Priebalsių kietinimo dinamika Marcinkonių apylinkėse

DANUTĖ VALENTUKEVIČIENĖ Institute of the Lithuanian Language ORCID iD: orcid.org/0000-0001-7497-7365 Research areas: dialectology, geolinguistics. DOI: doi.org/10.35321/all88-07 THE DYNAMICS OF CONSONANT HARDENING IN THE ENVIRONS OF MARCINKONYS The Dynamics of Depalatalization in Marcinkonys Environs ANNOTATION The article examines a characteristic phonetic feature of Southern Aukštaitian—the hardening of consonants. The aim of the study is to discuss tendencies in consonant hardening among Southern Aukštaitian speakers in the environs of Marcinkonys in apparent time. In examining consonant hardening across three age groups, the study draws on a geolinguistic perspective associated with the concept of dynamic space. The article presents an analysis of consonant hardening based on two layers of dialectal material: seventh-decade sound recordings and manuscript texts of the 20th century preserved in the Dialect Archive of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language, and sound material from three generations recorded by the author of the article in the environs of Marcinkonys. The study describes which correlation between soft and hard consonants—or its absence—prevails in the speech of the three generations; it also explains the factors determining the dynamics of this phenomenon. It was established that at the beginning of the 21st century the dialectal area of the environs of Marcinkonys had changed. The results obtained show a fairly consistent and gradual weakening of consonant hardening. KEYWORDS: Southern Aukštaitian subdialect, consonant hardening, dialectal feature, apparent time. ANNOTATION The article analyzes depalatalization as a distinguishing phonetic feature of Southern Aukštaitian. The aim of the research is to discuss the tendencies of depalatalization, which can be observed in the subdialect of Southern Aukštaitian in the environs of Marcinkonys Straipsniai / Articles 145 DANUTĖ VALENTUKEVIČIENĖ by taking an apparent-time approach. The study addressing the situation of depalatalization is based on the geolinguistic perspective, which is linked with the concept of dynamic space. The article presents the analysis of depalatalization on the basis of two layers of dialectal data: the sound recordings and manuscript texts from the 1960s kept at the Dialect Archive of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and the sound recordings of three generations made by the author of the article in the environs of Marcinkonys. The study describes what correlation of palatalized and non-palatalized consonants (or its absence) prevails in the language of three generations; the reasons determining the dynamics of this phenomenon are explained. It was established that at the start of the 21st century, the dialectal area of the environs of Marcinkonys demonstrates certain changes. The findings reveal a rather consistent and gradual weakening of depalatalization. KEYWORDS: Southern Aukštaitian subdialect, depalatalization, dialectal feature, apparent time. INTRODUCTION Consonant hardening— the transformation of soft consonants into hard ones—is widespread in the Southern Aukštaitian subdialect and has long attracted the attention of linguists. In the seventh decade of the 20th century, the authors of the new classification of Lithuanian language dialects, Aleksas Girdenis and Zigmas Zinkevičius, did not subdivide the Southern Aukštaitian subdialect in greater detail, but acknowledged the heterogeneity of the dialectal area according to the isoglosses of dzūkavimas and consonant hardening (Girdenis, Zinkevičius 1966: 139–147).¹ The zone of most intensive consonant hardening is considered to be the southern part of Southern Aukštaitian, south of the Rudaminõs–Seirijų–Merkinės–Marcinkonių line (see Fig. 1). Works of traditional dialectology state that in this area the consonants [l̡], [s̡] are hardened, while the consonants [r], [s], [z], [t͡s], [d͡z], [t͡ʃ], [d͡ʒ] have no soft correlates (Zinkevičius 1966: 158–170; LKT 381, 384–385; LKA II 101–105, map nos. 85–87; cf. Leskauskaitė 2006: 35–36; 2009: 34–36). ¹ This classification, based solely on phonetic differences and commonalities among dialects—primarily those of vocalism and stress—was critically assessed by Antanas Salys. In his view, “the failure to mark the isogloss of l-hardening on the classificatory dialect map must also be regarded as a shortcoming” (Salys 1992: 296). A. Salys did not examine consonant hardening in the Western Dzūkian dialect in detail; he only noted that “the hardening Dzūkian varieties” border the Kapsai in the north (Salys 1992: 132). 146 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVIII Priebalsių kietinimo dinamika Marcinkonių apylinkėse FIG. 1. More regular backing of the vowels i, y (į) after hardened consonants r, š, ž, č, dž (in the central western part and after c, dz (cf. LKA II, map no. 41) is marked by a dotted line². Map from LKTCh In the scholarly literature, consonant hardening has been described chiefly using the methods of traditional dialectology, indicating the origin and distribution of this phenomenon, the inventory of hard consonants, the positions in which consonants are hardened—before front or back vowels—and how the vowels following them change (Buch 1966: 33–36; Zinkevičius 1966: 158–170; 2006: 142–146; LKT 1970: 38; Urbanavičiūtė 1970: 75–86; 1970a: 61–65; 1971: 55–70; 1974: 73–80; 1978: 69–77; LKTCh 2004: 80; Zinkevičius 2006: 142–144 et al.).³ Such a static and almost unchanging description of this phenomenon prevailed in traditional dialectology until the end of the 20th century, and in some cases even longer. ² The vocalism isoglosses marked on the map are not relevant to the area under study and are therefore not discussed. ³ The results of experimental phonetic research should also be mentioned. The articulation of hard consonants in Southern Aukštaitian was investigated from palatograms by Elzbieta Mikalauskaitė (1975), and their acoustic features were studied by Rytis Ambrazevičius and Asta Leskauskaitė (2014). Straipsniai / Articles 147 DANUTĖ VALENTUKEVIČIENĖ Broader research possibilities opened up for dialectologists once the geolinguistic approach became established in Lithuania, when the subdialect began to be viewed not as a local and closed phonological system bounded by isoglosses of various kinds, but as a certain continuum constantly affected by various phenomena of convergence and divergence (Aliūkaitė, Mikulenienė 2014: 39; Mikulenienė 2018: 12; cf. Kalėdienė 2011). In addition, the geolinguistic perspective makes it possible to observe the variation and change in the speech of not one but several generations of informants in apparent time⁴ – here and now. Thus, although synchronic, studies of this kind also acquire a diachronic perspective. Nevertheless, even the most recent dialectological works from the beginning of the 21st century contain only fragmentary data on the dynamism of consonant hardening; that is, they emphasize unsystematic consonant hardening and the weakening of this phenomenon (Garšva 2005: 236–237, 247–248, 251–252, 263–265; Leskauskaitė 2006: 35–36; 2016: 52–55; 2020: 28–29; 2021: 55–56; Tuomienė 2010: 227, 231; Mikulenienė et al. 2019: 150, 154; cf. Mikulenienė 2016: 340–346; Leskauskaitė 2016: 52–55; 2018a: 23–24; 2021: 55–57). Thus, the aim of this article is to discuss tendencies in consonant hardening among Southern Aukštaitian speakers in the environs of Marcinkonys in apparent time. To achieve this aim, the following objectives are set: 1) to describe which correlation between soft and hard consonants—or its absence—prevails in the speech of three generations; 2) to explain the factors determining the dynamics of consonant hardening. The study focuses on a nonhomogeneous area of Southern Aukštaitian, namely the Marcinkonys (697), Darželiai (696), and Kabėliai (704) points of the Lithuanian Language Atlas (hereinafter LKA)⁵, which in traditional dialectology are assigned to the Marcinkonys and Kabėliai varieties (Leskauskaitė 2009: 29–30). In examining consonant hardening across three age groups, the study draws on a geolinguistic perspective, which is primarily associated with the concept of dynamic space. The principle of dynamism is also determined by the inclusion of both cultural and social factors in dialectological research (Aliūkaitė 2013: 5). ⁴ In 1966, William Labov used apparent differences in time to study sound changes in New York and established the apparent-time method as the principal means of researching variation. Following W. Labov’s theory of language variation and change, differences in the speech of informants of different ages reveal language changes occurring in apparent time (English: apparent time): the speech of older informants marks a former stage of language change, while that of younger informants marks the current stage. ⁵ A Lithuanian Language Atlas point is understood as a specific residential locality and the settlements geographically and linguistically closest to it, located 10–12 km away (Mikulėnienė, Čepaitienė 2021: 85–94). In this article, the Marcinkonys point includes the villages of Zervynos and Manciagirė; the periphery of the Darželiai point includes Kapiniškiai, Mardžionys, and Grybauliai; and the Kabėliai point includes Ašašninkai, Musteikà, and Daržinė lės. 148 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVII Priebalsių ketinimo dinamika Marcinkonių apylinkėse When discussing the dialectal area of the environs of Marcinkonys, it is important to note that the research points preserve the main phonetic features of Southern Aukštaitian: narrowing of nasal vowels [ɑː], [æː], retention of the diphthongs [ɛm], [ɑm] [ɛn], [ɑn], [ɛm], [æːm], [ɛn], [æːm], dū́kavimas, consonant hardening, and others (see LKTCh 76–85; Zinkevičius 2006: 137–149; Leskauskaitė 2006: 29–40). The area of the environs of Marcinkonys can be differentiated in greater detail on the basis of two dialectal features: the pronunciation of the vowels [eː], [oː] and [ɛː], [ɔː], and the merging of the consonants [sʲ], [s], [zʲ], [z] and [ʃ], [s], [ʒʲ], [z]. The closer and tenser [eː], [oː] are most often pronounced at the Darželiai (696) and Marcinkonys (697) points, whereas in Kabėliai (704) the more open [ɛː], [ɔː], closer to the southwestern Southern Aukštaitian area, are used (cf. Markevičienė 1999: 27–28; 2010: 51; Leskauskaitė 2004: 56–57; 2009: 30–31). The merging of [sʲ], [s], [zʲ], [z] and [ʃ], [s], [ʒʲ], [z] is characteristic of the Kabėliai (704) point (Zinkevičius 1966: 147–148; LKTCh 38; Leskauskaitė 2009: 30; Markevičienė 2010: 49–50; Valentukevičienė 2019: 5–6)⁶ The research material consists of: 1) dialectal material from the 6th–7th decades of the 20th century preserved in the Dialect Archive of the Geolinguistics Centre of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language (hereinafter GCTA): sound recordings from Marcinkonys (697) and Kabėliai (704) (CD 17 PA 7, recording 08201704; CD 21 PA 9, recording 38201697, recording duration—31 min. 2 s.), manuscript material from the Marcinkonys (697, GCTA R, registration no. 839), Darželiai (696, GCTA R, registration no. 821), and Kabėliai (704, GCTA R, registration no. 840) points⁷; 2) 28 hours 16 minutes of sound material from 28 informants, recorded by the author of the article in the research points in 2019–2022 using the semi-structured interview method: 13 from the oldest generation, 5 from the middle generation, and 10 from the youngest generation⁸. Almost all participants from the oldest generation meet the NORM criterion: they have completed primary or secondary⁹ education, live sedentary lives, and have no opportunities to change their place of residence frequently. Many of them worked in agriculture, forestry, or the service sector, where active communication is not required. Representatives of the middle generation, except for one informant with higher education, have completed basic or secondary education, are mobile, and work in the service sector. ⁶ This phenomenon also occurred in the speech of residents who had moved to Marcinkonys from Ašašninkai and Kabėliai (Leskauskaitė 2009: 30). The merging of consonants has also been recorded at the Šklėriai (703) point. There are few sound recordings from the Marcinkonys (697) and Kabėliai (704) points dating from the 6th–7th decades of the 20th century. Their duration ranges from 2 to 10 minutes. ⁷ There are few sound recordings from the Marcinkonys (697) and Kabėliai (704) points dating from the 6th–7th decades of the 20th century. Their duration ranges from 2 to 10 minutes. ⁸ In quantitative sociolinguistic research, it is ideal when the sample approaches 30 informants (Milroy, Gordon 2003: 164). ⁹ The informants acquired secondary education as adults at an evening school. Straipsniai / Articles 149 DANUTĖ VALENTUKEVIČIENĖ in the service sector. The young people who participated in the study—gymnasium pupils and students, as well as several workers—are the most mobile group, meeting their cultural, social, and economic needs outside the subdialect area. 1 TABLE. Duration of sound recordings (28 hours 16 minutes) No. Informant code Year of birth Education Duration of sound recording 1. 697Mrc3M 1938 Primary 1 hr. 31 min. 2. 697Mrc3–1M 1940 Primary 1 hr. 21 min. 3. 697Mrc3–2M 1942 Secondary 1 hr. 16 min 4. 697Mrc3–3M 1937 Primary 34 min. 5. 696Drž3M 1936 Primary 1 hr. 36 min. 6. 696Drž3–1M 1938 Primary 1 hr. 1 min. 7. 696Drž3–2M 1938 Primary 1 hr. 8. 696Drž3–3M 1942 Secondary 1 hr. 1 min. 9. 696Drž3V 1942 Basic 10. 696Drž3–1V 1938 Primary 1 hr. 2 min. 11. 704Kb3M 1937 Primary 12. 704Kb3V 1942 Primary 1 hr. 32 min. 13. 704Kb3–1M 1966 Secondary 36 min. 14. 697Mrc2M 1975 Secondary 1 hr. 19 min. 15. 697Mrc2–1M 1978 Basic 1 hr. 10 min. 16. 697Mrc2–2M 1973 Secondary 1 hr. 20 min. 17. 704Kb2–1V 1973 Higher 36 min. 18. 704Kb2V 1972 Secondary 1 hr. 19 min. 19. 697Mrc1M 2004 Secondary 20. 697Mrc1–1M 2002 Secondary 1 hr. 39 min. 21. 697Mrc1–2M 2004 Basic 1 hr. 22. 697Mrc1V 2003 Secondary 1 hr. 23. 696Drž1M 2002 Secondary 1 hr. 5 min. 24. 704Kb1M 2003 Secondary 1 hr. 3 min. 25. 704Kb1–2M 2004 Basic 1 hr. 26. 704Kb1V 1995 Specialized secondary 40 min. 27. 704Kb1–1V 2004 Basic 1 hr. 28. 704Kb1–2V 2002 Specialized secondary 1 hr. 29 min. 150 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVIII Priebalsių ketinimo dinamika Marcinkonių apylinkėse Informants were coded according to the LKA point number and abbreviation of its name, the informant’s age (1 denotes the youngest generation, aged 18 to 30; 2, the middle generation, aged 31 to 50; 3, the oldest generation), and sex (M—female, V—male). For example, a youngest-generation informant from the Marcinkonys point is coded 697Mrc1V. If there is more than one informant in the same age group, an additional number is written after a short hyphen, e.g., 697Mrc1V-1 (see Table 1). To determine tendencies in consonant hardening across three generations, a 30-minute segment of spontaneous speech was selected from each informant’s sound recordings, instances with (non-)hardened consonants were systematically transcribed, and the results were visualized. In the article, examples from manuscript texts are presented in authentic spelling, while 21st-century material is presented in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) (see Bakšienė 2018: 10–20; 2022: 165–183). The study used descriptive methods and methods of observing and analyzing empirical material. 1. SOCIOLINGUISTIC FEATURES OF THE ENVIRONS OF MARCINKONYS The Marcinkonys (697), Darželiai (696), and Kabėliai (704) points of the study area are in the southern part of Lithuania, bordering Belarus. From 1920 to 1939, the environs of Marcinkonys belonged to the Vilnius Region governed by Poland, and from 1939 to 1940—to Belarus. In the 20th century, besides the dominant Lithuanians, Russians (mostly in Marcinkonys), Poles, Belarusians, and Ukrainians also lived in the environs of Marcinkonys10. In addition to Lithuanian, Polish and Russian were also used in the public sphere until the end of the 20th century; consequently, language contact also increased phonetic interference (cf. Grumadienė 1988: 138). As the Lithuanian standard language became established in public life in the second half of the 20th century, the prestige11 of Southern Aukštaitian, like that of other Lithuanian dialects, declined and was disparaged, because primary attention shifted to the standard language 10 Most of the older-generation people who moved to Marcinkonys from Russia never learned to speak Lithuanian. Poles and Belarusians who married Lithuanians communicated in Lithuanian at home (cf. Rutkovska 2016: 2–3). The children of Slavic-speaking families attended Lithuanian schools and successfully adapted to the dominant linguistic environment. 11 The prestige language is used by residents possessing exceptional social power (Milroy 2001: 549). Prestige may be overt, when positive language attitudes and linguistic behavior are declared (cf. Holmes 2001: 345). The concept of covert prestige encompasses a positive evaluation of publicly unacknowledged linguistic codes and positive attitudes that are not declared openly, especially to outsiders (cf. Trudgill 1979: 9; Kalėdienė 2013: 137; Holmes 2001: 345; Ramonienė 2006: 145). Straipsniai / Articles 151 DANUTĖ VALENTUKEVIČIENĖ (Leskauskaitė 2018: 36). The most salient features of the Southern Aukštaitian subdialect—dzūkavimas and consonant hardening—have become non-prestigious. Residents of the environs of Marcinkonys, like other Southern Aukštaitians, avoid these features when speaking with strangers (cf. Mikalauskaitė 1975: 94; Leskauskaitė 2009: 38).12 The weakening of the subdialect’s prestige was also influenced by deteriorating infrastructure and changed demographic, socioeconomic, and cultural conditions, which resulted in weak social ties among residents and reduced mobility both within the dialectal area and beyond it.13 A sharp increase in population mobility is one of the main factors determining more frequent use of the standard language both by individuals and in speech communities (cf. Chambers 2002: 117; Meiliūnaitė, Mikulėnienė 2014: 126; Monka 2015: 98; Čepaitienė 2016: 154). A synthesis of the sociolinguistic data suggests that the level of isolation of the subdialect in the environs of Marcinkonys is low: open social networks predominate, in which individuals are connected by weak network ties and are open to innovation and linguistic change (cf. Kalėdienė 2013: 148). 2. THE SITUATION OF CONSONANT HARDENING IN THE ENVIRONS OF MARCINKONYS IN THE SECOND HALF OF THE 20TH CENTURY The broader dialectal situation of the seventh decade of the 20th century is revealed by the few sound recordings and manuscript texts preserved in the Dialect Archive of the Geolinguistics Centre of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language. Analysis of the dialectal material shows that in the area under study the consonants [l], [r], [s], [ʂ], [z̪], [tʂ], [t̪s], [dž], [dʐ], [p], [b], [m], [u] were pronounced hard (see Table 2). The manuscript texts show that the collectors of dialectal material also recorded altered front vowels occurring after hard consonants. Žaneta Urbanavičiūtė-Markev ičienė also drew attention to the backing of front [l]-type vowels after hard [r], [s], [z], [tʂ], [t̪s], [dž] and marked it with special characters in the texts transcribed at the Darželiai (696) and Kabėliai (704) points (šas. 12 Informants from the oldest and middle generations evaluate the Southern Aukštaitian subdialect as beautiful and suitable for speaking only in close surroundings, but in the public sphere it is unnecessary as a means of communication: “Who speaks Dzūkian in the villages now? Eighty-year-old women. And if some younger one is still left somewhere, then he will go to Vilnius or the city and soon you will not hear any Dzūkian from him either. And it is unnecessary” (Mrc697Mrc3-2M). The youngest generation holds that the dialect is interesting, valuable, and worth preserving, but because the tradition of transmitting the dialect has been broken, it now has to be learned. 13 The Marcinkonys eldership is considered a zone of long-term depopulation with deteriorated infrastructure. Throughout the eldership, there are no longer any general education schools, health-care or other institutions, or jobs. 152 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVII Priebalsių kietinimo dinamika Marcinkonių apylinkėse registration no. 821; registration no. 840). Other recorders of facts provided only isolated examples (Leskauskaitė 2009: 35). TABLE 2. Inventory of hard consonants in manuscript texts14 Hard consonant | Consonant hardening before front vowels | Consonant hardening before back vowels ł | lǎ-das, iškẽlė, sáulys | r | raci, rékc, sùtrbina | sugrùvo, karúominė, netùrù s | sanà, šẽmė | š | gru-šà, nãšė, šìltas | šuõmet ž | daržãluosa, ž̃ídzi, ãtvežė | žú-ro c | klùpscai, vaikãicais, scìklas | slanìksco, marcũ, akẽcuč | tuščàs, nebaščìkas | vaìkščioja, laìkraščiuosa dz | padzáuna | mẽdzo, sodzùs, dzidžulei dž | pradžà | ìždžúvi, bráìdžojo, balandžo p | p̃lãupė, sopẽc | b | duobẽta, taisìbė | m | mẽšlo, mėnásin, žãmės | v | dãvė, vẽl, vẽtra | As can be seen from the table, the consonant system of the environs of Marcinkonys is not characterized by a harmonious correlation between hard and soft consonants, because [r], [š], [ž], [t͡ʃ], [d͡z], [t͡s], [d͡z] fall outside it; that is, they are always pronounced hard (cf. Urbanavičiūtė 1970: 61). Not only the consonants mentioned above, but also [l] and [s] are pronounced hard; sporadically—only in some words—so are [p], [b], [m], and [v]. The manuscript material and sound recordings of the GCTA from the second half of the 20th century also contain instances of soft consonants [ǯ], [ʃ̌], [t͡ʃ̌], [rʲ], for example: vežìmo, nùnėšė, incipràšė, pãǯčo (Mrc), ažãri (Drž), reĩke (Kb), which already indicated that dialectal changes had begun. 14 The manuscript texts were written in simplified generalized transcription, presenting the most important features of the subdialect. However, some phoneme variants, especially more subtle ones, are not marked in the texts, nor are fluctuations in the phonetic features of the research points reflected. For this reason, the dialectal material in the article is retranscribed using the IPA. For more on generalized simplified transcription, see Bacevičiūtė 2010: 5–14. Straipsniai / Articles 153 DANUTĖ VALENTUKEVIČIENĖ 3. INVENTORY OF INFORMANTS’ HARD CONSONANTS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE 21ST CENTURY When dialectal material was collected for the Lithuanian Language Atlas, differences in consonant hardening among informants of different ages were not investigated. The sound recordings of the 28 informants who participated in this study showed that consonant hardening was characteristic of only 22 informants, while the phenomenon was not recorded at all in the speech of 6 young people. Informants also differed in their individual inventories of hard consonants: the speech of the oldest-generation informants contains from 5 to 12, that of the middle generation from 1 to 6, and that of young people from 0 to 6 consonants (see Table 3). As can be seen from Table 3, the largest consonant inventory is characteristic of the oldest generation, but even in its speech consonant hardening is not systematic, cf.: [zʲrʲuˈi̯ːnʲɪ̯kʲɪs] ~ žervyniškis and [zʲe̯rʲuˈi̯n̪o̞s] ~ Zervynos (697Mrc3–1M), [atʊəˈz̪u̯i̯] ~ atvažįavę and [nʊədʒʲa̯e̯ˈu̯] ~ nuvažiavau (697Mrc3–3M), [ˈp̪ɔ.d̪es] ~ pėdsakas and [p̪ˈe̞²d̪e̯] ~ pėdsakai (704Kb3V), etc. It should be noted that one of the important factors determining dialects and the use of certain linguistic features is not only the linguistic environment but also the transmission link of the dialect. Fumio Inoue (2008: 477) argues that children’s language proficiency is strongly influenced by the mother’s language. The research material shows that informants from three generations of one family may unsystematically use the same hard consonants; for example, 704Kb3M, 704Kb2V, 704Kb1V, and 704Kb1–1V unsystematically pronounce the consonants [l], [r], [s], [z], [t͡s], [d͡z] as does the oldest-generation informant 704Kb3M. It is therefore natural that the inventories of hard consonants of oldest-generation individuals living in the same family but born in different villages often do not coincide; for example, 696Drž3–1V has 4, whereas 696Drž3–1M has 7; 704Kb3V has 13, whereas 704Kb3M has 6 consonants. In summary, it should be noted that each user of the subdialect constructs an individual inventory of hard consonants. Its richness and realization depend on both linguistic and extralinguistic factors. 154 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVIII Priebalsių ketinimo dinamika Marcinkonių apylinkėse TABLE 3. Inventory of hard consonants Straipsniai / Articles 155 DANUTĖ VALENTUKEVIČIENĖ 4. TENDENCIES IN CONSONANT HARDENING AMONG THE OLDEST GENERATION In the environs of Marcinkonys, the oldest generation most often pronounces the hard consonants [l], [r], [s], [š], [z] before [ε]-type vocalism. As after all hardened consonants, front vowels are backed, e.g.: [baˈlʲə] ~ balelė (696Drž3M), [gɣu̯ˈlʲəːk] ~ gulėk, [ˈlʲaɪ̯dzə] ~ leidžia, [ˈlʲɛn̪də] ~ lenda, [raˈt̪u] ~ retu (696Drž3M), [saˈna] ~ sena (704Kb3-3M); [ˈsaːra] ~ šeria (696Drž3-1M), [ˈzaːmʲiː] ~ žemę (704Kb3V). In the accusative and instrumental singular of feminine nouns of the ē-stem, the vowels are changed into the backed [i̯], [i], e.g.: [spɔn¹ˈgu̯lʲiː] ~ spanguolę (697Mrc3M), [pʊˈpʲaːlʲi] ~ pupele (697Mrc3M), [pʊʂaˈlʲi] ~ pušele (704Kb3V). The oldest generation uses the hard consonants [r], [s], [z] before [ɪ]-type vocalism more regularly at the Darželiai (696) and Kabėliai (704) points, e.g.: [kʲoˈsʲɪnʲt͡ʃʲ] ~ kiaušinį (696Drž3-3M), [kuˈrʲɪna] ~ kūrena (Kb3V), [ˈʃʲi̯təs] ~ šitas (Drž3M), [ˈsʲi̯emʲɛt] ~ šiemet (697Mrc3M), [zʲiˈnʲɛv] ~ žinai (696Drž3-1M), [ɡrɔʑʲz̪] ~ graži (696Drž3V). The correlation between softness and hardness of these consonants may disappear even in the relevant position, that is, before back vowels, e.g.: [srʊˈba] ~ sriuba (696Drž3V), [ˈʐurβʊs] ~ žiūriu (697Mrc3M), [ˈkʲrʲiːzʊ] ~ kryžių (697Mrc3M). Tendencies in consonant hardening can be illustrated with a diagram presenting the (non-)hardened consonants selected from a half-hour sound recording of informant 697Mrc3–2M and indicating their number (see Fig. 2). FIG. 2. Tendencies in consonant hardening of informant 697Mrc3–2M 156 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVII Priebalsių kietinimo dinamika Marcinkonių apylinkėse As can be seen in Figure 2, in the speech of informant 697Mrc3–2M the consonants [l], [t͡s], [d͡z] are systematically hardened, whereas [r], [ž] fluctuate. The pronunciation of [ʃ] / [ʒ] fluctuates most, while [sʲ] is always soft. The research results show that only the three-generation informants who use dzūkavimas systematically use the hard affricates [t͡s], [d͡z], e.g.: [kuˈi̯eʲt͡su] ~ kviečių, [soˈd͡zus] ~ sodžius, [d͡zoˈu̯i̯tu] ~ džiovytų (697Mrc3–2M), ˈtsa ~ čia 704Kb1V. Before [i]-type vocalism, the pronunciation of these affricates varies—they may be pronounced either hard or soft, cf.: [nak͡tsʲˈmʲi] ~ naktimi (697Mrc3M), [ˈzʲsmʲe̯rt͡sʲ] ~ mirčiai (696Drž3–3M), but [ˈd͡zʲd͡eʲlʲis] and [ˈd͡zʲd͡ʲeʲlʲis] ~ didelis (704Kb3V)¹⁵ The situation is different with the hardening of the consonants [t͡s], [d͡z], which is receding from dialectal usage. Only individual informants of the oldest generation pronounce these consonants hard, e.g.: [ɪzʲˈd͡zu̯i̯] ~ išdžiūvę (697Mrc3M), [ˈpɐu̯i̯zʲd͡zu] ~ pavyzdžiui (696Drž3–3M), [traˈt͡sɐdʲi̯e̯nʲis] ~ trečiadienis (697Mrc3–4M), [u̯oˈkʲi̯eʲt͡sʲi] ~ vokiečiai (696Drž3V), [suoˈkʲt͡sʲimas] ~ švokštimas (696Drž3V), [sokerˈsʲt͡sɐu̯o] ~ sukarščiavo (696Drž3–2M), [ˈt͡sʲt͡sʲas] ~ tuščias, [ˈt͡sʲɐs] ~ laikas (697Mrc3M). Thus, the hard consonants [t͡s], [d͡z] have become soft in the speech of the middle and younger generations. It can be claimed that the hardening of the consonants [bʲ], [pʲ], [mʲ], [u̯] is also disappearing, although it is considered a newer phenomenon that has not yet come to an end (LKTCh 38; Markevičienė 1970: 62; Garšva 2005: 263; Zinkevičius 2006: 143–144). Examples of these hard-pronounced consonants before [ə] have been recorded only in the speech of the oldest informants, e.g.: [rɐˈmʲi̯bʲe̯s] ~ ramybės (697Mrc3M), [nʊˈbʲe̯gɔ] ~ nubėgo (704Kb3V), [ˈkʲa̯e̯pʲ] ~ kepė, [məˈlʲi̯nʲu] ~ mėlyniu (but [ˈmʲe̯lʲi̯nɐ] ~ mėlyna) (697Mrc3M), [mʲəˈsʲɐs] ~ mėsos (704Kb3V), [pastɪˈu̯əi̯o] ~ pastovėjo (696Drž3–2M), [ˈnʲe̯dɐu̯ɔ] ~ nedavė (696Drž3–3). In dialectal usage, especially in the speech of the middle and younger generations, the pronunciation of the hard consonants [b], [p], [m], [u̯] before the vowel [ə] is non-prestigious and is considered a sign of provincialism¹⁶ 5. TENDENCIES IN CONSONANT HARDENING AMONG THE MIDDLE AND YOUNGER GENERATIONS Even more dynamic changes in consonant hardening are recorded in the speech of the middle and younger generations. The hard [l], [r], [s], ¹⁵ For the situation of dzūkavimas in the Southern Aukštaitian area, see Valentukevičienė 2021: 58–76. ¹⁶ The pronunciation of these consonants is regarded as an archaic remnant of the language and provokes laughter among the conversation participants; therefore, members of the middle and younger generations may pronounce these consonants in order to mock someone. Straipsniai / Articles 157 DANUTĖ VALENTUKEVIČIENĖ the [z] consonants, which are pronounced in individual words, e.g.: [ɡɑˈlʲɛsʲɪ] ~ galėsi (Mrc2M-1M), [ˈpʲiːʂ] ~ pylė (Mrc2-2M), [ˈrɛːkʲæ] ~ reikia, [ˈʑuːro] ~ žiūri (Mrc1V), etc. (see Fig. 3). FIG. 3. Tendencies in consonant hardening of informant 697Mrc2–1M As can be seen from Fig. 3, the strong competition between the hard [r], [s], [z] and soft [rʲ], [ʃʲ], [ʒʲ] consonants shows that variants with soft consonants are becoming established in the subdialect, e.g.: [wɑrʲəˈnɑ] ~ Varėna (704Kb2V), [rʲæ̃tɑs] ~ retas (696Drž3M–1), [ʃʲɛrʲmʊ̃kʲɪnʲɔ] ~ šermukšnio (697Mrc2–1M), [ʃʲɛɪ̯mɑ] ~ šeima (704Kb2V), etc. In other words, some hard consonants are being displaced from dialectal usage. The weakening of consonant hardening is confirmed by the linguistic behavior of the younger generation. Of the 10 young people who participated in the study, only 4 exhibit this phenomenon; 6 were unable to pronounce the hard consonants and the retracted front vowels [ɡ̑], [i̯], [l̴] following them, so it is evident that consonant hardening is a non-prestigious phonetic feature of the subdialect, which young people avoid in public. For example, informant 704Kb1–1V has a richer inventory of hard consonants than the other participants in his generation, but he hardens consonants only when communicating in an intimate environment (see Fig. 4). As can be seen in Fig. 4, [l], [r], [s], [z] and their soft correlates compete in the speech of informant 704Kb1–1V. The consonants [ts], [dz] do not undergo competition. 158 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVIII Priebalsių kietinimo dinamika Marcinkonių apylinkėse 4 FIG. Tendencies in consonant hardening of informant 704Kb1–1V An assessment of the relationship between consonant hardening and the informants’ generations established a clear negative correlation: the younger the informant, the less frequently consonants are hardened or the less they are used at all. For example, in a half-hour recording, informant 697Mrc1M used the verb form važiuoti 18 times and pronounced it with hard consonants only 6 times: [atʋdˈʑuɔʑiem] ~ atvažiuojam(e), [atʋɑˈɫʑuɔt] ~ atvažiuotų, [atʋɑˈɫʑuɔs] ~ atvažiuos, [ɪsʋɑˈɫʑuɔʑiem] ~ išvažiuojam, [ɪsʋɑˈɫʑuˈi] ~ išvažiavę, [ʋɑˈɫʑuɔʑiem] ~ važiuojam(e). Hardening in individual forms should be called not a stable dialectal feature characteristic of the traditional dialect, but a differential dialectal marker that helps identify a person’s subdialect17. Danguolė Mikulėnienė (2019: 51–62) argues that, in describing the newest territorial dialectal formations, differential significance will be acquired not by individual markers but by their entire complex. In summary, it can be stated that the inventory of hard consonants and the tendencies in consonant hardening among informants of the younger and middle generations show that, as the Southern Aukštaitian subdialect changes and new dialectal formations develop, consonant hardening is losing its stability, while some consonants are receding from usage. 17 For more on the term dialectal marker, see Mikulėnienė 2019: 51–62. Straipsniai / Articles 159 DANUTĖ VALENTUKEVIČIENĖ CONCLUSIONS Having assessed the tendencies in consonant hardening across three generations, the following conclusions can be drawn. In the second half of the 20th century, consonant hardening in the environs of Marcinkonys was particularly vigorous in the speech of the oldest generation. An analysis of dialectal material from the beginning of the 21st century shows that the situation of this phenomenon has already changed. The consonants [r], [s], [z] and [ts], [dz], [tʃ], [dʒ], which previously had no soft correlates, are now undergoing the greatest change in the speech of all three generations. The hard consonants [r], [s], [z] are often replaced by soft variants in dialectal speech. As dzūkavimas disappears, the hard [ts], [dz] affricates are also used increasingly less frequently. Their vitality correlates with the retention of dzūkavimas as a phenomenon. Only in the oldest generation do [s], [ts], [dz], [p], [b], [m], [l] characteristically recede from usage. The differing inventories of hard consonants and tendencies in consonant hardening among the informants show that, as the Southern Aukštaitian subdialect changes and new dialectal formations develop, consonant hardening is consistently weakening. Individual instances of consonant hardening in dialectal speech should be assessed not as dialectal features but as dialectal markers. LITERATURE AND SOURCES Aliūkaitė Daiva 2013: Horizontal and vertical divisibility of the language continuum: speech variants of the 21st century from the perspective of the ordinary language evaluator. – Taikomoji kalbotyra 2, 1–27. DOI: 10.15388/TK.2013.17261. Aliūkaitė Daiva, Mikulėnienė Danguolė 2014: Geolinguistics: ideology, theory and methods. Basic concepts. – Lithuanian dialects at the beginning of the 21st century: a geolinguistic and sociolinguistic study (maps and their commentaries), ed. D. Mikulėnienė, V. Meiliūnaitė, Vilnius: Briedis, 29–47. Ambrazevičius Rytis, Leskauskaitė Asta 2014: Acoustic properties of consonants: palatalization and voicing, Kaunas: Technologija. Bacevičiūtė Rima 2010: Presentation of phonetic features in Lithuanian dialect dictionaries. – Baltų Filologija 19(1/2), 5–14. Bailey Guy, Wikle Tom, Tillery Jan, Sand Lori 1991: The apparent time construct. – Language Variation and Change 3, 241–264. Bakšienė Rima 2018: Transcription of Lithuanian dialects using ipa symbols: an analysis of Southern Aukštaitian features. – Vārds un tā pētīšanas aspekti 22(1/2), 10–20. Available online: https://vards.liepu.lv/files/VARDS%20UN%20TA%20PETISANAS%20ASPEKTI_2018.pdf. 160 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVII Priebalsių ketinimo dinamika Marcinkonių apylinkėse Bakšienė Rima 2022: Once again on the transcription of Aukštaitian subdialects using the characters of the International Phonetic Alphabet (several cases requiring clarification). – Acta Linguistica Lituanica 86, 165–183. Buch Tamara 1966: Dialectal depalatalization phenomena in Lithuanian. – Acta Baltico-Slavica III, Baltica in honorem Johannis Otrębski, Bialystok, 33–36. Chambers Jack K. 2002: Dynamics of dialect convergence. – Journal of Sociolinguistics 6, 117–130. GCTA R – Manuscript collection of the Dialect Archive of the Geolinguistics Centre of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language, 1964–1965. Girdenis Aleksas, Zinkevičius Zigmas 1966: On the classification of Lithuanian dialects. – Kalbotyra 14, 139–147. Grumadienė Laima 1988: A sociolinguistic study of the Lithuanian language of Vilnius residents: consonantism and accentuation. – Questions of Lithuanian Linguistics 27, 132–148. Holmes Janet 2001: An Introduction to Sociolinguistics, 2nd edition, London: Longman, 342–361. Inoue Fumio 2008: Chapter Twenty-Four. Population ageing and language change. – The Demographic Challenge: A Handbook about Japan, ed. F. Coulmas, H. Conrad, A. Schad-Seifert, G. Vogt, Leiden, Boston: Brill, 473–490. Inoue Fumio 2010: Real and apparent time clues to the speed of dialect diffusion. Dialectologia 5, 45–64. Kalėdienė Laima 2011: Conditions for the development of geolinguistics in Lithuania. – Abstracts of papers of the international scientific conference “Sociolinguistic Dialectology: Research on Baltic Dialects”, 21–22 October 2011, Kaunas: Vilnius University Kaunas Faculty. Available online: http://www.tarmes.lt/images/Veikla/Laima%20KALEDIENE.pdf. Kalėdienė Laima 2013: Attitudes toward dialects and opinions on their use in three parts of the Dzūkija ethnographic region. – Cities and Languages II: A Sociolinguistic Map of Lithuania, Vilnius: Vilnius University, 125–151. Kalėdienė Laima 2015: The language of Vilnius: the apparent-time hypothesis. – Dialects – Cultural Heritage of European Nations = Dialects – Cultural Heritage of European Nations, Vilnius: Mykolas Romeris University, 211–244. Labov William 1972: Sociolinguistic Patterns, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Leskauskaitė Asta 2004: Features of the vocalism and prosody of Southern Aukštaitian, Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language Publishing House. Straipsniai / Articles 161 DANUTĖ VALENTUKEVIČIENĖ Leskauskaitė Asta 2006: Texts of the Kučiūnai dialect, Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language. Leskauskaitė Asta 2009: Texts of the Marcinkonys dialect, Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language. Leskauskaitė Asta 2016: Texts of the Serijai dialect, Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language. Leskauskaitė Asta 2018: The linguistic landscape of Northern Southern Aukštaitian in the 6th–7th decades of the 20th century. – Problems of Language History and Dialectology 5, ed. R. Bakšienė, N. Morozova, Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language, 26–43. Leskauskaitė Asta 2018a: Texts of the environs of Leipalingis, Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language. Leskauskaitė Asta 2020: Texts of the environs of Švendubrė, Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language. Leskauskaitė Asta 2021: Texts of the Lithuanian dialects of Poland, Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language. LKA II – Atlas of the Lithuanian Language, vol. 2: Phonetics, responsible editor K. Morkūnas, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1982. LKT – Lithuanian Dialects. A Chrestomathy, ed. E. Grinaveckienė, K. Morkūnas, Vilnius: Mintis, 1970. LKTCh – Chrestomathy of Lithuanian Dialects, comp. R. Bacevičiūtė, A. Ivanauskienė, A. Leskauskaitė, E. Trumpa, Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language Publishing House, 2004. Markevičienė Žaneta 1999: Texts of Aukštaitian dialects 1, Vilnius: Vilnius University Press. Markevičienė Žaneta 2010: Phonetic features of the Ašašninkai and Kabeliai dialects: the current situation. – Žmogus ir žodis 1, 48–51. Mikulėnienė Danguolė 2016: Characteristic phonetic features. – The Change of Lithuanian Dialects at the Beginning of the 21st Century: The Lithuanian Dialects of Poland, collective monograph, ed. D. Mikulėnienė, A. Leskauskaitė, V. Ragaišienė, L. Geržotaitė, N. Birgelienė, Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language. Mikulėnienė Danguolė 2018: On the formation and development of secondary dialects. – Problems of Language History and Dialectology 5, ed. R. Bašienė, N. Morozova, Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language, 11–25. Mikulėnienė Danguolė, Čepaitienė Agnė, Bakšienė Rima, Geržotaitė Laura, Kardelytė-Grinevičienė Daiva, Leskauskaitė Asta, Meiliūnaitė Violeta, Vyniautaitė Simona 2019: A Dialectometric Classification of Lithuanian Traditional Dialects 162 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVIII Priebalsių kietinimo dinamika Marcinkonių apylinkėse classification section: survey study: collective study, ed. D. Mikulėnienė, A. Čepaitienė, Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language. Mikulėnienė Danguolė 2019: Nomenclature of dialectal features: from dialectal features to dialectal markers. – Respectus philologicus 35(40), 51–62. Mikulėnienė Danguolė 2020: Dialectality as a measurable quantity. Lietuvių kalba 15, 1–11. DOI: 10.15388/LK.2020.22434. Mikulėnienė Danguolė, Čepaitienė Agnė 2021: The concept of the dialectological point. – Baltistica 56(1), 81–106. Milroy James 2001: Language Ideologies and the Consequences of Standardization. – Journal of Sociolinguistics 4, 530–555. Milroy Lesley, Gordon Matthew 2003: Sociolinguistics. Method and Interpretation, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Monka Malene 2015: Mobility and language change. – Nydanske Sprogstudier NyS 49, 98–122. Ramonienė Meilutė 2006: Attitudes toward the standard language and the dialect: the Joniškėlis case. – Kalbos kultūra 79, 137–148. Rutkovska Kristina 2016: The current state of Polish dialects in Lithuania. – Polish dialects of Lithuania, ed. K. Rutkovska, electronic publication, Vilnius: Vilnius University, Centre of Polish Studies. Available online: http://www.lenkutarmes.flf.vu.lt/. Salys Antanas 1992: Writings 4: Lithuanian Dialects, Rome. Lithuanian Catholic Academy of Science. Tuomienė Nijolė 2010: Southern Aukštaitian dialects in Belarus: consequences of language contact. – Respectus philologicus 18(23), 223–234. Urbanavičiūtė Žanetа 1970: The consonants l, r, s (ž?) before non-final ė, en in Lithuanian dialects. – Kalbotyra 21, 75–86. Urbanavičiūtė Žanetа 1970a: Hard and soft consonants in the Lithuanian literary language and dialects. – Baltistica 6(1), 61–65. Urbanavičiūtė Žanetа 1971: Consonant hardening in Lithuanian dialects. – Kalbotyra 23(1), 55–70. Urbanavičiūtė Žanetа 1974: The consonants l, r, s, z before word-final e in Aukštaitian dialects. – Kalbotyra 25(1), 73–80. Urbanavičiūtė Žanetа 1978: The hardening of the consonants t, d, n and p, b, m, v in Lithuanian dialects. – Kalbotyra 29(1), 69–77. Straipsniai / Articles 163 DANUTĖ VALENTUKEVIČIENĖ Valentukevičienė Danutė 2019: Reflexive verbs in the environs of Kabeliai. – Lietuvių kalba 13, 1–17. Available online: https://www.zurnalai.vu.lt/lietuviu-kalba/article/view/22485. Valentukevičienė Danutė 2021: Changes in dzūkavimas in the Varėna geolect area. – Profiles of Lithuanian Dialectology: Regional Variants at the Beginning of the 21st Century, Their Relations and Prospects, ed. V. Meiliūnaitė, Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language, 58–76. Available online: http://lki.lt/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Lietuvių-dialektologijos-profiliai-1.pdf. Zinkevičius Zigmas 1966: Lithuanian Dialectology, Vilnius: Mintis. Zinkevičius Zigmas 2006: The Origin of Lithuanian Dialects, Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language. The Dynamics of Depalatalization in Marcinkonys Environs SUMMARY The analysis of dialectal data from the early 21ˢᵗ century shows the already changed situation of this phenomenon. Consonants [rʲ], [sʲ], [zʲ] and [t͡sʲ], [d͡zʲ], [t͡ʃ], [d͡ʒ], which did not have their palatalized correlates before, already undergo the most prominent changes in the language of all three generations. In dialectal language, the non-palatalized consonants [r], [s], [z] are often replaced with their palatalized variants. As the so called dzūkavimas is declining, the non-palatalized affricates [t͡s] and [d͡z] are less commonly used. Their viability correlates with the maintenance of the dzūkavimas as a phenomenon. The consonants [s], [t͡s], [d͡z], [p], [b], [m], [ʊ], which are only typical of the old generation, are gradually going out of usage. The diverging inventory of non-palatalized consonants used by the informants and the tendencies of depalatalization show that as the subdialect of Southern Aukštaitian is changing and new dialectal formations are on the rise, depalatalization is gradually weakening. Cases of depalatalization of isolated consonants in dialectal speaking are viewed as dialectal markers rather than dialectal features. Received on 2 September 2022. DANUTĖ VALENTUKEVIČIENĖ Institute of the Lithuanian Language 5 Petro Vileišio St., LT-10308 Vilnius, Lithuania [email protected] 164 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVII