Vietininkų kirčiavimo polinkiai pietų aukštaičių šnektose

VILIJA RAGAIŠIENĖ Institute of the Lithuanian Language ORCID id: orcid.org/0000-0002-5026-4667 Research areas: accentology, dialectology, ethnolinguistics, lexicography. DOI: doi.org/10.35321/all89-09 ACCENTUATION TENDENCIES OF LOCATIVE FORMS IN SOUTHERN HIGHLANDER DIALECTS Accentuation Tendencies of Locative Cases in the Southern Aukštaitian Subdialects ABSTRACT Based on written sources from the second half of the 20th century to the beginning of the 21st century, this article examines the accentuation tendencies of locative forms of inflected words—singular and plural inessive and illative forms—in the Southern Highlander dialect. The article aims to describe the accentuation features of locatives from a synchronic perspective, explain the causes of accentuation variation, and determine the areal distribution of forms possessing accentual variants within the same subdialect. The study showed that the accentuation of locatives used in the Southern Highlander dialect is influenced by accentual analogy, semantics, a tendency toward accentual variation, and oxytone accentuation. It became clear that doubly accented locative forms are recorded more frequently in southwestern and southern subdialects. KEYWORDS: Southern Highlander dialect, locative, illative, inessive, accentuation variant. ANNOTATION The study delves into accentuation patterns within the locative cases — singular and plural inessive and illative — in the Southern Aukštaitian dialect. It draws upon written sources spanning the second half of the 20th century to the early 21st century. The article aims to describe the accentuation features of the locative cases from a synchronic perspective, explain the reasons behind accent diversification, and map the areal distribution of accented variants within the same subdialect. The findings reveal that the accentuation of locatives in 190 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX Vietininkų kirčiavimo polinkiai pietų aukštaičių šnektose the Southern Aukštaitian dialects is influenced by accentuation analogy, semantics, and a tendency for accentual variation and oxytonesis. Interestingly, it emerged that locative forms exhibiting dual stress patterns are more prevalent in southwestern and southern subdialects. KEYWORDS: Southern Aukštaitian subdialect, locative case, inessive, illative, accent variant. INTRODUCTION The scholarly literature has devoted considerable attention to discussing the use of locatives of inflected words in Southern Highlander subdialects. Dialectologists have analyzed in considerable detail the semantics of the inessive (the internal static locative) and illative (the internal directional locative), the causes of neutralization of meanings, the grammatical morphemes of the forms, and their distribution across the subdialect area (Zinkevičius 1966: 201; 1980: 196–197; 2006: 145–146; LKA III, 48 žml.; Rosinas 1995: 74; Tuomienė 2010: 79–80; Karaciejūtė 2013: 50–51; Leskauskaitė 2016: 242; 2022: 28–32; 77–78; Kardelytė-Grinevičienė 2022: 61–69, et al.). The accentuation tendencies of locatives have been studied least so far. In describing the accentuation system of the Southern Highlanders, attention was drawn only to accentuation variants of forms in these cases¹ and rarer instances of use (AukT 31; Ragaišienė 2010: 14, 129; cf. also LKA III 55)². Aim, methods, novelty, and relevance of the study. Aim of the study – to describe, from a synchronic perspective, the accentuation features of locatives in the Southern Highlander dialect and to discuss their accentuation tendencies. The study’s objectives are: 1) to compile an inventory of locative forms of inflected words found in the sources under investigation; 2) to determine the areas of distribution of differently accented forms; 3) to explain possible reasons for the existence of accentuation variants. The study employed descriptive and internal reconstruction methods. The internal reconstruction method was used to identify older accentuation variants and explain possible premises for the existence of dialectal variants. The study conducted is novel and relevant. Based on material collected from the entire Southern Highlander area over more than 60 years, the article describes for the first time ¹ In the linguistic literature, words and their forms with varying accentuation are called accentuation variants (Kardelytė 1975: 11; Zinkevičius 1979: 91, et al.), accentual variants (Stundžia 1995: 22), accentuation alternatives (Pakerys 1994: 7), or accentuation alternatives (Mikulėnienė, Pakerys, Stundžia 2007: 8). In her works, the author follows the tradition of using the terms accentuation (accentual) variant and accentuation (accentual) alternative as synonyms (Ragaišienė 2010; cf. also Stundžia 2009: 66). ² During scholarly discussions, Žaneta Markevičienė has pointed out that, when determining a word’s accentuation paradigm, one cannot rely solely on locative forms, since their accentuation may differ from that of forms in other cases, i.e. they do not always indicate the accentual paradigm. Straipsniai / Articles 191 VIL IJA RAGA IŠIENĖ the accentuation tendencies of locatives of inflected words are described, and a map is provided showing the distribution of forms with accentual variants within the same subdialect. This study should be of primary relevance to researchers investigating accentuation tendencies in dialects and changes in accentuation phenomena. It will probably also be of practical benefit to compilers of dialect dictionaries—dialectologists and lexicographers. Sources and research material. The data analyzed in the article were collected from written sources dating from the second half of the 20th century to the beginning of the 21st century and from a personal card index. The material is based primarily on descriptions of the linguistic features of the subdialect’s subdialects prepared in the 1950s–1960s, comprehensive dialect dictionaries (the card indexes of the two-volume Dictionary of the Southern Southern Highlander Subdialects, the Dictionary of the Druskininkai Dialect, and the forthcoming Dictionary of the Lithuanian Subdialects of Poland), and collections of dialectal texts (the publications Texts of the Kuciūnai Region Subdialect, Texts of the Marcinkonys Subdialect, Texts of the Seirijai Subdialect, Texts from the Environs of Leipalingis, Texts from the Environs of Švendubrė, Lithuanian Dialect Texts 1. Balatna (Varanavas), Texts of the Ramaškoniai Subdialect, and Texts of the Lithuanian Subdialects of Poland). The study also incorporates data from Southern Highlander dialectal texts published in the anthology Lithuanian Language Dialects, the Anthology of Lithuanian Language Dialects and in the first part of Žaneta Markevičienė’s publication Texts of Highlander Dialects. It also draws on data from the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language, works by dialectologists, and the subdialect data found in the personal card index⁴. Material is available from the entire subdialect area, but mostly from its southwestern part. Summarizing the collected data, it can be stated that they are sufficient for investigating the accentuation tendencies of locatives in the Southern Highlander dialect. Moreover, written sources reflect the accentuation features of the subdialect well. In the sources under investigation, approximately 3,300 locative forms of 585 inflected words were found (see table)⁵. For approximately half of the words, they were recorded several or a dozen or so times; for one-fifth of the words, only once or twice, cf. krāutuvė (1), krāutuvėj Dbč (PPŽ I 522), BltT 29, SrjT 170, LLŠT 104, ŠĮk (LLŠŽ K), Rdm, Vs, krāutuvėn DrskŽ 167, Dnv, Kb, Knv (PPŽ I 522), Nmn, Lzd (AukT 184, 196), KčT 165, 168, RamT 135, LpT 166, Dg, Al (LKŽ K), Bd, Rdm, Krkš, krāutuvėsa Mrc (PPŽ I 522), KčT 42, Spg (AukT 205), Krkš, krāutuvėse LpT 114, Šlvn, Vs / krāutuvėsa ŠĮk (LLŠŽ K)⁶, abiesa Lš (AukT 224), atóstogosa Lš (AukT 220), ³ Manuscripts are kept in the Dialect Archive of the Geolinguistics Centre of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language. ⁴ The research includes facts recorded by the authors or collected from audio recordings in scholarly works. ⁵ This number excludes the frequently used adverbialized instrumental forms laukān / laukā̃, ōran / orañ, šōnan / šonañ, and others. It also excludes several adverbialized forms of the allative found in the sources: namōpi, namiepi, rudenióp, and others. ⁶ Locative forms of frequently used words may be attested more than once in a subdialect. 192 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX Vietininkų kirčiavimo polinkiai pietų aukštaičių šnektose brudynañ ‘in dirt, mud’ KčT 362, kiškoi ‘in a courtyard’ Rdm, and others⁷. Approximately two-thirds of the recorded instances of use consist of noun locatives. Forms of these cases are also used relatively often with pronouns kitas, -à, kokis, -ìa / kókis, -ia, tas, -à, tokis, -ìa / tókis, -ia, and numerals pirmas, -à, antras, -à. The tendencies in the use of locative forms differ across Southern Highlander subdialects (see table; cf. Leskauskaitė 2022: 23–24). Most numerous are singular illative forms of nouns denoting inanimate objects, used to express direction and location (see there, 28–29, for more detail). More than one-third of the material consists of singular and plural inessive forms. The plural illative is used rather rarely in Southern Highlander subdialects (see table). The research material primarily consists of locative forms of inflected words with the productive a, ia₂, ā, and ē stems. TABLE. Frequency of locative forms of inflected words Case | Number | Quantity | Examples of use Inessive | Singular | 652 | burnõj, daržė, kaimynõstei(e), užėmūke / užėmūkė, vidurỹ, antrõj / antroję, pirmam̃ / pirmamè, šitõj, šitam̃ Inessive | Plural | 583 | akỳsa, galvõsa, gyvuliósa, kraujúose / kraujõs, miltúosa, sōdúosa / sōduose / sōdūs, jaunúosa, jaunõsa, antrúosa, antrõsa, keturíesa, šitõsa, šitúosa Illative | Singular | 1910 | akiñ, káilin, kepalãñ, mešlynãñ, vandeniñ, žiemõn, antrãñ, antrõn, šitañ, šitõn Illative | Plural | 145 | búlvesna, durỹsna, grikiúosna, sõnuosna, paklõtysna, rañkosna, rugiũosna, pirmõsna, seniũosna, šitõsna, šitúosna, tokiúosna, tokiósna Total: | | 3290 | The recorded material confirms the areal differences in the distribution of locative forms across the subdialect identified by dialectologists (see Leskauskaitė 2022: 28–30 for more detail). Singular illative forms predominate throughout the area; the inessive forms used alongside them are distributed unevenly: in southwestern subdialects they account for one-quarter, and in the southern area for approximately one-sixth of instances. Plural illative forms, one may say, are no longer used in the southwestern part of the area; only isolated instances were found ⁷ Transcription is not relevant when describing accentuation, so the examples are given in the orthography of Standard Lithuanian (thus avoiding presenting the same word and its forms several times in different transcriptions). The intonations of locative forms are given uncorrected. Straipsniai / Articles 193 VILIJA RAGAĮŠIENĖ in the southern area; this plural is somewhat better preserved in the northern and eastern subdialects (cf. ibid., 29). THE NATURE OF THE ACCENTUATION OF LOCATIVE FORMS In the Southern Highlander area, the locatives of more than half of inflected words are accented according to the same accentual model as the forms in other cases—on the stem or in the ending, e.g.: kilpa (1), kilpoj Kb (PPŽ I 494), Krkš, kilpon Kb, Knv (PPŽ I 494), Rdm, Lzd, Vs, kilpose Pns, Pvl (LLŠŽ K); miškas (4), miškė Knv, Dbč, Pvč (PPŽ I 662–663), Brč, Nmn, Lš (LKT 370, 382), Dsm (AukT 168), LpT 99, Ožk, Pns (LLŠŽ K), Bd, Rdm, Vs, Krkš, miškarn Knv, Pnč, Kpn, Zrv, Mrc, Dbč, Mst, Knvl, Kb, Mrd (PPŽ I 662–663), Br, Auk, Brč, Prl, Vs, Jvš, Lpl (LKT 361–388), Dsm (AukT 168), SrjT 189, ŠvT 145, Bd, Rdm, Lzd, Vs, Šlvn, Kpč, miškuosa Lš (LKŽė), Dbč, Kb, Kpn, Zrv (PPŽ I 663), KčT 195, ŠvT 90, Pns (PPŠŽ K), miškūose Kb, Knv, Pvč (PPŽ I 663), KčT 330, miškuosà Mrc (PPŽ I 663), miškuosè RamT 239, miškúos Lš (AukT 217), miškúosna Mrc (LKŽė), Rud (PPŽ I 663), and others.⁸ Baritones most often retain the stem accent, e.g.: krūmas (1), krūmė Prl (LKŽ K), krūman Vžn (LKT 378), Vs, Kpč, krūmuosa Pvč, Knvl, Mrc (PPŽ I 528), KčT 349, RamT 117, krūmuose Eg, Pns, Šlk (LLŠŽ K), Rdm, Lzd, krūmuosna Rud (PPŽ I 528), RamT 166; rankà (2), raňkoi Mrc (PPŽ II 319), SrjT 123, Agr, Pns (LLŠŽ K), Mtl, raňkon Drsk, Lp, Mrk (LKŽė), Mrg, Dbn (PPŽ II 318), Kb (LKT 390), Lš (AukT 215), Agr (LLŠŽ K), Vlk, Trak (LKŽ K), Vs, Krkš, raňkosa Rdm, Spg, raňkose Krv, Pns (PPŠŽ K), raňkosna Ktv (LKT 359), Vvs (Leskauskaitė 2022: 29), and others; oxytones are accented in the ending, e.g.: akìs (4), akiñ Škl (LKT 389), Rdm, akýsa Mrc, Kš, Pvč, Kb, Dbč, Drž, Mrg (PPŽ I 7), Lš (AukT 216), ŠvT 80, MrcT 46, Eg, Ožk (LLŠŽ K), akýse Pnč (AukT 207), akysà Pnč (PPŽ I 7), BltT 61, akýsnа Pnr (LKT 360); galvà (3), galvój SrjT 205, Krv, Šlk, Pvl, Pns, Ožk, Žv (LLŠŽ K), Bd, Lzd, Vs, galvón DrskŽ 92, ŠvT 149, Pns, Eg (LLŠŽ K), Krkš, Mtl, Rdm, galvósa Krkš; kañpas (4), kampè Rud (PPŽ I 450), Rdm, kampañ DrskŽ 135, Mst, Dbč, Mrd, Rud, Mnč (PPŽ I 450), Pns, Šlk, Ožk (LLŠŽ K), Kpč, Vs, Lp, kampúosa DrskŽ 135, Mrc (PPŽ I 450), and others (cf. LKA III 54). The accentuation of locative forms of the remaining words—most often nouns—varies. Approximately one-third of them are accented in two ways, as are forms in other cases, e.g.: balà (2), bãloj Ožk, Šlk (LLŠŽ K), Bd, Lzd, bãlon Knv (PPŽ I ⁸ In determining the accentuation paradigms of words, only data from the Southern Highlander dialect were used. 194 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX Vietininkų kirčiavimo polinkiai pietų aukštaičių šnektose 95), Rdm, Mtl, bālosa DrskŽ 27, Knv, Pvč (PPŽ I 95), ŠvT 90, Dvč (LLŠŽ K), bālose Pns, Šlk (LLŠŽ K), Kpč, bālosna DrskŽ 181 / balā (4), balōj Dg, Al (LKŽ K), balōn Rud (PPŽ I 95), bālosā Db̄n (PPŽ I 95), balošė Spg, daiktas (3/1), daiktė Drsk, Srj (LKŽė), Plkn, Šlčn, Vng, Vlk (TA) / daiktė Mrc, Rod (LKŽė), Mcl, Kč (TA), daiktan RamT 141, Agr, Šlk (LLŠŽ K), Rdm, Kpč / daiktan Dbn (PPŽ I 165), Dg (AukT 178), Plkn (TA), Vs, Kpč, Drsk, daiktuōsa Bd, Rdm, Krkš / daiktuosa Vs; tokis, -ià (4/3), tokiam Pr1, tokioj Bd, tokian Knv, Mst (PPŽ II 616), Pns, Agr (LLŠŽ K), Rdm, Kpč, Lzd, Mtl, Spg, Al, Trak, tokiúosa Mtl, Kpč, tokiúosna Dnv (PPŽ II 615), Kpč / tōkis, -ia (1), tōkian Vlk, Dg, Trak (LKŽ K), Rdm, tōkiuosa Vrn (LKŽ K). For some words, only the accentuation of locative forms varies (no accentual alternatives in other cases were recorded). Often, not all locative forms are accented in two ways, but only one of them—the singular or plural inessive and/or the singular illative—cf. also kamarā (4) ‘storeroom’, kamarōj KčT 78, RamT 130, Vng (LKT 374), Agr (LLŠŽ K), Al, Pr1 (LKŽ K), Rdm, Vs, kamarōn Rud, Mst (PPŽ I 448), Šlk (LLŠŽ K), KčT 167, LpT 85, 164, Dg, Mrk, Trak (LKŽ K), Krkš, Kpč / kamarōn LpT 164, Pns (LLŠŽ K), kamarōsa Mrc (PPŽ I 448), pienas (1), pienė Bd, Rdm (LKŽ K), pienan Kš, Mrc (PPŽ II 214), SrjT 114, Ilg (TA), Mtl, Kpč, Prl / pienan Vs (LKT 381), Čvn (TA), Krkš. Similarly, the locative forms of words with accentual alternatives tend to be accented, e.g.: pūodas (1/3), pūode Ožk, Pns (LLŠŽ K), KčT 177, SrjT 116, pūodan DrskŽ 469, Knv, Mrg, Kš, Mst (PPŽ II 301), Spg (AukT 204), Agr (LLŠŽ K), Rdm, Kpč / pūodan DrskŽ 287, Mtl, pūoduosa Žr (PPŽ II 302), KčT 223, Agr (LLŠŽ K), pūduosna DrskŽ 287, and others. In many cases, forms of the more widespread primary accentuation variant are found in these cases, e.g.: virtuvė (2), virtuvėj RamT 106t, Pns (LLŠŽ K), Rdm, virtuvėn DrskŽ 25, Mrc (PPŽ II 770), KčT 259, LpT 133, Pr1, Trak (LKŽ K), Rdm, virtuvėse Ožk, Pns (LLŠŽ K) / virtuvė (1), virtuvėj Ožk (LLŠŽ K), virtuvėn Kb, Knv, Dbn, Mrd, Rud (PPŽ II 770), ŠvT 103, virtuvėsa Rdm. For example, the stem accent has become established in the locative forms of the old baritones kaktā (2/4) and kuprā (2/4), cf. kāktoj Rdm, Knv (LKT 369, 383), Ožk (LLŠŽ K), kākton DrskŽ 132, Knv, Grb, Kpn, Mrc (PPŽ I 441), Sem, Trak, Dsm, Srj (LKA III 54–55), Mcl, Lpl, Kpč, Dgr, Vvs, Auk (TA), Sn, Šlk (LLŠŽ K), Mtl, Srj, Vrn / kaktōn Sem, Trak, Dsm, Srj (LKA III 54–55). Kūproi LLŠT 202, kūpron Kč, Vlk (TA), Rdm, Krkš, Vs, Kpč / kuprōn B1tT 81⁹. It should be noted that the accentuation tendencies of locatives discussed above are characteristic of both disyllabic and polysyllabic inflected words. ⁹ On assigning these nouns to the baritone accentuation paradigm, see Būga 1961: 73, 710; Zinkevičius 1975: 19; Ragaišienė 2010: 30 and the literature cited there. Straipsniai / Articles 195 VILIJA RAGAIŠIENĖ Accentuation tendencies of singular inessive forms. In the sources under investigation, relatively few of these forms were found (approximately 20 percent of instances of use; see table)¹⁰. Inessive forms accented in two ways—on the stem and in the ending—are recorded relatively rarely, e.g.: pradžia (4), pradžioj / pradžioje LpT 139, Rdm, Bd / pradžioj Vs. Most often, they show varying accentuation in words with accentual alternatives, e.g.: skyrius (2), skyriuj Bd, Vs / skyrius (4), skyriuj Ožk (LLŠŽ K), sodžius (4), sodžiui Pls (LKŽe), Šlk (LLŠŽ K) / sodžius (2), sodžiui RamT 195, valščius (2), valščiui / valščius (4), valščiui Ožk (LLŠŽ K)¹¹. Different accentuation tendencies characterize inessive forms of second- and/or fourth-accentuation a-stem words whose one variant is accented on the root, e.g.: kiėmas (4/2), kiemė Rud (PPŽ I 492), Lzd (AukT 198), Dgr (TA), Pns (LLŠŽ K), Krkš / °kiėme¹² Trak (LKŽ K), Pns (LLŠŽ K), Bd, miestąs (2), miestė Žr (PPŽ II 652), LLŠT 149, Ožk, Pns, Sn (LLŠŽ K) / °miėste DrskŽ 39, Pns (LLŠŽ K), Vs, sõdas (2/4), sodė SrjT 132, Agr, Pns (LLŠŽ K) / osõde Kny (PPŽ II 421), Žln (AukT 171), Šlk (LLŠŽ K), Rdm, Lzd (Ragaišienė 2010: 209), šiėnas (4), šiẽnė Bd / °šiėne Mcl (TA), atšlàimas (4) ‘yard’, atšlãmė Al (LKŽ K) / °atšlàime RamT 143, malū́nas (2/4), malūnė Rud (PPŽ I 610), Pns (LLŠŽ K) / °malū́ne Prl (LKŽ K), bliūdas (2) ‘bowl’, bliūdė Agr, Ožk, Šlk (LLŠŽ K), Kpč, Krkš / °bliūde LLŠT 135, viėdras (2) ‘bucket’, viẽdrė Mtl, Krkš / °viẽdre Onš (LKŽ K). In the linguistic literature, the stem accent of these nouns in the singular locative (as well as instrumental and plural accusative) is primarily associated with the morphonological leveling of the accentual paradigm, i.e. with the formation of a model involving two accentuation types—columnar and ending-based (see Mikulėnienė 1996–1997: 60–61; Tuomienė 2005: 65–69; Urbanavičienė 2005: 106–107, for more detail). The double accentuation of the forms under discussion may be determined not only by the tendency to level the paradigm of inflected words following the example of Slavic languages. The data presented show that stem-accented forms are recorded not only in peripheral subdialects. The double accentuation of inessive forms may also, albeit indirectly, be related to the accentuation of singular illative forms (both locatives are used to express direction and location), cf. bliūdas (2), °bliūde / bliūdė and bliūdan / bliūdãn. The coincidence of accent position and semantic environment may be one of the causes determining the retreat of the inessive from use. ¹⁰ For example, only a few forms of disyllabic i̯a-stem nouns frequently used in autobiographical narratives and denoting inanimate objects have been recorded, e.g.: ämžiui Mtl, pěčiui SrjT 140, Agr (LLŠŽ K), Krkš, and others. Singular illative forms expressing direction and location are more widespread. ¹¹ Their accentuation variation is determined by the same factors as that of forms in other cases (see Ragaišienė 2010, for more detail). ¹² The symbol ° marks a ‘non-paradigmatic’ form. 196 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX Vietininkų kirčiavimo polinkiai pietų aukštaičių šnektose The accentuation of the inessive of the words under discussion is also influenced by the predominant stem accent of other singular case forms, cf. šienas, šieno, šieną, šienu, šiene. This is also confirmed by the accentuation tendencies of the inessive forms of derivatives with the second-accentuation suffixes –(i)ukas, –(i)ukė, –utė, and –tuvė. In the Southern Highlander area, one may say, inessive forms have generalized the stem accent, e.g.: kvajynukė ‘in a little pine forest’ Šlk (LLŠŽ K), namukė Trak (LKŽ K), smėliukė Mtl, vežimukė Lzd, Mtl, kamarukė(i)e Al (LKŽ K), dežutė(i)e Dg (LKŽ K), Mtl, parduotuvė(i)e Rdm, and others; cf. illative forms accented on the suffix kvajynūkan, namūkan, vežimūkan, kamarūkėn, dežūtėn, parduotūvėn¹³. On the northern margins of the Southern Highlander area and in the Lithuanian subdialects of Poland, the accentuation of locatives of –ukas derivatives may, albeit indirectly, be influenced by forms borrowed from the ia₂ stem with the grammatical morpheme –y, cf. kambarūky (and kambarūki), vežimūky (and vežimūki) Pns (cf. Leskauskaitė 2022: 78). The establishment of stem accent in the inessive of the ē-stem nouns under discussion was facilitated by the prevalence of shortened (monovocalic) forms, cf. rankūtė (2), rankutėję / rankutėje → rankūtej Rdm. In the southwestern part of the area, rarely used ‘non-paradigmatic’ inessive forms of productive ā- and ē-stem words were found, e.g.: liepa, liepōj, karūnā, karūnōj, kālvė, kalvėj, klūmpė, klumpėj, vaistinė, vaistinėj, durpinėj, daržinėj, bačkà, bačkōj, bačkon, liepa, liepōj, liepōj, liepon, liepōn, Liepōj peri kokie mažì paukštukai, Mūs liepōj bitės sėdi, medų ima Bd, karūnā (2), karūnōj Vng, kālvė (1), kalvėj KčT 87, klūmpė (1), klumpėj Mtl, vaistinė (1), vaistinėj Krkš. Their emergence was initially explained by the tendency toward accentual variation and oxytone accentuation characteristic of these subdialects. In some cases, the neighboring accent may also be determined by the accentuation analogy of the same derivational type, cf. durpinėj, daržinėj, or generalized according to the prevailing accentual model of singular illative forms, cf. bačkà (4) ‘barrel’, bačkōj LLŠT 143, Šlk (LLŠŽ K), Rdm / bačkōj SrjT 113, bačkon Mrc, Rud (PPŽ I 91), KčT 166, RamT 235, SrjT 227tt / bačkon Mrc (PPŽ I 91), liepa (1), liepōj / liepōj Bd, liepon / liepōn Pvč (PPŽ I 578), Bd. It should be noted that the variation in the accentuation of the indicated inessive forms is not directly associated with neutralization of meanings—they are used to express location, cf. Liepōj peri kokie mažì paukštukai Bd and Mūs liepōj bitės sėdi, medų ima Bd. The available material reveals two things. First, in most cases, the inessive forms of doubly accented words that are more widespread are those of the primary accentuation variant, e.g.: kokìs, –ià, kokiãm, kokiōj, kokìs, –ia, kokiám, kokiōj, pìrkia, pìrkioj, pìrkioj (2/4), pìrkioj Mrc (PPŽ II 226), Dsm (AukT 166), RamT 129tt, Onš, Mrk (LKŽ K), Prl / pìrkioj RamT 157, Vlk (LKŽ K). Second, forms of circumflex-stem words in this case tend to be accented consistently, i.e. to generalize the stem accent according to the baritone accentuation model. ¹³ In the Southern Highlander area, shortened forms of the singular inessive of the suffixes –(i)ukė, –utė, and –tuvė are used universally. Bisyllabic forms of this case are recorded as alternatives rather rarely. Straipsniai / Articles 197 VILIJA RAGAIS̆IENĖ Accentuation tendencies of singular illative forms. In the Southern Aukštaitian dialects, shortened singular illative forms are used particularly frequently to express direction and location (they account for approximately 58 percent of usage cases; see the table). Approximately one-third of the words have accentual variants in the forms of this case. More than half of them are accented in two ways, as are the forms of other cases, for example: dūrpìnė (1), dūrpinen Žv (LLŠŽ K), Rdm, Lzd, Mtl / durpinė (3ᵃ), durpìnen Sn, Pns (LLŠŽ K)¹⁴, raištas (2/4), raištan Rud (PPŽ II 314), raudõnas, -ą (3), raudonãn Rdm, Lzd, Kpč, Vs, raudonõn Kpč / raudónas, -a (1), raudónan Kb (TA), Vs, Rdm, raudonõn Trak (TA). The accentuation of forms of words with productive a, ia¹, ā, and ē stems varies more. Few secondary illative forms of nouns with unproductive i, iu, and u stems were found. They are most often inclined to be accented according to the paradigm of the principal (often older) variant. For example, the illative of the baritone tur̃gus (2) / turgùs (4) is accented only in the root (46 instances of usage were found)¹⁵. In the dialect, ending-accented forms spiečiūñ and sodžiūñ of the disyllabic iu-stem nouns spiečiùs / spiẽčius and sodžiùs / sõdžius are more widespread (53 of 68 instances). The double accentuation of illative forms of words without accentual variants is first of all to be explained by analogy, that is, it is associated with the model of fixed and ending accentuation established in the Southern Aukštaitian dialects, for example: rãtas (2), rãtai, ratãn Prl (LKŽ K), Mtl / ratai, ratañ ŠvT 91¹⁶, lãngas (3), langañ DrskŽ 48, Grb, Rud, Mrc, Kš (PPŽ I 556), Pvl (LLŠŽ K), Rdm, Lzd, Mtl / lãngan Kpč, Krkš, trobà (3), trobõn DrskŽ 419, Kb, Mrc, Mst (PPŽ II 629), Ndz, Lš (AukT 187, 218), SrjT 235, Dg, Nmn (LKŽ K) / trõbon Spg (AukT 204tt), kibiras (3ᵇ), kìbiran Srj, Trak (LKŽ K) / kìbiran SrjT 211¹⁷, and so on. The available material shows that, besides analogy, other factors may also influence the accentuation of the forms under discussion. Moreover, secondary variants may have arisen at different times. The ending-accented form žẽmė žemėñ Drsk, Rtn (LKŽė), cf. žemės Rtn, Kb, Mrk Drsk (LKŽė), Rtn (AukT 230), Pls (TA), of the noun may have been inherited from an old form (see Rinkevičius 2009: 90; Ragaišienė 2010: 90 and the literature cited there for more detail). The ending accent of the illative of the baritones miẽstas and mõkslas probably determined the tendency to accent words newly entering the dialects on the ending, cf. miestãn Dbč, Drž, Rud, Mrc, Mst, Žr (PPŽ I 652), SrjT 146tt / miestañ Knv (PPŽ I 652), Pnč (AukT 212), Bd, Kpč, mõkslan Vs / mõkslañ DrskŽ 214, Kb (LKT 391), Nmn, ¹⁴ Cf. the singular form durpinė̃ accented on the ending, Švn (AukT 193). ¹⁵ For more on variation in the accentual paradigms of the word turgus, see Ragaišienė 2010: 107 and the literature cited there. ¹⁶ No forms with ending accentuation of other plural cases of this noun were found in the Southern Aukštaitian area. ¹⁷ Root accentuation may be maintained by the accentuation of the frequently used forms viėdras viėdran of the borrowing. 198 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX Vietininkų kirčiavimo polinkiai pietų aukštaičių šnektose Vlk (LKŽ K), Rdm (Skardžius 1935: 18; Senkus 1960: 214; Ragaišienė 2010: 29, 57 and elsewhere). Ending or root accentuation may also be associated with dissimilation, analogy with the accentuation of illative forms used alongside them, and so on. When the accented syllables of the illative forms of two or more declinable words come into contact, the accents may be distributed, for example: Eis̆im pažiūrėt karvės – ji gerä̃n pienan Vs (LKŽe); Nepilk [kruopų] tokiān šaltan pienan Krkš. In some cases, the accentuation of the illative may also be influenced by several factors, cf. Jis išleido abudu sūnu aukštan mokslan Rdm. Variation in the accentuation of illative forms may also be related to semantics. It cannot be ruled out that, during the neutralization of the meanings of this case, forms expressing location and direction may for some time have been distinguished by accentuation, cf. šedi vežiman Kb (PPŽ II 747), Rdm, Mtl / į(si)deda (krauna, kelia, susėda) vežiman Švn (LKŽe), Knvl (PPŽ II 747), Sem (AukT 166), RamT 27518. Doubly accented illative forms may testify to a former accentual and semantic opposition, cf. Nešė vežiman [Šiaudus] ir dėjo ir Sudedam būlio vežiman DrskŽ 454; Pasikinkom arklį vežiman Mst and Pakinko arklį vežiman Mrc, Parsiveža akmenų vežiman Dbč and Šalta vežiman [Sėdėti] Pnč (PPŽ II 747)19. That semantics may influence the accentuation of the case under discussion is also shown by the accentuation of derivatives with the suffix –ynas. Historically, nouns with this suffix are lexicalized collective names (Skardžius 1943: 192, 266–267; Ambrazas 2000: 54). It has been observed that the mobile accentuation model associated with the collective plural also affects the accentuation of singular illative forms, cf. beržynas, beržynai: beržynai → beržynan (Ragaišienė 2010: 128–129). In the Southern Aukštaitian area, irrespective of the accentuation of plural forms, the illative is most often inclined to be accented on the ending, for example: dirgelȳnai, dirgelynan Rdm, riesutynai, riesutynan Dbč (LKT 387), samanynai, samanynan Pns (LKŽ K), Rdm, skujynai, skujynan Kb (PPŽ II 409), and so on (51 of 64 forms are accented on the ending). This is also shown by the accentuation of forms of this case in words newly entering the dialects, cf. skudurynas (1), skudurynai, skudurynan Kb / skudurynan Aš (PPŽ I 409). Stem accentuation of the illative may also be associated with the tendency to replace it with prepositional constructions with prepositions in, an + accusative (cf. Leskauskaitė 2022: 29). The accentuation of accusative forms may influence the accentuation of illative forms expressing direction, for example: sueina trōbon / į trobą, kamaron / į kamarą, plg. dar pila kibiran / į kibirą, pabeldė langan / į langą. Neutralization of the meanings of the illative, the tendency to replace it with prepositional constructions, and analogy with the accentuation of other cases may create conditions for individual secondary forms unrelated to the accentual paradigm of the word to arise, cf. dūgnas (4), dūgnan Pnš (LKA III 55), gurklys (3), gurklin Spg, krāštas (4), krāštan Mri (LKA III 55), 18 Accentuation tendencies of adjectives with the suffix –inis, –ė show that accentual variation may be determined by differentiation of meanings (Ragaišienė 2012: 119). 19 In the Southern Aukštaitian area, the noun vežimas is accented only according to the second accentual paradigm. Straipsniai / Articles 199 VILIJA RAGAİŠIENĖ pãdas (2), padañ SrjT 167, Mtl and elsewhere. On the other hand, this may also lead to the preservation of older accentuation forms. For example, the fixed-accentuation forms dvùras of the baritone dvãrai, dvãrų are attested only in individual dialects, while root-accented illative forms have been found throughout the dialect area, cf. dãran Vrn (LKT 91), Ppr, Smn, Alv, Dg, Ndz, Vrnv, Nč (LKA III 54), Trak, Vlk (LKŽ K), MrcT 208, Lzd, Kč. More isolated cases of ending accentuation have been recorded in the dialects under study, for example: jaunimas (2), jauniman / jaunimãn Mrp (LKA III 54), kaštonas (2), kaštónan Nmn, kiaušinis (2), kiaušinín KčT 314²⁰, miestas (2), miestan DrskŽ 16, Knv (PPŽ I 652), pirkià (2), pirkión Zrv (PPŽ II 226)²¹, ver̃pstis, –io (2), verpstiñ Vs, and so on. Borrowings from Slavic languages tend particularly strongly toward generalized ending accentuation, for example: blėkė (2) ‘sheet metal’, blėkėn Mst, klùmokas (1) ‘bundle, load’, klumokañ Mrc (AukT 229), paduãlas (2) ‘cellar’, paduvalañ ŠvT 144, skarvadà (2) ‘frying pan’, skarvadõn RamT 97tt, slòjikas (1) ‘jar’, slojikañ LLŠT 256, stõdas (2) ‘flock, herd’, stodañ ŠvT 127, šliùbas (2) ‘church wedding ceremony’, šliubañ Ožk (PPŠŽ K), Ndz (LKŽ K), and so on. The emergence of ending-accented forms is primarily associated with the tendency characteristic of circumflex-stem words in the Southern Aukštaitian dialects toward accentual variation and oxytone accentuation (Ragaišienė 2010: 38). Some of them may indicate an older inflectional, or, respectively, accentual paradigm of the word, for example: klõnis, –io (1), klonìn (cf. klonis, –iẽs) Bd. At least some of the illative forms discussed have probably arisen recently and attest to an ongoing linguistic process, for example: svìrtis, –ies (1), svìrtiñ KrkS²². The possibility cannot be ruled out that the development of the accentuation of the case under discussion may also have been influenced by forms with two-vowel and shortened (one-vowel) grammatical morphemes that competed in the dialects for some time, cf. miškañ: miškanà (Leskauskaitė 2022: 31; cf. Rosinas 2005: 224). Only isolated unshortened illative forms were found in the sources studied, for example: laškona ‘to the bed’ Prl (TA), pirkìona Kb (LKT 390), and so on.²³ Thus, because of the lack of material, it is not possible to discuss this hypothesis more extensively. The accentuation of illative forms may also be affected, albeit indirectly, by ongoing adverbialization processes. In the Aukštaitian dialects, the paradigmatic case and adverbialized forms may be distinguished by accentuation, cf. laũkas (4), laukañ and laukañ (LKA III 55). Accentuation tendencies of plural inessive forms. In the Southern Aukštaitian area, forms with –sa / –se are widespread among declinable words, as neighboring ²⁰ Cf. the concurrently used plural genitive form kiaušinių KčT 314. ²¹ In the southern Southern Aukštaitian dialects, this noun is of the second accentuation type. ²² The fixed-accentuation paradigm of the derivative svìrtis, which has preserved the acute root of the base verb svìrti, is older or was formed long ago (cf. Pakerys 1994: 103). ²³ For the use of unshortened illative forms in the Southern Aukštaitian area, see LKA III 54; Leskauskaitė 2022: 31, footnote 21–a. 200 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX Vietininkų kirčiavimo polinkiai pietų aukštaičių šnektose are also used, including morphologically shortened forms. The plural inessive, like the singular locatives discussed above, is now used to express location and direction (Leskauskaitė 2022: 28, 80ff.; cf. LKA III 72–73, maps 67–70; Zinkevičius 2006: 145–146). Plural inessive forms of declinable words account for approximately 18 percent of usage cases (see the table). More than one-third of the words examined have accentual variants in the forms of this case. For example, the inessive of adjectives with the suffix –inis, –ė, accented according to the first and second accentuation types, is likewise accented in the root and suffix, for example: pakulinis, –ė (2), pakuliniuosa (maišuosa) Vlk, Prl (TA), Lzd, Rdm, Spg / pãkulinis, –ė (1), pãkuliniuosa (maišuosa) Vs (TA), Trak (LKŽ K), and so on. Somewhat different accentuation tendencies are characteristic of words having fixed- and mobile-accentuation variants. Most often, inessive forms, like forms of other plural cases, are accented in two ways—in the stem and on the ending, for example: geltõnas, –a (1), geltõnuose Nmn, Lš (LKŽ K), geltõnosa Krkš / geltónas, –à (3), geltonúosa Bd, geltonóse Dg, Rtn (LKŽ K), kálnas (3/1), kalnúosa Ožk (LLŠŽ K), Mtl, Vs (LKŽ K), Krkš, kalnuosà Rdm / kalnúosa KčT 206, Drsk (LKŽ K), kálnuose Krv (LLŠŽ K), rẽzgines (3ᵇ/1), rezginésa ŠvT 144, Mtl, Lzd, rezginėse Rdm / rẽzginėse Vlk (LKŽ K), and so on. The emergence of isolated forms with ending (less often root) accentuation is also associated with this model, for example: dokùmentas (1), dokùmentiuose LpT 138, liūnas (1), liūnuosa KčT 349, viẽdras (2), viedruosė RamT 130, dróbė (1), drobėsa Vng, pūslė (4), pūslesa Spg. Stem accentuation may also be generalized according to the accent position of frequently used nominative and accusative forms, cf. šẽrmenys (3ᵇ), šermenìs, šẽrmenyse KčT 93, 94. This assumption is also supported by the accentuation tendencies of the noun kapinės in the southwestern dialects, cf. kãpinės (3ᵇ), kãpinės, kãpinėse / kãpinėsa Rdm, Bd, Vng, Lzd, Mtl, Spg²⁴. In the Southern Aukštaitian area, the inessive forms of words with accentual variants are not always accented in two ways. For some nouns with productive a and ia₂ stems, only forms attesting the accentual paradigm of the principal variant were found, for example: miežis (2), miežiuosa Knv (PPŽ I 653), Kpč, Trak (LKŽ K), Bd, Rdm, Mtl / miežys (4), pūodas (1/3), pūduosa DrskŽ 287, KčT 223, Šlvn, Kpč, Auk, Trak (TA), pūduose KčT 120, Rdm, Bd, stõvai (2) ‘loom’, stõvuosa Kpč, Švnd (TA), Rdm, stõvuose Nmn (LKŽe), Rtn (TA), stõvuos Mtl / stõvai (1) / stõvai (4), and so on.²⁵ Forms of derivatives with the suffix –ynas that have neighboring fixed-accentuation variants are most often accented on the ending in the case under discussion, for example: alksnynas (3/1), alksnynúosa Trak, Vrn (LKŽ K), Krkš, kvajūnas (3/1), kvajynúose ²⁴In the Southern Aukštaitian dialects, this noun has variants of the third, first, and second accentuation types (Ragaišienė 2012: 121). ²⁵For the distribution of the accentual variants of these nouns across the dialect area, see Ragaišienė 2010: 208, 210, 219. Straipsniai / Articles 201 VILija RAGAiŠIENĖ LLŠT 130, kvájynuõsa Drsk, Vs (LKŽ K), Ožk, Šlk (LLŠŽ K), and elsewhere (38 of 43 cases). The question arises whether a secondary paradigm has formed in all cases, or whether only the accentuation of individual cases varies. This is especially so when the neighboring variant is attested by only one source, for example: kiẽmas (4) DrskŽ 151, Dbč, Rud (PPŽ I 493), Ožk, Pns, Šlk (LLŠŽ K), Al, Dg, Trak, Auk (LKŽ K), Vrn, Kč, Vs (TA), Rdm, Mtl / kiemas (2) DrskŽ 151. It is likely that, after the disappearance of the model of two plurals—the ordinary and collective—only the forms of some cases of one of the members could have been accented in two ways, for example, the nominative, genitive, or another case, cf. kir̃vis, kir̃viais and kirviaĩs Sel (TA), peĩlis, peiliaĩ / peiliaĩ Vng, Rtn (TA). On the other hand, in the Southern Aukštaitian area the nominative is used most frequently, and the dative and inessive least frequently (Leskauskaitė 2022: 24). In this case, generalizing conclusions cannot be drawn, because neighboring-variant inessive forms may be used rarely in isolated dialects. The diversity of mobile-accentuation words is reflected in the accent position and/or intonation of ending-accented forms, for example: laũkas (4), laukúosa Kš, Zrv (PPŽ I 562), Rdm / laukúose SriT 186ff., LLŠT 204, Vng / ląukuõsà Mtl / laukuõsė Mrc, Pnč (PPŽ I 562), RamT 126ff. / laukuõs LLŠT 128. The concurrently used inessive forms of mobile-accentuation adjectives, pronouns, or numerals are accented according to the same model as nouns, cf. baltuõsa mar̃škinuosa Gdl (LKT 368), šitúosa miškúosa KčT 330, kitúosa sodžiúosa Mrg (TA), tokiõse balõse Rdm, and so on. In the Southern Aukštaitian dialects, forms accented on the penultimate syllable (diachronically, the plural accusative ending) are found more frequently (approximately 64 percent).26 These accentuation tendencies are influenced by the accent position of the shorter forms of other plural cases, which are accented on the ending, cf. namaĩ, namų̃, namùs, namaĩs, namuõsa / namuõse, namuõs. In the linguistic literature, the accent of forms with –sė (the postposition *-én) is explained by analogy with the accentuation of ancient locatives with –su, cf. giesmèsù / giesmèsė (Zinkevičius 1980: 196–197, 212; cf. Kazlauskas 1968: 97). The possibility cannot be ruled out that forms with –se / –sa accented on the final syllable may have both historical conditions for existence and have arisen anew under the influence of the standard language. Especially since in the Southern Aukštaitian area they are most often used as neighboring variants. On the other hand, these forms may also be associated with oxytone accentuation characteristic of the dialects under study, cf. the forms recorded in the Ramaškonys dialect kaimuõsė, laukuõsė, akmenyõsė, namuõsė, kiemuõsė and elsewhere, RamT 100, 126, 159, 220, 232ff. In the sources studied, a falling intonation is indicated for most shortened inessive forms accented on the ending, cf. laukuõs. Only isolated cases were found with a rising intonation, cf. miškúos. The double intonation of these forms may have been inherited from an earlier period (cf. 26For more on the development of plural inessive forms, see Morkūnas 1964: 107–146; Kazlauskas 1968: 160–163; Zinkevičius 1980: 196–197. 202 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX Vietininkų kirčiavimo polinkiai pietų aukštaičių šnektose Zinkevičius 1996: 120). In the linguistic literature, the circumflex is explained as the retraction of the accent from the ending, cf. laukuosa / laukuose → laukuos (Zinkevičius 1980: 197). The acute is associated with the preservation of the accent position and intonation of the plural accusative, cf. miškuosa / miškuose → miškuos. Accentuation tendencies of plural instrumental forms. Due to the lack of material, it is not possible to discuss the accentuation tendencies of this case in greater detail. Instrumental forms account for only 4 percent of usage cases (see the table). The accentuation of these forms does not differ from that of other case forms of the word, for example: laũkas (4), laukúosna Sem (LKT 361), Dnv (PPŽ I 563), šónas (1), šónuosna Vrn (LKŽė), Mtl. If a word has accentual variants, plural instrumental forms are accented according to the accentual paradigm of the principal variant, for example: klúonas (1/3), klúonuosna Al (LKT 367), Rdm, Drsk, Rtn (LKŽ K) / kluonúosna Pls (LKŽ K). Distribution of accentual variants of locative forms in the dialect area. In the Southern Aukštaitian dialect, locatives of declinable words are most often accented according to the paradigm of the principal variant. Neighboring forms are recorded rarely; for most words, they are attested only in isolated dialects. Thus, locatives, like other cases, are accented in the dialects not indiscriminately, but according to one particular accentual paradigm. This is perhaps best confirmed by the accentuation tendencies of frequently recorded singular instrumental forms. Relatively few forms of this case with two accentuations were found in the same dialect, for example: dvãran / dvarañ, kãkton / kaktõn, kokian / kõkian Trak (596)27, Pls (IX), dvãran / dvarañ, pir̃kion / pirkió n Dg (646), klúonan / kluonãñ, pir̃kion / pirkió n, raudõnon / raudonõn Gdl (650), dvãran / dvarañ, kiaušinín / kiaušinín Kč (683), and so on. Forms with two accentuations of the singular instrumental were recorded in most Southern Aukštaitian dialects (see the figure). Statistically, more of the cases under discussion were found in the southwestern and southern parts of the area (approximately 60 percent of cases). However, the material studied does not indicate a continuous area in which variation as a phenomenon is most intense in comparison with neighboring dialects. We regard as the center of accentual variation of declinable words the area in which the accentuation of instrumental forms does not differ from that of neighboring dialects (see the figure)28. In the Rudamina, Seirijai, Leipalingis, Kapčiamiestis, and other dialects belonging to the area of greatest accentual variation, only several doubly accented instrumental forms were likewise found, for example: kãiman / kaimãn, raudõnan / raudonãn, skỹriun / skyriũn, tokian / tókian Rdm (655), kalnãn / kãlnan, kãkton / kaktõn, kibiran / kibìran, sodžiūn / sõdžiun Srj (674), kamarõn / kamãron, kalnãn / kãlnan Lp (686), daiktan / 27The abbreviation of the settlement and the point number of the Atlas of the Lithuanian Language are indicated. 28The center of greatest accentual variation was established through analysis of extensive data recorded in the Southern Aukštaitian and Eastern Aukštaitian Vilnius dialects; see Ragaišienė 2010: 139, figure 7. Straipsniai / Articles 203 VILIJA RAGAIŠIENĖ dáiktan, piėšton / piestõn, šitõn / šitòn Kpč (693), and so on. Here, rare accentual variants unattested in other dialects occur more frequently than elsewhere, for example: stodan ŠvT 127, slojikãnt LLŠT 256, tróbõn Spg (AukT 204), and so on. Analogous tendencies in the distribution of doubly accented forms within the same dialect are also characteristic of singular and plural inessive forms. FIG. Distribution of accentual variants of singular illative forms of declinable words found in the same dialect The available material shows somewhat different distribution tendencies for secondary forms of the singular inessive and illative and/or plural inessive. Oxytone variants are recorded more frequently in the southwestern and southern parts of the area, while baritone forms occur in the eastern and northern parts. 204 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX Vietininkų kirčiavimo polinkiai pietų aukštaičių šnektose CONCLUSIONS Following an analysis of the accentuation of locatives of declinable words found in sources from the second half of the 20th century to the beginning of the 21st century concerning the Southern Aukštaitian dialect, the following conclusions may be drawn: 1. In the Southern Aukštaitian dialects, the locatives of more than half of declinable words are accented according to one accentual paradigm: baritones in the stem, oxytone words on the ending. The accentuation of the locative forms of the remaining words varies. Approximately one-third of them are doubly accented, as are forms of other cases. For some words, only the accentuation of the locatives varies (no accentual variants of forms of other cases were recorded). In the Southern Aukštaitian dialects, not all locatives are often doubly accented; rather, the forms of only one locative (singular or plural inessive and/or singular illative) may be so accented. The accentuation of singular illative forms of nouns with productive stems varies most. 2. The accentuation of locative forms of declinable words is determined not by a single cause, but by an entire complex of them: 1) analogy with the accent position and/or accentuation of the derivational type of other cases; 2) semantics (locative forms are now used to express location and direction); 3) accentuation tendencies of declinable words in the Southern Aukštaitian dialect (accentual variation and oxytone accentuation). The accentuation of singular illative forms may be influenced by the tendency to replace them with prepositional constructions with the prepositions in, an + accusative, the former competition of forms with two-vowel and shortened (one-vowel) grammatical morphemes, and so on. 3. Doubly accented locative forms of declinable words are widespread throughout the Southern Aukštaitian dialect area. More of these forms were found in the southwestern and southern parts of the area. However, the available material does not indicate a continuous area in which variation as a phenomenon is most intense compared with neighboring dialects. In the southwestern Southern Aukštaitian area regarded as the center of accentual variation of declinable words, the accentuation of locative forms does not differ from that of neighboring dialects. REFERENCES AND SOURCES Ambrazas Saulius 2010: The development of noun formation 2. Lithuanian nominal vocabulary, Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopaedia Publishing. AukT – Markevičienė Žaneta. Texts of Aukštaitian dialects 1, Vilnius: Vilnius University Press, 1999. BltT – Texts of Lithuanian dialects 1. Balatna (Varanavas), compiled by E. Grinaveckienė, Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopaedia Publishing, 1994. Straipsniai / Articles 205 VILIJA RAGAĮŠIENĖ Būga Kazimieras 1961: Selected writings 3, Vilnius: State Publishing House of Political and Scientific Literature. DrskŽ – Naktinienė Gertrūda, Paulauskienė Aldona, Vitkauskas Vytautas. Dictionary of the Druskininkai dialect, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1988. Karaciejūtė Vitalija 2013: Inflectional classes of nouns in the Varėna dialect and their hierarchy: doctoral dissertation, Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language. Kardelytė Jadvyga 1975: The Gervėčiai dialect (phonetics and morphology), Vilnius: Mintis. Kardelytė-Grinevičienė Daiva 2022: The use of competing locative constructions in the Eastern Aukštaitian Vilniškiai and Southern Aukštaitian dialects: causes and tendencies. – Lietuvių kalba 17, 61–69. Available online: https://www.zurnalai.vu.lt/lietuviu-kalba/article/view/31440. Kazlauskas Jonas 1968: Historical Grammar of the Lithuanian Language (Accentuation, Noun, Verb), Vilnius: Mintis. KčT – Leskauskaitė Asta. Texts of the Kučiūnai Dialect, Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language, 2006. Leskauskaitė Asta 2016: Morphological structures of the noun, pronoun, and verb. – Changes in Lithuanian Dialects at the Beginning of the 21st Century: The Dialects of Lithuanian Poles, authors D. Mikulėnienė, A. Leskauskaitė, V. Ragaišienė, L. Geržotaitė, N. Birgelienė, Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language, 205–275. Leskauskaitė Asta 2022: Grammatical Categories of Southern Aukštaitian Nouns, Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language. LKA III – Atlas of the Lithuanian Language 3: Morphology, responsible editor K. Morkūnas, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1977. LKT – Lithuanian Dialects: chrestomathy, compiled by E. Grinaveckienė, A. Jonaitytė, K. Morkūnas, B. Vanagienė, A. Vidugiris, Vilnius: Mintis, 1970. LKTCH – Chrestomathy of Lithuanian Dialects, compiled by R. Bacevičiūtė, A. Ivanauskienė, A. Leskauskaitė, E. Trumpa, Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language, 2004. LKŽe – Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language 1–20 (1941–2002), editorial board G. Naktinienė, J. Paulauskas, R. Petrokienė, V. Vitkauskas, J. Zabarskaitė, editor-in-chief G. Naktinienė, electronic version, Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language, 2008 (updated version, 2018). Available online: https://ekalba.lt/lietuviu-kalbos-zodynas/. LKŽ K – Card File of the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language, Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language. LLŠT – Texts of the Lithuanian Dialects of Poland, prepared by A. Leskauskaitė, Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language, 2021. 206 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX Vietininkų kirčiavimo polinkiai pietų aukštaičių šnektose LLŠŽ K – Card File of the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Dialects of Poland, Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language. LpT – Texts from the Environs of Leipalingis, compiled by A. Leskauskaitė, Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language, 2018. Mikulėnienė Danguolė 1996–1997: Influence of the Slavic languages on the phonological structure of peripheral Lithuanian dialects. – Linguistica Baltica 5–6, 57–67. Mikulėnienė Danguolė, Pakerys Antanas, Stundžia Bonifacas 2007: Handbook of Standard Lithuanian, Vilnius: Vilnius Pedagogical University Press. Morkūnas Kazys 1964: From the history of the plural inessive forms in the Eastern Aukštaitian dialects. – Questions of Lithuanian Linguistics 7, 145–152. MrcT – Texts of the Marcinkonys Dialect, compiled by A. Leskauskaitė, Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language, 2009. Pakerys Antanas 1994: Accentology 1, Kaunas: Šviesa. PPŽ I – Leskauskaitė Asta, Ragaišienė Vilija. Dictionary of the Southern Southern Aukštaitian Dialects 1, Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language, 2016. PPŽ II – Leskauskaitė Asta, Ragaišienė Vilija. Dictionary of the Southern Southern Aukštaitian Dialects 2, Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language, 2019. Ragaišienė Vilija 2010: Accentual Variants of Inflected Words in the Southern Aukštaitian and Eastern Aukštaitian Vilniškiai Dialects: doctoral dissertation, Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language. Ragaišienė Vilija 2012: Accentuation tendencies of nouns with the suffixes –(t)inis, –(t)inė in the Southern Aukštaitian and Eastern Aukštaitian Vilniškiai dialects. – Žmogus ir žodis 14(1), 116–123. RamT – Tuomienė Nijolė. Texts of the Ramaškoniai Dialect, Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language, 2008. Rinkevičius Vytautas 2009: The Accentuation System of Old Prussian: doctoral dissertation, Vilnius: Vilnius University. Rosinas Albertas 1995: Baltic Pronouns: Development of Morphology, Vilnius: Vilnius University Press. Senkus Juozas 1960: Features of noun declension in the Kapsai and Zanavykai dialects. – Proceedings of the Academy of Sciences of the Lithuanian SSR, Series A, 2(9), 157–171. Skardžius Pranas 1935: The Accentology of Daukša, Kaunas: Publication of the Faculty of Humanities of V.D.U. Skardžius Pranas 1943: Lithuanian Word Formation, Vilnius. SrjT – Texts of the Seirijai Dialect, compiled by A. Leskauskaitė, Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language, 2016. Straipsniai / Articles 207 V I L I J A R A G A I Š I E N Ė S t u n d ž i a B o n i f a c a s 1995: The Accentuation System of Standard Lithuanian, Vilnius: Vilnius University. S t u n d ž i a B o n i f a c a s 2009: Accentology of Standard Lithuanian, Vilnius: Vilnius University Press. ŠvT – Texts from the Environs of Švendubrė, compiled by A. Leskauskaitė, Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language, 2020. TA – Manuscript Sources of the Dialect Archive, Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language. T u o m i e n ė N i j o l ė 2005: Noun Inflection in the Ramaškoniai Dialect: A Sociolinguistic Study: doctoral dissertation, Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language. T u o m i e n ė N i j o l ė 2010: The Noun in the Ramaškoniai Dialect: A Sociolinguistic Study, Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language. U r b a n a v i č i e n ė J o l i t a 2005: The Phonological System of the Svirkai Dialect (Eastern Aukštaitian Vilniškiai): Vocalism and Prosody: doctoral dissertation, Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language. Z i n k e v i č i u s Z i g m a s 1966: Dialectology of the Lithuanian Language, Vilnius: Mintis. Z i n k e v i č i u s Z i g m a s 1975: From the Historical Accentology of Lithuanian. The Accentuation of the 1605 Catechism, Vilnius: Vilnius V. Kapsukas Publishing Department. Z i n k e v i č i u s Z i g m a s 1979: Retraction of the Stress and Accentuation Paradigms. – Kalbotyra 30(1), 90–93. Z i n k e v i č i u s Z i g m a s 1980: Historical Grammar of the Lithuanian Language 1, Vilnius: Mokslas. Z i n k e v i č i u s Z i g m a s 1996: History of the Lithuanian Language, Vilnius: Publishing House of Science and Encyclopedias. Z i n k e v i č i u s Z i g m a s 2006: Origin of Lithuanian Dialects, Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language. ABBREVIATIONS OF PLACE NAMES Agr – Agurkiai, Poland Al – Alytus Alv – Ālovė, Alytus district Auk – Aukštadvaris, Trakai district Bd – Būdvietis, Lazdijai district Blt – Balatną, Belarus Brč – Barčiai, Lazdijai district Br – Barčiai, Trakai district Čvn – Čivónys, Lazdijai district. Dbč – Dubičiai, Varėna district. Dbn – Dubininkas, Varėna district. Dg – Daugai Dgr – Daugirdiškės, Trakai district. Dnv – Dainava, Varėna district. Drsk – Druskininkai Drž – Darželiai, Varėna district. Dsm – Dūsmenys, Trakai district. Dvč – Dvarčėnai, Poland 208 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX Vietininkų kirčiavimo polinkiai pietų aukštaičių šnektose Eg – Eglinė, Poland Gdl – Gudeliai, Šalčininkai district. Grb – Grybaulia, Varėna district. Ilg – Ilgininkai, Alytus district. Jvš – Jovašiai, Druskininkai municipality. Kč – Kuciūnai, Lazdijai district. Kb – Kabeliai, Varėna district. Knv – Kaniava, Varėna district. Knvl – Kaniavėlė, Varėna district. Kpč – Kаpčiamiestis, Lazdijai district. Kpn – Kapiniškiai, Varėna district. Krkš – Krikštōnys, Lazdijai district. Krv – Kreivėnai, Poland Kš – Kašėtos, Varėna district. Ktv – Kietaviškės, Elektrėnai municipality. Lp – Leipalingis, Druskininkai municipality. Lpl – Lipliūnai, Druskininkai municipality. Lš – Liškiava, Varėna district. Lzd – Lazdijai Mcl – Maceliai, Varėna district. Mlk – Málkava, Belarus Mnč – Mánčiagirė, Belarus Mrc – Marcinkōnys, Varėna district. Mrd – Mardasavas, Varėna district. Mrg – Márgionys, Varėna district. Mrk – Merkinė, Varėna district. Mrp – Marijámpolis, Vilnius district. Mst – Musteika, Varėna district. Mtl – Meteliai, Lazdijai district. Ndz – Nedzingė, Varėna district. Nmn – Nemunaitis, Alytus district. Onš – Onuškis, Trakai district. Ožk – Ožkiniai, Poland Plkn – Paluknys, Trakai district. Pls – Pelėsą, Belarus Pnč – Panočiai, Varėna district. Pnr – Paneriai, Elektrėnai district. Pns – Pūnskas, Poland Prl – Perloja, Varėna district. Pvč – Puvōčiai, Varėna district. Pvl – Pievėliai, Poland Ram – Ramaškōnys, Belarus Rdm – Rudaminà, Lazdijai district. Rod – Rōdūnia, Belarus Rtn – Rątnyčia, Varėna district. Rud – Rudnià, Varėna district. Sel – Seiliūnai, Lazdijai district. Sem – Semeliškės, Trakai district. Sn – Seinai, Poland Spg – Sapiegìškiai, Lazdijai district. Srj – Seirijai, Lazdijai district. Škl – Šklėriai, Varėna district. Šlčn – Šalčininkai Šlk – Šlynakiemis, Poland Šlvn – Šlavanțai, Lazdijai district. Švn – Šventėžeris, Lazdijai district. Švnd – Švendūbrė, Druskininkai municipality. Trak – Trakai Vlk – Valkininkai, Varėna district. Vng – Vingrėnai, Lazdijai district. Vrn – Varėna Vs – Veisiejai, Lazdijai district. Vvs – Vievis, Elektrėnai district. Zrv – Zervynos, Varėna district. Žln – Žilinai, Varėna district. Žr – Žiūrai, Varėna district. Žv – Žvikėliai, Poland Straipsniai / Articles 209 VILIJA RAGAIS̆IENĖ Accentuation Tendencies of Locative Cases in the Southern Aukštaitian Subdialects SUMMARY After analysing the data, it became evident that over half of the declinable words in the Southern Aukštaitian dialects follow a consistent accentual pattern: barytones are stressed on the stem, while oxytones receive stress on the ending. However, the accentuation of locative case forms for the remaining words displays variability. Approximately a third of these words exhibit dual stress patterns, akin to other inflectional forms. Some words only vary in the accentuation of locative cases, without similar variations in other cases. Additionally, it is common in the Southern Aukštaitian dialects for either the singular or plural illative (or both) to feature dual stress patterns. Among productive stem nouns, the accentuation of singular illative forms showcases the most diverse patterns within this paradigm. The accentuation of declinable words’ locative forms is not governed by a single reason, but rather by a complex of factors: 1) analogies of the place of accentuation of other cases and/or the accentuation analogy of the word formation type; 2) semantics (forms of locative cases now used to indicate location and direction); 3) accentuation tendencies (accentual variation and oxytonesis) of declinable words in the Southern Aukštaitian dialect. The accentuation of singular illative forms can be influenced by several factors, including inclination to substitute them with prepositional constructions with in, an + the Accusative Case, past competition between forms with bivocal and shortened (monovocal) grammatical morphemes, etc. The locative case forms of declinable words exhibiting dual stress patterns are notably widespread across Southern Highlands region. Predominantly, these forms were observed more frequently in the southwestern and southern territories, accounting for approximately 60% of cases. However, the available material does not distinctly pinpoint an area where variability, as a phenomenon, is most intense compared to neighbouring subdialects. In the southwestern area of South Aukštaitian, often regarded as the centre of accentual variation of declinable words, the accentuation of locative forms does not notably differ from neighbouring subdialects. Submitted on 27 October 2023 VILIJA RAGAIS̆IENĖ Institute of the Lithuanian Language 5 Petro Vileišio St., LT-10308 Vilnius, Lithuania [email protected] 210 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX