Lithuanian linguistics 1998–2002: Studies published outside Lithuania

ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA XLVI (2002), 213 - 222 NAUJŲ DARBŲ APŽVALGA Survey of recent publications LITHUANIAN LINGUISTICS 1998-2002: STUDIES PUBLISHED OUTSIDE LITHUANIA First of all, one should mention the festschrifts that were published in honour of V. N. Toporov (Nikolaeva 1998), Ju. V. Otkupščikov (Zajcev 1999), V. V. Ivanov (Osipova 2000), Ju. S. Stepanov (Kubrjakova 2001) and M.Hasiuk (Marcinkiewicz, Osipowski 2001), all of them well-known authorities on Baltic linguistics. Actually, the contributions do not exclusively deal with Baltic topics, which reflects the broad scope of interests of the honorands (regretta- bly, Toporov’s and Stepanov’s festschrifts do not contain a bibliography of their works'). A laconic review of Stepanov’s investigations in the field of Lithuanian studies (verbal system and categories of aspect and voice, syntactic structure and the opposition of animate and inanimate objects and verbs, accentological studies) is presented by V. A. Rodionov (2001). Otkupscikov has recently prepared two collections of previously published articles, a consid- erable number of which are devoted to the problem of the Balto-Slavic unity (Otkups¢ikov 2001a: 294-366) and to Baltic (especially Lithuanian) and Slavic etymology (Otkups¢ikov 2001b: 81-239). Important republications also appeared in the Polish series Baltica Varsoviensia ed- ited by Wojciech Smoczynski: a collection of articles by Tamara Buch (1998) and a collection of the editor’s publications on the Lithuanian language (Smoczynski 2001). An important event in Russian Baltology is the publication of the Russian translation of P. U. Dini’s comprehensive monograph on the Baltic languages (Dini 2002, translation from the Italian original completed by A. V. Toporova, general editing of the book carried out by V. N. Toporov). Dini’s book had already been translated into Lithuanian and Latvian in 2000, but Russian is the first major language in which it is published. Unfortunately, the Russian edition completely ignores the many improvements that were introduced by the editors of the Lithuanian and Latvian editions. In this respect the Russian translation is to be considered a step backwards in comparison with the Baltic editions. An important part of books of such an encyclopaedic character are indexes that permit the reader to use them as reference books. Thus, one may expect publishers to add at least an index of topics and a word index. In this case one is amazed to find that even the index of names of the Italian edition is lacking. As a result of this rather indifferent attitude to a book belonging to the classics of Baltic philology, a specialist in Baltic philology would hardly consider the Russian edition to have superseded ! The bibliography of V. V. Ivanov is also not included in the festschrift. It can be found in Ivanov (1998: 813-909); for Ju. S. Stepanov’s bibliography cf. Logunov, ed. (2000). 214 | ALEKSEY ANDRONOV, RICK DERKSEN the Lithuanian one. The book shows some technical flaws as well. Besides many misprints, the freguent use of unusual symbols for the Lithuanian nasalized letters is particularly disturbing. Splitting the bibliography into a Latin and a Cyrillic part resulted in some duplications (e.g. Maxiojine 1974b (p. 472) and Mažiulis 1974b (p. 513), which refer to one and the same work). On a final note, glued binding will not last a long time. Another publication of a general character that deserves to be mentioned is the encyclopaedia of the languages of the Russian Federation and contiguous states, whose first volume con- tains V. N. Toporov's article on Baltic languages (Toporov 2001). In the second volume we find concise presentations of Lithuanian (Bulygina 2001) and Latvian (Blinkena 2001). These presentations, however, are not well coordinated. Unfortunately, all Baltological publications contain many misprints*. It should also be noted that the article on the Lithuanian language, written by the late T. V. Bulygina, a renowned specialist in Lithuanian grammar, was obviously prepared much earlier. Though the change of the linguistic situation after the restoration of independence in 1991 is mentioned, the bibliography does not go beyond 1986 (the 14th volume of the Academy dictionary of Lithuanian), which means that it says nothing about the Academy grammars of 1994 and 1997 and mentions only old (dating back to the fifties!) editions of Russian-Lithuanian and Lithuanian-Russian dictionaries, which is particularly strange in an encyclopaedia intended for Russians’. T. V. Bulygina’s essay may be called a good example of a presentation of the Lithuanian language from the point of view of general linguistics and language typology. An important advantage of this study is that it is not merely an account of traditional views, but reflects the author’s personal ideas, which instead of being scattered over separate publications are now collected in one place. Some of them were incorporated in the Academy grammar of V. Ambrazas, but other ideas have received less attention from the Lithuanian scholarly com- munity and are worth mentioning here. Lithuanian pluralia tantum are treated as having two homonymous sets of forms for singular and plural (Bulygina 2001: 248), i. e. in a similar way to A. A. Zaliznjak’s (1967: 57-61, 75-80) approach to the Russian language (cf. Bulygina 1970: 16-17). Semantically this interpretation is correct, but whereas in Russian it is supported by some formal peculiarities of agreement (7th agreement class in Zaliznjak 1967 resulting in the postulation of a fourth gender), in Lithuanian it is not so clear-cut: there are no problems connected with gender, so only the usage of multipli- cative numerals (disappearing in colloquial speech) supports Bulygina’s interpretation formally. For the discussion of the grammatical status of the so-called neuter form of the adjective an interpretation of the comparative suffix as having two allomorphs (-iau in the impersonal predicative form (cf. superlative -iausia-) and -esn- before case endings is interesting (Bulygina 2001: 250, cf. Bulygina 1970: 35-36). * In the bibliography this results in some errors: “Fraenkel E. <instead of Endzelins J.> Darbu izlase. 1-4. Riga, 1971-1982" (Toporov 2001: 154), “Cepeiickuc b. I'paMMaTHKa IHTOBCKOTO A3bIKA. Buasnioc, 1985” — ?! (Bulygina 2001: 258). The essay on the Latvian language compiled by A. Blinkena, though somewhat old-fashioned and completely traditional, is not so old — it could be dated rather precisely: after the completion of the Dictionary of the modern Latvian literary language (1996) but before the rise of the periodical Linguistica Lettica (1997). 3 NAUJŲ DARBŲ APŽVALGA | 215 No arguments are put forward in favour of the specific segmentation of nominal endings in “pre-desinence” (npenokonyanue) and ending proper (vyr-a-ms) in the publication under review (Bulygina 2001: 249). This interpretation was first suggested and discussed in detail in Bulygina (1970: 18-23). It makes the morphological structure of nominal endings more similar to the verbal system if there the stem vowels are viewed as morphemes of present and past tense (equally with -si- for the future tense and -davo- for the frequentative past) and a unique para- digm of personal endings is added to them, with differences between conjugations explained as morphonological alternations (Bulygina 2001: 253; 1977: 268-269; cf. Ambrazas 1985: 263). In Bulygina 2001: 252, it is claimed that interrogative-relative and indefinite pronouns show no opposition between animate and inanimate gender, thus abandoning the author’s former idea of splitting these pronouns in two, e. g. animate kas' (possessive genitive kieno, non- possessive genitive ko) and inanimate kas* (both possessive and non-possessive genitives ko), cf. kieno čia būta : ko čia būta (Bulygina 1985: 134). This former interpretation, however, seemed promising. An interesting problem for a formal description of Lithuanian conjugation are the interre- lations between the three main stems (see also the discussion of J. F. Levin's article below). In Bulygina 1977 (252-253) we find an explanation of the principal difference between present and non-present variants of the stem, but neither in the Academy Grammar (Ambrazas 1985), nor in the publication under discussion was this distinction explicitly made (cf. the opposition of preterit and non-preterit stems in Toporov 2001 (152) according to his earlier publication on the system of inflectional endings in the verb (Toporov 1965)). Bulygina’s position with regard to the question of voice is not quite clear. On the one hand, she defends a strictly morphological approach, voice being morphologically expressed only in participles (Bulygina 2001: 252, cf. Bulygina 1970: 66-67). On the other hand, compound forms of the passive voice are now considered as well (Bulygina 2001: 253). A considerable block is formed by publications on accentology. One may distinguish at least three series here. The first series is constituted by the publications of V. A. Dybo, the main protagonist of the Moscow school of morphological (paradigmatic) accentology. The second series presents an alternative approach to the description (and attempt at an explanation) of accent matters developed by Ju. S. Stepanov. Finally, we should mention J. E. Levin’s study, where attention is paid to the cognitive aspect of accentuation rules. Naturally, these publica- tions cannot be analyzed separately from some earlier studies by the same authors, even though they may be separated by a long interval. The Moscow accentological school (henceforth MAS), which has made numerous signifi- cant contributions to Slavic accentology since the early sixties, has always shown a keen interest in Baltic accentual data, one of the highlights being Illi¢-Svity¢’s monograph on nominal accentuation in Baltic and Slavic (1963). V. A. Dybo’s latest publications are devoted to de Saussure’s Law and the problem of secondary dominant morphemes in Baltic and Lithuanian®. In 1998, V. A. Dybo published an analysis of Old Prussian nominal accentuation 3 4 It should be noted that the articles often repeat one another. Thus, Dybo’s surmise about the direct connection between circumflex metatony and recessiveness of the root (Dybo 2000: 59-73), 216 | ALEKSEY ANDRONOV, RICK DERKSEN as reflected in the Enchiridion. It is generally assumed that in this text accented long vowels and diphthongs are indicated by a macron. In the case of diphthongs, the place of the macron seems to reflect a distinction between originally acute and circumflex diphthongs. Much more controversial is the accentographic function of the double consonants. Dybo adopts Kortlandt's hypothesis that double consonants indicate that the following syllable is stressed. Finally, Dybo assumes that acute i and ū were diphthongized under the stress. Curiously enough, his most freguent examples of the latter development involve ij, which is usually interpreted as [i]. This does not appear to have important conseguences for Dybo's analysis, however. Drawing a comparison with Lithuanian accentual data, including data from Daukša's Postilla, Dybo establishes four accentual paradigms for disyllabic nouns with a long (acute or circum- flex) stem and a single paradigm for disyllabic nouns with a short stem. The latter merger would be a conseguence of the Old Prussian progressive stress shift from short stressed vowels to the immediately following syllable. As this shift was proposed by Kortlandt in 1974, Dybo refers to it as “Kortlandt's law”, while adding that he had discovered the rule indepen- dently. In recent years, Kortlandt's law, which had gone largely unnoticed for a long time, as well as his interpretation of the function of the Old Prussian double consonants have been hotly debated (Parenti 1998; Young 1999; Kortlandt 1999; 2000; Schmalstieg 2001). The classification of Old Prussian nouns according to the four Lithuanian accentual para- digms only makes sense if it can be shown that de Saussure's law also operated in Old Prus- sian. Dybo concludes that Old Prussian represents a Baltic stage when de Saussure's law exclusively operated before dominant acute suffixes or in those cases where the valency of the accented syllable was not higher than the valency of the acute syllable (17—18). The evidence for or against de Saussure's law, be it in the traditional or in Dybo's formulation, is extremely limited, however. In view of “Kortlandt's law”, one is forced to turn to the relevant case forms of nouns with a circumflex long vowel or diphthong in the root. It is not at all clear that these forms justify Dybo’s conclusion. The root stress of rankans ‘hands’ and ausins ‘ears’ (Lith. rankas, ausis), for instance, may just as well be taken as direct evidence against the operation of de Saussure’s law. Nouns such as imta ‘taken’ or spigsna ‘bath’ may have been mobile (cf. Stang 1966: 173). One cannot escape the impression that Dybo’s eagerness to find evidence that would permit him to formulate some version of de Saussure’s law seems to hamper his ability to study the facts objectively and prevent him from taking alternative solutions into consider- ation, which is remarkable considering the ease with which he proposes a retraction of the stress from circumflex final syllables (17). Dybo’s article on Old Prussian accentuation must be viewed within the context of the recent developments in the MAS. While the scope of the Proto-Slavic retraction known as Stang’s law is reduced, the progressive shift referred to as Illi¢-Svity¢’s law or Dybo’s law is replaced by a “npaBocropoHHHuH aApeiid” that is assumed to have operated in a number of stages and is connected with early dialectal differentiation. According to Dybo, the only truly Proto-Slavic based on S. L. Nikolaev’s investigations (Nikolaev 1989: 75-97) was already published in Dybo 1997 (165-184) and, as far as the part on secondary dominant morphemes (2000: 63-73) is con- cerned, also in Dybo 1998a (119-129). The latter publication contains the same description of the Abkhazian accent system and some general remarks (Dybo 1998a: 129-202 = Dybo 1997: 65- 163), cf. Dybo 1989, which is very similar. NAUJŲ DARBŲ APŽVALGA [217 progressive shift is the transfer of the ictus from a circumflex or short syllable to a following dominant acute syllable (Dybo 2000a: 94). As de Saussure's law in Lithuanian is reformulated as a shift of the ictus from a circumflex or short syllable to a following internal acute if both syllables have the same valency or to a final acute syllable irrespective of valency (Dybo 1998: 57; Dybo 2000b: 75), it seems natural to assume a Balto-Slavic origin for these shifts. This is virtually tantamount to a rehabilitation of de Saussure's law — or rather de Saussure's and Fortunatov's law — as a Balto-Slavic development, the rejection of which was one of the cornerstones of modern accentology. Since it is not very plausible that this accent shift, which is of a phonetic nature, would be conditioned by purely morphological properties, it seems that at that stage there was an inherent phonetic difference between dominant and recessive morphemes. According to Dybo's main hypothesis, there must have existed a tonal opposition (Dybo 2000b: 68). The recent developments in the MAS are summarized in Lehfeldt 2001 (an improved and completed edition of Lehfeldt 1993), which is an introduction to the morphological concep- tion of Slavic accentology as propagated by this school. It should be noted that this book, which contains a chapter on Lithuanian accentuation in synchronic and diachronic perspective, is essentially an introduction to the conceptions and achievements of the MAS prior to the radical developments that have taken place since the early nineties. The appendix by Willem Vermeer, on the other hand, is a critical discussion of the modus operandi of the MAS that devotes particular attention to its more recent publications. Among other things, he criticizes the MAS for not paying sufficient attention to the reliability of the data they are working with, neglecting existing knowledge and other relevant scholarship, and underestimating the possi- bility of secondary (post-Proto-Slavic) developments. Whereas Vermeer's theoretical framework is compatible with that of the MAS and his criticism may be regarded as criticism „from within“, Ju. S. Stepanov has fundamental objec- tions to the paradigmatic approach of the MAS (Stepanov 1997a; 1997b), which he traces back to de Saussure. Stepanov disapproves of conceptions that assign inherent prosodic proper- ties to morphemes (such as tone or valency). Instead, he stresses the importance of syllable and phrase structure and often resorts to moraic analysis. Stepanov puts forward a number of methodological theses, opposing his view to the theo- ries of V. A. Dybo, P. Garde and B. Stundzia. These critical remarks should be regarded as strong stimuli to the development of morphological accentology rather than as a complete rejection of the latter. An improved approach should obviously combine both views. Some revisions may be observed within the framework of morphological accentology itself. Thus, Stepanov’s claim that no investigations into the relationship between morpheme and syllable segmentation were conducted (Stepanov 1997a: 65) is incorrect, cf. Girdenis, Stundzia (1994). It seems that taking into consideration derivational characteristics is not at variance with a morphological approach (Stepanov 1997a: 79; 1997b: 7): dominance (understood as the ability to change accentological features, generally strength/weakness, of other morphemes (Stundzia 1995: 8-12)) should probably not be ascribed to a morpheme but to the derivational model (cf. Andronov 1999 on the dynamic aspect of the description of Lithuanian stress). A general analogy of ictus movement to the left in Lithuanian dialects and at older stages of Lithuanian remains a bright hypothesis since Stepanov (1972). A further development of the same ap- proach resulted in an interpretation of Leskien’s law in the same terms and an attempt to explain 218 | ALEKSEY ANDRONOV, RICK DERKSEN the „reversed“ character of Lithuanian syllable accents (falling acute and rising circumflex) (Stepanov 1997b: 22). An important role in the history of accent shifts in Lithuanian is played by a revision of Wackernagel's law, which is generalized to the whole organization of the peaks of intensity in Indo-European phrase (Stepanov 1997b: 15). On the whole, Stepanov's articles contain interesting comments on the history of accentological theories and crucial theoretical problems as well as subtle observations on material from Lithuanian and Ancient Greek. The recent paper “On the representation of Lithuanian morphology” by J. E. Levin (2000) is a sequel to his study on Lithuanian accent marking (Levin 1990). It recapitulates the latter study’s main ideas and extends them to the verbal system against the common background of cognitive speculations’. Levin's approach reveals some interesting features of the Lithuanian accent system. The author stresses the specific status of the last stem mora, which loses the stress both to certain nominal and verbal endings and to verbal prefixes. The approach itself, however, seems to cause some inconveniences. On the whole, the reduction of the symmetric four traditional accent classes of nouns to three (merger of the first and second classes) obscures the parallel correlation between the classes implicated by the de Saussure’s law, which now is incorporated in a set of rules determining the place of the stress. The accentual characteristics of some nominal endings also contradict the properties ascribed to them within the framework of classical morphological accentology (Stundzia 1995). Thus, short accented endings in Levin's system (p. 179) include Nom. Sg. -a (strong attractable according to Stundžia), -us (strong, not attractable), Ins. Sg. -ū (weak, attractable). This results in some special amend- ments for the general rules of stress assignment (p. 180). The proposed deviation from the tradition would be a complication for historical studies. Similarly, it does not have any obvious advantages for the description of stress placement in derivation. The application of the same approach to the verbal system leads Levin to the conclusion that two types of accentuation of verbs are analogous to the traditional nominal accent classes 1 and 2 (p. 182), i. e. to nouns with an accentologically strong stem. This, too, can be regarded as a contradiction to the results of morphological accentology: taking into consideration the accentuation of prefixed verbs, pri- mary stems seem to be accentologically weak in the finite forms (Andronovas 1995). In the second part of the article Levin shows the semantic/semiotic role of the structural elements which form a contrast between verbal stems and includes the accent contrasts of prefixed verbs in the same system. His observations on the dependence of the semantics of a verb and markedness of its present or past tense forms are very interesting and, by the way, not neces- sarily connected with the disputable accentological description in the first part of the paper. * kk Finally, we would like to draw attention to a few recent publications by two scholars of a younger generation from Western Europe. Apart from an introduction to Lithuanian (1999, see Ambrazas 2000), Daniel Petit has published a number of publications on Baltic historical linguistics. Here we shall limit ourselves to three etymological studies that focus on Lithuanian data. Petit (1998) deals with the etymol- * One of Levin's general methodological remarks is the claim that “there is no compelling need to propose morphological models whose only purpose is to reduce all lexemes to unique underlying forms” (Levin 2000: 176), which sounds as a kind of a challenge to such publications as Toporov 1966 (119) and Bulygina 1977 (238-239). NAUJŲ DARBŲ APŽVALGA | 219 ogy of Lith. sambaris ‘gathering’. The article contests Dini's claim that sémbaris and Slavic *swborw ‘congregation’ can be traced to a Balto-Slavic cult. Petit combines a very extensive philological account of the Baltic data with an investigation of the fate of the root *b'er- in Balto- Slavic. Petit (2000a) is a discussion of a number of Baltic forms that Karaliūnas (1976) had connected to Lith. tauta ‘people’. The author rejects the etymological connection for every one of these cases. At the end of the article he argues that the o-vocalism of tauta may be analogical after other a-stems. The objective of Petit (2000b) is to demonstrate on the basis of Lith. stuomud | stomuo and related forms that *oh, yields *6, not *a. It is argued that there were originally two nouns, *steh -me/on- and *stoh,-mo-, which yielded stomué and stiiomas, respec- tively. The root vocalism of these nouns were subsequently mixed up, yielding stuomué / stiiomas. At a later stage, stuomuo, which belonged to a productive type, was influenced by the verb stot. Petit’s approach to Baltic etymology is characterized by a careful analysis of all the relevant material, including data from old texts and dialects. He does not rely on the forms that appear in the scholarly literature, but makes use of all the resources that are accessible to the present day Baltologist. As a result, Petit’s articles are instructive and useful, whether the reader subscribes to his conclusions or not. Bjorn Wiemer’s article (2001) is devoted to the problem of verbal aspect in Lithuanian. It should be emphasized that the author consciously keeps himself away from the erroneous practice of looking at Lithuanian aspect through the glasses of the Russian language (or, Slavic in general) (p. 34-35, 43-44). Wiemer bases his investigation on a thorough study of “aspectual” verb pairs connected by morphologically derivative relations stressing the impor- tance of combining the analysis of lexical interrelations between such verbs with an investiga- tion of the regularity of their functions and obligatoriness of use. An important theoretical claim is that grammatical category is not necessarily connected with inflection as opposed to derivation: thus, there is no contradiction in the fact that the category of aspect in Russian, although its members are connected by derivative relations, is considered grammatical (p. 30). In other words, the opposition “inflection vs. derivation” is not identical to the opposition “grammatical vs. lexical meaning”. Wiemer shows that Lithuanian lacks grammatical aspect because the choice between mem- bers of an ,,aspectual® pair depends on their lexical features (whereas in Russian it is forced by the grammatical context). The rich and productive set of Lithuanian verbal affixes results in an elaborated system of Aktionsart, which has not yet developed into a grammatical opposition of aspects (p. 44). The article provides clear evidence for the already intuitively perceived impres- sion of similarity between the situation in modern Lithuanian and an earlier stage of the development of the category of aspect in Slavic (p. 51). It is a good example of the role which theoretical synchronic grammar can play in historical language studies. The strict approach suggested in Wiemer’s article clearly indicates the direction and method of further aspect studies of Lithuanian. LITERATURE AMBRAZAS, V., ed. 1985: I'pammamuxa aumoeckozo azvika, Bunpnioc: Mokciac. AMBRAZAS, V. 2000: Nauji prancūzų mokslininko darbai apie lietuvių kalba. Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 42, 214-220 220 | ALEKSEY ANDRONOV, RICK DERKSEN ANDRONOVAS, A. 1995: Priešdėlinių veiksmažodžių kirčiavimas morfologinės akcentologijos požiūriu. Baltistica 30 (1), 93-100. ANDRONOV, A. V. 1999: Hexoropsie npodaembl Mop$Ėojnornueckol HHTEpnpeTaILIHH YjlapeHHSA B auToBckoM a3bike. Andronov, A. V., ed., Mamepuano: XXVIII mMenicey306ckoiti nayuno-memoduveckoili Kongepenyuu npenodasameneu u acnupanmos. Buinyck 1. Cexyus 6armucmuxu (2—4 mapma 1999 2.): Ilpobaembr ponemuxu u akyenmonocuu Garmuiuckux azvikos. Tezuchi dokirados. CaHkT- [MetepOypr: U3narensctBo Cankrt-IleTepOyprckoro yHusepcurera, 5-7. BLINKENA, A. JA. 2001: Jlateimcknii s351x. Bunorpanos, B.A, pea., Alzbixu Poccutickotu ®edepayuu u cocednux 2ocyoapeme: Suyuxioneousn: 6 3 m. T. 2: K-P, Mocksa: Hayka, 214-224. BucH, T. 1998. Opuscula Lithuanica. Warszawa: Katedra Jezykoznawstwa Og6lnego i Baltystyki Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego. (Baltica Varsoviensia, 1) BuLyGaiNA, T. V. 1970: Mopdonoruueckas CTpyKTypa CJIOBA B COBPEMEHHOM JIHTOBCKOM nHTEpaTypHOM S3bIKe (B ero muchbMmeHHoH ¢opme). Kupmynckuii, B. M., Apyrionosa, H. J1., pea., Moptbonozuueckas cmpykmypa caoea 6 undoesponeuckux ssvikax, Mocksa: Hayka, 7-70. BuLyGINA, T. V. 1977: Ilpo6iewmhi meopuu mopgonrocuueckux modereii, Mocksa: Hayxa. BuLYGINA, T. V. 1985: Ilo noBoay TpakToBKH ,.c1ab0 nnOdepeHuHpOBAHHbIX Naaexkeii” B IHTOBCKOM cknonennn. Zinkevičius, Z., ed., Tarptautinė baltisty konferencija 1985 m. spalio 9-12 d. Pranešimų tezės, Vilnius: Vilniaus valstybinis V. Kapsuko universitetas, 133-134. BuryGciNA, T. V. 2001: JluroBexuit a35ix. Bunorpanos, B. A., pex., Alsbixu Poccutckoitūi ®edepayuu u coceonux 2ocyoapeme: DJuyuknonedus: e 3 m. T. 2: K-P, Mocksa: Hayka, 244-258. Dini, P. U. 2002: 5Gasmuūckue a3bixu, MocxsBa: O-T-H. DyBo, V. A. 1989: Tunonorus H peKOHCTPYKIHS MapaAHrMaTHYeCKHX aKUEHTHbIX CHCTeM. bynartosa, P. B., JĮsi60, A. B., pea., HMcmopuueckas akyenmoiocus u cpaenumenibno-ucmopuueckuū Memoo, Mocksa: Hayka, 7-45. DyBo, V. A. 1997. banTo-cnasHCKas aKLUEHTONOMHYECKas PEKOHCTPYKUHS H MHI0eBpOneHcKas akuenronorua. Kacean, A. C., Muunoc, O. P., pen., Studia linguarum, Mocksa: Poccuiickuii rocyapCTBEHHbIH TyMaHHTapHbIH yHHBepcHuTeT, 53-189. DyBo, V. A. 1998a: banto-ciaBsHCKas aKIEHTHas CHCTEMA C THNOJOTHYECKOH TOYKH 3PEHMA. Hsanos, B. Bc., pea., barmo-caasanckue uccaedosanus 1997, Mocksa: Unapuk, 118-205. DyBo, V. A. 1998b: O cncreMe aKUEHTHBIX INapajįHTM B NPYCCKOM f3bike. (MaTepuansl K aKIEHTOIOTHH npycckoro a3bIKa, I) Crasanosedenue 3, 5-18. DyBo, V. A. 2000a: Mopgorozuzoeannsie napaduemamuyeckue akyenmuvie cucmemvl. Tunorocus u 2enesuc. Tom I, MockBa: SI3bIKH PYCCKOH KYIBTYpBI. DyBo, V. A. 2000b: U3 Ganto-cnapsuckoi akuentonornu. IlpoGjneMa 3akona MopryHaToBa H MONpaska K 3akony O. ne Cocciopa. OcunoBa, M. A. pex,. baimo-crassanckue uccaedosanus 1998-1999. XIV. Cooprux nayunvix mpyoos. [K cemudecamuremuio Baueciaea Bcesorooosuua Heanosa], Mocksa: Uunpuk, 27-82. GIRDENIS, A., STUNDZIA, B. 1994: Morfema ir skiemuo lietuvių kalbos akcentologinéje sistemoje. D. Mikulėnienė et al., eds., Lietuvių kalba: tyrėjai ir tyrimai. Pranui SkardZiui (1899 03 26 — 1975 12 18) paminėti. Konferencijos pranešimų tezės (1994 m. spalio 27-28 d.). Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. 13-14. ILLič-Sviryč, V. I. 1966: Huennas axyenmyayus 6 6armuiickom u caraeanckom. Cyovba akyenmyayuoruwvlx napaouem, Mocksa: U3narensctBo Akagemun Hayk CCCP. Ivanov, V. V. 1998: Hs6pannsie mpyost no cemuomuxe u ucmopuu xyasmyps. Tom 1, Mocksa: IlIkojna «S3bIKH PYCCKON KYJIbTYpbD?. KORTLANDT, F. 1974: Old Prussian accentuation. Zeitschrift fiir vergleichende Sprachforschung 88 (2), 299-306. KoRrTLANDT, F. 1999: Double consonants in Old Prussian. Res Balticae 5, 75-80. KORTLANDT, F. 2000: The Prussian accent shift. Baltistica 34 (2), 193-197. KUBRJAKOVA, E. S., Janko, T. E., eds. 2001: ffssxx u kyasmypa: Oarxmoi u yennocmu: K 70-1emuio Opus Cepzeesuua Cmenarnosa, MockBa: SI3bIKH CIaBAHCKOH KYJIbTYDBI. NAUJŲ DARBŲ APŽVALGA | 221 LEHFELDT, W. 2001: Einfiihrung in die morphologische Konzeption der slavischen Akzentologie. 2., verbesserte und erginzte Auflage mit einem Appendix von Willem Vermeer, Miinchen: Otto Sagner. LEVIN, J. F. 1990: Lithuanian accent as a descriptive notational problem. Kangere, B. and Rinholm, H., eds., Symposium Balticum. A Festschrift to honour Professor Velta Riike-Dravina, Hamburg: Buske Verlag, 249-256. LEVviN, J. F. 2000: On the representation of Lithuanian morphology. Ocunosa, M. A., pex., baimo- caaeanckue uccreoosanun 1998-1999. XIV. Céopruk nayunvix mpyoos. [K cemudecamuremuio Bavecaasa Bcesonodosuua Heanosa], Mocksa: Unapuk, 175-188 LoGuNov, A. A., red. 2000: /Opuiū Cepeeesuy Cmenanos. Poccuiickas Akagemus Hayk. Marepuansi K Ono6uHOnuorpadun yyensix. Cepus nureparypsl H A3bika, 26. CocraButens P. H. TopsaueBa, Mocksa: Hayxka. MARCINKIEWICZ, J., OSTROWSKI N., eds. 2001: Munera linguistica et philologica Michaeli Hasiuk dedicata, Poznan: Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu. (Poznanskie Studia Battystyczne, 1) NIKOLAEV, S. L. 1989: Baimo-caassnckan akyenmyayuonnas cucmema u e€ undoeeponeiickue ucmoxu. bynarosa, P. B., /Isibo, A. B., pena,. Hcmopuueckana akyenmonozus u cpasHumensHo- ucmopuyueckuu memoo, Mocksa: Hayka, 46-109. NIKOLAEVA, T. M., red. 1998: TIOAYTPOIION. K 70-1emuro Baadumupa Huxonraesuua Tonoposa. Mocksa: Unapuk. Osipova, M. A., red. 2000: Baimo-caasanckue uccnedosanus 1998-1999. XIV. Céopuux xayunbix mpydos. [K cemudecamuremuio Baveciasa Bcesorodosuua Hearnosa], Mocksa: UHApHK. OTkKUPSCIKOV, Ju. V. 2001a: Opera philologica minora (Awmuunas aumepamypa. HAzvikoznanue), Cankr-IletepOypr: Hayxka. OTKUPŠČIKOV, Ju. V. 2001b: Ovepxu no smumonozuu, Canxr-Ilerep6ypr: H3narenbecrBo Cankt- Ilerep6yprekoro yHHBEpCHTETA. PARENTI, A. 1998: Old Prussian abstract nouns in -sna, -senna, -sennis. Bammesberger, A, ed., Baltistik: Aufgaben und Methoden, Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 129-142. PETIT, D. 1998: A propos du lituanien Sdmbaris: la racine ie. *bher- en baltique oriental. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 93 (1), 229-288. PETIT, D. 1999: Lituanien. Lalies 19, 7-135. PETIT, D. 2000a: Lituanien tausti, ¢iutnas, et le nom du “peuple” en indo-européen. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 95 (1), 119-146. PETIT, D. 2000b: Lituanien stuomué / stomué et la théorie des laryngales. Historische Sprachforschung 113, 259-275. RopioNov, V. A. 2001: JlutoBckuii a3bik B mkojte akanemuxa IO. C. Crenanosa. KyGpskosa, E. C., Auxo, T. E., pea,. Asvik u kyabmypa: Oarxmoi u yennocmu: K 70-remuio Opus Cepzeesuua Cmenanosa, MockBa: SI3bIKH CIaBIHCKOH KynbTypbl, 421-434. SCHMALSTIEG, W. R. 2001: Comments on a recent debate about Old Prussian stress placement. Balltistica 35 (1), 21-27. SMOCZYNSKI, W. 2001: Jezyk litewski w perspektywie porownawczej. Krakow: Wydawnictwo Universytetu Jagiellonskiego. (Baltica Varsoviensia, 3) STANG, C. S. 1966: Vergleichende Grammatik der baltischen Sprachen, Oslo-Bergen-Tromsg: Universitetsforlaget. STEPANOV, Ju. S. 1972: Ynapenne Hu MeTaToHHs B JHTOBCKOM miarone. Baltistica I priedas, 169-183. STEPANOV, Ju. S. 1997a: Henapaaurmatnueckue nepeiBHACHHA ylapeHHs B mHIoeBponeiickom. (Hc- XOJHbIC MONOKEHHA.) Becmuux Mockoeckozo ynueepcumema. Cepus 9. ®unonorus, 1997 (5), 63-80 STEPANOV, Ju. S. 1997b: HenapanurMarnueckue nepeiBHACHHA YAaPEHHA B HHIOECBPOMEHCKOM. (I. Bokpyr 3akonoB Bakkepnarens wu JleckuHa.) Bonpocet azeikosnanus 1997 (4), 5-26. STUNDZIA, B. 1995: Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos kirčiavimo sistema, Vilnius: Petro ofsetas. ToroRov, V. N. 1966: Heckonbko 3aMeganni 0 CTPyKType OJiekKTHBHOŽ NnapajIKTMBI JIHTOBCKOTO ritarojia B CBS3H C NpoOneMOH nopoxaeHus IMaroJIbHbIX dopm. Kalbotyra 14, 119-129. 222 | ALEKSEY ANDRONOV, RICK DERKSEN Tororov, V. N. 2001: Bantuiickue s351xu. Apuesa, B. H., pen,. flsoixu Poccuickoū Oedepayuu u cocednxux 2ocyoapcme: Dnyuknonedua: 6 3 m. T. 1: A-H, Mocksa: Hayka, 143-154. WIEMER [BuMEP], B. 2001: AcnerryajisbHbIie rmapajįHTMbI H JEKCHYECKOE 3HAYEHHE pyCCKHX H JIHTOBCKHX TIMIaroJIOB: OribIT CONnOCTABJIEHHA C TOYKH 3PEHHS JIEKCHKAJIH3aLIHH H T paMMATHKAJIH3AIIHH. Bonpocti a3bixoznanus 2001 (2), 26-58. YOUNG, S. 1999: “Kortlandt’s hypothesis” and Old Prussian stress. Baltistica 34 (1), 5-15. ZAICEV, A. I., ed. 1999: Linguistica et Philologica. C6opuuk crareii k 75-netuio npodeccopa Opus Brnagumuposnua Otkynmukosa, Cankr-Ilerepbypr: H3narenberBo Caukt-IlerepGyprekoro YHHBEpPCHTETa. ZALIZNJAK, A. A. 1967: Pycckoe umennoe crosouzmenenue, Mocksa: Hayxa. Aleksey Andronov Rick Derksen