dialects of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (Karaite, North-East Yid-
dish, and Tartar).
2. Symmetry of vocalism. It is a feature of all the Baltic languages (Lithuanian
lacks a short o and a long a). In Belarusian vocalism, symmetry of vocalism occurs
in unstressed syllables, where it takes the form of so-called “akanie” (o > a) and “ja-
kanie” (e > ja). This phenomenon is also found in north-eastern Polish borderland
dialects (o > a, u; e > ’a, i), although with less consistency. In the remaining languages
and dialects it occurs only sporadically.
3. Tendency towards diphthongization. Lithuanian has phonological diphthongs:
ui, ei, ai, au; ie, uo. In Belarusian we observe phonotactic repartition: v, j (in pre‑ and
intervocalic position) ,  (in post-vocalic and final position). In the remaining lan-
guages diphthongal combinations occur occasionally.
B. MORPHOLOGY
1. Tendency towards a two-gender system (masculine / feminine). The neu-
ter has disappeared in Lithuanian, and it is rare in North Belarusian dialects and in
 Languages in contact and conflict on the territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) 35

north-eastern borderland Polish. On the other hand, the feminine has emerged (crea­
ting an opposition to the masculine) in the genderless Turkic languages: Karaite and
Tartar in their “Lithuanian” varieties.
2. Perfective / imperfective aspect opposition. This derivational opposition
constitutes a regular (grammatical) phenomenon in Slavic languages; its grammati-
cal status in Lithuanian is far from clear. It does not exist in Eastern Yiddish and in
Karaite and Tartar; only some prefixal derivatives from simplex stems exist. The pre-
fixation patterns however certainly appeared under Slavic influence.
3. Derivational affixes and their transpositions. These are particularly wide-
spread in onomastics.
Anthroponyms: Lith. -aitis, -utis, -etis > Slav. -ojć, -uć, -eć; Lith. -eika > Slav.
‑ejko; Lith. -aila, -elis, -ila(s) > Slav. -ajło/-ełło, -el, -iłł(o); complex suffixes: -uć‑ko;
-a/e/usz‑ko, -(cz)uk-e/ow-icz.
Toponyms: Lith. -iskės > Slav. -iszki; contamination: Lith. -onis ↔ Slav. > -(an)‑ec
> -ańce; Pol. -(ow)izna ↔ Brus. -(ov)ščina > -(ow)szczyzna; Pol. -ęta ↔ Brus. -enjata
> -enięta.
Hydronyms: Lith. -a/ekys > Slav. -o/eč; Lith -ančia, -intas > Slav. -ača, -ato; Brus.
-išče > Lith. -ykštis; Pol. -(n)ica > Lith. -(n)yčia.
On the other hand, the extraordinary abundance of diminutives in Lithuanian,
Belarusian and north-eastern borderland Polish is an ethno-psychological trait of the
inhabitants, which is attested to by the local literary tradition. Certain of them consti-
tute the multiaffixal formants, cf. regional Polish: -ucz-ek, -icz-ka, -ut‑ka, -eń‑ut‑ek,
-ul‑acz‑ek, etc.
C. SYNTAX
1. Use of cases. Semantic functions, use of prepositions, lack of a vocative.
2. Finite verb. Tendency to zero-copula (in the present tense) and lack of num-
ber distinction in the 3rd person of finite verbs.
3. Widespread use of participial constructions. The use of the active past par-
ticiple in the formation of a perfect in Lithuanian, North Belarusian, north-eastern
borderland Polish and, occasionally, Tartar and Karaite is a case in point.
4. Possessive construction with the verb ‘be’. This way of forming possessives is
regular in East Slavic languages, frequent in Lithuanian and attested in north-eastern
borderland Polish (local Polish u mnie jest), where it replaces the construction with
the word mieć ‘have’.
Added to this, the numerous common innovations and mutual lexical borrow-
ings and loan translations (on the lexical and phraseological and text levels) provide
extra evidence in support of the claim for a linguistic, cultural and ethno-psycho-
logical community of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania – a “Sprachbund”, a linguistic
community which has survived to some degree to this day.
36 Leszek Bednarczuk

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ad a m ov i č iū t ė - Č e k m on i e n ė I., Č e k o m on a s V., 1999, Polskojęzyczna wysepka pod
Onik­sztami, której dziś już nie ma, [in:] SPK IX, 33–55.
A n i k i n A., 2005, Opyt slovarja leksičeskih baltizmov v russkom jazyke, Novosibirsk.
A ntonov ič A., 1968, Belorusskie teksty, pisannye arabskim pis’mom […], Vilnius.
“Balticoslavica”. Biuletyn Instytutu Naukowo-Badawczego Europy Wschodniej w Wilnie,
1933–1938, I–III, Wilno.
B e d n a rc z u k L., 1994, Stosunki etnolingwistyczne na obszarze Wielkiego Księstwa Litew­
skiego, ABS 22, 109–124.
B e d n a rc z u k L., 2003, The ethnoliguistic relationships in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania,
“Studies in Eurolinguistics”. II International Symposium of Eurolinguistics, Pushkin,
September 10–16, 1999, Berlin, 305–319.
B e d n a rc z u k L., 2010, Językowy obraz Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego, Kraków.
B or aw s k i P., D u bi ń s k i A., 1986, Tatarzy polscy, Warszawa.
Br ück ner A., 1877, Litu-slavische Studien, I, Die slavischen Fremdwörter im Litauischen, Weimar.
B ū g a K., 1958–1962, Rinktiniai raštai, I 1958, II 1959, III 1961, Rodyklės 1962, Vilnius.
C hom i ń s k i O., 1928–1934/2010, Obszar językowy litewski w państwie polskim, ed. L. B e d-
n a rc z u k , ABS XXXIV, 197–261.
C s ató E. A., 1997, Some typological properties of North-Western Karaim in areal perspective,
[in:] Areale, Kontakte, Dialekte, Sprache und ihre Dynamik in mehrsprachigen Situatio-
nen, Bochum, 68–83.
D a l V., 1880–1882/1955, Tolkovyj slovar’ živogo velikorusskogo jazyka, I–IV, Moskva.
Dorosz k iew icz M., 1991, Studia nad wpływami polskimi na rosyjską leksykę gwarową, Wrocław.
D z i a du le w ic z S., 1929, Herbarz rodzin tatarskich w Polsce, Wilno.
G ł u s z kow s k i M., 2011, Socjologiczne i psychologiczne uwarunkowania dwujęzyczności staro­
obrzędowców regionu suwalsko-augustowskiego, Toruń.
G re k-Pa bi s ow a I., 1968, Rosyjska gwara starowierców w województwie olsztyńskim i bia-
łostockim, Wrocław.
G re k-Pa bi s ow a I., 1983, Słownictwo rosyjskie wyspy gwarowej staroobrzędowców w Polsce,
Wrocław.
G re k-Pa bi s ow a I., 1999, Staroobrzędowcy. Szkice z historii, języka, obyczajów, Warszawa.
Grek-Pabi s owa I., 2002, Współczesne gwary polskie na Litwie i Białorusi. Fonetyka, Warszawa.
G re k-Pa bi s ow a I., M a r y n i a kow a I., 1999, Współczesne gwary polskie na dawnych Kre-
sach północno-wschodnich, Warszawa.
Gre k-Pa bi s ow a I., O s t rów k a M., Bie si a dow s k a-M a gd z i a r z B., 2008, Język polski na
Białorusi Radzieckiej w okresie międzywojennym, I–II, Warszawa.
G r z e gor z e w s k i J., 1916–1918, Caraimica, „Rocznik Orientalistyczny”, 1/3, 252–296.
He l le r M., 1930, Wilno jako ośrodek żydowskiego życia kulturalnego, WZW I, 262–271.
Ja blon s k i s K., 1941, Lietuviški žodžiai. Senosios lietuvos raštinių kalboje, Kaunas.
Ja c o b s N. G., 2001, Yiddish in the Baltic region, [in:] Circum-Baltic languages. Typology and
Contacts, II. Grammar and typology, Amsterdam–Philadelphia, 285–311.
K a r a ś H., 2002, Gwary polskie na Kowieńszczyźnie, Warszawa.
 Languages in contact and conflict on the territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) 37

K l i mč u k F., 1985, Vostočnoslavjanskij etnonim “Litviny”, [in:] International Conference of

Balticists. Abstracts, Vilnius, 168–169.
K ro g h S., 2001, Das Ostjiddische im Sprachkontakt […], Tübingen.
Ku r z ow a Z., 1993, Język polski Wileńszczyzny i kresów północno-wschodnich XVI–XX w.,
Warszawa–Kraków.
L i nd e r t B., 1972, Formanty -(i)uk i -čuk w językach wschodniosłowiańskich, PSS, IV, 81–87.
L i z i s ow a M. T., 2000, Język „Kodeksu Olszewskiego” (1550), Kraków.
Ł apic z C., 1986, Kitab tatarów litewsko-polskich (paleografia, grafia, język), Toruń.
Ł at y s z one k O., 2006, Od Rusinów Białych do Białorusinów. U źródeł białoruskiej idei naro-
dowej, Białystok.
M ę d e l s k a J., 1999–2004, Język polskiej prasy wileńskiej, I–III, Bydgoszcz.
Mor it a K., 2005, Przemiany socjolingwistyczne w polskich społecznościach na Litwie (region
trocki) i Białorusi (region iwieniecki), Warszawa.
Mu s aje v K., 1964, Grammatika karaimskogo jazyka, Moskva.
Ne m č e n k o V. N., 1968, Dialektnaja leksika v russkih starožilčeskih govorah Litvy, [in:]
Dialektologičeskij sbornik, Riga, 36–72.
Né me t h M., 2011, Zwięzła gramatyka języka zachodniokaraimskiego z ćwiczeniami, Poznań.
O t rębsk i J., 1932, Wschodniolitewskie narzecze twereckie, III, Zapożyczenia słowiańskie, Kraków.
P i h a n-K ij a s ov a A., 1999, Literacka polszczyzna kresów północno-wschodnich XVII wieku.
Fonetyka, Poznań.
R ie ge r J., M a s oj ć I., Rut kow s k a K., 2006, Słownictwo polszczyzny gwarowej na Litwie,
Warszawa.
Roz w adow sk i J., Gregorsk i A., 1995, Litewska gwara okolic Zdzięcioła na Nowogródczyźnie,
Kraków.
S a f a re w ic z J., 1956, Litewskie nazwy miejscowe na -iszki, “Onomastica” II, 15–63.
S aw a n ie w s k a-Mo c how a Z., 1991, 1995, Bibliografia prac o polszczyźnie kresowej, SPK, VI,
223–254; VIII, 265–282.
S aw a n ie w s k a-Mo c how a Z., 2002, Ze studiów nad socjolektem drobnej szlachty kowień-
skiej XIX wieku, Bydgoszcz.
S k a rd ž iu s P., 1931, Die slavischen Lehnwörter im Altlitauischen, Kaunas.
Smu ł kow a E., 2002, Białoruś i pogranicza. Studia o języku i społeczeństwie, Warszawa.
Smu ł kow a E. (ed.), Bud ź ko I., Gu š č e v a O., K a z a nc e v a H., 2009–2011, Brasławszczyzna.
Pamięć i współczesność, I–II, Warszawa.
St a n g Ch., 1935, Die westrussische Kanzleisprache des Grossfürstentums Litauen, Oslo.
St a n g Ch., 1939, Die altrussische Urkundensprache der Stadt Polozk, Oslo.
Tr y puć ko J., 1955–1957, Język Władysława Syrokomli. Przyczynek do dziejów polskiego języka
literackiego w wieku XIX, I–II, Uppsala.
Tu r s k a H., 1930, Język Jana Chodźki. Przyczynek do historii języka polskiego na obszarze
północno-wschodnim Rzeczypospolitej, Wilno.
Tu r s k a H., 1939/1982, O powstaniu polskich obszarów językowych na Wileńszczyźnie, SPK,
I, 19–121.
Va n a g a s A., 1981, Lietuvių hidronimų etomologinis žodynas, Vilnius.
Va n a g a s A., 2004, Lietuvos miestų vardai, Vilnius.
38 Leszek Bednarczuk

Ve re n ič V., 1990, Polskoe-belorusskoe jazykovoe vzaimodejstvie (na materiale mazurskogo

ostrovnogo govora v Poles’ je), SPK, V, 7–141.
Vidu g i r i s A., 1998, Zietelos šnektos žodynas, Vilnius.
Wa s i le w s k i L., 1905, Jeszcze słówko o Litwie, “Ogniwo”, nr 36.
Wei n reic h U., 1952, Sábesdiker losn in Yiddish: a problem of linguistic affinity, “Slavic Word”
VIII/4, 360–377.
We i n re ic h U., 1953/1970, Languages in contact, VII ed., The Hague.
We i n re ic h U., 1958, Yiddish and colonial German in Eastern Europe: the differential impact
of Slavic, [in:] American Contribution to the Forth International Congress of Slavicists,
The Hague.
Wie me r B., 2003, Dialect and language contacts on the territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithu-
ania from the 15th century until 1939, [in:] Aspects of multilingualism in European languages
history, Amsterdam–Philadephia, 105–143.
Z d a n iu k i e w ic z A. A., 1957–1959, Archiwum fonograficzne, ABS 24, 1999: 337–359, with
map (ed. L. B e d n a rc z u k).
Z d a n iu k ie w ic z A. A., 1972, Gwara Łopatowszczyzny, Wrocław.
Z ie l i ń s k a A., 1996, Wielojęzyczność staroobrzędowców mieszkających w Polsce, Warszawa.
Z i n k e v i č iu s Z., 1992, A Polish-Yatvingian vocabulary, “Linguistic and Oriental Studies
from Poznań”, I, 99–133.
Z i n k e v i č iu s Z., 1993/1996, Rytų Lietuva praeityje ir dabar / Vostočnaja Litva v prošlom
i nastojaščem, Vilnius.
Z i n k e v ič iu s Z., 1996, The history of the Lithuanian language, Vilnius.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ABBREVIATIONS
ABS – “Acta Baltico-Slavica”, Białystok–Warszawa.
EB – Etnogenez Belorusov. Tezisy dokladov, Minsk 1973.
EP – Encyklopedia powszechna, ed. S. O r ge l br a nd , I–XXVIII, Warszawa 1859–1868.
GL – Gedimino laiškai. Chartularium Lithuaniae Res gestas magni ducis Gedyminne
illus­trans, ed. S. C. Rowe l l , Vilnius 2003.
KDW – Kodeks dyplomatyczny Katedry i Diecezji Wileńskiej, I (1387–1507), ed. J. Fij a łe k ,
W. S e m kow ic z , Kraków 1938–1948 (Indeksy 1994).
PG – Polskije govory v SSSR, I–II, ed. V. Ve re n ič , Minsk 1973.
PSS – “Z Polskich Studiów Slawistycznych”, Warszawa.
RIS – Regionalnyj istoričeskij slovar’ vtoroj poloviny XVI–XVIII vv. po pamjatnikam
pismennosti smolenskogo kraja, ed. E. B or i s ov a , Smolensk 2000.
SG – Slovar’ smolenskih govorov, I–XI, ed. L. B oj a r i nov a , A. Iv a nov a , Smolensk
1974–2005.
SGP – K a r łow ic z J., Słownik gwar polskich, I–VI, Kraków 1901–1911.
SPK – “Studia nad Polszczyzną Kresową”, Warszawa 1982–.
SPNZ – Sloŭnik belaruskich havorak paŭnočna-zachodnjaj Belarusi i jaje pahraničča, I–V,
ed. J. M a c k e v ič , Minsk 1979–1986.
WZW – Wilno i Ziemia Wileńska, I–II, Wilno 1930–1937.
 Languages in contact and conflict on the territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) 39

ЯЗЫКОВЫЕ КОНТАКТЫ И КОНФЛИКТЫ НА ТЕРРИТОРИИ

ВЕЛИКОГО КНЯЖЕСТВА ЛИТОВСКОГО (ВКЛ)

РЕЗЮМЕ

Виленский уроженец, профессор Уриел Вейнраих, в своей знаменитой кни-

ге о языковых контактах (1953/1970), кроме заметок о славянском влиянии на
северо-восточный вариант диалекта идиш, не упоминает о языковых контак-
тах на землях бывшего ВКЛ, но справедливо указывает, что особо пони­маемая
языковая лояльность может привести к агрессии и конфликтам, причём не
только языковым. В качестве примера учёный приводит запрет на использова-
ние в польскоязычной советской прессе, издаваемой после 1939 года, слов pan /
‘господин’ и żyd / ‘еврей’. Несмотря на инспирируемые внешними силами язы-
ковые конфликты в девятнадцатом и двадцатом веках, жители бывшего ВКЛ
всегда находились во взаимных языковых контактах, образуя с древних времён
до наших дней многоязычную общность, напоминающую по своей структуре
балканскую языковую лигу.
В статье рассматриваются: 1) вопросы терминологии, 2) этнолингви­сти­чес­
кая ситуация на территории ВКЛ, 3) функциональное распределение ис­поль­
зуе­мых языков и диалектов, 4) примеры языковых транспозиций между ними,
и 5) коммуникативное сообщество ВКЛ.

Słowa kluczowe: Wielkie Księstwo Litewskie, kontakty i konflikty językowe, trans-

pozycje międzyjęzykowe, wspólnota komunikatywna.

Keywords: Grand Duchy of Lithuania, language contacts and conflicts, inter-lingual

transpositions, linguistic community.

Ключевые слова: Великое княжество Литовское, языковые контакты и кон-

фликты, межъязыковые транспозиции, коммуникативная общность.