Keletas tikslintinų žemaičių patarmių transkripcijos TFA rašmenimis atvejų

RIMA BAKŠIENĖ Institute of the Lithuanian Language ORCID id: orcid.org/0000-0002-6716-0776 Research areas: experimental phonetics, phonology, geolinguistics. DOI: doi.org/10.35321/all88-06 SEVERAL CASES OF THE TRANSCRIPTION OF SAMOGITIAN SUBDIALECTS USING IPA SYMBOLS THAT REQUIRE REVISION Several Clarified Cases in the Transcription of Žemaitian Subdialects by IPA Symbols ANNOTATION The application of International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) symbols to the transcription of Lithuanian dialects has been discussed by dialectologists since 2017, and in 2021 an IPA set intended for Standard Lithuanian was also approved. However, to date, the possibilities of transcribing the Aukštaitian subdialects in IPA have been examined in greater detail, while the Samogitian dialects have received much less attention. This article discusses less extensively analysed cases of recording Samogitian varieties using IPA symbols and revises several aspects of transcription proposed in earlier publications. The appendix presents examples of the IPA transcription of specific Samogitian sounds, mostly diphthongs, and gives the symbol numbers in the IPA system and the standard Unicode values of the symbols. The systems of Samogitian subdialects are more complex than those of Aukštaitian in terms of the transcription of their vocalism and especially their prosody; the opposition of tones is often expressed by a different set of prosodic features. These differences are most relevant when transcribing diphthongal syllables, which are characterised by particularly pronounced variation due to the realisation of tones. Therefore, the article devotes most attention to the transcription of diphthongal syllables. The proposals presented in the article should not be regarded as final and indisputable. Following further research, and perhaps the emergence of proposals and new insights from other researchers, some aspects of dialectal transcription in IPA will most likely be refined in the future. KEYWORDS: phonetics, transcription, International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA), Lithuanian dialects, Samogitians. 126 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVIII Several cases of the transcription of Samogitian subdialects using IPA symbols that require revision ANNOTATION Dialectologists have discussed the use of the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) symbols for the transcription of Lithuanian dialects since 2017, the IPA collection for Standard Lithuanian was also approved in 2021, but until now, the possibilities of Aukštaitian transcription have been examined in more detail, and less attention has been paid to Žemaitian subdialects. The article addresses the questions of transcribing the Žemaitian subdialects of the Lithuanian language by the symbols of the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA), revises certain symbols from the earlier set of the IPA symbols for the sounds of Lithuanian dialects presented in 2017 and ways of transcribing. In terms of transcribing, the system of vocalism and especially of prosody in Žemaitian subdialects is more complex than Aukštaitian; the Žemaitian pitch accents have different characteristics. These differences are most relevant when transcribing diphthongs, which are characterized by a particularly high variability. The article gives many examples of transcribing the syllables, which contain diphthongs and bear different pitch accents. After more in-depth studies on dialectal phonology are conducted in the future and more theoretical works are generalized, the transcription of Lithuanian dialects by the IPA symbols will be further revised. KEYWORDS: phonetics, transcription, International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA), Lithuanian dialects, Žemaitian. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS In recent years, as the number of works in Lithuanian dialectology based on the transcription of dialect sounds using International Phonetic Alphabet symbols (IPA; see IPA 2023) has increased, it is worth returning once again to the IPA set proposed for Lithuanian dialects in 2017 (see Bakšienė, Čepaitienė 2017) and revising several aspects. The spelling of the Aukštaitian subdialects in IPA has already been discussed quite comprehensively in scholarly publications (for a summary, see Bakšienė 2022), whereas the considerably more complex sound systems of Samogitian in relation to the new transcription have scarcely been discussed; so far, only one publication has been devoted to them (Bakšienė 2018). The article’s aim is to review the transcription in IPA of Samogitian vocalism and prosodic units that have not yet been analysed at all or have been examined only to a limited extent, to revise several previously proposed transcription cases, and also to provide examples of Samogitian sounds written in IPA (see Appendices 1 and 2). The study’s objectives are: 1) to summarise the vocalism system of the Samogitian subdialects and discuss the vowel units that pose the greatest difficulties for IPA transcription; 2) to review the principal principles for marking Samogitian consonants with IPA symbols; 3) to present possible ways of recording Samogitian tone allophones in IPA and discuss the transcription possibilities for diphthongal syllables particularly associated with tone. The study draws on many previously published Straipsniai / Articles 127 RIMA BAKŠIENĖ materials from dialectologists’ works: descriptions of subdialects and dialects, and texts recorded in Copenhagen transcription. The work employed methods of scholarly literature analysis and descriptive comparative analysis. 1. THE SAMOGITIAN VOWEL SYSTEM AND ITS REPRESENTATION IN THE IPA A generalized overview of the vowel phonemes of the Samogitian subdialects, transcribed using IPA symbols, is presented in Table 1¹ (for more detail, see Atkočait y tė, Rinkauskienė 2003; LKTCh 2004 et al.; cf. the vowel system of the Aukštaitian subdialects in Bakšienė 2022: 168). ¹ TABLE. Vowel phonemes of the Samogitian subdialects ¹ The table presents only vowel units having phoneme status; the more important phoneme variants are discussed separately. Parentheses contain the so-called “two-faced” phonemes, which are systematically absent from all the Samogitian subdialects. The Standard Lithuanian ie, uo reflexes of the northern Samogitian dialects, [eɪ], [oɪ], are not included, since many authors regard them as diphthongs. In this article, their transcription is discussed together with diphthongs. 128 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVIII Keletas tikslintinų žemaičių patarmių transkripcijos TFA rašmenimis atvejų Most of the IPA symbols needed to transcribe the vowel systems of the Samogitian dialects coincide with those used for Aukštaitian (see Bakšienė 2022: 180–182, Appendix 1); moreover, the most problematic cases in the transcription of Samogitian vowels have already been briefly discussed (see Bakšienė 2018: 107–113), so here only a couple of issues related to vowels require comment. Regarding the group of close and near-close vowels, it should once again be emphasized that Lithuanian long and short vowels differ not only in quantity but also in qualitative features; it is no coincidence that phonetic works on Lithuanian have established paired names for them: long–tense and short–lax vowels (Pakerys 2003: 24–25; cf. Kazlauskienė 2018: 39–41). Therefore, a distinction should be made in transcription: IPA symbols for close (English close) vowels should be used to transcribe Samogitian long, half-long, and, especially importantly, fully shortened vowels², e.g.: [ˈuːi̯ːərs] ~ vỹras, [uˈiːrʲe̯i̯ˈlʲiːs] / [uˈi̯rʲi̯e̯lʲiˈs] ~ vyrelis, [ˈnɑktʲi] ~ nãktį, [ˈʃuːnʲi] ~ šunį; [ˈɡruːʔds] ~ grūdas, [ɡruˈlʲdɑːm] / [ɡruˈdɑːm] ~ grūdá̄ms, [ˈmʲeːtu] ~ mė̃tų, [ˈmʲiːəˈnʲe̯sʲu] ~ mėnesių; whereas IPA symbols for near-close (English near-close) vowels should be used for inherently short or short and lowered (with the diacritic lowered) Samogitian vowels, e.g.: [ˈʒ́i̯bɑ] / [ˈʒ́i̯bɑ] ~ žība, [ˈbʊvɑ] / [ˈbʊ̯vɑ] ~ būvo. This distinction was also made in many earlier Samogitian texts (see Girdenis 1996; 2008; 2012; Babickienė, Jasiūnaitė, Pečeliūnaitė, Bagužytė 2007; AAT 2018 et al.). Although, when transcribing in traditional Copenhagen notation, identical symbols i, u were written in all cases, those deriving from long vowels were nowhere marked as lowered, which is characteristic of inherently short Samogitian vowels. Descriptions of the transcription in more than one source even emphasize that they are more or less tense, close, and noticeably closer than the corresponding short vowels of the standard language i, u, and only slightly less tense than the corresponding long vowels (Girdenis 2012: 24–26). In the previous article devoted to Samogitian transcription, the representation in the IPA of reduced vowels in Samogitian word endings was not discussed at all. Texts written in Copenhagen transcription contain particularly numerous Samogitian reduced endings, in which vowel reduction, at least in the later period—from the end of the twentieth to the beginning of the twenty-first century—was conventionally distinguished by two degrees: raised letter symbols were written for weaker reduction, and raised symbols in parentheses for stronger reduction. Earlier sources also contain non-raised but parenthesized vowels in Samogitian reduced endings—(i), (e), (a), etc. (see LKA Pr 1956; LKT 1970). The authors of the texts identify differences between stronger and weaker reduction in terms of unequal degrees of vowel sonority and the realization of the syllable-forming function: when the vowel is voiceless (almost inaudible) and no longer forms a syllable, the vowel symbol is presented raised in parentheses, whereas when it still forms a syllable, it is merely raised (Girdenis 2008: 24; 2012: 33; ² For the representation of pitch accents, see below, section 3 of the article. Straipsniai / Articles 129 RIMA BAKŠIENĖ AAT 2018: 49). When transcribing Žemaitian vowels using IPA symbols, the diacritic ̯ (Eng. lowered), indicating greater openness, is systematically written under some of them (mid-height vowels), e.g.: [ˈʒ̞ʲɛna] / [ˈʒ̞ʲɛna] ~ žino, [ˈb̞ɔva] / [ˈb̞ɔva] ~ būvo, so there is no longer any possibility of marking a non-syllabic sound with a diacritic under the letter. Thus, in the IPA system, the diacritic ̆ (Eng. extra short), indicating exceptional shortness, should in all cases be written above Žemaitian reduced vowels, e.g.: [²ⁿʲɛka] ~ nieko, [¹ˈsʲuːtʲɛ] ~ siūti, etc.; degrees of vowel reduction cannot be differentiated. 2. NOTES ON THE TRANSCRIPTION OF ŽEMAITIAN CONSONANTS The Žemaitian consonant system is simpler than the Aukštaitian system from the standpoint of transcription, since there are not as many instances of hardening before front vowels. There are no special IPA consonant symbols needed specifically for transcribing the Žemaitian subdialects; all the same symbols as for Aukštaitian consonants should be used. Here it is worth recalling a phenomenon long known to dialectologists and described in detail (see Girdenis 1971: 27; Jasiūnaitė 1994; LKTCh 2004: 258; Babickienė, Jasiūnaitė, Pečeliūnaitė, Bagužytė 2007: 12–13, etc.): in the northern, more precisely northwestern, Žemaitian dialects, especially in the Kretinga area, some consonants are less palatalized in non-final syllables before e- and ė-type vowels. In such positions, they are palatalized only if a palatalized consonant follows them farther on; otherwise, they are pronounced as semi-hard or completely hard. When transcribing examples from the Kretinga area and other neighboring dialects, the diacritic ʲ (Eng. palatalized), indicating softness, should not be marked after consonants, even when they occur before front [ɛ], [ɛː], [e̞], [e̞ː], [en], [ɛm], [el], [er], [e̞l], [e̞r] vowels, e.g.: [ˈrʲɛta] ~ rito, [ˈvɛ̞dɔ] ~ vėdū, [²ˈʒv̞ʲɛnts] ~ šventas, [bɛ¹ˈrɛˀms] ~ birimas, [²ˈvɛ¹ks] ~ vilkas, [¹ˈdɛˀrb] ~ dirba, [¹ˈpɛ¹ns] ~ pienas, and so on. Dialectologists who have written about this phenomenon most often single out the consonants k, g, š, ž, l and the affricates č, dž from the group of less-hardened consonants; therefore, their softness should be marked in all positions before front vowels, e.g.: [ˈkʲɛːkʲɛ] ~ keikė, [ˈgʲɛːrʲɛ] ~ geri, [²ˈʃʲɛ¹ns] ~ šienas, [vɛ¹ˈʒʲɛˀms] ~ vežimas, [¹ˈɛˀka] ~ liko, [baʒʲˈnʲiːʒʲɛˀlʲɛ] ~ bažnyčėlė, i.e. bažnytėlė, etc. As can be seen, š and ž are also universally mentioned among the non-hardened Žemaitian consonants; therefore, when transcribing in IPA, [ʃ], [ʒ] should be written generally, and there is no need to distinguish hard and soft sounds with different symbols 130 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVIII Keletas tikslintinų žemaičių patarmių transkripcijos TFA rašmenimis atvejų marking (cf. Kazlauskienė 2018: 51; Bakšienė 2022: 171–172)³. Moving eastward, the feature under discussion gradually disappears: soft consonants are more commonly used before all front consonants, so transcription should take into account which sounds are pronounced in each particular case. 3. THE ŽEMAITIAN PROSODIC SYSTEM AND THE MARKING OF DIPHTHONGAL SYLLABLES The transcription of units at the prosodic level of Lithuanian dialects, especially pitch accents, probably raises the most transcription problems. The prosodic system of the Žemaitian dialects is undoubtedly the most complex, since both the features of their primary-stress pitch accents differ from those of the standard language and secondary stresses, arising both through stress retraction and stress shift, are widely used (see LKTCh 2004: 198–200 for more detail). As regards the transcription of Žemaitian pitch accents, the same essential clarification as for the Aukštaitian subdialects should be provided concerning the IPA system. Earlier publications devoted to the transcription of Žemaitian dialects (Bakšienė 2018; 2019) proposed marking the falling/rising tone of pitch accents with diacritics, but recently the notation of pitch accents in all dialects has become established using superscript numbers ¹ (acute) and ² (circumflex)⁴. Therefore, all Žemaitian pitch-accent allophones should likewise be marked in this way (see Table 2). The required pitch-accent numbers before the stressed syllable⁵ are written in all cases (in syllables with primary, retracted, and shifted stress) when an acute or circumflex pitch accent is clearly audible. When no clear pitch accent can be heard ³ To show more clearly the articulatory differentiation between hard and soft consonants in this group, one could also propose for Žemaitian the different IPA symbols proposed for Aukštaitian: postalveolar [ʃ], [ʒ] for soft consonants and retroflex [ʂ], [ʐ] for hard consonants. However, analogous depalatalization does not occur in Žemaitian dialects, and, in general, the articulation of Žemaitian consonants has not yet been described in detail; only their acoustic and auditory properties have been studied more extensively (see Kliukienė 2011). It is likely that the articulation of hard Žemaitian consonants differs markedly from that of the corresponding Aukštaitian sounds, especially the depalatalized ones. This remains a subject for future research. ⁴ This variant was recognized by dialectologists after lengthy discussions as more convenient because it does not indicate tonal features as clear indicators of pitch accents, nor a particularly defined direction of tonal change (rising or falling), which in the pronunciation of pitch accents can vary considerably and depends most strongly on phrase intonation and other factors (cf. Kazlauskienė 2018: 8, 19; VLKK k-25). ⁵ Syllable boundaries are best determined everywhere according to the STR rule: a new syllable begins where the largest consonant cluster matching the word-initial consonant pattern is found (Girdenis 2003: 134–141). Straipsniai / Articles 131 RIMA BAKŠIENĖ (the so-called middle tone accent is pronounced, which may be an allotone of either the acute or the circumflex), numerals are not written, only the primary or secondary stress marks. TABLE 2. Allotones of the Samogitian tone accents⁶ If the acute is realized as a broken tone accent, a raised IPA symbol for the glottal stop ʔ should be written after the vowel forming the syllable nucleus (Eng. glottal stop). This symbol had already been proposed in earlier publications devoted to Samogitian, but, after further study of the marking of similar meanings in other languages (cf. Basbøll 2005: 37, 82–87; LVG 2013: 25, 105; see also Girdenis 2003: 282), the position in which it is written merits somewhat fuller comment. In the IPA system, diacritics written after a particular symbol describe an additional feature of the sound preceding the diacritic; cf. the notation of various variants of the consonant [t]: [tʰ] – aspirated, [tʷ] – labialized, [tʲ] – palatalized, [tˠ] – pharyngealized, [tʸ] – velarized (see HIPA 1999: 15–17; IPA 2023). Voice-quantity features should be considered more ⁶ Meanings of the abbreviations and symbols used in the table: PK – primary stress, AK – retracted stress, NK – advanced stress, PŽ – Southern Samogitian, ŠŽ – Northern Samogitian, + – characteristic; (+) – partly characteristic, a variant widespread not in all dialects or used only in certain word positions; – – uncharacteristic. Western Samogitian is not included in the table because its tone accents would be marked analogously, and the subdialect itself had almost disappeared by the 21st century. 132 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVIII Keletas tikslintinų žemaičių patarmių transkripcijos TFA rašmenimis atvejų inherent, therefore it is more accurate to write the symbol ʔ after the vowel-length symbol, e.g.: [ˈuːiˀrs] ~ ū́yras, [ˈdɑːkts] ~ dáiktas. Samogitian diphthongized [ie], [uo], like the corresponding monophthongal diphthongs of the standard language, are usually not divided into components, being regarded as vowel phonemes with changing articulation; therefore, in the case of a broken tone accent, the diacritic should likewise be written after the entire syllable nucleus, e.g.: [ˈbʲiɛˀɡ] ~ bė́ga, [ˈkuoˀjɛ] ~ kója. Samogitian [ɛi], [ɔu] should also be transcribed in this way, e.g.: [ˈpʲɛi̯ns] ~ píenas, [ˈjɔu̯dɐ] ~ júodo⁷. From the perspective of IPA transcription, syllables bearing a broken tone accent whose nucleus consists of complex diphthongs (if they are not monophthongized) and mixed diphthongs should be discussed separately. In earlier canonical works of Lithuanian dialectology, the features of the broken tone accent were described solely by ear; later, a large group of experimentalists also emerged who studied Samogitian tone accents, and in almost all such works the authors identify as the principal feature the “break” in the voice, associated with the abruptness of the change in fundamental tone: at first the tone rises, and after reaching its maximum it falls abruptly, as a result of which creakiness, breathiness, and the like are perceived by ear. It is also noted that when pronouncing the broken tone accent, the glottis is slightly constricted (or even completely closed briefly), creating the impression of two successive sounds (for an overview, see Švageris 2015: 29–36; Bakšienė 2016: 50–52). The works do not clearly specify at which point in the syllable nucleus the aforementioned “break” occurs, but these descriptions indicate that it should take place in the inner part (when the “break” is realized as clearer glottalization) or in the second part (when it is realized more through creakiness, breathiness). Although researchers of Latvian, which has a similar tone accent, in all cases mark the symbol ʔ after the entire syllable nucleus, e.g.: [juːʔks] ‘laughter’, [mei̯ʔtɐ] ‘girl’, [cerʔt] ‘to catch’, [vaɫʔks] ‘stream; portage’ (LVG 2013: 26), nevertheless, when transcribing the Samogitian broken tone accent, it would be more accurate to write the glottalization sign after the first component of the diphthong / mixed diphthong, because this is precisely where the energy of the tone accent is concentrated, e.g.: [ˈʃaːʔtʲɛ] / [ˈʃaːʔtʲɛ] ~ šáuti, [ˈkaːʔɫns] / [ˈkaːɫʔns] ~ kálnas, [ˈdaːʔrps] / [ˈdaːrʔps] ~ dárbas, [ˈdʲɛʔrʲpʲtʲɛ] / [ˈdʲɛʔrʲpʲtʲɛ] ~ dirbti, and so on. Analogous notation can also be found in descriptions of Danish phonology that record a prosodic “break” (Dan. stød ‘push’), closely resembling the Samogitian broken tone accent; there it is marked precisely after the part of the syllable in which the prosodic unit in question is realized, cf.: [bɔːʔw] ~ bog ‘book’, [bɑeʔɫ] ~ bag ‘behind’, [pʰɛʔːn] ~ pæn ‘fine’, [halʔs] ~ ⁷ In earlier Samogitian texts written in Copenhagen transcription, generally none of these sounds were divided, nor was the lengthening of their components caused by the tone accent marked (see Girdenis 1996; 2008; 2012; Babickienė, Jasiūnaitė, Pečeliūnaitė, Bagužytė 2007; AAT 2018, et al.). Straipsniai / Articles 133 RIMA BAKŠIENĖ hals ‘neck’, [ˈmanʔ] ~ mand ‘man’ (Basbøll 2005: 37, 82–87; 2022; see also Girdenis 2003: 282)⁸. More examples of diphthongal / mixed-diphthong syllables transcribed with IPA symbols, likely to occur most frequently in Samogitian dialects, are provided in Appendix 2 of the article. Several aspects of their transcription merit more extensive comment. In cases of clearly expressed tone-accent oppositions, the first component of a diphthong / mixed diphthong in Samogitian dialects may be either long or half-long, in the realization of both acute- and circumflex-derived diphthongs. The tone-accent opposition is then expressed by other features, most probably the abruptness versus continuity of the fundamental tone, rather than by quantity. It should be emphasized that the length of the components is not marked, because of their closely coinciding articulation, only in the Samogitian equivalents of the standard-language ie, uo, as well as in diphthongized ė, o, e.g.: [ˈdovʔnã] ~ dúona, [ˈpʲeɪ̯nã] ~ píeno, [ˈtʲeʒʊs] ~ tėvas, [ˈkuo̯ʒʲeɪ] ~ kója, etc. Since the force of both phonological tone accents in Samogitian is usually concentrated on the first component, the coarticulation of the diphthong au, used after a hard consonant, with the second component (labialization) is relatively weak, much weaker than in the Aukštaitian area (especially in the eastern dialects). Therefore, the first component should usually be marked with the symbol for an unrounded vowel [ɑ], e.g.: [ˈgɑʷtʲė] / [ˈgɑʷtʲė] ~ gáuti, [ˈlɑʷks] / [ˈlɑʷks] ~ laũkas. The symbol for a labialized low vowel [ɒ] should be written only in rare cases when the tone accent is pronounced unclearly or in an unstressed diphthong au. The use and notation of the diphthong au in the position after a soft consonant merits fuller comment. In texts in the standard language and in some Aukštaitian dialects, at least in the southern part of Western Aukštaitian, it is customary to assume that in such cases complete fronting of the first component occurs, turning it into the vowel e. In IPA it has been proposed to mark this as [ɛ], e.g.: [ˈkʲɛʊ̯ras] ~ kiaūras, [ˈkʲɛʊ̯lʲe] ~ kiaulė, [kʲɛʊ̯lʲes] ~ kiaulės, and so on. However, when transcribing Samogitian texts, there is a tradition of assuming that the fronting is very slight; in such cases a is usually written. In the works of dialectologists from the first half of the 20th century (see Gerullis 1930; Jonikas 1939), the fronting of a in this position was more often marked with a dot above – ȧ, sometimes with a small circle additionally marking the labialization caused by the second component – å, e.g.: bjaũrė ~ bjaũriai, ẫmž̌iaus ~ amžiaus (Gerullis 1930: 18). However, in later Samogitian texts (Girdenis 1996; 2008; 2012; Babickienė, ⁸ In cases where a clear “glottal closure” is not heard and the tone accent is realized more through creaky voice, breathiness, and the like, it would be possible to write the IPA diacritic ˤ after the vowel of the syllable nucleus or after the second component of the diphthong / mixed diphthong, marking creaky voice (Eng. creaky voice). However, this is not convenient systematically, because in Samogitian dialects many vowels already have a diacritic with a different function written after the letter, for example one marking a somewhat more open sound; in that case, two diacritics cannot be used after a single letter (see Bakšienė 2019: 18, footnote 11, for more detail). 134 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVIII Keletas tikslintinų žemaičių patar-mių transkripcijos TFA rašmenimis atvejų Jasiūnaitė, Pečeliūnaitė, Bagužytė 2007; AAT 2018) more often simply wrote au after a soft consonant, e.g.: muokėjau ~ mokėjau, vieliau ~ vėliau and so on.⁹ In Žemaitian texts, the unfronted au is also found in many manuscript notebooks recorded in the mid-20th century by the most prominent researchers of that period: Birutė Rokaitė (1961, Paluknė, LKA 38), Zuzana Jonikaitė (1954, Skirpsčiai, LKA 95), Elena Grinaviečienė (1960, Judrėnai, LKA 286), Irena Ermantytė (1962, Darbėnai, LKA 91), Aldona Jonaitytė (1964, Skliaustė, LKA 13), Aleksas Girdenis (1973, Barstyčiai, LKA 42), and others, e.g.: grâužtė ~ graužti, apsesâutosi ~ apsisâutusi and the like. Examples with the fronted eu / æu occur much less frequently; this notation is used more systematically by Albertas Ružė from the Telšiai area (1963, Viekšniai, LKA 34) and Albertas Rosinas from the Varniai area (1960, Šaukėnai, LKA 194): kẽu,šẽ ~ kiaušiai, i.e. eggs, kẽu,rã ~ kiau­rai, áu,dẽu ~ áudžiau and so on. A. Rosinas’s description notes that after a soft consonant au > is rendered as eu, e.g.: pjėuti ~ pjuáuti, keũli ~ kiau­lė. Clearly, to assess the degree of fronting of this sound in Žemaitian and Aukštaitian dialects, further research, particularly research based on instrumental phonetics, will be needed; however, when transcribing Žemaitian texts with IPA symbols, it is advisable to follow the prevailing tradition and mark the diphthong au after a soft consonant with [ɑ], e.g.: [¹kʲɑːʋr̥s] / [¹kʲɑʋr̥s], [¹grʲɑːʋr̥jẽ] / [¹grʲɑʋr̥jẽ], [¹ɑʋʑ dʲɑʋs] / [¹ɑʋs¹ dʲɑʋs], [¹pʲɑʋtʲ] / [¹pʲɑʋtʲ], [¹ʒm̥¹j zʲɑʋs] / [¹ʒm̥¹j zʲɑʋs], [²kʲɑʋlʲ] / [²kʲɑʋlʲ], [²bʲɑʋrʲẽ] / [²bʲɑʋrʲẽ], [²¹kʲɑʋs¹ rʲẽʔ] / [²¹kʲɑʋs¹ rʲẽʔ], [ˈu̯iẽ²¹ɑʋs], [apˈsʲe̯ʃˈsʲɑʋotęsʲ] / [apˈsʲe̯ʃˈsʲɑʋotęsʲ], etc.¹⁰ Likewise, in the diphthong ai (if it is not monophthongized) and in mixed diphthongs of various origins al, ar, an, am (if the latter two are not narrowed), in Žemaitian dialects, in cases of both clearly realized tones (in syllables bearing the primary, retracted, or shifted accent), a clear a, lengthened to a long or half-long vowel, will most often be pronounced. It should likewise always be marked with the IPA symbol [ɑ], e.g.: [ɑ¹nɑːʔ] / [ɑ¹nɑʔ] ~ anái, i.e. to her, [²¹uɑʲkʲũ] / [²¹uɑʲkʲũ] ~ vaĩkų, i.e. of boys, [¹ʃɑɫtɑ] / [¹ʃɑːɫtɑ] ~ šáltą, [²¹kɑrtɑ] / [²¹kɑːrtɑ] ~ kar̃tą, [¹nuɔ¹rɑːm] / [¹nuɔ¹rɑm] ~ nórime and so on. Only when the tone is not clearly differentiated can a weaker, somewhat reduced first component occur in these diphthongs as well; in such cases it would be marked with the IPA symbol [ɐ]. In general, however, such reduction of the first component is not characteristic of Žemaitian dialects: compared with Aukštaitian dialects, the vowel a more often remains prominent even in an unstressed syllable. ⁹ The diphthong au after a soft consonant was marked without any fronting also in Antanas Baranauskas’s Žemaitian texts (see Specht 1920), e.g.: t jau ~ tuojau, teisiau ~ tiesiau and so on. ¹⁰ In individual cases, more distinctly perceived fronting of the first component may also be recorded by additionally writing the diacritic ̟ after [ɑ] (English advanced), e.g.: [¹kʲɑ̟ʋr̥s], [²¹kʲɑʋl̟]. Straipsniai / Articles 135 RIMA BAKŠIENĖ In most of the Žemaitian area (except for the southern Žemaitian Raseiniškiai and their nearest neighboring dialects in other subdialects), mixed diphthongs am, an are narrowed. When transcribing the narrowed sounds, their first component should, depending on the degree of narrowing, be transcribed with the IPA symbols [o] (more open) or [u] (narrower), e.g.: [ˈkɔːn̪d̪ō] / [ˈkɔːn̪d̪ō] ~ kándu, [ˈkuːn̪d̪ī] / [ˈkuːn̪d̪ī] ~ kándi, [ˈsoːm̪t̪ʲis] / [ˈsoːm̪t̪ʲis], [ˈsuːm̪t̪ʲis] / [ˈsuːm̪t̪ʲis] ~ sámtis. It should be noted that in the northern Žemaitian dialects, mainly in the Telšiai area, the more strongly narrowed diphthong components, usually as a result of vowel assimilation, tend to be much more closed and tense, more closely resembling the features of a long vowel; therefore, they should be transcribed with the IPA symbol for the close back vowel [u]. In the northeast of the southern Žemaitian Varniai area, around Užventis, Šaukėnai, and Kuršėnai, these sounds are generally considered by dialectologists to be more open and not lengthened; therefore, the IPA symbol for a vowel close to the close vowel, [ʊ], should be written here, and when a somewhat greater degree of openness is heard, it may also be used with the diacritic ̞, e.g.: [ˈlʊŋks] / [ˈlʊŋks] ~ lán-gas, [ˈsʊm̪t̪ʲis] / [ˈsʊm̪t̪ʲis] ~ sámtis. In the diphthong ei (if it is not monophthongized) and in the mixed diphthongs el, er, en, em, it is customary in Žemaitian texts to mark the more closed e (especially in the diphthong ei, where the influence of the second component, which has a higher height, is strongly felt); therefore, in syllables of both acute and circumflex origin, the IPA symbol for the mid-open vowel [ɛ] should be written here, e.g.: [ˈɛi̯t̪ẽ] / [ˈɛi̯t̪ẽ] ~ eiti, [n̪ɛˈlɛi̯d̪o] / [n̪ɛˈlɛi̯d̪o] ~ neleido, [m̪ɛrˈgʲɛlʲkʊ] / [m̪ɛrˈgʲɛlʲkʊ] ~ mergėlkų, i.e. of girls, and so on. The open [æ] could occur only in rare exceptional cases. If the first components of the diphthongs en, em are narrowed in the dialects, they change symmetrically, like the first components of analogous back-series diphthongs. The narrowed components should accordingly be transcribed with the IPA symbols [e] / [i] / [ɪ] / [ɪ̞], e.g.: [ˈm̪e̯ʔn̪ʲkʊ] / [ˈm̪e̯ʔn̪ʲkʊ], [ˈm̪i̯ʔn̪ʲkʊ] / [ˈm̪i̯ʔn̪ʲkʊ], [ˈm̪ɪn̪ʲkʊ] / [ˈm̪ɪn̪ʲkʊ] ~ ménkių. The lengthened first components of the diphthong ui and of the mixed diphthongs il, ir, in, im, ul, ur, un, um may be fronted or not fronted in different Žemaitian dialects, depending on the subdialect’s phonological system. Their quality depends mainly on whether vowel assimilation occurs and, if so, on the basis on which the vowels assimilate, what exceptions occur, and so on. In cases of fronting, the components emphasized by the tone, like individual fronted vowels, should be marked with the IPA symbols [ę], [o̞], e.g.: [ˈzɔɪ̯kʲʊs] / [ˈzɔɪ̯kʲʊs] ~ zuíkis, [ˈsʲpʲe̯ʔrʲt̪ʲe̯] / [ˈsʲpʲe̯ʔrʲt̪ʲe̯] ~ spírti, [ˈu̯e̯ʔlks] / [ˈu̯e̯ʔlks] ~ vīlkas, [ˈd̪oʔlʲkʲe̯] / [ˈd̪oʔlʲkʲe̯] ~ dūlkė and so on. In cases without fronting, the diphthong components lengthened by the tone likewise acquire the features of a long vowel; they should then be marked with the close IPA vowels [i], [u], e.g.: [ˈrʲimkʊs] / [ˈrʲimkʊs] ~ Rìmkus, [ˈmʲiːn̪s] / [ˈmʲiːn̪s]¹¹ ~ mìns, [ˈduːm̪pʲl̪ɛs] / [ˈduːm̪pʲl̪ɛs] ~ dùmplės. In Žemaitian dialects, the acute tone is preserved in all future-tense forms. 136 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVII Keletas tikslintinų žemaičių patarmių transkripcijos TFA rašmenimis atvejų Only in the Raseiniai subdialect of Southern Samogitian and in some peripheral Varniškiai dialects is the broadening of the aforementioned components less pronounced; thus, they should be marked [ɪ], [ʊ], e.g.: [ˈdʲɪrʲpʲtʲɪ] ~ dirbti ‘to work’, [ˈkʊrʲmʲɪˌs] ~ kūrmis and so on. In the case of a continuous accent, Raseiniai Samogitian speakers may broaden both components of the diphthong ui; in that case, both should be transcribed as half-long, with diacritics indicating a more open vowel, e.g., [ˈzʊ̞ʲkʲɪ̯s] ~ zuikis ‘hare’. When the continuous accent is pronounced indistinctly, the component may also remain unbroadened. In traditional Copenhagen transcription, the sign for the so-called medial accent was most often marked in syllables bearing retracted stress in Samogitian subdialects (although it may also occur elsewhere), when there was no clear accent differentiation. When transcribing such examples using the IPA system, if no clear accent can be heard in a syllable with retracted stress, no accent-indicating numerals are written before the stressed syllable; only the syllable-stress sign is used, e.g.: [ˈpʲɪ̯tʲa] ~ plytą, [ˈgalʊ̯a] ~ galvą, etc. In cases where the medial accent would be understood as a clear allophone of the acute or circumflex, the accent numerals should be marked before the stressed syllable (for examples from the Highland Lithuanian system, cf. Bakšienė 2022: 182–183, Appendix 2). GENERALIZATION Having reviewed the generalized picture of Samogitian vocalism, as well as the most important elements of consonantism and prosody, the article discusses the relationship between dialectal sounds and the IPA symbol system and establishes possible IPA equivalents for the distinctive sound units of the Samogitian subdialects, primarily diphthongal sounds. From the earlier 2017 set of IPA symbols intended for Lithuanian dialects, the notation of Samogitian long (shortened) and short (lengthened) non-low vowels in IPA is clarified; the possibilities for transcribing Samogitian reduced vowels are discussed; comments are provided on the transcription of Samogitian consonants in IPA; and most attention is devoted to the transcription of diphthongal syllables and their variants arising from the realization of Samogitian accents. The analysis showed that most units of the vocalism and consonantism of the Samogitian subdialects are unproblematic from the perspective of IPA transcription; IPA symbols, either alone or with additional diacritics, convey the characteristics of Samogitian sounds fairly precisely. However, in transcription, particular attention should be paid to the specific features of their use in individual subdialects (for example, the quality of long, shortened, short, and reduced vowels, the correlation of hard and soft consonants with front vowels, and so on). The Samogitian consonant system should even be regarded as simpler than that of Highland Lithuanian. However, a detailed review of the notation of Samogitian accents and their allophones once again confirmed the complexity of this prosodic phenomenon from the perspective of transcription Straipsniai / Articles 137 RIMA BAKŠIENĖ and, although decisions on its notation using the IPA system in Lithuanian dialects have recently been proposed, it is possible that they will be further refined in the future as new insights emerge. LITERATŪRA AAT – Akmenės apylinkių tekstai, sud. L. Murinienė, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2018. Atkočait ytė Daiva, Rinkauskienė Regina 2003: Lietuvių kalbos tarmių fonetika: mokomoji knyga, Vilnius: Vilniaus pedagoginis universitetas. Babickienė Zofija, Jasiūnaitė Birutė, Pečeliūnaitė Angelė, Bagužytė Rūta 2007: Centrinė šiaurės žemaičių kretingiškių tarmė: tarmės tekstai su komentarais ir žodynėliu, Vilnius: Baltos lankos. Bakšienė Rima 2016: Vakarų aukštaičių kauniškių priegaidės: Marijampolės šnekta, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Bakšienė Rima 2018: Žemaičių patarmių transkripcija TFA simboliais: sudėtingesni atvejai. – Kalbos istorijos ir dialektologijos problemos 5, sud. R. Bakšienė, N. Morozova, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 102–118. Bakšienė Rima 2019: Dėl lietuvių tarmių priegaidžių žymėjimo TFA simboliais. – Linguistica Lettica 27, 7–26. Prieiga internete: http://lavi.lu.lv/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Linguistica_Lettica_27.pdf. Bakšienė Rima 2022: Dar kartą dėl aukštaičių patarmių transkripcijos tarptautinės fonetinės abėcėlės rašmenimis (keletas tikslintinų atvejų). – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 86, 165–183. Prieiga internete: https://journals.lki.lt/actalinguisticalithuanica/article/view/2163/2282. Bakšienė Rima, Čepaitienė Agnė 2017: Tarptautinės fonetinės abėcėlės taikymo lietuvių tarmių garsams galimybės. – Baltistica 52(1), 105–135. Prieiga internete: http://www.baltistica.lt/index.php/baltistica/article/view/2303/2270. Basbøll Hans 2005: The phonology of Danish, Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. Basbøll Hans 2022: Danish stød in the light of Morae, the Weight Law and sonority (Strength): a personal view. – Linguistic Preferences. Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs, vol. 358, eds. P. Noël Aziz Hanna, L. C. Smith, Berlin: De Gruyter, 143–170. DOI: 10.1515/9783110721461-006. Gerullis Georgas 1930: Litauische Dialektstudien, Leipzig: Markert & Petters Verlag. 138 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVIII Keletas tikslintinų žemaičių patarmių transkripcijos TFA rašmenimis atvejų Girdenis Aleksas 1971: Mažeikių tarmės fonologinės sistemos apžvalga. – Baltistica 7(1), 21–31. Prieiga internete: http://www.baltistica.lt/index.php/baltistica/article/view/1768/1681. Girdenis Aleksas 1996: Taip šneka tirkšliškiai: Šiaurės žemaičių telšiškių tarmės tekstai su komentarais, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Girdenis Aleksas 2003: Teoriniai lietuvių fonologijos pagrindai, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Girdenis Aleksas 2008: Žemaičių džūkai: tekstai su komentarais, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Girdenis Aleksas 2012: Šiaurės žemaičių Skuodo zona: tekstai su komentarais, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. HIPA – Handbook of the International Phonetic Association. A Guide to the Use of the International Phonetic Alphabet, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. IPA – International Phonetic Alphabet, 2023. Prieiga internete: https://www.internationalphoneticalphabet.org/. Jasiūnaitė Birutė 1994: Tembrinė koreliacija uteniškių ir pietinių kretingiškių tarmėse. – Baltistica 27(2), 68–76. Prieiga internete: http://www.baltistica.lt/index.php/baltistica/article/view/213/172. Jonikas Petras 1939: Pagramančio tarmė, Kaunas: Spindulys. Kazlauskienė Asta 2018: Bendrinės lietuvių kalbos fonetikos ir fonologijos pagrindai, Kaunas: Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas. Prieiga internete: http://ebooks.vdu.lt/eb/1691/bendrines-lietuviu-kalbos-fonetikos-ir-fonologijos-pagrindai/. Kliukienė Regina 2011: Šiaurės žemaičių tarmės konsonantizmas: akustinės ir audicinės ypatybės, Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas. LKA Pr – Lietuvių kalbos atlaso medžiagos rinkimo programa, ats. red. J. Senkus, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla, 1956. LKT – Lietuvių kalbos tarmės. Chrestomatija, red. E. Grinaveckienė, K. Morkūnas, Vilnius: Mintis, 1970. LKTCh – Lietuvių kalbos tarmių chrestomatija, sud. R. Bacevičiūtė, A. Ivanauskienė, A. Leskauskaitė, E. Trumpa, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla, 2004. LVG – Latviešu valodas gramatika, aut. I. Auziņa, I. Brenķe, J. Grigorjevs, I. Indričāne, B. Ivulāne, A. Kalnača, L. Lauze, I. Lokmane, D. Markus, D. Nītiņa, G. Smiltniece, B. Valkovska, A. Vulāne, Rīga: Latvijas universitātes Latviešu valodas institūts, 2013. Straipsniai / Articles 139 RIMA BAKŠIENĖ Pakerys Antanas 2003: Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos fonetika, 3-asis leidimas, Vilnius: Enciklopedija. Specht Franz 1920: Litauische Mundarten gesammelt von A. Baranowski 1. Texte, Leipzig: Verlag von K. F. Koehler. Švageris Evaldas 2015: Lietuvių ir latvių tarmių monoftongų priegaidžių akustiniai požymiai: lyginamoji analizė: daktaro disertacija, Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas. VLKK k-25 – Rekomendacija dėl tarptautinės fonetinės abėcėlės pritaikymo bendrinės lietuvių kalbos garsiniams vienetams žymėti. Prieiga internete: http://www.vlkk.lt/vlkk-nutarimai/protokoliniai-nutarimai/rekomendacija-del-tarptautines-fonetines-abeleles-pritaikymo-bendrines-lietuviu-kalbos-garsiniams-vienetams-zymeti. Several Clarified Cases in the Transcription of Žemaitian Subdialects by IPA Symbols SUMMARY The article addresses the questions of transcribing the Žemaitian subdialects of the Lithuanian language by the symbols of the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA), revises certain symbols from the earlier set of the IPA symbols for the sounds of Lithuanian dialects presented in 2017 and ways of transcribing. The first part of the article presents the generalized Žemaitian system of vocalism, discusses the transcription of phonemes and their variants by the IPA symbols. It highlights those Žemaitian vowel elements, which are most troublesome in terms of transcribing. The article discusses the possible IPA symbols to be used for the transcription of Žemaitian long, short and reduced vowels. The second part of the article contains some comments on the transcription of Žemaitian consonants by the IPA symbols. The third part is dedicated to discuss the transcription of Žemaitian pitch accents and their allotones by the IPA symbols. It also reviews the transcription of the syllables containing diphthongs and gives some transcribed examples. Due to the inconsistencies in the utterance of pitch accents, the syllables of this group have an especially high number of positional variants. 140 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVIII 1 PRIEDAS. Žemaičių patarimų garsams siūlomi TFA rašmenys¹² Several cases requiring clarification in the transcription of Samogitian subdialects using IPA symbols Copenhagen transcription IPA Variable vowels and diphthongs IPA number Unicode [ie] — [ie] — 301 + 303 — 0069 + 025B [ie̯] — [ie̯] — 301 + 303 + 505 — 0069 + 025B + 0306 [ɛ̝] — [ɛ̝] — 301 + 505 + 303 — 0069 + 0306 + 025B [ie̯] — [ie̯] — 301 + 505 + 302 + 430 — 0069 + 0306 + 0065 + 031E [e̝] — [e̝] — 302 + 430 + 319 — 0065 + 031E + 026A [i̯ɛ] — [i̯ɛ] — 301 + 503 + 301 + 505 — 0069 + 02D0 + 0069 + 0069 + 0065 + 031E [i̯] — [i̯] — 301 + 504 + 505 — 0069 + 02D1 + 0069 + 032F [uɔ] — [uɔ] — 308 + 306 — 0075 + 0254 [uɔ̯] — [uɔ̯] — 308 + 306 + 505 — 0075 + 0254 + 0306 + 0254 [uo] — [uo] — 308 + 505 + 306 — 0075 + 0306 + 0254 [uɔ̯] — [uɔ̯] — 308 + 505 + 307 + 430 — 0075 + 0306 + 006F + 031E [o̯ɔ] — [o̯ɔ] — 307 + 430 + 321 — 006F + 031E + 028A Signs of prosodic units ^ (broken accent; acute allophone pronounced with clear glottalization) ˇ (before the syllable) + (after the voice passing through the syllable center or after the first component of a diphthong / diphthongoid) ˘ (broken accent; acute allophone pronounced without clear glottalization, with a “creaky voice”) — + 660 — 0089 + 0294 — + 816 — 0089 + 0330 ¹ (before the syllable) + (after the voice passing through the syllable center or after the first component of a diphthong / diphthongoid) ² Prepared on the basis of the recommendation on the transcription of the standard language using IPA symbols (see VLKK-25). In the Samogitian subdialects, we read in the appendix only those transcription symbols that differ from the Highland Lithuanian sounds. The transcription symbols for Highland Lithuanian sounds and their features can be consulted in the source: 2022: 180–182 (Appendix 1). Straipsniai / Articles 141 RIMA BAKŠIENĖ APPENDIX 2. Examples of the transcription of the main positional variants of Samogitian diphthongs / diphthongoids associated with prosodic units.¹³ ³ The table presents only the unmonophthongized variants of diphthongs, as well as the Samogitian equivalents ie, uo of the standard-language vowels e, o. The monophthongized equivalents of standard-language diphthongs (e.g.: [ai] > [eː], [ei] > [eː], etc.) are transcribed in the same way as the corresponding vowels; see the examples in Section 1 of the article (see there also a more detailed discussion of the transcription of Samogitian diphthongoids). Only the most systematic cases of diphthong transcription are illustrated; naturally, other pronunciation variants associated with stress may also occur in Samogitian speech. 142 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVIII Several cases of Samogitian subdialect transcription in IPA symbols requiring clarification Straipsniai / Articles 143 RIMA BAKŠIENĖ Received 3 April 2023 RIMA BAKŠIENĖ Institute of the Lithuanian Language 5 Petro Vileišio St., LT–10308 Vilnius, Lithuania [email protected] 144 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVIII