VYTAUTAS KARDELIS

Vilnius University

Research areas: dialectology, synchronic and diachronic phonology, language history, cognitive semantics.

RYTIS AMBRAZEVIČIUS, ASTA LESKAUSKAITĖ

ACOUSTIC FEATURES OF CONSONANTS: PALATALIZATION AND SONORITY

Kaunas: Technologija, 2014, 312 p.

ISBN 978-609-02-1135-9

In 2014, the Technologija publishing house published the scholarly monograph Acoustic Features of Consonants: Palatalization and Sonority. by Prof. Dr. Rytis Ambrazevičius of Kaunas University of Technology and the Lithuanian Academy of Music and Theatre, and Dr. Asta Leskauskaitė, senior research fellow at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language. Even before this monograph, the pairing of a music and speech acoustician and ethnomusicologist with an experienced dialectologist specializing in phonetics and phonology had published joint scholarly works in acoustic phonetics. The aforementioned monograph, reviewed here, is the substantial result of the two scholars’ collaboration.

The preparation of the monograph was supported by the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language with funds from the 2016–2015 State Language Standardization, Usage, Development and Dissemination Programme. The monograph was reviewed by experienced phonetics specialists Prof. Dr. Asta Kazlauskienė, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Lina Murinienė, and Dr. Jurgita Jaroslavienė.

The monograph consists of an “Introduction,” two substantial chapters, “Consonant Palatalization” and “Consonant Sonority,” “Conclusions,” as well as a bibliography, an index of surnames, a subject index, a glossary, and an English-language summary.

The “Introduction” briefly surveys research on the acoustic features of consonants worldwide and in Lithuania; it states the subject and aim of the study, discusses the research material and methodology, and indicates which author prepared each chapter of the monograph.

296

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVI

Rytis Ambrazevičius, Asta Leskauskaitė. Priebalsių akustinės ypatybės: palatalizacija ir balsingumas

The monograph’s structure is clear, logically organized, and reader-friendly. As far as possible, the first and second chapters are coordinated. Both begin with a section entitled “General Information” and conclude with a “Summary.” The first chapter, “Consonant Palatalization,” examines the palatalization of sonorants, fricatives, stops, affricates, and consonant clusters. The second chapter, “Consonant Voicing,” analyzes the voicing of fricatives, stops, affricates, and consonant clusters. Thus, the first chapter consists of seven sections, while the second has six sections that correlate with one another to a greater or lesser extent. It should also be noted that both chapters, and the sections comprising them, are divided into two parts: one concerns the palatalization and voicing of consonants in Standard Lithuanian (the term the authors use is “general language”), and the other concerns consonants in Lithuanian dialects (the Southern and Eastern Aukštaitian Vilnius and Utena subdialects). At the beginning of each chapter, general features are discussed (for example, general features of palatalization, general features of fricative palatalization, general features of consonant voicing, general features of cluster voicing, etc.); this is followed by one section devoted to analyzing the relevant acoustic feature of consonants in Standard Lithuanian, and another devoted to Lithuanian dialects. This structure is maintained consistently throughout the monograph and is, of course, commendable. It makes the work easier, especially for readers interested, for example, only in the standard language or only in dialects. In addition, this structure makes it easy to find and compare the same or different features from various perspectives. The partial index also contributes considerably to the book’s usability.

In what follows, I will briefly list other aspects of the monograph under discussion that I consider positive.

a) The monograph makes a very good impression with its theoretical approaches and insights, presented skillfully and concisely, and its use of both classic and recent theoretical works in acoustic phonetics. Theory is firmly and reliably linked to methodology: the methodological aspects are well-founded and elegantly connected with the empirical material under investigation.

b) Another positive feature is its engagement with typology: the authors draw on research into other languages (Russian, French, English, etc.), including the methodologies and findings of those studies. Admittedly, they avoid overly detailed comparisons, but Lithuanian is immediately placed in a broader typological context—as a kind of set of guidelines for future research.

c) It is important that the classic and more recent works of Lithuanian phoneticians are not overlooked: the authors draw on them and engage in discussion with their authors. Nor are the works of Latvian colleagues, some of them produced jointly with Lithuanian colleagues, left out.

d) It is gratifying that questions of terminology are not neglected (questions of linguistic terminology are always relevant in the Lithuanian linguistic sphere, especially because of the great variety of terms and, at times, inconsistency and

Recenzijos / Reviews

297

VYTAUTAS KARDELIS

the resulting confusion). The authors strive to explain clearly terms, some of which are new or not yet established in Lithuanian phonetics literature; they also offer what they consider to be the most suitable alternatives, with supporting arguments.

e) One more point must be emphasized, and the monograph’s authors themselves mention it: “This monograph can be used both as a starting point for further, more detailed studies and, in part, as a teaching and methodological resource” (p. 14). Although the monograph is, on the whole, written at a level accessible to specialists in phonetics, some parts—especially the introductory section at the beginning—can certainly be used for teaching purposes. These sections also complement in a useful and elegant way the methodological publication issued in 2011 by one of the monograph’s authors, R. Ambrazevičius: Kalbos akustika glaustai. Perhaps the most important and most commendable feature is the “Glossary” at the end of the monograph—a valuable resource for students taking a phonetics course.

f) It is important that the monograph contains abundant illustrative material that objectively substantiates the authors’ research, arguments, and insights.

g) The study of consonant clusters with respect to palatalization and voicing deserves particularly positive assessment, especially the research based on dialectal material. Here, the authors offer important insights and raise issues that merit further investigation not only by phoneticians but also by dialectologists and phonologists.

h) The study of material from Standard Lithuanian and dialects, and the comparison of the results, should also be viewed positively in principle. This approach has its advantages and raises certain questions for discussion—which is itself another strength of the monograph.

i) Another positive aspect of the study should also be emphasized. It is stated in the introduction (“The monograph focuses primarily on distinctive features, that is, not on tendencies but on clear-cut differences,” p. 13) and reflected in the conclusions (“Nevertheless, when describing the features of consonants belonging to various classes, one should use not just a single research method but a combination of methods,” p. 264). The search for differences viewed through the lens of complexity is a welcome methodological approach.

And now a few points and thoughts for discussion that arose while studying the monograph under review.

a) I have no critical comments to make about the research methodology—the monograph’s authors have mastered it superbly. However, the selection of material could be a subject for discussion. The study of Standard Lithuanian drew on the recordings on the compact disc accompanying Aldonas Pukis and Antanas Pakeris’s book Lietuvių kalbos bendrinė tartis. Kompaktinės plokštelės tekstai (2004). The dialectal material was studied using audio recordings of the spontaneous speech of seven male informants. The authors of the monograph state: “First of all, it should be said that this study is based not on recordings made under ideal conditions (isolated or artificial

298

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVI

Rytis Ambrazėvičius, Asta Leskauskaitė. Prebalsių akustinės ypatybės: palatalizacija ir balsingumas

…in sequences), as is customary in acoustic phonetics studies, whereas the sounds used in spontaneous speech (monologues, dialogues)—consonants” (p. 11). It is quite difficult to accept that the criterion of spontaneity applies to dialect speech, but I would question applying this criterion to standard speech. In this case, standard speech is not entirely spontaneous. After all, the CD was recorded by an announcer, and the purpose of the recording is clear—standard Lithuanian pronunciation; thus, one may assume that the announcer was subject to certain requirements and that the pronunciation was intended to be exemplary. Therefore, it is hardly possible to speak of the kind of spontaneity found in dialect recordings in the case of standard speech. Indeed, the authors themselves say that “Undoubtedly, the phenomena under discussion may also be affected by the different degree of expressiveness of spontaneous dialect speech and an actor’s demonstrative speech” (p. 62). After all, the standard inherently demands as little variation and optionality as possible, whereas spontaneous dialect speech moves precisely in this direction. Nevertheless, this kind of comparison is quite interesting and valuable in principle. To be honest, this comment concerns the terminology rather than the study itself. In any case, the reader is clearly told what material is being studied and compared. Dialect speech was studied using “<...> informants from the oldest generation, selected at random (average age—70 years)—they best preserve traditional dialect features” (p. 12). Theoretically—yes; in practice—not necessarily. Moreover, it would have been more interesting and perhaps more valuable not to adhere so strictly to the NORM criterion. Perhaps the results would then have been more interesting and better reflected the actual state of the dialects.

b) Another comment, also more related to terminology, concerns the use of the terms palatal, palatalized, palatalization, and soft, hard. They are used interchangeably in the monograph, although, in my view, it would have been better to choose only palatal, palatalized, palatalization.

c) Although the monograph is clearly a work of phonetics, here and there one also encounters a phonological term, for example, opposition, distinctive features, relevant position (pp. 14, 20, 38, 41). At times, the discussion veers somewhat toward perceptual phonetics, introducing the term perception (pp. 33, 36, 53, 54, 86). The term recognition sometimes gives one pause and prompts the question of whether a perceptual aspect is meant here, or the “phonetic” recognition of a sound, that is, by its spectrum (cf. p. 54)—after all, experienced phoneticians can tell a great deal about a sound by looking at its spectrum. Perhaps such digressions are not in themselves a serious problem, but they somewhat disrupt the coherent phonetic concept and structure of the monograph. Moreover, it is sometimes difficult to determine whether a term is being used in a phonetic or phonological context—for example, depalatalization (p. 61). There are occasional formulations that are inaccurate from a synchronic perspective, for example: “It should be remembered that in the South and East Aukštaitian dialects the sequence lė is pronounced hard” (p. 68)—if it is pronounced lė, it is not a “hard” sequence.

Recenzijos / Reviews

299

VYTAUTAS K A R D E L I S

d) The final point for discussion is more closely related to the monograph’s dialectological material and its analysis. The authors have intuitively identified a problem (cf. “In the eastern margins of the South and East Aukštaitian Vilnius-speaking areas, the opposition between hardness and softness is variable, so some historical and assimilation-induced soft consonants preceding vowels may be pronounced differently,” p. 42), but they have not formulated it fully and clearly. The problem—or, more precisely, an important aspect of the study and a linguistic phenomenon—is variation and the optionality of certain linguistic phenomena in spontaneous speech. Anyone familiar with empirical material on Lithuanian dialects, I think, can clearly see that one of the most characteristic features of Lithuanian dialects is not only the classical diatopic, diastratic, and diaphasic variation, but also the abundance of optional, competing variants, characteristic of virtually every level of language structure. It is also very important that optional, competing variants occur in the speech of one and the same informant. Such competition is particularly characteristic of the East Aukštaitian Vilnius-speaking dialect, although, as noted above, it is essentially characteristic of the entire Lithuanian-speaking area. Although the authors clearly understand the importance of individual informants’ speech characteristics, cf. “Thus, an informant’s individual speech characteristics may determine the values of the F2 loci of pre-vocalic consonants, so these should be calculated, averaged, and interpreted with caution” (p. 124), the monograph seems to give insufficient attention to variation in general and to optionality and competing variants in particular. Nevertheless, these comments are intended more for the future: as they continue their work, the authors of the monograph might consider them separately.

In concluding this brief review, I would like to wish my colleagues continued success in their work and to hope that they will delight the linguistic community with new research findings. The monograph under discussion and the results of the research it presents challenge not only phoneticians to raise their game but also prompt phonologists to consider how the latest findings in acoustic phonetics can be incorporated into phonological theory and practice.

Received 3 June 2017.

VYTAUTAS K A R D E L I S

Vilniaus universitetas Filologijos fakultetas

Universiteto g. 5, LT-01513 Vilnius, Lietuva

[email protected]

300

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVI