Der Artikel ist vorbereitet auf Grund der in den letzten Jahren erschienener und leicht erreichbarer fülle der verschiedenen Erinnerungen die sind geschrieben von der ehemaligen Einwohnern des Memellandes – genau litauischen wie deutschen Herkunft. Das Ziel dieser Forschung ist erkennen wie durch die Entwicklung des regionalen Selbstbewusstseins verwirklichten sich die Ideen und Modellen des nationalen und konfessionellen Bewusstseins die waren entwickelt von den Stellvertretern der selber Nation aber in den Verschiedenen historischen und konfessionellen umständen.
The aim of this paper is, by using Computational linguistics method to analyse collocations of ethnonyms leiši and lietuvieši ‘Lithuanians’ in “Balanced Corpus of Modern Latvian” (Līdzsvarots mūsdienu latviešu valodas tekstu korpuss), compare contextual semantics of both ethnonyms. Comparing the frequency of use of the lexemes lietuvieši and leiši ‘Lithuanians’ in the modern Latvian language text corpus, the prevalence of the ethnonym lietuvieši is evident, therefore, the ethnonym leiši, regardless of its use as synonymic designation (sometimes in one and the same text), can be considered as an obsolete word. The desemantisation cases of the ethnonym leiši, detected in the corpus, show its oldness and varied functionality in Latvian language. The evidences to prove the statement of the “Modern Latvian Language Dictionary” (Mūsdienu latviešu valodas vārdnīca) that the lexeme leiši nowadays “carries slightly pejorative stylistically expressive colouring” were not found in the text corpus. In general, the image of a Lithuanian reflected in the modern Latvian language text corpus is rather positive – mostly in historical, language, culture and sports contexts, yet in the context of economics and emigration rather negative impression of Lithuanians is expressed.
Journal:Acta Historica Universitatis Klaipedensis
Volume 31 (2015): Empires and Nationalisms in the Great War: Interactions in East-Central Europe = Imperijos ir nacionalizmai Didžiajame kare: sąveikos Vidurio Rytų Europoje, pp. 171–184
The German army entered the Russian Empire in the spring of 1915, and by the autumn it had occupied most of the territory on which later the independent state of Lithuania was founded. For almost three years, from the autumn of 1915, the area was governed by the Supreme Commander in the East (Oberbefehlshaber Ost), i.e. military administration. Mainly on the basis of the newspapers published in the Ober Ost area in the years of the First World War, as well as other sources, the author seeks to show how German soldiers, and Germans in a broader sense, saw the area of the prospective Lithuania and its population that it occupied in 1915. The paper analyses the impression the land and its inhabitants made on German soldiers and commentators, and examines how those impressions combined with previous ideas about Eastern Europe.
This article discusses the development of relations between Žemaitijan society and societies in neighbouring territories, which formed the thirteenth-century Lithuanian state. The starting point for this discussion is the question of whether we can detect an early negative stance on the part of Žemaitijans towards the Lithuanian dukes. This issue was raised in E. Saviščevas’ 2009 article on Žemaitijan self-rule in the thirteenth-seventeenth centuries, which claims that given the bellicose state of affairs with the Teutonic Order at the end of the thirteenth century a tendency developed among Žemaitijans and their Semigallian and perhaps Skalvian allies to regard Lithuanians as enemies, as well as the Teutonic Order.
The article aims at delineating particular shape of identity used among those contemporary Texans who are descendants of the Lithuanian immigrants of one hundred and fifty years ago. It is argued that such an identity can be understood as traced, evoked and reclaimed, as well as based on local heritage and genealogy and thus local rather than ethnic. What is important for the modern ethnic (or post-ethnic) identity of the Texan Americans of Lithuanian descent is not the traditional criteria of ethnicity (such as language retention or endogamy), but rather recent histories, compiled via the internet, and recently constructed or even invented symbols and narratives of ethnic belonging. The historical marker for ‘Lithuanians in Texas’ and also narratives of the ethnic pride on ‘Lithuanians as Texas pioneers’ are among the examples of that.