Lietuvių kalbos garsų fonologinės interpretacijos

ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA XLVI (2002), 1–17 Phonological Interpretations of the Sounds of the Lithuanian Language Kazimieras Garšva Lietuvių kalbos institutas, Vilnius The article deals with a number of controversial issues of Lithuanian phonology. Attention is paid to the phonological interpretation of (1) peripheral phonemes, (2) vowel quantity, (3) diphthongs (especially the rising diphthongs [ie] and [uo]), (4) affricates and (5) the correlation of palatalization. 0. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS The article discusses the phonemes of the Lithuanian language (vowels, consonants), their variants, and combinations of phonemes (diphthongs, diphthongoids). The phonological system of Lithuanian is essentially unified. There are few phonological differences among the dialects. They exhibit more regular sound changes and often have fewer peripheral phonemes. Linguists from different periods and phonological schools have described Lithuanian phonemes using different criteria and consequently report different numbers of phonemes. The phonological system of Standard Lithuanian has been said to contain between 5 and 14 vowels, up to 6–8 diphthongs, 33–45 consonants, and also 2–3 pitch accents (cf. Klimas 1970; Ambrazas, ed. 1997: 23, 29). The number of phonemes depends on whether the following phenomena are considered independent phonemes and assigned to the segmental level: a) vowel quantity, i.e. long and short vowels, b) diphthongs and affricates (combinations of vowels and consonants), c) palatalization (velarization) of vowels, diphthongs, and consonants, d) vowels and consonants occurring only in loanwords. The phonological system of the dialects is even more complex and less studied. The phonology of the Aukštaitian dialects (especially the southern ones) is more similar to the standard language than that of Samogitian. Our methodology is based on the position of the Prague, Moscow, and Lithuanian schools of phonology that only what is heard and distinguished by the human ear is important to language. Sound properties that cannot be heard, perceived by hearing, or distinguished cannot be phonological elements of a language—they do not exist in the language system (see Girdenis 1995: 248). Some phonemes are difficult to distinguish from prosodemes. Non-segmental features differ from segmental ones in duration. Non-segmental (prosodic) phenomena of language may be longer than a phoneme (for example, word stress, phrase intonation) or shorter than a phoneme (for example, the mora, recognized by some linguists as part of a long vowel phoneme). Phonetic units longer than a phoneme are called suprasegmental (in Lithuanian, viršsegmentiniai, ‘oversegmental’), and those shorter than a phoneme are called subsegmental (Garšva 1977: 6–7). 2 | KAZIMIERAS GARŠVA 1. VOWELS 1.1. Phonemes and peripheral phonemes The vowel system of Standard Lithuanian is as follows: /iː/ /uː/ /i/ /u/; /eː/ /oː/ ([ɛ]) (/ɔ/); /eː/ /aː/ /e/ /a/ In the diagram, parentheses enclose peripheral phonemes, used only in loanwords, and positional variants. Stressed and unstressed phonemes can contrast with one another in quality and quantity, cf.: tìs – tōs – tē·s – tàs, vìs – vē·s – vō·s – vìs – vès, sė·ko – sā·ko – sūko, tí·ko – tē·ko – tā·ko – tiko – tūko, etc.; nòsi – nōsis, dì·dis – didìs, lì·s – lìs, šì – šì, skì·rù – skirù; kel̃·ù – kel̃ù, til̃·ù – til̃ù, tū – tū, lū·pa – lūpa, pū·s – pūs, dur̃·ù – dur̃ù; mè·s – mès, kā·te – kā·te; mā·žas – mažàs, mā·no – māno, rā·stu – rāstu; pō·ra – pōra (word pairs that differ not only in vowels but also in consonant hardness and softness are not minimal pairs). The long and short high vowels /iː/: /i/, /uː/: /u/ and low vowels /eː/: /e/, /aː/: /a/ alternate both within the same word and in words with different meanings. The long phoneme oː occurs in words of native origin, while the short peripheral phoneme (/ɔ/) is pronounced only in international words; therefore, the opposition /oː/: (/ɔ/) occurs in only a few words with different meanings: jó·do – jōdo, jō·nas ‘Jonas’ – jōnas, sō·da ‘sodą’ – sōda; šōko – šōko, tōlis – tōlis. Thus, minimal pairs with the peripheral phoneme (/ɔ/) differ in prevalence (there are considerably fewer of them) and distribution (they occur only in words with different meanings). The vowel [ɛ], pronounced by a small number of Standard Lithuanian speakers and therefore not forming even a single minimal pair used by all speakers of Standard Lithuanian or a dialect, should be regarded as a facultative variant of the vowel /e/, cf.: mėtras / mętras, ėšelōnas (ęšelōnas perhaps no one pronounces it), ėstas – ēstas / ęstas, gęstu · ‘gestų’ – gēstu / gęstu (cf. Kazlauskas 1966: 74; Girdenis 2000: 105). Three principal classes of vowels can be distinguished (two of them according to tongue movement): 1) front /iː/, /i/, /eː/, /e/, /ɛ/, /e/, /i/, /e/ and back /uː/, /oː/, /aː/, /u/ (/ɔ/), /a/; 2) high /iː/, /uː/, /i/, /u/, mid /eː/, /oː/, (/ɔ/) and low /e/, /aː/, /e/, /a/; 3) long /iː/, /uː/, /eː/, /oː/, /eː/, /aː/ and short /i/, /u/, (/ɔ/), /e/, /a/. 1.2. Variants of the vowels [eː] and [aː], [ɛ] and [a] In Aukštaitian dialects, [eː], [ɛ] and [æː] ([à·]), [æ] ([à]) may be positional rather than facultative variants. But even after a palatalized consonant, the variants of vowels [a] and [e] are often not merged in Standard Lithuanian and in the East Aukštaitian dialects. E. Mikalauskaitė (1975: 24) had already written in 1964 that “in this position almost all of Lithuania knows how to pronounce [aː],” i.e. distinguishes, for example, the verb siaũbia (inf. siaũbti) from the vocative of the noun siaũbe (nom. sg. siaũbas). Of the 167 people we surveyed, 151, or 90.4%, pronounced the final vowel in kelia as the open a (9.6% pronounced closed e). Of 15 Lithuanian linguists, the word pairs suñkę – suñkią, gilė – gilià, žymės – LIETUVIŲ KALBOS GARSŲ INTERPRETACIJOS | 3 žym ias, jei – jai, etc. was distinguished by 9–12 people (the majority) (Garšva 2001: 142–148). It is hardly justifiable to interpret this pronunciation as bookish. This pronunciation already seems to be becoming not artificial, but to a considerable extent universal. Pagal A. Pakerio Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos fonetikos (1986: 56, 62) vadovėlį aukštųjų mokyklų lituanistai mokomi, jog „žodžio viduje ir gale po minkštųjų priebalsių balsį [a·] pakeičia balsis [e·]“, o balsį [a] – [e]. Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatikoje (Ambrazas, red. 1997: 23, 24) teigiama, jog po minkštųjų priebalsių balsiai /a·/, /a/ neknyginėje tartyje dažniausiai sutampa su /e·/, /e/, plg.: gilias – gilės, seniai – seneli, o „daugelyje tarmių, dažniausiai ir bendrinėje kalboje, balsių /a·/: /e·/ ir /a/: /e/ opozicija po visų priebalsių neutralizuojama: pozicijoje [C’–] /a· a/ dažniausiai tariami kaip /e· e/, o junginių su nepalatalizuotu priebalsiu ir ē nebūna“. Vakarų aukštaičiai kauniškiai, sudarantys bendrinės kalbos fonetikos pagrindą, po minkštojo priebalsio žodžio gale balsio [a] dažniausiai, rodos, nesuplaka su [e], pvz.: pėkšč’a ‘pesčia’, plauk’a. Galinis [ā] (< [a]) tariamas ne tik Lietuvos Respublikos plote, bet ir pačiose rytinėse vilniškių šnektose, kurioms lietuvių bendrinė kalba turėjo arba mažą įtaką, arba jokios (pavyzdžiui, Uodegėnuose): švin’c’a ‘švenčia’, rai.k’a ‘reikia’. Thus, it cannot be claimed that some speakers, under artificially created conditions, are able to distinguish /a·/, /a/ from variants of /e·/, /e/ at the end of a word solely according to principles reflected in the orthography. In the word root, these positional variants are clearly distinguished, for example, by the Northern Panevėžys dialect speakers: aš ‘I am’ – ėš ‘you are’, gė·r ‘good (fem.)’ – gė·r ‘drinks’, gã·r ‘good (fem.)’ – gė·r ‘good (masc. pl.)’, nėš ‘I carry’ – nėš ‘you carry’. At the end of a word, Panevėžys dialect speakers pronounce a closed e: mė· ‘me’ (a sound-word), láime ‘happiness’. Opinions coincide only regarding [e·], [e] at the absolute beginning of a word in the standard language, where vowel quality does not change. For [e·], [e] in stems and at the end of words, there are at least four recommendations by linguists: 1) at the absolute beginning of a word, at the absolute end, and before palatalized consonants, pronounce a close (tenser, fronter) [e], and before non-palatalized consonants an open [e] (K. Garšva); 2) the second opinion largely accords with the first, but recommends pronouncing only e at the end of a word (A. Girdenis); 3) pronounce long and half-long (in diphthongs) [e·], [e·] as [a·], [a·], and short vowels as [e] (V. Vitkauskas); 4) write and pronounce [e·], [e] everywhere (V. Vaitkevičiūtė; [a·], [a] are sometimes possible only as optional variants, and were previously also permitted at the end of a word – A. Pakerys). The resolution of this question affects not only standard-language pronunciation, but also the description of morphonological phenomena. 1.3. Vowel Quantity In all Lithuanian dialects, long and short vowels are distinguished in stressed syllables, while in unstressed syllables long vowels either remain long or shorten to half-long or short. There are four interpretations of long and short vowels—they are regarded as: 1) separate phonemes (by the majority of Lithuanian and other linguists); 2) a vowel of “neutral” duration and ·This phenomenon occurs in the Southern Aukštaitian dialect. When discussing the pronunciation of vowels and diphthongs in the standard language, where the influence of spelling needs to be emphasized or sources using simplified transcription are cited, consonant palatalization is marked with the symbol <i>. 4 | KAZIMIERAS GARŠVA ilgumo požymio (prozodemos) junginiu (Svecevičius 1964: 25–26 ir t. t.); 3) morfemų skiriamuoju požymiu (Garde 1968: 161); 4) viena trumpąja fonema (mora) ir dviejų morų junginiu (Trubeckoj 1960; Heeschen 1968; Kenstowicz 1970). Pirmuoju ir ketvirtuoju atvejais kiekybė priskiriama segmentiniam lygmeniui, antruoju ir trečiuoju – viršsegmentiniam lygmeniui (prozodijai). Each of the approaches mentioned has its own advantages and disadvantages (they are listed here in order of reliability). Of the four interpretations, we choose the one with the fewest disadvantages—the first. This is also more consistent with experimental data (Pakerys 1995: 26–73), according to which only low vowels [eˑ]: [e], [ɑˑ]: [ɑ] differ more in quantity (length–shortness), whereas high vowels [iˑ]: [i], [uˑ]: [u] differ in quality (tenseness–laxness). Longer vowels are tenser. Six vowel types are distinguished in the standard language: I, U, E, O, Æ, A. Each type would consist of two phonemes differing in spectrum (tenseness–laxness). This idea was developed in detail by A. Girdenis (1967: 4, 1981: 131), J. Kazlauskas (1968: 13, 14), and especially A. Pakerys (1986: 27–37 et seq.), who distinguished long–tense and short–lax vowels. In Lithuanian, a vowel belonging to a particular morpheme often retains the same quantity. This misled P. Garde (Garde 1968: 160–165), who regarded quantity as a property not of vowels, but of morphemes. This interpretation is also precluded by the fairly numerous exceptions in word roots; cf.: gir'a ‘grove’ – gí·rė ‘praised’, lí·ti ‘to rain’ – líjo, kí·la ‘rises’ – kilo, bū·na ‘is’ – bū·vo, kà·sa ‘digs’ – kàs ‘what’. In word endings, vowel quantity depends on the word form; cf.: gen. pl. namų ‘of houses’ – instr. sg. namù, ví·ru ‘with a man’ – ví·ru ‘with men’, nom. sg. lí·gus ‘equal’ – nom. pl. lí·gu·s ‘equal (plural)’ etc. Fonetiko V. Artiomovo mokinys B. Svecevičius (1964) kiekybę laikė intonacijos požymiu. Kiti tyrėjai šio požiūrio neparėmė. Phonologists have observed that prosodic units are characterized by variability (stress placement), gradience (long, half-long, short), and only one distinctive feature (vowels and consonants have more). The opposition between long and short vowels in the standard language occurs under uniform conditions. Quantity is determined within the span of a single phoneme and can therefore be considered a distinctive feature of vowel phonemes (Girdenis 1995: 252). When moving from the phonological to the morphological level, it becomes clear that quantity, like stress and pitch accent, also belongs to certain morphemes; for this reason, these phenomena might—with exceptions—be termed “morphoprosodemes.” Dialects in which the quantity opposition has survived only in stressed syllables provide further support for a prosodic interpretation of quantity. For example, in the Northern Panevėžys dialect, long, half-long, and short vowels are clearly distinguished (there is a three-length system), but any given vowel can have no more than two phonological degrees of length. In the stressed (strong) position, high and low vowels form a quantity opposition (I), whereas mid vowels do not form an opposition (II): I 1. The vowels [iˑ], [iˑ], [uˑ], [u] are long and half-long (see examples below; Garšva 1977: 80); 2. The vowels [eˑ], [e], ([æˑ], [æ]), [ɑˑ], [ɑ] are long and short; LIETUVIŲ KALBOS GARSŲ INTERPRETACIJOS 5 II 3. Vowels [ẹˑ] ([ɛˑ]), [oˑ] are stressed only when long; 4. Vowels [ẹ] ([ẹ]), [ọ] are stressed only when short. The place of the short vowels [ẹ], [e], [ọ], [a] in the vowel system can be explained in two or even three ways: 1) on the basis of qualitative similarity, they could be linked to the long vowels [ẹˑ], [eˑ], [oˑ], [aˑ]; 2) on the basis of alternation in the same morpheme with the vowels [i.], [eˑ], [u.], [aˑ], the sounds [ẹ], [e], [ọ], [a] could be considered positional (retracted-stress) variants of these vowels; 3) the short [ẹ], [ọ] could be assigned to neither group and considered independent phonemes. The vowels [ẹ], [ọ] alternate in the same morpheme not with the vowels [eˑ], [oˑ] (as the long and short [e], [a] alternate with each other), but with the vowels [i.], [u.], cf.: sk’ẹr’ ‘I distinguish, you distinguish’ – s’kì.r’ ‘he/she distinguishes’, s’kẹˑr’ ‘a skė̃rį’; k’ọr’ ‘I create, you create’ – kù.r’ ‘he/she creates’, k’ọr’ ‘a kõrį’; therefore, only the vowels [e], [a] can be linked to the long vowels. The short vowels [ẹ], [e], [ọ], [a] could be considered positional variants of the vowels [i.], [eˑ], [u.], [aˑ] only if they belonged to an imagined category of two stress types, which largely corresponds to the diachronic category of primary and retracted stress. But, thinking synchronically, we “do not know” which stress is primary and which is retracted; moreover, as our auditory experiments show, these stresses are now barely distinguishable by ear, and their observed differences can be marked solely by pitch accents. Furthermore, not only long but also short (half-long) vowels can bear either primary or retracted stress. In primary-stress position, half-long [i.], [u.] can occur in any syllable of a word, whereas the vowels [ẹ], [e], [ọ], [a] remain short when stressed mostly in the final syllable, though they also occur in syllables farther from the end of the word (in verbs derived from ideophones, cf. trèptalėja ‘he/she gave a little stomp’, in words borrowed from other languages, cf. làtvė ‘Latvia’, and in some dialect areas in the comparative suffix of adjectives -ėsnis, -ė). If short vowels under primary stress mostly remain only in the final syllable, under retracted stress these vowels occur not only in the final syllable but also in the penultimate syllable, and their shortness in syllables farther toward the beginning of the word is likewise often not accounted for. The unstressed position provides the definitive answer regarding the status of the vowels [e], [ọ]. The unstressed vowels [i] – [e], [u] – [ọ] are free variants, and therefore in stressed position as well (where the opposition between these vowels is not neutralized), the vowels [ẹ], [ọ] must be considered short variants of [i.], [u.]. The vowels [e], [a], like the long [eˑ], [aˑ], are independent phonemes. In the Panevėžys dialect, the same stressed position has an opposition between long and half-long vowels or between long and short vowels (neutralized only in a final open syllable), and vowel quantity would be a distinctive feature belonging to the phonemes. Vowels that can be stressed only when long ([eˑ], [oˑ]) or only when short ([ẹ], [ọ]) do not form a length–shortness correlation. (On the basis of only the vowels [eˑ], [oˑ], which shorten in an unstressed syllable, quantity could also be assigned to the suprasegmental level.) When the long–half-long [iˑ], [i.], [uˑ], [u.] vowels are contrasted, minimal pairs distinguish words with different meanings only, e.g.: skìla ‘hole’ – skì.la ‘split’, mùš ‘the Mūša River’ – mù.š ‘fight’; thus, under stress these vowels retain the same quantity. The long and short phonemes /eː/, /e/, /aˑ/, /a/, by contrast, most often distinguish forms of the same word (which are most numerous in 6 | KAZIMIERAS GARŠVA the language) and much less often different words, e.g.: kė'l ‘he/she raises, you raise, to raise’ – kèl ‘of several roads, several roads’. Stressed short vowels can occasionally be lengthened in the same position to nearly half-long, especially when the syllable is emphasized intonationally, but this does not change the word’s meaning. Such lengthened vowels may be regarded as facultative variants of short phonemes, sometimes also carrying stylistic significance (similarly, formerly long vowels [i·], [ė·], [u·], [o·] are very rarely pronounced half-long rather than short in an unstressed syllable; they are facultative variants of short positional variants, e.g.: gi.vi'bės ‘lives’, bù.vo.m ‘we were’). When they bear primary or secondary stress, dialect vowels retain greater length or become lengthened. But everywhere there are phonemes of only two lengths, while all other sounds are positional variants (cf. Kazlauskaitė 2001; Kazlauskienė 2001). Descriptions positing three lengths of low-vowel phonemes are incorrect. Dž. Treigeris (Trager 1940: 31; 1941: 139–141) lietuvių ir latvių ilguosius balsius laikė dviejų elementų grupėmis (dvigubais junginiais), o chorvatų kalboje kiekybę atskyrė nuo fonemos ir laikė prozodema. Kiekybę prozodema (trukme besiskiriančia nuo fonemų) daugiausia laikė Prahos ir Londono kalbinių mokyklų atstovai. Amerikos deskriptyvistai, Maskvos fonologinės mokyklos atstovai kai kurių kalbų kiekybę priskyrė segmentiniam lygmeniui (Kuznecov 1970: 339–344). Attempts are also made to divide long vowels into 2–3 morae. According to mora theory, long vowels are a combination of two identical short phonemes (morae) belonging to a syllable. It began to be applied to “polytonic” languages because the two stress types (pitch accents) were supposedly found not only in diphthongs (combinations of two phonemes), but also in long vowels. The tone supposedly rises on the stressed mora: stress on the first mora is acute, and on the second, circumflex. This theory is not applicable to Lithuanian because pitch accents are not entirely dependent on stress: they are not a feature of words or forms, but an additional feature of certain morphemes that is only weakly associated with stress. The pitch accents of diphthongs differ more in the quality of the same first element than in a contrast between the first and second elements. The long vowels [o·], [ė·] have no equivalent short counterparts of which they could be composed (Girdenis 1995: 259–260). Our language has proved not to be tonal; moreover, because the contrast differs, the role of pitch accents in diphthongs and vowels differs fundamentally. In Lithuanian, two adjacent short vowels are rarely contracted into one (cf. paakėti, priiminėti – pasilsėti ‘to rest’), which allows long vowels to be considered independent phonemes (Kuznecov 1970: 344). A. Baranauskas (Baranovskij 1898: 21–23) vienmorais laikė trumpuosius balsius, dvi­morais – pusilgius, trimorais – ilguosius balsius. Fonetškai tokios abstrakcijos proporcijos įmanomos, bet nėra tikslios: pusilgė balsis žodžio viduje, gale ir nekirčiuotas, pavyzdžiui, uteniškių tarmėje, ilgesnis už trumpąjį 2,1, 1,7, 1,9 karto, ilgasis balsis – 2,4, 2,1, 2,7 karto (Girdenis 2001: 270). Panevėžiškių tarmėje labai trumpėja ir redukuojami nekirčiuoti balsiai. J. Stepanov distinguished monomoraic, bimoraic, and trimoraic vowels, and explained A. Leskien’s laws of metatony in terms of morae (see Rodionov 2001: 432–433). In modeling historical accentuation, J. Stepanov argued that the acute occurred in a two-mora syllable and the circumflex in a three-mora syllable. When stress was retracted to the left, one mora was lost, LIETUVIŲ KALBOS GARSŲ INTERPRETACIJOS 7 and the accent in the second mora from the left of the syllable was changed from acute to circumflex. It is difficult to persuasively justify metatony in terms of morae. The intriguing mora theory has proved unsuccessful in every European language with pitch accents: neither in Latvian (cf. Ivanov 1959: 134), nor in Serbian or Croatian (Kuznecov 1970: 343–344), nor in the North Scandinavian languages (Kacnel’son 1966: 37–38, 120–121). 2. D I P H T H O N G S 2.1. Mixed diphthongs and compound diphthongs The greatest problem concerns the phonological interpretation of diphthongs in some Indo-European languages. In English, German, Romanian (cf. Gordina 1966: 174–175; Głušak 1966: 379–381), Lithuanian, and other languages, diphthongs are treated either as phonemes or as sequences of two phonemes; alternatively, some are treated as phonemes and others as vowel sequences or their variants. In Baltic studies, a consensus will probably soon be reached, since both sides of the debate have their own arguments. The number of linguists who adhere to one view or the other does not mean very much in this case, since it depends on how many students a scholar has trained. In Lithuanian, tautosyllabic diphthongs [ie], [uo], compound diphthongs [ai], [au], [ei], [ui], [eu], [oi], [ou] (the last three occur only in international words; cf. Ambrazas, ed. 1997: 22), and mixed diphthongs are distinguished. The first element of mixed diphthongs consists throughout Lithuanian of short vowels [i], [e], [u], [a], and the second of sonorants [l], [r], [m], [n]. Mixed diphthongs [il], [ir], [im], [in], [el], [er], [em], [en], [ul], [ur], [um], [un], [al], [ar], [am], [an] and compound diphthongs are undoubtedly sequences of two phonemes. They occur only before consonants and at the end of a word (before a pause), while before vowels they split into two syllables: kíl–ti: ki–lo, kél–ti: kė–lia, kūl–ti: kū–lia, kál–ti: kà–la (diphthongs split less often: badū–ti: badà–vo (all derivatives with the suffix –auti), gáu–ti: gā–vo, sáu: sa–vė, ū–ti: ū–ja). The components of both types of diphthong are replaced by other phonemes, e.g.: gilti: gulťi: gelti; šalti: šelti:šilti; kalti: kar­ti: kašti; kaito (: krito): kálto: kárto; válgai: válgei: válgiui; máuti: málti, and so on. Because of vowel alternation, both parts of a diphthong may change within the same morpheme: kìlti: kỳla, slenka: slinko, málti: mìltai, pláuti: plóvė, and so forth. Unlike diphthongs of the mixed type, compound diphthongs very rarely split into two syllables. This also happens with long vowels (lȳ–ti: lī–jo, žū–ti: žū–vo), so this and the other arguments are merely supplementary. However, there are other arguments for the two-phoneme status of compound diphthongs: they are longer than long vowels (and tautosyllabic diphthongs; see Pakerys 1986: 190); at the end of a word, and even within it, their second component may alternate with the consonants j, v: dative singular túrgui: locative túrg uje, táu: távo, sáu: sávo, sudiėu: su Dievù, ù–ti: ù–ja, gáu–ti: gá–vo. For this reason, the second components of compound diphthongs are proposed to be treated as variants of the phonemes /j/, /v/. Pirmojo akademinės gramatikos leidimo (Ulvy das, red. 1965: 57) teiginiai, jog sudėtinių dvibalsių abu dėmenys priklauso tik tam pačiam skiemeniui, yra nedalūs ir panašaus ilgumo kaip ilgieji balsiai – ne visai pagrįsti. • Prosodic elements prevent certain pairs from being considered minimal. 8 | KAZIMIERAS GARŠVA 2.2 Homogeneous diphthongs [ie], [uo] These sounds, as their classification also indicates, differ both from compound diphthongs and from vowels. In their properties, they are intermediate between diphthongs and vowels. They are linked to diphthongs by their two (three in the transitional type: [iea], [uoa]) component parts and by the fact that they have no short counterparts, have variable height (which cannot be determined precisely), and are somewhat longer than long vowels. In secondary-school textbooks, [ie], [uo] are considered diphthongs (cf. Kondratas 2001: 15–16, 61, 179–180; Sirtutaitė 1999: 59, 62; Palubinskienė, Čepienė 2001: 31); in university textbooks, they are considered phonemes (Girdėnis 1981: 59–60; Girdenis 1995: 83–87), or phonetically diphthongs but phonologically a single phoneme (Petkevičienė 1993: 3, 4, 9). The merging components and the phonetically and phonologically similar tones (the stressed components do not lengthen) bring homogeneous diphthongs closer to vowels. At the boundary between a prefix and a root, diphthongs may occur before vowels and other diphthongs: priežežis, prieangis, prieaušris, núoara, núoalpis, núoauga, etc. (cf. Girdenis 1981: 60; Pakerys 1986: 188), pusiáaugis, sáuėda (Tekorius 1985: 131–132). But these are not significant phonological contexts. In my view, commutation of the components of homogeneous diphthongs (replacement by other phonemes) is a more formal, incidental, and therefore less essential element in proving or disproving the two-phoneme status of ie, uo. This circumstance also brings them closer to sequences of two phonemes occurring in one syllable. It has been observed that the second component of [ie], [uo] may be contrasted with the elements of other diphthongs or mixed diphthongs: kiẽtis – kìrtis, dúoti – dúiti – dùrti – dùnti, kuokėlė – kulkėlė, kuõpti – kùmpti, lúotas – lùtas, tiẽk – tìlk – tìrk – tìšk, dúok – dùmk – dùrk, etc. For incomprehensible reasons (Girdenis 1983: 151), it is not accepted that the first component of these diphthongs can also be replaced by the consonants [r], [s], [ž], although L. Hjelmslev had already drawn attention to this (Hjelmslev 1936–1937: 28; cf. also Kazlauskas 1966: 73–76; Buch 1998: 11–12, etc.), e.g.: iẽną – sęną – pẽną, iẽžė – vẽžė, puõtą – prõtą, skúodžia – skródžia – skrãdžiai; pietūs – prãtus, úodas – sõdas, uolà – salà – žalà, úodo – bãdo – rãdo, uõgą – nãgą – sãgą – vãgą, úosti – kãsti – rãsti (– kósti)*. In the historical alternation of compound diphthongs and mixed diphthongs, only one component participates (the first; cf. Pakerys 1986: 191, 193), but no one therefore proposes treating them as vowels. Homogeneous diphthongs [ie], [uo] can also form an opposition with vowels: liẽti – lýti – lóti, liẽsti – lįsti – lẽsti, liẽpti – liuõ[p]lti ‘to feed’ – lìpti – lẽpti – ló[p]lti ‘to grow wealthy’, plienas – plýnas – plónas, skiẽstą – skýstą – skùstą, šviẽsti – švìsti – švẽisti, tiẽ – tuõ – tì – tõ – tã, tiẽkti – tuõkti – tìkti – tẽkti – tùkti, iẽsė – tẽsė – tãsė, dúoti – dėti, púodas – pìdas – pėdas – pėdas, pùotą – pùtą, etc. This cannot be an argument in favor of either of the two views, since by this reasoning we could prove not only the “single-phoneme status” of [ie], [uo] but also the “two-phoneme status” of all other diphthongs and vowels. Yet diphthongs are often replaced by a vowel, and vowels by a diphthong, e.g.: bañdo – báido – bùdo – bãdo, jáuko – juõko – jùko, reĩkia – riẽkia – rẽkia, žándas – žiẽdas – žýdas, laũpo – láipo – lẽipo – liẽpo(s), kaĩs – keĩs – kiñs, káimas – kélmas – kiẽmas, teĩs – tiẽs – tìrs, vaĩkas – viẽkas – * The last four pairs would be suitable only if we regarded the second component of diphthongs [ie], [uo] as the vowel [a] (cf. LKA II 77). LIETUVIŲ KALBOS GARSŲ INTERPRETACIJOS 9 vilkas – viškas. Syllable and word structure permits only certain sequences of phonemes. For example, in initial consonant clusters, consonants [m], [t], and others occur only after s (cf. smók – stók), and no one requires them to switch places in commutation. Nuosekliai laikantis N. Trubeckojaus fonemų skyrimo taisyklių (1960, 62–66, 207), fonema nereikėtų laikyti bent dvibalsio [uo], kadangi jis gali skilti, kaip ir kiti dvigarsiai, į du skiemenis. Bū­tajame kartiniame laike [uo] suskyla į du skiemenis darinio priesagoje -úoti, -úoja, -ávo, plg.: ga–ruo–ti – ga–rã–vo, va–žiúo–ti – va–žiã–vo (panašiai kaip priesagoje -áuti, -áuja, -ávo, plg. badáuti, badauja, badãvo). Atkreiptinas dėmesys ir į kamiengalio -uo kaitą su priesaga -uva: akmuõ / akmuvà, ruduõ / ruduvà, sesuõ / sesùvà, šuõ / šùvà, tešmuõ / tešmuvà ir panašiai. Daugelyje šnektų gali pasitaikyti abu žodžio variantai. Priesagos -uva atsiradimą čia įmanoma aiškinti ir fonetiškai: tarp dviejų balsių, kaip ir kitais atvejais, išpraustas priebalsis [v]. There are no such examples with the diphthong ie in Lithuanian; cf. dúo–ti – dã–vė, ei–ti – ė–jo, but lie–ti – lie–jo. This occurs only in Latvian; cf. siet ‘to bind, tie’ – sē–ja ‘binds, ties’. The homogeneous diphthongs [ie, uo] are slightly longer than long vowels. Compound diphthongs are somewhat longer still—a result of their low vowels [a, e]. According to A. Pakerys (1982: 52), the ratio of stressed acute long vowels, homogeneous diphthongs [ie], [uo], and compound diphthongs [au], [ai], [ei], [ui] in standard language is 1: 1.12: 1.25; for unstressed forms, 1: 1.09: 1.15; while the ratio for stressed circumflex forms is the smallest, at 1: 1.02: 1.08. Similar data have also been obtained in the southwestern Lithuanian dialects (Atkočaitytė 2000: 99; Leskauskaitė 2001: 122). In the Šakiai dialect, polyphones are longer than the corresponding monophthongs at a ratio of 1.61: 1. Inversely, they coincide with diphthongs [ai, au], and therefore should be interpreted in the same way. Dialect data do not fundamentally alter the interpretation of [ie], [uo]. For example, in the southern and western Samogitian, Panevėžys, Utena, and other dialects, unstressed [ie], [uo] are most often monophthongized (northern Samogitian, conversely, diphthongizes ė, o), but this can also happen with other diphthongs: cf. Samogitian vã:ks ‘child’, Panevėžys gražė(s’) ‘beautifully’, mãto(s) ‘I see’, kiekviẽns / kekviẽns / kikviẽns ‘everyone’, stegvì. lė / steigvì. lė ‘Steigviliai’, etc. Diphthong monophthongization has occurred in the dialects of various languages: Lithuanian, Latvian, Slavic, Tocharian, Arabic, and others (Schmalstieg 2001: 145–146, 225). A monophonemic interpretation of the homogeneous diphthongs of some languages was proposed as early as 1929 (Trubetzkoy 1929: 55), although not every homogeneous diphthong should be considered a single phoneme (Vachek 1936). Treating the Lithuanian sounds [ie], [uo] as a single phoneme has been proposed since 1965 (Trost 1965; Smoczyński 1978; Kosienė 1978: 30–31; Kačiuskienė 1982: 41; Girdenis 1983: 152; 1995: 85–87; Leskauskaitė 2001: 23; Smoczyński 2001: 211–213). The strongest argument for the single-phoneme status of [ie], [uo] ¹ The diphthong [uo] in the examples dúo–ti – dã–vė, šlúo–ti – slã–vė (like the diphthong [au], cf. ãu–ti – a–vė, gáu–ti – gã–vo, mãu–ti – mó–vė) could be considered a sequence of /a/ and /v/, except that, unlike [au], its components “switch” places because of word-structure rules. We could take these lexical exceptions into account only if we accepted a two-phoneme interpretation of long vowels, since a similar sound alternation occurs more frequently here; cf. gý–ti – gi–jo, bú–ti – bu–vo. ² Northern Panevėžys speakers say rõdov ‘reddish-brown’, šóva ‘dog’, but àkma / àkem ‘stone’, piema / piem ‘herdsman’. 10 | K A Z I M I E R A S G A R Š V A For now, the issue is their accentual pronunciation (as with vowels, the leveling of accents), but this entails a different structure for the tautosyllabic and disyllabic diphthongs. Other authors believe that [ie], [uo] are more accurately interpreted as sequences of two sounds (e.g., Hjelmslev 1936–1937: 28; Schmalstieg 1958; Hamp 1959: 200; Kazlauskas 1966: 75–79; Heeschen 1968: 216; Kenstowicz 1969: 5; 1970: 79; 1972: 3–4; Garšva 1977: 67–69; Pakerys 1982: 48; LKA₁₁ 77; Tekorius 1985: 125–133; Salys 1992: 30; Zinkevičius 1994: 85; Markevičienė 1999:12; see also Buch 1998: 11–12; Girdenis 2001: 399). Until around 1985, this view also prevailed in scholarly Lithuanian grammars, where [ie, uo] are called diphthongs. They consist of two vowels, which can be partly replaced by other phonemes and are somewhat longer than long vowels. The diphthong [uo] can be divided into two syllables. All these arguments indicate that it is appropriate to continue treating the tautosyllabic diphthongs [ie], [uo] of the standard language and all dialects not as vowels but as diphthongs, and not as one phoneme but as two. Even if one does not agree with all the claims presented, the opposing view alone should not be promulgated in grammars, textbooks, and other popular publications. In many linguists’ works, the discussion of the phonological interpretation of [ie], [uo] is treated incompletely, and few arguments (especially new ones) are offered to support a position; therefore, less significant articles are not mentioned here. In dialectology, it remains important to record and summarize dialect data as accurately as possible, and only then to interpret it objectively in theoretical terms. Phonemes are generally considered to be sounds that can no longer be divided into smaller sounds occurring one after another. 3. C O N S O N A N T S 3.1. Affricates The history of affricates and their phonological interpretation have provoked relatively little debate, although it is unclear which interpretation is preferable. Our study clarifies the differing realization of soft [tʲ], [dʲ] as affricates [cʲ], [dzʲ] in different Lithuanian dialects. In pronunciation and frequency of use (they occur more often in loanwords), the standard language’s affricates /c/, /cʲ/, /č/, /dz/, /dzʲ/, /dž/ are closer to peripheral consonants. Affricates do not occur at the end of a word, and few occur at the beginning of a word (except in sound-symbolic words such as kčic, škic, and the like). Before /č/, /dž/, the voiceless /s/ and voiced /z/ are converted to /š/, /ž/; cf. ankšti – ank[š]čiai ‘earlier’, pavyzdž‘s – pav[ž]džiu ‘of examples’. Soft [tʲ], [dʲ] before back vowels are used only in rare foreign words and sound imitations, and are thus variants of the hard phonemes /t/, /d/; cf. t'ulénti ‘to cheep’ (of the sound made by goslings). In words of Lithuanian origin, [tʲ], [dʲ] are used According to studies of phoneme frequency in standard Lithuanian, [ie], [uo] can be regarded both as combinations of phonemes and as independent phonemes (Girdenis 2001: 67, 182–193). LIETUVIŲ KALBOS GARSŲ INTERPRETACIJOS 11 only before front vowels and palatalized consonants, whereas before back vowels they are now pronounced as [č'], [dž'], cf.: bull – jauč'o (< *jaučia), tree – medž'o (< *medja), cat – kačių, herself – pačių. According to the distribution of the affricates [č'], [dž'] (in Dzūkian dialects – [c'], [dz']) and palatalized consonants [t'], [d'] in words of Lithuanian origin (non-loanwords), both pairs of sounds can be regarded morphonologically as realizations of the palatalized phonemes /t'/, /d'/. There is a relationship of complementary distribution between [č'] ([tš']) and [t'], and between [dž'] and [d']: the affricates occur before back vowels instead of the palatalized consonants found before front vowels. This interpretation is criticized because it reflects a somewhat earlier phonological system of Lithuanian and also fails to conform to the rules governing consonant clusters; there are exceptions (Girdenis 1995: 79–80; Ulvydas, ed. 1965: 28). But it also has advantages, as it helps better interpret the sounds [č'], [dž'], which stand apart from the phonological system (in Lithuanian words in the standard language and central dialects, they have no hard counterparts equivalent to those of other consonants). In Dzūkian dialects, [č'], [dž'], and in the Southern Aukštaitian dialects also [t'], [d'] are replaced by [c], [dz]. The distribution of the sound [c] in peripheral dialects differs from that of [dz], as well as from that of [č'], [dž']. The Dzūkian consonant [c] occurs in many positions: word-initially (cf. cik / cīk ‘only’), word-medially (paskučinis ‘last’), word-finally (šė·c' / šė·c ‘to sow’), and in dialects that harden consonants more, also before back vowels (vowels shifted toward the back). In the word pats, final consonants in these dialects and in Western Samogitian are reduced to [c] (LKT 399, 404, 138). Word-medially (in the combination of the prefix at- and the reflexive particle -si-), all Lithuanians pronounce [c'] instead of [ts'] (acitráuk ‘withdraw’, acinėša ‘brings along’—the cluster [ts] may be pronounced here by analogy with the spelling). Affricates /c/ (/ts/), /č/ (/tš/), /dz/, /dž/ are even called consonant diphthongs (Pakerys 1986: 194, 208). Their second element ([s], [š]) can theoretically be replaced by another phoneme, cf. tšýpti, tšýpti – trypti. It would be inappropriate to regard affricates as sequences of two phonemes because their two theoretically distinguishable parts are fused and even differ from the sequences [ts], [tš] (cf. bàč – dialectal bàts, pãts – cf. pãcs ‘pacas, pacus’). The components of affricates are not distinguished in any position. Their duration is close to that of other consonants. In the standard language, affricates generally occur within morphemes, whereas consonant clusters occur at morpheme boundaries (in different positions). Only phonotactic rules prevent affricates from being treated phonologically as consonant clusters (Kliukienė 1997: 153–189). The eastern and southern Lithuanian dialects, which border Slavic languages, stand out from other Lithuanian dialects for their consonant diversity: the hardening of consonants and dzūkavimas. In the Uodegėnai dialect, consonants [t'], [d'] before [i], [ie], [æ] are converted to [c], [dz] considerably more often than in the Ciškodas dialect and the southern environs of Daugpilis (though perhaps somewhat less often than in the neighboring Breslauja–Ápso dialect). In this respect, these dialects differ from the Ciškodas and Rimšė, Dūkštas, Palūšė, Ignalina, and other dialects that do not convert [t'], [d']. It is assumed that the assibilation of both types of [t'], [d'] was caused by strong palatalization of those consonants, i.e., [c'], [dz'] arose before vowels of the i type in place of [t'], [d'] (Zinkevičius 2002: 343). In our view, this arose due to the influence of neighboring Slavic dialects. 12 | KAZIMIERAS GARŠVA 3.2. Palatalization and depalatalization of consonants All consonants, except for the invariably soft (palatal, alveolo-palatal) [j], have hard and soft counterparts. Hard and soft consonants differ before back vowels. This is their distinctive position. The hard–soft consonant correlation is neutralized: 1) before all consonants; 2) before front vowels; 3) at the end of a word. In the first position, consonants may be hard or soft depending on the consonant preceding them (except /k/, /g/); in the second, they are only soft; in the third, they are hard, e.g., š'ir.sta – š'ir.st'i, š'ir.sk. In Baltic and Slavic languages (Lithuanian, Russian, etc.), hard consonants, which are phonologically unmarked, are more common, while soft consonants are marked. According to some experimental data, consonants are phonetically softest before the following vowels: [iˑ], [eˑ], [i], [e], [uˑ], [u], [aˑ], [aˑ] (the vowels are listed in decreasing order of their consonant-softening effect). The most widespread view is that consonant softness is an additional articulation. In Proto-Baltic, positional consonant softening was absent; this state of affairs has persisted in Latvian, while weak consonants were softened in Proto-Slavic (cf. Kurylowicz 1956: 236–239; Zinkevičius 2002: 257–262; Urbanavičiūtė 1997: 159). In other, more recent studies, consonant softening is regarded not as an innovation but, on the contrary, as an archaic feature (Sawicka, Grzybowski 1999: 98–102; Sawicka 2001: 153–154). The proportion of soft consonants varies among Slavic languages. It increases from southwest to northeast toward the former and present territory of the Baltic languages, reflecting different stages of consonant softening. Latvian consonants are not divided into hard and soft, because there are few of the latter. Latvian consonants (except in the Latgalian dialect) are almost unaffected by preceding front and fronted vowels; positional softness does not arise here. Latvian has only three (or two) pairs of hard and soft consonants: /l/ – /ļ/, /m/ – /m̧/, /r/ – /ŗ/ (some linguists regard softened /ŗ/ as an independent phoneme, others as a facultative variant of the phoneme /r/, cf. Girdenis 2000; Kabelka 1987: 68, etc.). There are also the soft consonants /ķ/, /ģ/. Among all consonants in Baltic and Slavic languages, /k/ and /g/ stand out. It is thought that these (and perhaps /š/, /ž/; cf. Zinkevičius 2002: 261; Urbanavičiūtė 1997: 158) softened before front vowels earlier than other consonants, while among soft consonants they retain their hard articulation because of their velar articulation. All other consonant groups in Lithuanian are either hard or soft (and assimilated in this respect), and differ markedly from those of neighboring Slavic languages, where, following the loss of reduced vowels, hard and soft consonants can form an opposition before a consonant. It is hypothesized that Lithuanian consonants softened substantially only in the 17th–19th centuries under the influence of East Slavic languages (the author of this article doubts this; cf. Zinkevičius 2002: 261). Secondary depalatalization is also taking place on the margins of the Lithuanian-speaking area as a result of neighboring-language influence. Under the influence of Belarusian, the soft consonants /rʲ/, /šʲ/, /žʲ/, as well as /čʲ/, /džʲ/, /tʲ/, /dʲ/, have disappeared or are disappearing; under the influence of Polish, /ś/, /ź/, /ć/, /dź/, /ć/, /dzʲ/, /rʲ/ have likewise disappeared or are disappearing. Lithuanian dialects were also influenced by German and Latvian. Three areas of peripheral Lithuanian dialects stand out in terms of the number of consonants that undergo hardening: a) Uodegėnai, Kamojai, where 17 (16) consonants are hardened and 10 vowels are retracted after them; b) Pùnsko (up to 14 consonants and 8 vowels, respectively); and c) Àpso, Daugpils, LIETUVIŲ KALBOS GARSŲ INTERPRETACIJOS 13 the Cískodas, Tverėčias–Vidžiai, and Kliukščionys dialects, where 12 to 10 consonants become hardened and the quality of 6 to 4 vowels changes as a result. In the Lithuanian dialects of Latgale (especially in the Kraslava district), almost all consonants can become hardened. According to the frequency and positions of hardening, they fall into three groups: 1) /r/, /s/, /š/, /z/, /ž/ are often hardened before all front and fronted vowels; 2) /l/ is hard before /e/, /ė/; 3) /c/, /č/, /d/, /dž/, /p/, /t/, /v/, /z/, and sometimes /b/, /g/, /k/, /m/, /n/ are occasionally hardened before [i], [e], [a], [u]. The consonants in the Lithuanian dialects of Latgale are sometimes hard, while the vowels have as yet undergone less noticeable changes, cf.: pažįsta, rugėjau. The consonants /r/, /s/, /š/, /z/, /ž/ and others may also be hard in consonant clusters before a soft consonant, cf.: mùrtė ‘to die’, marškin’alei ‘shirts’, geresniù, pjaùstie ‘cut’. Soft consonants /c/, /č/, /r/, /s/, also often remain, cf.: gėr’ci, dunc’ùs ~ dančius ‘teeth’, tùoč’ies, dur’ìm, nùm’ir’ie, r’iekie / r’ùekie ‘slice, shouted’, š’ašasdašbm ‘sixty’, s’ediekit ‘sit down’. These features indicate that the hardening of consonants (except /l/) is a relatively recent phenomenon that is still developing sporadically under the influence of other languages. Consonants are hard or soft, and vowels are front or back, at the absolute beginning of a word and after non-front (hard) sounds. Hard and soft consonants and front and back vowels form a kind of “complementary distribution”: consonants are soft before front vowels (and soft consonants), while front vowels follow soft consonants. Consonants may be hard or soft after any vowel (cf. dãro, dãr’e, bì’ra, bì’r’ės), while front and back vowels are pronounced before any consonant. Therefore, the feature of palatalization can be assigned to both consonants and vowels (and it must be considered which is more appropriate). In addition, two other interpretations of this feature have been described in Baltic and Slavic languages: one involving the consonant [j] and a suprasegmental one. All these interpretations have both advantages and disadvantages. The consonantal type of interpretation is traditional and accepted in both Baltic and the Slavic languages most closely related to it. Assigning palatalization to vowels would be more economical: instead of 15 soft consonants, the Lithuanian phonological system would be augmented by only 3 fronted vowels [ù], [ò], [ã]. The iotated interpretation is more suitable historically (though not in every case). The correlation between hard and soft consonants arose when j disappeared between a Lithuanian consonant and a back vowel. Dialects preserved j after labial consonants at the beginning of a word (cf. bjaurùs, pjaùti), while the Vilnius dialects, Southern Samogitian, Lietuvininkai, and Latvian also preserved it at morpheme boundaries, cf. upe ‘river’ – upju ‘of rivers’. The iotated interpretation of softness would be contradicted by the introduction in this case of word-initial clusters of four consonants, entirely uncharacteristic of Lithuanian, cf. /strjūkas/ ‘striukas’. When there are no convincing arguments for assigning the feature of palatalization to vowels (which would be more economical) or to consonants (which would be more appropriate grammatically), it would be justified to assign this feature to the suprasegmental level (prosody), since it spans an entire syllable (not just one phoneme, but two, three, or four; cf. s't'r'ù–kis) and even two syllables (cf. àlp'–t'i, in Northern Panevėžys dialects àr’–kel’s’ ‘horse’ and àr–kels ‘plough’). This interpretation better captures the mutual relationship between consonants and vowels and reduces the inventories of consonants by nearly half and vowels by a third. 14 | KAZIMIERAS GARŠVA Prof. A. Girdenio (2000) nuomone, nė vienos šių keturių interpretacijų negalima laikyti „vienintele teisinga“. Fonologijos požiūriu jos visos yra pagrįstos ir visos leidžia tiksliai interpretuoti ir fiksuoti kalbos faktus. Bet ne visos šios interpretacijos vienodai reikšmingos. Kalbotyrai tenka rinktis tik vieną interpretaciją – įprastinę, nekomplikuojančią kalbos praktikos. Taigi tikslingiausia minkštumo požymį palikti lietuvių kalbos priebalsiams. 4. SUMMARY Lithuanian has 10 vowel phonemes (6 long and 4 short) and one peripheral phoneme (short [o]), used only in words of foreign origin. The occasional use in these words of a narrower facultative variant of the vowel [e] does not form a minimal pair used by representatives of any majority variety of the standard language or of any dialect. It is simpler to interpret vowel quantity by assigning it to the segmental level. Additional evidence for this is provided by the eastern Aukštaitian dialects, in which vowel quantity depends more on stress. We hold that a supersegmental interpretation of a particular phonological feature is necessary only when it is impossible to identify a phoneme—the center of the phenomenon. There are even more reasons to regard the diphthongs [ie], [uo] as sequences of two phonemes: they can be partly replaced by other phonemes (although this is debated), and the diphthong [uo] can also split into two syllables. According to some of the most recent instrumental studies, these diphthongs are somewhat longer than long vowels. Following the principle of the smallest inventory, we treat suspected segments as sequences of two phonemes whenever this makes it possible to describe the phonological system more logically, consistently, and systematically. In complementary distribution is a broader variant of the vowel [e], often pronounced before hard consonants. In Standard Lithuanian and in many dialects, there are now 45 consonants, of which 31 are phonemes and 14 are peripheral phonemes, pronounced in recent loanwords, interjections, and onomatopoeic words. LIETUVIŲ KALBOS GARSŲ INTERPRETACIJOS | 15 The peripheral consonants [tʲ], [dʲ], [f], [fʲ], [x], [xʲ], [h], [hʲ] and many affricates (like the peripheral vowel [ɔ]) occur only in recent loanwords, interjections, and onomatopoeic words. On the basis of distinctive features—manner and place of articulation—nine groups of consonants are distinguished: hard–soft, voiceless–voiced, sonorants–nonsonorants, fricatives–nonfricatives, nasal–oral, affricates–nonaffricates, labial–nonlabial, front-tongued–back-tongued, alveolar–dental. Hard and soft consonants and front and back vowels form a kind of “complementary distribution”: soft consonants occur before front vowels (and soft consonants), while front vowels follow soft consonants. The feature of palatalization extends over an entire syllable and sometimes even two syllables, cf. alʲpʲ–tʲi. For this reason, this “assimilation” in softness could also be assigned to the supersegmental level. We suggest retaining the feature of softness on consonants by tradition, since this solution does not complicate language practice. The hardening of consonants in peripheral varieties of Lithuanian was stimulated by neighboring Slavic languages. The soft affricates [čʲ], [dźʲ] can be considered either phonemes with limited distribution or sequences of two phonemes. Their two parts are fused, and phonetically they may not coincide with the sequences [ts], [tš]. The duration of affricates is close to that of other consonants. In Standard Lithuanian, the affricates [c], [cʲ], [č], [dz], [dž] resemble peripheral consonants, while in the southern and eastern dialects they are soft or hard phonemes. ABBREVIATIONS LKA – Atlas of the Lithuanian Language 2: Phonetics, ed. K. MORKŪNAS, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1982. LKT – Lithuanian Dialects: A Reader, ed. E. GRINAVECKIENĖ, K. MORKŪNAS, Vilnius: Mintis, 1970. LITERATŪRA AMBRAZAS, V., red. 1997: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika, Vilnius: Mokslas. ATKOČAITYTĖ, D. 2000: Pietų žemaičių raseiniškių fonologinė sistema: prozodija ir vokalizmas, daktaro disertacija, Vilnius: Vilniaus pedagoginis universitetas. BARANOVSKIJ, A. 1898: Заметки о литовском языке и словаре, Санкт-Петербург: Императорская Академия Наук. BUCH, T. 1998: Opuscula Lithuanica. Wydał Wojciech Smoczyński, Warszawa: Uniwersytet Warszawski, (Baltica Varsoviensia, 1.) ČEKMAN, V. A. 1975: О йотации в праславянском и балтийских языках. Baltistica 11 (1), 63–76. GARDE, P. 1968: L’accent, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. GARŠVA, K. 1977: Akcentuacijos ir vokalizmo sąryšis šiaurės vakarų panevėžiškių tarmėje. Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 17, 76–88. GARŠVA, K. 2001: Bendrinės kalbos tarties problemos. Poliakovas, O., red., Žmogus kalbos erdvėje, Kaunas: Vilniaus universiteto Kauno humanitarinis fakultetas, 143–148. GIRDENIS, A. 1967: Keturios lietuvių kalbos priebalsių minkštumo fonologinės interpretacijos. Spalio revoliucija ir visuomeniniai mokslai Lietuvoje, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos ir literatūros institutas, 613–615. GIRDENIS, A. 1968: Fakultatyviniai balsiai Mažeikių tarmėje. Kalbotyra 19, 51–54. GIRDENIS, A. 1981: Fonologija, Vilnius: Mokslas. GIRDENIS, A. 1983: Теоретические основы литовской фонологии, диссертация д-ра филол. наук, Вильнюс: ВГУ. GIRDENIS, A. 1995: Teoriniai fonologijos pagrindai, Vilnius: VU. 16 | Kazimieras Garšva Girdenis, A. 2000: Kalbotyros darbai 1, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Girdenis, A. 2001: Kalbotyros darbai 3, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Glušak, T. S. 1966: К проблеме фонологической интерпретации дифтонгов. Шаумян, С. К., ред., Исследования по фонологии, Москва: Наука, 376–384. Gordina, M. V. 1966: О различных функциональных единицах языка. Шаумян, С. К., ред., Исследования по фонологии, Москва: Наука, 172–183. Hamp, E. P. 1959: Buiv zde Lithuanian Phonemes. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 1–2, 195–202. Heeschen, C. F. E. 1968: Einführung in die Grundprobleme der generativen Phonologie mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der litauischen Phonologie: Inaugural-Diss. zur Erlangung der Doktorwürde, Bonn: Friedrich Wilhelms-Universität. Hjelmslev, L. 1936–1937: Accent, intonation, quantité. Studi Baltici 6, 1–57. Ivanov, V. V. 1959: О прерывистой интонации в латышском языке. Sokols, E., ed., Rakstu krājums. Veltījums akadēmiķim Prof. Dr. Jānim Endzelīnam... Rīgā: Latvijas PSR Zinātņu Akadēmijas izdevniecība, 133–148. Kabelka, J. 1987: Latvių kalba, Vilnius: Mokslas. Kacnel’son, S. D. 1966: Сравнительная акцентология германских языков, Москва–Ленинград. Kačiūskienė, G. 1982: Vakarinių šiaurės panevėžiškių balsių kiekybė ir jos fonologinė interpretacija. Kalbotyra 33 (1), 39–45. Kazlauskaitė, R. 2001: Žemutinio pakilimo balsiai Pašuvio šnektoje. Kalbotyra 50 (1), 43–52. Kazlauskas, J. 1966: Lietuvių literatūrinės kalbos diferenci­nių elementų sistema. Kalbotyra 14, 73–81. Kazlauskas, J. 1968: Lietuvių kalbos istorinė gramatika, Vilnius: Mintis. Kazlauskienė, A. 2001: Šalutiniai kirčiai vakarų aukštaičių kauniškių tarmėje. Kalbotyra 50 (1), 53–66. Kenstowicz, M. 1969: Lithuanian Phonology. Ph.D. Thesis, Urbana (Ill.): University of Illinois. Kenstowicz, M. 1970: On the Notation of Vowel Length in Lithuanian. Papers in Linguistics 3 (1), 73–113. Kenstowicz, M. 1972: Lithuanian Phonology. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 2 (2), 1–85. Klimas, A. 1970: Some attempts to inventory Lithuanian phonemes. Magner, Th. F., Schmalstieg, W. R., eds., Baltic Linguistics, University Park–London: Pennsylvania State University Press, 93–102. Kliukienė, R., sud. 1997: Lietuvių kalbos fonetikos skaitymai, Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas. Kondratas, B. 2001: Lietuvių kalbos taisyklės. Mokinio knyga, Vilnius: Presvika. Kosienė, O. 1978: Uteniškių tarmės balsinės fonemos. Kalbotyra 29 (1), 29–40. Kuryłowicz, J. 1956: L’apophonie en indo-européen, Wrocław: Ossolineum. Kuznecov, P. S. 1946: К вопросу о фонологии ударения. Доклады и сообщения филологического факультета МГУ, вып. 6, 12–17. Kuznecov, P. S. 1970: О фонологической системе сербо-хорватского языка. Реформатский А. А. Из истории отечественной фонологии, Москва: Наука, 336–354. Leskauskaitė, A. 2001: Pietvakarinių pietų aukštaičių vokalizmas: fonologinis ir eksperimentinis tyrimas, daktaro disertacija, Vilnius: LKI, VDU. Markevičienė, Ž. 1999: Aukštaičių tarmių tekstai 1, Vilnius: VU. Mikalauskaitė, E. 1975: Lietuvių kalbos fonetikos darbai, Vilnius: Mokslas. Pakerys, A. 1982: Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos prozodija, Vilnius: Mokslas. Pakerys, A. 1986, 1995: Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos fonetika, Vilnius: Mokslas. Palubinskienė, E., Čepienė G. 2001: Lietuvių kalba 8 klasei, Kaunas: Šviesa. Petkevičienė, R. 1993: Lietuvių kalbos dvigarsių sistema, Šiauliai: ŠPI. Rodionov, V. A. 2001: Литовский язык в школе академика Ю. С. Степанова. Кубрякова, Е. С., Янко, Т. Е., ред., Язык и культура. Факты и ценности. К 70-летию Юрия Сергеевича Степанова, Москва: Языки славянской культуры, 421–434. LIETUVIŲ KALBOS GARSŲ INTERPRETACIJOS | 17 Salys, A. 1992: Raštai 4, Roma: Lietuvių katalikų mokslo akademija. Sawicka, J. 2001: An outline of the phonetic typology of the Slavic languages, Toruń: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika. Sawicka, J., Grzybowski, S. 1999: Studia z palatalności w językach słowiańskich 1, Toruń: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika. Schmalstieg, W. R. 1958: A Descriptive Study of the Lithuanian Verbal System. General Linguistics 3 (3) (Suppl.), 85–105. Schmalstieg, W. R. 2001: Lithuanian and Indo-European Phonological Parallels. Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 45, 145–150. Sirtautai, J. V. ir V. V. 1999: Lietuvių kalba. Vadovėlis 5 klasei, Vilnius: Alma littera. Smoczyński, W. 1978: Sporne problemy wokalizmu litewskiego. Sprawozdania Oddziału Krakowskiego PAN za rok 1976, 20 (2), 331–333. Smoczyński, W. 2001: Język litewski w perspektywie porównawczej, Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego. Stepanov, Ju. S. 1972: Ударение и метатония в литовском глаголе. Baltistica, 1 priedas, 169–183. Svečevicius, B. 1964: Простые гласные (монофтонги) современного литовского литературного языка: экспериментально-фонетическое исследование, автореферат диссертации канд. филол. наук, Вильнюс: ВГУ. Tekorius, A. 1985: Zur phonologischen Wertung der litauischen Diphthonge. Baltistica 21 (2), 125–133. Trager, G. L. 1940: Serbo-Croatian Accents and Quantities. Language 16, 26–32. Trager, G. L. 1941: The Theory of Accentual Systems. Spier, L., Holowell, A.I., Newman, St. S., eds., Language, Culture and Personality, Menasha, 131–145. Trost, P. 1965: Two Remarks on Lithuanian Vocalism. Acta Baltico-Slavica 3, 183–185. Trubetzkoy, N. S. 1929: Zur allgemeinen Theorie der phonologischen Vokalsysteme. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 1, 39–67. Trubeckoj, N. S. 1960: Основы фонологии, Москва: Издательство иностранной литературы. Ulvȳdas, K. red. 1965: Lietuvių kalbos gramatika 1. Fonetika ir morfologija, Vilnius: Mintis. Urbanavičiūtė, Ž. 1997: Kietieji ir minkštieji priebalsiai lietuvių literatūrinėje kalboje ir tarmėse. Kliukienė, R., sud., Lietuvių kalbos fonetikos skaitiniai, Vilnius, 154–159. Vachek, J. 1936: Phonemes and Phonological Units. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 6, 235–239. Vaitkevičiūtė, V. 2001: Lietuvių kalbos tarties pagrindai ir žodynas, Vilnius: Pradai. Vitkauskas, V. 1985: Lietuvių kalbos tarties žodynas, Vilnius: Mokslas. Vitkauskas, V. 2001: Lietuvių kalbos tarties žodynas. Antrasis papildytas leidimas, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Zinkevičius, Z. 1975: Smulkmenos IX. Baltistica 11 (1), 36. Zinkevičius, Z. 1994: Lietuvių kalbos dialektologija, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Zinkevičius, Z. 2002: Rinktiniai straipsniai 1, Vilnius: Lietuvių katalikų mokslo akademija. Kazimieras Garšva Lietuvių kalbos institutas P. Vileišio g. 5, 2055 Vilnius, Lietuva [email protected] Gauta 2002 04 04