Fonetikos išlyginimas vykstant kodų kaitai

NIJOLĖ UOMENĖ Institute of the Lithuanian Language Research areas: dialectology, morphology of borderland dialects, lexicon, phonetics, sociolinguistics, language contact. DOI PHONETIC LEVELING DURING CODE-SWITCHING Phonetic Leveling in the Context of Code-switching ABSTRACT This article examines the main phonetic phenomena of the languages used in borderland areas (in Belarus, Voranava District (Bel. Вороново)) and their interaction. It analyzes the phonetic convergence of the dominant local language varieties—Belarusian, Polish, and Lithuanian, which is used passively—and identifies the patterns governing this process. Natural communication situations involving code-switching are examined: cases in which speakers know several languages well and use them simultaneously, actively alternating between them in conversation. The aim is to reveal the influence of competition between these languages on their phonetics. The study is based on the theory of Valerijus Čekmonas, a scholar of language interaction and a Slavist: speakers move from one language to another according to certain rules that can be described by algorithms. Applying this algorithmic method reveals phonetic patterns and demonstrates the very important role and influence of Lithuanian, which is still used passively, on the articulation of contemporary Slavic languages. The study showed that the causes of phonetic convergence among language varieties functioning in the area are primarily sociolinguistic. A comparison of the phonetic features of Polish and Belarusian dialects revealed that both dialects essentially share the same phonetics. Informants also pronounce the soft consonants used in Lithuanian dialects when speaking local Slavic dialects. Instances not characteristic of Belarusian and Polish dialects were recorded in which consonants are extensively confused; this is likely one of the features of the Lithuanian substrate. KEYWORDS: Lithuanian borderland areas, local Polish dialect, Belarusian dialect prostu, code-switching, phonetic leveling, language interaction. Straipsniai / Articles 57 NIOLĖ TUOMIENĖ ANNOTATION The present article addesses the principal phonetic phenomena of the languages used in borderland areas (Belarus, Voranava district (Вороново)) and their interaction. It analyses the phonic convergence of the dominating local language varieties – Belarusian, Polish and passively used Lithuanian – and establishes the tendencies of this process. The situations of natural communication in the context of code-switching are analysed in the study: when the speakers are fluent and use several languages at the same time by actively switching between them in conversations. It is sought to reveal how the competition of languages affects the phonetics of these languages. The research is based on the theory proposed by Valerius Čekmonas, the researcher of the interaction of languages and Slavic: the speaker switches between languages according to certain rules which can be described by algorithms. Based on this method of algorithms, the study reveals the phonetic tendencies and proves a very important role and influence of the now passively used Lithuanian language on the articulation of contemporary Slavic languages. The research showed that the reason of convergence of phonetic phenomena of the language varieties functioning in the borderland areas are mainly sociolinguistic. After comparing the phonetic peculiarities of local Polish and Belarusian dialects, it turned out that the phonetics of both dialects is essentially the same. The informants pronounce the soft consonants used in the local Lithuanian dialect in the same way as they are pronounced when speaking local Slavic dialects. The cases which are not typical of Belarusian and Polish dialects when consonants are intensively confused were recorded; it is likely a feature of the Lithuanian substratum. KEYWORDS: Lithuanian borderland areas, local Polish dialect, Belarusian dialect postu, code-switching, phonetic leveling, interaction of languages. 1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS, RESEARCH OBJECT Until the 21st century, research in linguistic geography predominated in Lithuania: it was customary to study local and static systems as closed, confined to a particular territory, and essentially unaffected by neighboring systems whose languages or varieties differed, while “deviations from the system” were treated as random occurrences and excluded from consideration. The geographical distribution of a language or dialect was recorded, as were differences between dialect speech and the standard language norm, and a list of loanwords was compiled. It was 58 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXX Fonetikos išlyginimas vykstant kodų kaitai only the narratives of those informants who met certain criteria1 that were recorded: researchers sought a sedentary, older, poorly educated person who had formed a “local family” and did not know other languages (preferably a man). If an informant “deviated” from the accepted dialect norm, those examples were simply not analyzed, but were treated as lapsus linguae. People belonging to other ethnic groups living in Lithuania or beyond its borders were not sought out for interviews according, for example, to the Program for Collecting Material for the Atlas of the Lithuanian Language (see LKA 1977: 10–12); nor were data on their languages generally collected by Lithuanian linguists or linked with Lithuanian-language data. It was considered standard practice not to “interfere” with data on other languages. In recent decades, somewhat more has been written about interaction among Lithuanian, Belarusian, and Polish, the history and territories of their spread, and the ethnic self-awareness, origins, and affiliations of the populations that speak these languages. In 1997, the questionnaire Sociolinguistics. A Programme for the Study of Lithuanian Dialects and Their Interaction was developed (Čekmonas, Grumadienė 1997). Although the programme was used, the material was collected separately—for Lithuanian only. However, even contemporary researchers most often focus on just one language; the view that one should “not cross the boundaries of another language” continues to prevail, even though the people they study regularly use two or more languages. Newly compiled maps of language distribution in Lithuania confirm that there are speakers of other languages in parts of eastern and southeastern Lithuania (see Meiliūnaitė, Mikulėnienė 2014: 262–263 (Map XIV and commentary)), but these areas are not treated as language-contact zones, unlike in the work of Petro Gaučas on the bilingualism and multilingualism of the local population in the late 19th and early 20th centuries (Gaučas 2004: 54). His research established that, at the time, the southern boundary of the Lithuanian-speaking area reached the vicinity of Geranainiai, Armoniškės, Rodūnia, Asava, and Pelesa in Belarus. How the situation later changed can be seen by comparing the maps in the book Eastern Lithuania (1993): the language-distribution situation in the mid-20th century (authors A. Vidugiris and P. Gaučas) differs markedly from that at the end of the 20th century, when the Lithuanian-speaking area had contracted considerably and local varieties of Belarusian and Polish had come to predominate in the vicinity of Vilnius, Šalčininkai, and Eišiškės (see the map of language distribution in eastern Lithuania compiled and described by L. Grumadienė, P. Gaučas, and V. Čekmonas (1993: 132–136)). From all the information presented, it can be concluded that the areas of eastern and southeastern Lithuania (especially the zones bordering Belarus), including Lithuanian micro-areas in Belarus that existed in the past and still exist today, have been linguistically mixed for more than a hundred years: several languages are spoken, often at the same time, that is, in one 1 Informants for traditional dialectology were selected according to the so-called NORM criterion: a good informant should be a sedentary, elderly (older) man (for more on these principles for selecting informants, see Aliūkaitė, Meiliūnaitė, Mikulėnienė 2014: 31–34). Straipsniai / Articles 59 NIJOLĖ TUOMIENĖ in conversation, switching between language varieties. Thus, active code-switching took place and continues to take place in these areas (for more on this, see: Grumadienė 1996: 190–197; 2001: 38–44; 2005: 42–48; Грумадене 1990: 126–130; Tuomienė, Grumadienė 2004: 124–133; Tuomienė 2006: 161–172; Urbanavičienė 2011: 95–114; Urėžienė 1998: 131–140, and others). The people living in the territories under discussion are able to pass on their experience from one generation to the next—at least three generations can communicate in two, three, or even four languages. How subtly they perceive linguistic nuances is demonstrated by comparing texts sung in Lithuanian and Belarusian (see Čekmonas, Gudaitė, Šmitienė 1998: 202–205): it is possible to find identical Lithuanian texts for Belarusian ones (or vice versa) only because both languages are understood very well. Moreover, folklore studies show that Belarusian speakers have a much richer folkloric tradition than Polish speakers. The latter’s folklore is more recent and non-peasant, since it is associated with the folklore of the szlachta. In situations of language contact, both Belarusian- and Polish-speaking people translated and adapted Lithuanian folk songs and tales (see ibid.: 204). This is a very important fact. Therefore, today it is important to collect not isolated facts about any one language spoken by local inhabitants of the border region, but to document the entire body of data. The younger generation of inhabitants of the Lithuanian areas in Belarus (or formerly there) often communicates only in Russian in public places, while Lithuanian is still used passively and therefore, one might say, does not participate in live interaction. Nevertheless, the Baltic substratum of these areas and the evident influence of Lithuanian (during the period when it was actively used) are recognizable—they can be identified using particular methods. Comprehensive joint studies of the Baltic and Slavic languages have hardly been conducted in recent years, although researchers have demonstrated that studies of Slavic languages or their varieties spoken by the same bilingual or multilingual informants are very important for investigating the development and change of the Lithuanian language itself. As early as the end of the 20th century, Professor V. Čekmonas succeeded in developing a methodology for studying Baltic–Slavic language interaction based on typological reconstruction and sociolinguistics. Perhaps the first in the history of linguistics, the scholar consistently began to ground explanations of specific linguistic phenomena not only in diachronic but also in synchronic data, thereby adding to the diachronic research program he had developed (for more, see: Чекман 1973: 29–43; 1980: 206–226; Чекмонас 1982). V. Čekmonas was the first, on the basis of facts systematically gathered over many years, to formulate and reveal the mechanism of language change in the sphere of Baltic–Slavic interaction. He set out systematically the rules governing the transition from one language to another, and also formulated and repeatedly tested how the processes of local people’s bilingualism or trilingualism could be explained by rules of transformation. 60 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXX Fonetikos išlyginimas vykstant kodų kaitai V. Čekmonas maintained that the true situation could be revealed only by communicating in all the languages spoken by an informant, without showing greater preference for any one of them or excluding any of them in any way. The scholar’s works and ideas on Baltic–Slavic language contacts did not, in essence, receive that response. It was often too difficult for both interviewers and interviewees to understand the aims of research conducted in a multilingual mode and to offer possible interpretations of the findings, which differed greatly from the customary tasks mentioned above: recording the geographical distribution of a language or dialect, the differences between dialectal speech and each standard language, and compiling lists of borrowings. 2. RESEARCH AIM AND OBJECTIVES, MATERIAL AND METHODOLOGY The main aim of this study is to reveal the nature of the convergence of phonetic features in the dominant local language varieties—Belarusian, Polish, and the passively used Lithuanian dialect—when speakers are proficient in several languages, use them simultaneously, and switch easily between them in different conversations. The study seeks to show how competition between languages is reflected in their phonetics. To achieve this aim, the study was carried out in several stages, addressing the following objectives: • to describe the main phonetic (and, in part, accentual) and phonological features of the Belarusian and Polish dialects in use; • to compare the phonetic phenomena of the two languages and show how one language can be reflected in another, and how and why one language gradually turns into another; • to identify the effects of the Lithuanian dialect on the articulation of local Slavic dialects. The study draws on linguistic and sociolinguistic material collected and recorded in the early 21st century from three Lithuanian borderland areas. More specifically, the study analyzes code-switching recordings from the Lithuanian islands (including former ones) in the northeast of Voranava District, Grodno Region, Belarus: the town of Voranava—the district center; the church village of Armėniškės (Belarusian Германі́шки); the settlement of Peiginiai (Belarusian Перега́ны)—the center of a kolkhoz local council; and the surrounding area of the village of Ramaškonys (Belarusian Рама́шканы)2. Another part of the languages used in this study 2 Most of the last conversations here were recorded in 2013. They are kept in the author’s personal sound archive. Straipsniai / Articles 61 NIOLĖ TUOMIENĖ code-switching recordings from the surrounding areas of Ródūnia (Belarusian Радунь), Asavai (Belarusian Асава́), and Nočia (Belarusian Нача) in Belarus3. This study adopts the view that a bilingual or trilingual person’s code-switching is characterized as a continuous transition from one language to another, with units of the other language—word combinations and phrases (explanations)—being inserted. In communication, one language gives way to another, so code-switching occurs across text segments of various lengths: from several sentences to a few words, or through the insertion of individual words from another code, that is, another language. In one conversation, two languages are most often spoken—Belarusian and Polish—with units of Lithuanian and Russian inserted. In other conversations, one language—Belarusian—usually predominates, while short sentences, individual words, and parts of words in other languages (Lithuanian, Polish, Russian) are inserted. This article draws on V. Ėčmon’s methodology, which the author himself calls the phonetic interference of the local languages in the Kalesninkai area (Šalčininkai district) (Чекман 1973: 29–43). The essence of the method developed by the scholar is as follows: first, a dynamic model is established, consisting of typologically possible changes in initial sounds, the so-called typological fields, as well as possible intermediate stages of diachronic processes, the so-called typological trees. Once the typological fields and trees have been identified, various changing phonetic situations are examined, and synchronic findings are compared with known diachronic interpretations. This study investigates the rules—that is, specific algorithms—by which it is possible to move from one language to another. More precisely, it asks how to treat particular sounds, for example, in Belarusian when “rendering” a word in Polish, and conversely, when “adapting” Polish to Belarusian. When applying V. Ėčmon’s methodology, sociolinguistic data become essential: the current and former linguistic situation in the environment; the prestige of languages; data on the languages spoken by the informant, their parents, family, and village; the language of instruction at school; and the languages used in church and in communication with strangers. This makes it possible to establish the conditions under which the languages compete and to reveal the mechanism by which variants of linguistic phenomena arise and are selected. 3. PHONETIC LEVELING IN CODE-SWITCHING More recent linguistic recordings, sociolinguistic survey data, and an initial analysis of the collected material clearly showed that two Slavic language varieties dominate and actively compete with one another in the study area of Voranava district 3 The most recent conversations here were recorded in 2001–2003. Some are held in the Dialect Archive of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language; the rest are in the author’s personal sound archive. 62 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXX Fonetikos išlyginimas vykstant kodų kaitai —Belarusian and Polish. Yet in the mid- and latter half of the 20th century, three languages—Belarusian, Polish, and Lithuanian—were actively in contact here (cf. Čekmonas 1988: 37–54; Sudnik 1972: 19–22; Tuomienė 2008: 46–80; 2010: 42–52; 2018: 113–134). The results of this contact are especially apparent at the phonetic level. The study therefore focuses on an analysis of the phonetics, and partly the accentuation and phonology, of the essentially local Belarusian and Polish dialects. It seeks to demonstrate the linguistic nature, development, and interaction of these two local Slavic languages, describing the main aspects of pronunciation change and convergence that emerge when speakers switch from using one language to another. Differences between the older, middle, and younger generations are evident in their use of the two principal Slavic varieties. The situation that has developed in all the micro-areas of the Voranava district can be described as very similar, even though some localities are as much as 30 kilometers apart. For a long time, approximately until the middle of the 20th century, the linguistic situation here was quadrilingual. Alongside Belarusian, Polish, and Russian, Lithuanian was also actively used. Later, the Lithuanian-language tradition gradually died out in many rural areas, while in small Lithuanian-speaking enclaves it had shifted to passive use even earlier. In recent years, it has no longer been possible to find and record speakers of Lithuanian in the Voranava area of Belarus. Russian is actively used in public places by the younger generation and children. However, Russian is rarely spoken in villages and settlements, most often with the local administration, in various institutions, or with strangers. In everyday life, local members of the older and middle generations communicate with one another in Belarusian or Polish. The present study therefore sets aside the Russian-language data. It is possible to judge by ear alone how strong the articulation base of the primary language is, since that same base is used when transferring to a new language, or even to two new languages—in this case, Belarusian and Polish. The recordings capture the speech of older local people, mostly rural residents, although some recordings come from towns and larger settlements. It should be emphasized that older speakers generally do not know the rules of the new language (or languages), and have certainly never studied them anywhere. They would usually begin speaking the more prestigious new language spontaneously, imitating authoritative people—landowners, neighbors, and priests. The aim is to establish how they managed not only to pronounce words fairly accurately, but also to inflect them correctly. For a rural resident, accentuating words correctly without knowing the laws and rules of that language is a genuinely difficult task. Local people regard the ability to communicate in several languages from childhood as a natural phenomenon (see Tuomienė 2018: 117–122). If one language is spoken within the family or kin group, people learn to speak at least two more languages in the street and in public places. This is not considered knowledge of foreign languages, but rather a necessity, a daily means of verbal communication. Straipsniai / Articles 63 NIJOLĖ TUOMIENĖ 3.1. The main phonetic features of the local Belarusian dialect prostu 3.1.1. The Belarusian dialect of the Varanava area prostu is characterized by mobile dynamic stress. Unstressed vowels are heard as more or less reduced. This local Belarusian dialect is characterized by vowel fronting, i.e., unstressed o and e are not distinguished but pronounced as α—a sound intermediate between e and a (see Czekman 1975: 283–305; Чекман 1989: 84–92; cf. Plyavka 2014: 231–234), e.g.: praṕu moi ḗtų ‘my rooster disappeared’; rāna zˈazˈúla kukúja ‘the cuckoo sings early’; kūrba tut sˈǝzˈḗla ‘the hen sat here (hatched eggs)’; bādā adnȧ nāxōzˈic ‘misfortune never comes alone’; būzˈȧ travú kasˈic ‘I will mow the grass’; susētḗka manḗ naprasila ‘the neighbor didn’t ask me’; palacḗ i nāvarnúsa ‘ran off (flew away) and did not return’; trḗba tak lacˈéc ‘you have to run so (quickly)’; klḗka lˈabḗ ‘they’re calling you’; bārḗ kōšak i žbārḗ ‘take the basket and pick [them].’ Quite often here unstressed open a is pronounced indistinctly: kārōva jačḗ malá-dā ‘the cow is still young’; na sānḗ vārōka ‘[he/she] bored through a pine’; valavá částa bālicˈdā-ni skauda galvȧ ‘my head often hurts’; dānȧ tȧ zamūžam ‘you’ve been married for a long time’; žȧc bḗstra uˈók ‘the hare ran away quickly.’ Few examples of hypercorrection and isolated sporadic utterances are heard. 3.1.2. The Belarusian dialect under study has no clusters γbl, kbl, xb, only γi, ki, xi—this is a common feature of East Slavic dialects (see Чекман 1969: 34), e.g.: xiba tbȧ žabárḗ ‘perhaps you should take it’; takī xtbrȧ clabḗ ‘such a clever person.’ 3.1.3. The soft s, z, and c, dz are pronounced especially softly, with strong palatalization and a hushing effect (cf. Чекман 1969: 32). This is characteristic of many Belarusian dialects (see Чекман 1970: 94–105), e.g.: zˈacˈal mócna súka ‘the woodpecker pecks hard’; čúj zˈēka zakrḗcḗla ‘you hear, the girl screamed’; u manḗ tōki zˈēsˈacˈ kurḗ ‘I have only ten hens’; kūp sˈem kurḗtˈ ‘buy seven chicks’; naščḗtala vósˈim rubḗl ‘I counted eight rubles’; yéta tvōj yusˈ ‘this is your goose’; sˈeu jesˈcˈ ‘I sat down to eat’; zára i vósˈan ‘autumn is just around the corner’; zˈimá buzˈa dáuya ‘winter will be long’; zˈōlōny ayurók ‘a green cucumber’; zˈjeu vḗki kusók ‘he ate a large piece.’ 3.1.4. Soft labial consonants are pronounced in the usual way, as in all East Slavic dialects, e.g.: dā mnḗ pacˈ rubḗl ‘he gave me five rubles’; pābl ras ‘the fifth time’; vānucˈ kvēki ‘the flowers are wilting’; trḗba žazacˈ rukavḗc ‘it is necessary to knit’ 4 The paper uses a simplified transcription in Latin letters, written as pronounced (cf. Cabij 1991: 119–123; 1992: 45–67). Disyllabic and polysyllabic words are stressed. Consonant softness is marked in two ways: palatal consonants are marked with an arc above the letter, while those pronounced very softly—mostly cˈ, dzˈ (represented in the examples as zˈ), sˈ, zˈ—are marked with two apostrophe marks at the upper right of the letter (cf. Tuomienė 2008: 83). 64 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXX Fonetikos išlyginimas vykstant kodų kaitai ‘gloves’; pasālī māsā ‘we salted the meat’; bārza pad sāmbm aknōm ‘a birch right next to the window.’ After voiceless consonants, v generally does not change to f: tvōi ‘yours’; svoi ‘one’s own’; kas ‘porridge’, while bilabial v is pronounced only before vowels, e.g.: karōva ‘cow’; pavaḷā ‘shed’; svabada ‘freedom’; malavata ‘a little small’; rənava ‘a little early’; vožī ‘[he/she] transports’; vadā ‘water’; vėnik ‘broom.’ 3.1.5. One of the characteristic features of this Belarusian dialect is the use of incompletely hardened, non-velarized s, č, ž. After them, bl is fronted and pronounced more like i, as an intermediate sound between bl and i, e.g.: susėka dobra š’bila ‘the neighbor sews well’; adno čaška pražlb’ ‘it is hard to make a living alone’; ja u vilu slūžila ‘I worked in Vilnius’; palāb s’ena pad straxú ‘put the hay under the roof’; sadā na kanā i skabī ‘get on the horse and ride.’ This feature is also characteristic of many northeastern Belarusian dialects (see Чэкман 1970: 92–93). 3.1.6. The Belarusian dialect under study is essentially not characterized by the plosive consonant g, which is pronounced only in some words, e.g.: gānā ‘means’; gus ‘bruise’; gas ‘gas’; grbka ‘buckwheat’; gúz’ik ‘button’. Usually the fricative γ is pronounced here, e.g.: bayāb ‘rich’; dārγa ‘road’; jāγada ‘berry’; γaz’ina ‘hour’; γaz’ina ‘snake’; γalavā ‘head’; γatovl ‘ready’; γot ‘year’; γadavaū ‘you raised’; γrb ‘mushroom’; z’ayani ‘drive in, drive away’ (cf. Коницкая 1994: 76–84; Савич 1990: 41–47). As can be seen, the listed phonetic features of the Belarusian dialect are not phenomena that have newly arisen in one locality or another. The features discussed are characteristic of all or many Belarusian dialects. In other words, both in the Varanava area of Belarus and in the surrounding areas along Lithuania’s southern border, the Belarusian dialect belongs to the broader Belarusian dialect continuum (cf. maps: Пыгака 2014: 229 (fig. 135) and ЛПГБГ 1969: карта № 13, № 14, № 15). It is important to emphasize the coherence of the local Belarusian dialect in the areas studied: the speech of representatives of the older, middle, and younger generations differs very little. All these features of the Belarusian dialect, except for the fricative γ, the fronting of α, and u, are also characteristic of the local Polish dialect. 3.2. Essential phonetic features of the local Polish dialect In this section, in describing the general phonetic features, the aim is to identify the local Polish dialect, that is, to answer several essential questions: does the sound system of this dialect link it to any Polish dialect (the conclusions reached are compared with H. Turska’s ideas regarding the origin of Polish in Vilnius Straipsniai / Articles 65 NJOLĖ TUOMIENĖ (see Turska 1995 [193]: 89–97); which features link this dialect to literary Polish. The aim is thus to show which features deviate from the “norms” of Polish phonetics and are closer to the “norms” of Belarusian and Lithuanian dialects. 3.2.1. Local representatives of the older and middle generations in the Varánava area⁵, who in everyday life more often communicate popstu, speaking Polish only in certain situations, pronounce the sounds e and o indistinctly; an intermediate or neutral sound ə is often heard, with qualities of both o and e, and sometimes a as well. Unstressed vowels, especially e and o, are generally pronounced shorter, e.g.: dóbży pověż’əl⁶ ‘you said it well’; pšėtay mn̄e s pəˈonku ‘we read it from the beginning’; sonsˈaka to naprada mái ‘the neighbor really has it’; žˈeci postavili pómik ‘the children erected a monument’; viem, ža nixt tego na zróba ‘I know that nobody will do that’; i̯b mam, tyla dósić ‘as much as you have is enough’; cúrka júro pšyjęˈəl ‘my daughter will arrive tomorrow’; šypko oni polˈč’eli ‘they quickly fell / ran down’; ja nic ot c’ėbė nə vězmė ‘I will take nothing from you’; č’y̯a to žˈeko plá ‘whose child is crying’. 3.2.2. It was observed that almost all Polish speakers pronounce the reflexive particle się as sˈa (or sˈə) most of the time, e.g.: ráno ty rozbú žˈil sˈa ‘you woke up early’; a téraz rozėžˈam sˈa ‘and now let’s part ways’; kėdˈi rospóčėla sˈa vóina ‘when the war began’; čėmu ty tak pošila sˈa ‘why did you bend down like that’; my tútai pobudovái sˈa ‘we built (settled) here’; ona pšy mne ostal sˈa ‘she stayed with me’; ja návet oglądnéla sˈa ‘I even ate my fill’. Final o is pronounced consistently, and Polish ą after hard consonants is not nasalized, e.g.: kto pokazyval dla cebė drogo ‘who showed you the way’; z drúgo téraz žyje ‘now lives with another’; co sie s tobo stało ‘what happened to you’; oni juš ido ‘they are already going’; sˈano vózo i skladalo ‘they carry the hay and stack it’; juš kúry raz pytam, gžˈe oni iado ‘this is already the umpteenth time I’ve asked where they’re going’. Representatives of the middle and younger generations pronounce unstressed o fairly close and short. Representatives of the older generation pronounce o more openly, e.g.: dóbżo človeka těba pošukać ‘a good person is hard to find’; gospodás povězˈal i fšyko ‘the master said everything 5 The recordings used in the study feature mostly the same people speaking languages—alternately popstu and Polish. Only the older people occasionally switched to Lithuanian, while representatives of the middle and younger generations (children were also interviewed) switched to Russian as well. Since Russian is rarely used in rural areas, it was therefore not included in this study as an equivalent language of everyday communication. 6 Examples of the local Polish dialect are also transcribed using a simplified transcription, which is also used by Slavicists studying Polish in Lithuania (see Konickaja 2018: 694–720)—they are written as pronounced. Words with two or more syllables are stressed. As for marking the softness of consonants: palatal consonants are marked with a hook above the letter, while those pronounced especially softly (which V. Čemanas called superpalatalized)—c’, dz’ (marked ˈ in the examples), s’, z’—are marked with two apostrophe signs to the upper right of the letter. 66 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXX Fonetikos išlyginimas vykstant kodų kaitai said it and that was that; tỹlo jėdna gazˈina pšėla ‘only one hour had passed’; tšėba tátu pǝ́magacˈ ‘one must help father’; ja sāma s kǝlešnībukˈ ‘I myself am from Kalesninkai’; ṓcėc i brat ta xāta postǎdī ‘father and brother built that house’; pǝmyšlī žē nǝpǝzvī ‘he thought that they would not allow it’; pǝtrōšėku pracūjėny ‘we work little by little’. 3.2.3. In the speech of both the older and middle generations, u, which arose in Polish in place of long o, is heard quite rarely, for example: za krūti ten čerėn ‘that handle is too short’; kfūry tut z vas ‘which one here is from among you’; juš pūda do domu ‘I’ll go home now’; čému tak pǔzno pšyjal ‘why did you arrive so late’; na sˈūdmy rasˈ ‘on the seventh try’; jaka skūra tvārda ‘what hard skin’; nēvem co mne múvić ‘I don’t know what to say’. However, the following pronunciations are most common here: bok (Polish buk) ‘side’; dróša ‘path’; glópa ‘little head’; mot ‘honey’; nos ‘nose’; nōs and nuš ‘knife’; pǒra ‘feather’; rok ‘year’; róža ‘rose’; vos ‘cart’; svoi ‘one’s own’; tuoi ‘yours’ more often than sui ‘one’s own’; tvui ‘yours’. 3.2.4. Representatives of the older generation more often pronounce a soft ch in word roots, for example: to xiba jūtro zrobimy ‘we’ll probably do it tomorrow’; vīlk nie taki xityr ‘the wolf isn’t so clever’; xlópec cˈišį spokoiny ‘the young man is quiet, calm’; ja juš naprǎde glūši ‘I’m already really deaf’; v domu ani jėdnē mušī ‘not a single fly at home’; ṓbos juš sūxi ‘the barley is already dry’. Representatives of the middle and younger generations pronounce a hard sound in word roots, and vary in their pronunciation outside the roots. 3.2.5. The Polish dialect under study has no nasal vowels: in the middle of a word, em is pronounced in place of ę before labials, and en before other consonants, for example: pǝ́dai vǝ́da, vysėla gėmba ‘give me some water, my mouth has gone dry’; mam xencˈ na tāka pracˈ ‘I feel like doing that kind of work’; xleb mīeni ‘the bread is soft’; zaplacil pīenieny ‘he paid the money’; mam pencˈ zloty ‘I have five zlotys’; tut gęsty las ‘the forest is dense here’; mėso podrožalo ‘meat has become more expensive’; šukam męna ‘I’m looking for a husband (spouse)’. Older speakers pronounce a in word-final position after hard consonants, in place of the Polish standard ę, for example: ja będa ‘I will be (doing something)’; ziš juš pūda ‘today I’ll go now, and so on’; accusative singular: spotykam cˈōka ‘I’m meeting my aunt’; pǒkas fīga ‘show me a fig’; žlōl muža ‘I caught a fly’; bōli nǒga ‘my leg hurts’. Middle- and younger-generation informants pronounce: nēvem, dž-e jūtro będe ‘I don’t know where I’ll be tomorrow’; pūde do lāsu ‘I’ll go to the forest’; čēnšo nōse ‘I carry it with difficulty’; fýštko bóre ‘I take everything’; in nouns: blāka and blāke ‘sheet metal’; nóga and nóge ‘leg’—thus the same person uses both ę and ą interchangeably. At the end of words, after soft consonants, all informants pronounce ę > e. ēmė ‘name’; láme ‘fire’; zˈēme ‘earth’. 3.2.6. In the Polish dialect, ą in the middle of words is pronounced om before labials and on before other consonants, for example: vŷpad zombˈ ‘a tooth fell out’; zˈēvōnty mēsoncˈ ‘the ninth month’; žobǎ jaka goronca ‘look how hot it is’; mons do mīe vūrčil sˈa ‘my husband came back to me’; jūro zei zˈe sōnˈat ‘the neighbor will come over tomorrow’. Strażniai / Articles 67 NIOLĖ TUOMIENĖ At the end of words, o is always pronounced instead of ą, e.g.: pókās m̄nė drógo ‘show me the way’; póǰ l̄ško ‘a spoonful of honey’; bóro co xce ‘takes what he wants’; jádo do Vílna ‘goes to Vilnius’; nē̇ien, co oni tam jézo ‘I don’t know what they are eating there’; vózo i sp̄sēdáio ‘transports and sells’. Before l, o or e is pronounced instead of ą and ę, respectively: vz̄ol ‘he took’; vz̄ėla ‘she took’. 3.2.7. The overwhelming majority of speakers, when speaking Polish, pronounce the soft s, z, and c, dz very softly; that is, the soft anterior lingual fricatives, represented by s’, z’, c’, dz’, are pronounced with strong palatalization, e.g.: p̄šėd na padv̄rek los’’ į kiena ajo briedis’; pr̄še s’’adac’’ ‘please sit down’; zn̄dza s’’edam čy ós’’em j̄kuf ‘I found seven or eight eggs’; tut jez’’óro ne daléko ‘the lake is not far from here’; tātus vóz’’l m̄ėko ‘father used to bring milk around’; v̄ėlke tvoje z’’ėci ‘your big child’; poz’’elí z’’ėme ‘they divided up the land’, and so on. To the ear, these s’, z’, and c’, dz, compared with the sibilants of literary Polish, the narrow ś, ź, ć, dź, sound strongly palatalized (with stronger hissing). 3.2.8. After š, ž, č, older-generation speakers usually pronounce a sound intermediate between i and y, e.g.: t̄ėba f̄šyto p̄šebic’’ ‘one has to get through everything’; položb s’’a pac’’ ‘I lay down to sleep’; čy zobac̄bła, jak tam ar ‘did you see how it is there’; č̄tac’’ po polsku nie ūm̄em ‘I can’t read Polish’. To the ear, the consonants are most often pronounced hard. 3.2.9. Soft labial consonants before front vowels merge; the usual pronunciation is: kup̄la b̄la č̄pka ‘I bought a white hat’; c’’ema gv̄zda ‘a dark star (figurative meaning)’; z’’imna vóšna ‘a cold spring’; v̄anek z kv̄af ‘a wreath of flowers’; p̄nty menz’’ ‘the fifth husband’; ž̄eram p̄ra ‘I am gathering feathers’; óbat p̄šygotóła ‘I hurried lunch’. 3.2.10. In the Polish dialect, hard and soft l correspond to hard and soft l̄ in both Belarusian and Russian. This is not the Central European l characteristic of literary Polish. 3.2.11. After voiceless consonants, the pronunciation of v differs from that of f, e.g.: zn̄dza sv̄i (svi) ser ‘I found my sickle’; gž’’ie tvo (tvu) prac̄? ‘where does your (your, the husband) work?’; g’’efc̄na jak kv̄ėtek ‘a girl like a flower’. Older speakers, especially at the end of a word, pronounce a hard, broad, labial consonant, represented here by φ, e.g.: φšyški ‘all, completely’; ego gl̄opka mal̄uka ‘his little head’; s’’ad na l̄aka ‘sit down on the bench’; pr̄zej c̄stavi ‘get up more quickly’; l̄adna tvoja z’’ec̄yna ‘your beautiful girl’; zej’’em s’’a φs’’e i s̄p̄evam ‘everyone gathers and sings’; tut zmuf jakis’’c’’ ‘there’s some kind of smock here’; z̄osta j̄emu bud̄nki ‘leave him the buildings’. 3.2.12. In the Polish dialect, soft anterior lingual fricatives are pronounced before dental and labial consonants: j̄tro sr̄da ‘tomorrow is Wednesday’; š̄ed̄i syn ‘middle son’; p̄zno p̄šyš ‘you came late’; teraz nēcy čas ‘the present time’; ona tȳko zas̄m̄ela s’’a ‘she only laughed’. 68 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXX Fonetikos išlyginimas vykstant kodų kaitai The brief description of the main phonetic (articulatory) features of the local Polish dialect in the areas around Varañava, Armėniškės, Pereigoniai, Ramaškonys and Ródūnia, and Asava allows several preliminary generalizations. It is clear that the local Polish dialect under study is heterogeneous: the speech of older-generation speakers differs from that of the middle and younger generations. The latter, in several important respects, “bring” their Polish closer to the literary language (cf. Karaś 2007: 207–224; Rutkovska 2014: 223–226). The speech of people of the middle generation, especially those living in small towns, appears to be influenced by literary Polish. The Polish of younger children, who learn it in various schools, is even closer to the literary language. Thus, all the data discussed show that the local Polish dialect is heterogeneous not because of its own independent internal development, but because of the continuously growing influence of literary Polish on local people’s speech: through opportunities to go to Poland to study and work, television, radio, and religious services in Polish in parish churches. Several essential phonetic inconsistencies in the local Polish dialect should be noted. In the Polish dialect under study, speakers try to follow the Polish stress pattern, with stress consistently falling on the penultimate syllable. The stress is strongly dynamic, while adjacent vowels are reduced. As we know, because stress is fixed in Polish, the quality of adjacent vowels generally does not change (cf. Dejna 1973: 143–144). In the Polish dialect under study, however, a “different” pronunciation of unstressed vowels can be observed: they are reduced, and the fronting of the vowel a is clearly apparent. The causes should be sought in other languages spoken in the area under study. However, no isogloss connects this Polish dialect with any of the Polish dialect groups in Poland (cf. the new maps and their descriptions available online at http://www.dialektologia.uw.edu.pl/ (ed. Halina Karaś)). The characteristic features of the local Polish dialect could not have developed independently, since that would contradict the main developmental tendencies of many Polish dialects and well-known typological principles. 3.3. Phonological structures of vowels and consonants in Polish and Belarusian dialects Let us compare the structures of vowel and consonant phonemes in the two dialects under consideration—the local Polish and local Belarusian dialects (cf. Чекман 1973: 39–41). Both the Polish and Belarusian dialects have a five-vowel system. The phonetic realization of these phonemes is identical in both cases: Straipsniai / Articles 69 NIJOLĖ TUOMIENĖ Representatives of the older generation who speak Polish have difficulty distinguishing e and o in unstressed syllables. However, speakers of other generations do not confuse them. In the Belarusian dialect, the failure to distinguish e and o (and, in part, a) in an unstressed position is treated as the norm. The opposition of a is also characteristic (the so-called akanye). TABLE 1. System of prebasal phonemes in the Polish dialect p – p̂ | t – t̂ | š | k v – v̂ | z – ẑ | č | x | s – ŝ | | m – m̂ | l – l̂ | | | n – n̂ | | | r | | TABLE 2. Structure of prebasal phonemes in the Belarusian dialect p – p̂ | t – t̂ | š | k – k̂ b – b̂ | d – d̂ | ž | g – ĝ v – v̂ | z – ẑ | č | x(x̂) f – f̂ | s – ŝ | | | l – l̂ | | m – m̂ | n – n̂ | | | r | | The two prebasal systems presented differ from one another only in their peripheral layers: in the Polish dialect, the phonemes f – f̂ are opposed to k – k̂, g – ĝ in terms of hardness / softness, and to k – g in terms of voicelessness / voicing, while in the Belarusian dialect, x – γ are opposed. Comparing the prebasal phonetic features of the Polish and Belarusian dialects, we can conclude that they correspond to one another, i.e. Polish [p̂], [b̂], [v̂], [m̂] = Belarusian [p̂], [b̂], [v̂], [m̂]; Polish s″, z″, c″, dz″, which correspond to the phonemes [ŝ], [ẑ], [t̂], [d̂] = Belarusian [s″], [z″], [c″], [dz″], corresponding to the phonemes [ŝ], [ẑ], [f̂], [d̂], and so on. Therefore, it can be argued that both dialects—the Polish and the Belarusian—have essentially the same phonetics. 70 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXX Fonetikos išlyginimas vykstant kodų kaitai 3.4. Reconstruction of the language-switching mechanism: the phonetic level This section formulates the rules for a gradual transition from one language to another; that is, drawing on data from phonetic research, it attempts to reconstruct the sequence—an algorithm—of possible initial sound changes. 3.4.1. When switching from the Belarusian dialect to Polish, informants try to follow the rule of fixed stress, placing stress on the penultimate syllable. However, in these speakers’ local Polish, stress placement corresponds in many cases to the original stress position, especially in polysyllabic words, and often remains inconsistent, “Belarusian,” e.g.: ražumačyla ėmų ‘explains to him’; žbiramy jagody ‘we pick berries’; postavili piec ‘we put in the stove’. This fact most clearly demonstrates that it is specifically local Belarusian-speaking residents who have adopted Polish as a foreign, non-native language, since it is practically impossible not to make mistakes when moving from variable to fixed stress. 3.4.2. The sound-change rules—where y in the Polish dialect changes to g, and g as pronounced in Belarusian changes to y—are followed consistently, with few exceptions. 3.4.3. When speaking Polish, informants clearly try to follow the rule of fronting the vowel a, but the sounds e and o are nevertheless not distinguished, and an intermediate ǝ is often pronounced. Clearly, this happens because of their weaker command of the Polish dialect. By contrast, when switching to the Belarusian dialect, where the rule of fronting the vowel a is applied as a norm, hypercorrections occur, e.g.: dołėko ‘far’; pojaz’em ‘we’ll go’; zaxarovał ‘caught’. 3.4.4. In the Polish dialect, u changes to ł in past-tense verb forms, and to f before consonants and at the end of a word. Speakers apply this rule consistently, almost without exception. Switching to Belarusian causes informants no difficulty: in past-tense verb forms, ł changes to u, and f before consonants and at the end of a word changes to u. It was observed that representatives of the older generation find it difficult to change u to f, so this happens in two stages: u – φ – f. This phenomenon can be explained by the fact that, most likely, the native dialect of the oldest informants did not contain the sound f. 3.4.5. In the Polish dialect, o changes to i in some words, while in Belarusian, i changes to o in some words. The following cases are meant by this rule: Belarusian box – Polish buk ‘God’; Belarusian dvor – Polish dur (podwóręk) ‘yard, manor’, and so on. This transition is not followed consistently; variation is observed, especially when switching from Belarusian to Polish. Some words are leveled (adjusted) by analogy, e.g., glūfka > glōfka, since glōva ‘head’ is used. On the other hand, u takes hold where it is morphologically motivated, e.g., the plural genitive baranuf ‘of rams’. Here, too, we see a pronunciation outcome unusual for speakers of the Polish dialect (uncharacteristic of them). Straipsniai / Articles 71 NIJOLĖ TUOMIENĖ 3.4.6. When switching from Belarusian to Polish, ǩi changes to x₍bl₎, while in Belarusian speech x₍bl₎ changes to ǩi. The northern “errors” were also observed in this case when switching from Belarusian to Polish; compare the pronunciation in Polish by older informants of ẋiba ‘probably’; ẋtry ‘clever’; mūxi ‘flies’. Their pronunciation shows that older speakers encounter new sounds whose pronunciation is unfamiliar to them. Since the local Polish dialect lacks the x – x̃ contrast and ẋi is pronounced instead of x₍bl₎, there is no ambiguity or doubt about the meaning of the words. 3.4.7. In some Polish words, r changes to š, ž. After switching to Belarusian, š, ž change to r in some words. In this situation, the Belarusian cases tr̄ba ‘is needed’; trbl ‘three’ and the Polish cases tš̄ba, tšbl are meant. The rule is followed fairly consistently. The word tš̄ba ‘is needed’, sometimes heard in the Belarusian dialect, is most likely the result of lexical interference. 3.5. Results of the development of Lithuanian dialects in local Slavic dialects The group of speakers of Lithuanian dialects studied in the vicinity of Voranava is the smallest—only a few members of the older generation who speak the South Aukštaitian subdialect well were recorded in the 21st century. This study does not seek to describe all the features of these Dzūkian dialects, as they have already been described in detail (see Tuomienė 2008: 45–47; 2010: 22–24). Here, as noted, the aim is to demonstrate the evident influence of Lithuanian on the other dialects used in the region—Belarusian and Polish. 3.5.1. A characteristic feature of the consonant system of the Lithuanian dialects of the Voranava area, as of the entire South Aukštaitian subdialect, is dzūkavimas. Two features of it are distinguished (for further discussion, see Zinkevičius 1966: 139, 145–146; LKA II 93–97; LTCh 2004: 79–80, etc.). As is known, all Dzūkian speakers, according to the second feature, pronounce the consonants t, d before i, y, į, ie as c, dz, č (< *ti) – č, and the clusters tv, dv as cv, dzv, e.g.: ǡž̇i̇mas ‘weaving’; butel̇ai̇či ‘a little bottle’; bū̇č ‘to be’; ž̇ėni̇ ‘a sieve’; ž̇vi̇ ‘two’; ǵai̇ž̇s, gȧi̇žo ‘rooster, of the rooster’; k̇ȧċnas ‘cat’; k̇viėči ‘wheat’; mȧč̇ (and mȧč̇) ‘I saw’; šȧu̇ċ ‘to shoot’ (for further discussion, see Tuomienė 2008: 46; 2010: 22–23). All the local Lithuanians in the areas studied were undoubtedly always able to communicate well (or understand perfectly) in *po prostu* and in the local Polish dialect. Thus, the same above-mentioned š, ž, č, ǯ are readily heard in the Slavic dialects they use; these are retained in almost all cases, that is, when the same informants speak Polish, Belarusian, or Lithuanian, for example: 72 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXX Fonetikos įlyginimas vykstant kodų kaitai TABLE 3. Pronunciation of the soft prealveolars s, z, c, dz in Polish, Belarusian, and Lithuanian dialects Numbers in Polish Numbers in Belarusian *prosto* Numbers in Lithuanian pénć ‘five’ śeś ‘six’ śedem ‘seven’ óśem ‘eight’ ževenć ‘nine’ žeśeńć ‘ten’ dwanaśće ‘twelve’ sedynaśće ‘seventeen’ dwużeśće ‘twenty’ penćżeśenć ‘fifty’ pać ‘five’ śeść ‘six’ śem ‘seven’ uśim ‘eight’ ževać ‘nine’ żeśać ‘ten’ dvanad(c)ać ‘twelve’ śedmnad(c)ać ‘seventeen’ dvacać ‘twenty’ piźać ‘fifty’ pękći ‘five (years)’ šaši ‘six’ šępćini ‘seven’ aštunći ‘eight’ ževini ‘nine’ žęžęmć ‘ten’ žilika ‘twelve’ šępćinoli-ka ‘seventeen’ žužęšmć ‘twenty’ pękęžžęšmć ‘fifty’ It should be noted that Polish and Belarusian dialects, as mentioned earlier, differ precisely in their pronunciation of s”, z”, c”, dz” and ś, ź, ć, ӡ. This feature is fairly stable. Since Polish is also an adstrate with respect to Lithuanian, when speaking generally about the Polish dialects of the entire Vilnius region, the features of the soft prealveolars s, z and c, dz must also be taken into account. It is quite likely that in Polish dialects that have directly “emerged” on the basis of a Lithuanian substratum, we will find the soft ś, ź, ć, ӡ. Polish, however, established on the basis of a Belarusian substratum, will retain the strongly palatalized s”, z”, c”, dz”. 3.5.2. Another striking feature of the Lithuanian dialect is the absence of the phoneme [x]. Cases have been recorded in Belarusian in which x was confused with k, e.g.: máčaka (expected máčaxa) kaléra (xaléra) ‘cholera (disease)’; xíba (xiba) ‘probably, really’; xitri (xitri) ‘cunning’; xmári (xmári) ‘clouds’; xrén (xren) ‘horseradish’; xvaróba (xvaróba) ‘illness’; xója (xója) ‘puis’; paxmúrna (paxmúrna) ‘overcast’; pañóki (pañóxi) ‘socks’; žánik (žánix) ‘son-in-law’. The intensive confusion of x and k in the Polish dialect is likely one of the signs of a Lithuanian substratum. 7 Adstrate (Latin ad ‘at, near’ + statum ‘bedding’; here, ‘foundation’; German Adstrat, English and French adstrat, Spanish adstrato), linguistics: 1. the language of immigrants or neighbors that has influenced the language or dialects of the indigenous population, e.g., the influence of Belarusian on the dialects of eastern Lithuania, and of German on Latvian; 2. the use of several languages in the same territory over a long period (bilingualism). Straipsniai / Articles 73 NIOLĖ TUOMIENĖ 4. CONCLUSIONS 1. In the territories of the Varėna District in Belarus under study, two varieties of Slavic languages—Belarusian and Polish—predominate and actively compete with each other. The influence of the Lithuanian language, which is used passively, is readily recognizable in the articulatory basis of these two Slavic languages. Applying V. Czekman’s methodology reveals that the causes of the convergence of phonetic phenomena in the language varieties functioning in the local area are primarily sociolinguistic. 2. Phonetic data show that the local Polish dialect is heterogeneous. This is not due to its own internal development, but to the constantly growing influence of literary (standard) Polish on the speech of local people. The speech of representatives of the older generation differs markedly from that of the middle and younger generations. In several important respects, the latter are “bringing” their Polish closer to the literary language. Unstressed vowels adjacent to stressed vowels are reduced, although in Polish, because stress is fixed, the quality of an adjacent vowel usually does not change. 3. The features of the Belarusian dialect postu are not phonetic phenomena that have newly formed in this or that locality. In terms of its characteristic phonetic features, the Belarusian dialect of the Voranava area belongs to the large Belarusian dialect continuum. The dialect is essentially uniform: the speech of representatives of the older, middle, and younger generations differs very little. 4. The phonetic features of the Belarusian dialect, with the exception of the phenomena of velarization of the fricative γ and α and of u, are also found in the local Polish dialect. However, not a single isogloss links this Polish dialect with any Polish dialect continuum within Poland. The characteristic features of the local Polish dialect could not have developed independently, since this would run counter to the main developmental tendencies of many Polish dialects and to known typological laws. 5. The consonant systems of the Belarusian and Polish dialects differ from each other only in their peripheral layers: the Polish dialect has the phonemes f – ḟ, due to the hard/soft opposition k – k̇, g – ġ; and, due to the voiceless/voiced distinction, k – g, while Belarusian has x – γ. Given the basic composition of the phonemes and the phonetic characteristics of the sounds corresponding to them, and comparing the phonetic features of the Polish and Belarusian consonants, it can be argued that they are equivalent—the Polish and Belarusian dialects have essentially the same phonetics. 6. Reconstruction of the transition from one language to another showed: a) when switching from the Belarusian dialect to Polish, informants do not always follow the fixed-stress rule: in their local Polish, stress placement often remains unstable, “Belarusian.” This fact shows that it was precisely the local Belarusian residents who adopted Polish as a foreign, non-native language; 74 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXX Fonetikos įlyginimas vykstant kodų kaitai b) When speaking Polish, because of their weaker command of Polish pronunciation, informants abandon the rule whereby ə becomes e: the sounds e and o nevertheless remain undifferentiated, and an intermediate ə is often pronounced. When switching to the Belarusian dialect, where this rule applies as the norm, hypercorrections occur; c) In the Polish dialect, speakers consistently replace ų with l in past-tense verb forms, and replace ų with f before consonants and at the end of a word. Informants have no difficulty switching to Belarusian: l in past-tense verb forms is replaced with ų, while f before consonants and at the end of a word is replaced with ų. For members of the older generation, replacing ų with f is difficult, so this occurs in two stages: ų – φ – f. This is because the native dialect of the oldest informants did not have the sound f; d) In some words of the Polish dialect, o is replaced with i, while in some Belarusian words, i is replaced with o. This change occurs consistently, especially when switching from Belarusian to Polish. Some words are leveled by analogy. The sound u becomes established where it is morphologically motivated. Here, too, a pronunciation result unusual for speakers of the Polish dialect is evident; e) When switching from Belarusian to Polish, ǻ is replaced with xł, whereas when switching to Belarusian, xł is replaced with xi. In this case, too, fluctuations and “errors” were observed when switching from Belarusian to Polish. This shows that older speakers encounter a new sound that is unfamiliar to them. 7. The local Lithuanians in the areas studied had a good command of postu and the local Polish dialect. The Slavic dialects they use feature the same very soft ś, ź, ć, ʒ́, which are “preserved” in almost all cases, that is, when the same informants speak Polish, Belarusian, and Lithuanian. 8. A characteristic feature of the Lithuanian dialect is the absence of the phoneme [x]. Cases in which x is confused with k have been recorded in Belarusian and Polish dialects. It is likely that the frequent confusion of x and k in the Polish dialect is one of the signs of a Lithuanian substratum. L I T E R A T U R E Aliūkaitė Daiva, Mikulėnienė Danguolė 2014: Geolingvistika: ideologija, teorija ir metodika. Pagrindinės sąvokos. – XXI a. pradžios lietuvių tarmės: geolingvistinis ir sociolingvistinis tyrimas, 29–41. Aliūkaitė Daiva, Mikulėnienė Danguolė 2014: Geolektų ir regioninių dialektų formavimosi ypatumai Lietuvoje (XIV žemėlapis ir komentarai). – XXI a. pradžios lietuvių tarmės: geolingvistinis ir sociolingvistinis tyrimas, 257–622. Czekman Walery 1973: Akane. Istota zjawiska i jego pochodzenie. – Slavia Orientalis XIX(3), 283–305. Straipsniai / Articles 75 NIJOLĖ TUOMIENĖ Čekmonas Valerijus 1981: Apie fonetinių pakitimų dinaminių modelių struktūrą. – Kalbotyra XXXII(2), 54–62 [пер. на лит. язык работы № 52]. Čekmonas Valerijus [Чекмонас В.] 1988: Функционирование языков и билингвизм (На материале романсских говоров). – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 27, 37–54. Čekmonas Valerijus, Grumadienė Laima 1993: Kalbų paplitimas Rytų Lietuvoje. – Lietuvos rytai. Vilnius: Valstybinis leidybos centras, 132–137. Čekmonas Valerijus, Grumadienė Laima 1997: Lietuvių kalbos tarmių ir jų sąveikos tyrimo programa. Sociolingvistika. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Čekmonas Valerijus, Gudaitė Jūratė, Šmitienė Giedrė 1998: Vilniaus krašto dainos baltarusių ir lenkų kalbomis. – Tautosakos darbai VII (XV), 200–213. Dejna Karol 1973: Dialekty polskie, red. Anna Komska. Wrocław: Drukarnia Naukowa. Gaučas Petras 2004: Etnolingvistinė Rytų Lietuvos gyventojų raida: XVII a. antroji pusė – 1939 m. Vilnius: UAB „Inforas“. Grumadienė Laima 1996: Sociolingvistinis dabartinės šnekamosios lietuvių kalbos tyrimo aspektas. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 36, 190–197. Grumadienė Laima 2001: Ar kalbos likimą lemia kalbų sąveika? – Paribio kalbų ir tarmių problemos (ats. red. J. Švambarytė). Tarptautinės mokslinės konferencijos, skirtos Europos kalbų metams, pranešimai. Šiauliai, Šiaulių universitetas, Dialektologijos centras, 38–44. Grumadienė Laima, Tuomienė Nijolė 2004: Lietuvių valoda kā reģionāla valoda Baltkrievijā. – Language Poly and Sociolinguistics. „Regional Languages in the New Europe“, red. T. Wicheriewicz. Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference, 1. Rēzekne / Latvia, 20–23 May 2004, t. 1, 124–133. Grumadienė Laima 2005: Kodėl kaita lietuvių tarmėse. – Valoda-2006. Valoda dažadu kultūru kontekstā. Zinātnisko rakstu krājums XVI. Daugavpils: Saule, 42–48. LKA I – Atlas of the Lithuanian Language 1. Lexicon, ed. in chief Kazys Morkūnas. Vilnius: Mokslas, 1977. LKA II – Atlas of the Lithuanian Language 2. Phonetics, ed. in chief Kazys Morkūnas. Vilnius: Mokslas, 1982. LKTeh – Bacevičienė Rima, Ivanauskienė Audra, Leskauskaitė Asta, Trumpa Edmundas. Anthology of Lithuanian Dialects, ed. in chief Laima Grumadienė. Vilnius: Publishing House of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language, 2004. 76 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXX Fonetikos išlyginimas vykstant kodų kaitai Karas Halina 2007: Sytuacja języka polskiego na Litwe dziś. – Językpolski jako narzę-dzie komunikacji we współczesnym świecie, red. Jan Mazur, Małgorzata Rzeszuto-Iwan. Lublin: Wydawn. Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej, 207–224. Plyvaka Lilija 2014: Baltarusių kalbos dialektai. – XXI a. pradžios lietuvių tarmės: geolingvistinis ir sociolingvistinis tyrimas, 228–237. Rutkovska Kristina 2014: Ленų kalbos paplitimas ir vartojimo ypatumai. – XXI a. pradžios lietuvių tarmės: geolingvistinis ir sociolingvistinis tyrimas, 216–227. Tuomienė Nijolė 2006: Ramškinių šnekos kodų kaita. – Kalbos kultūra 79, 161–172. Tuomienė Nijolė 2008: Ramšonių šnekos tekstai. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Tuomienė Nijolė 2010: Ramšonių šnekos duomenys: sociolingvistinis tyrimas. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Urbanavičienė Jolita 2011: Adutiškio – Kamojų arealas – kalbinė tapatybė lietuvių ir baltarusių paribyje. – Kalbotyra 63(3), 95–114. Urnežė Rita 198: Code-switching in the speech of the people of Joniškis. – Kalbotyra 47(1), 131–140. www.dialektologia.uw.edu.pl/ (ed. Halina Karaś) Zinkevičius Zigmas 1966: Lietuvių dialektologija. Vilnius: Mintis. Гымадене Лайма 1990: Методические замечания об исследовании балто-славянского пограничья. – Беларуска-руска-польскае супастаўляльнае мовазнаўства (ред. Л. М. Бардацкий). Матэрыялы Першай усесаюзнай навуковай канферэнцыі (17–19 ліпеня 1990 г.). Віцебск, 126–130. ЛіГБГ – Лінгвістычная геаграфія і групы беларускіх гаворак, ред. Р. Аванесаў, Ю. Макевіч. Мінск: Навука і тэхніка, 1969. Коницкая Елена 1994: Некоторые особенности интерференции в условиях белорусско-польского двуязычия: говор Малининской апилинко. – Kalbotyra 4(2): Lituano-Slavica. Язык и Культура. Контакты, 76–84. Коницкая Елена 2018: От Медининкай до Вандзогали: экспедиции в польскоязычные ареалы Литвы в 1990-1997 гг. – Valerijus Čekmonas: kalbų kontaktai ir sociolingvistika, sud. Laima Kalėdienė. Савич Микола 1990: О языковой ситуации в одном из ареалов юго-восточной части Вильнюсского района. – Kalbotyra 41(2), 41–47. Straipsniai / Articles 77 NIOLĖ TUOMIENĖ Савич Микола 1992: Так мы жили (Medininkų apylinkės baltarusių tarmių tekstai). – Kalbotyra 43(2), 45–67. Судник Тамара (ред.) 1980: Балто-славянские этноязыковые контакты. Москва, 1980, 206–226. Чекман Валерий 1970: История происхождения на ўвершаці-мякаці ў беларускай мове. Минск. Чекман Валерий 1973: Фонетические особенности говоров села Колесники Эйшишского района Литовской ССР. – Польские говоры в СССР, ч. I: Исследования и материалы 1967–1969 гг. Минск, 29–43. Чекман Валерий 1973: Деревня Озерки – язык и люди. К проблеме литовско-белорусско-польской языковой интерференции. – Польские говоры в СССР, ч. II: Исследования и материалы 1969–1971 гг. Минск, 40–72. Чекман Валерий 1980: К проблеме литовско-белорусской фонетической интерференции в Пелесе. – Балто-славянские этноязыковые контакты, ред. Т. М. Судник. Москва, 206–226. Чекман Валерий 1982: Типологические основания реконструкции. Автореферат диссертации доктора филологических наук. Москва. Чекмонас Валерос 1989: Аканье (яканье) и редукция безударных гласных неверхнего подъема. – Kalbotyra 40(2), 84–92. Phonetic Leveling in the Context of Code-switching SUMMARY The article addresses the phonetic phenomena of the language varieties functioning in borderland areas and their interaction. Two varieties of Slavic languages – Belarusian and Polish – dominate and actively compete between themselves in the areas of the Voronava district in Belarus. The influence of the passively used Lithuanian language can be easily recognised in the articulation base of the two Slavic languages. The study investigates the situations of natural communication in the context of code-switching: when speakers are fluent and speak several languages at the same time and actively switch between the languages in conversations. By applying the methodology proposed by Valerijus Čekmonas, it is revealed that the reasons of convergence of the phonetic phenomena of the language varieties functioning in the area are mainly sociolinguistic. 78 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXX Phonetic leveling during code-switching The peculiarities of the local Belarusian dialect prostu are not the phonetic phenomena newly formed in one or another location. By the characteristic phonetic features, the Belarusian local dialect of the Voranava district is close to the great majority of Belarusian dialects. This dialect is essentially undivided: the language of the older, middle and younger generation is basically the same. The phonetic features of the local Belarusian dialect, with the exception of fricative γ, ɑ fronting phenomena and u, also exist in the local Polish dialect. The consonant systems of these dialects differ in peripheral layers only: in the local Polish dialect, the phones f – f̆ contrast with k – k̆, g – ğ due to hardness-softness; due to the voiced-voiceless opposition, they contrast with k – g and x – γ in the local Belarusian dialect. The principal composition of phonemes and the phonemic characteristics of sounds correspond to these phonemes as well as the comparison of Polish and Belarusian phonetic peculiarities lead to the conclusion that they are equivalent: the phonetics of local Polish and Belarusian dialects is essentially the same. The reconstruction of the switching from one language to another showed that local Belarusian-speaking residents picked up the Polish language as foreign rather than native. The study revealed that the phonetics of the local Polish dialect varies not due to its internal independent development but due to the influence of the Polish literary language. The difference between the language of the older, middle and younger generation is evident. By several major features the later ones bring their Polish language closer to the literary language. Unstressed vowels which go next to stressed ones are reduced, though due to the stable stress in the Polish language, the quality of adjacent vowels usually does not change. However, not a single isogloss links this local Polish dialect with any range of Polish dialects on the territory of Poland. The characteristic features of the local Polish dialect could not develop on their own, because that would be contrary to the principal development tendencies of most of the Polish dialects and the known laws of typology. The local Lithuanians from the areas in question were fluent in prostu and the local Polish dialect. The same soft ś, ź, ć, dź, which are “preserved” in nearly all cases, can be heard in the local Slavic dialects used by them, i.e. when the same informants speak Polish, Belarusian and Lithuanian. The characteristic feature of the local Lithuanian dialect is the absence of the phoneme [x]. There were cases recorded in local Belarusian and Polish dialects when x is confused with k. It is likely that the intensive confusion of x and k in the local Polish dialect is one of the features of the Lithuanian substratum. Received on February 25, 2019. N I J O L Ė T U O M I E N Ė Institute of the Lithuanian Language 5 Petro Vileišio St., LT-10308 Vilnius, Lithuania nijole.tუმ[email protected] Straipsniai / Articles 79