Seirijų šnektos mišriųjų dvigarsių priegaidės

ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI XLIII (2000) Asta LESKAUSKAITĖ Institute of Lithuanian Language, Vilnius SEIRIJŲ ŠNEKTOS MIXED DIVALOURS 0. Southern Highlands mixed doublets, their acoustics is not discussed and described in more detail!. General descriptions of dialects and individual dialects are usually based on empirical observations; there is no experimental work on the subject. Here, based on instrumental analysis, the quantity and quality of mixed dimorphisms of Seirijų šnektas (Lazdijai district) is discussed, as well as the distinctive features of the strong-headed and strong-tailed premolars. 1. For research? diphthongs are chosen in the following words: kd-ltxs, kal.tas, ka-m, kam.pas, pakastas, kar.tas, tra-ntas „old, unsuitable thing“, krantas, nukcėltas, tel.pa, teėėrmsta, kem.ša, plantas, š'ven.tas, parkas, per.ka, pilkas, šil.kas, priki'msta, kim.šta, spinta", aps pin.tx, s'ki-rtas, pir. ktas, uspii-ltas, stul pas, usti-mtas, kum.pas, pu-nskos „Punskas“, atkun.tax, uSku-rtos, tur.tas. Short (3-5 words) sentences were formed with the mentioned words. They were included in the confirmation intonation by 3 men of the dialect (two from the town of Seirijai and one from Pošnia km.). Their average age is 60 years. Using the computer speech signal processing program PRAAT386, the total duration of mixed diphthongs and their separate* first and second sounds was measured, their basic tone (in halftones — At) and intensity (in decibels — dB) were determined, and the forms of vowels were found. To evaluate the obtained quantitative data, A. Girdenis’s program STUDENT.pas was used. The formants were evaluated, compactness, diffusivity, bemolarity, tonality, stress indices were determined in the program FORMANT2.- PAs. ExceLS.0 was used to draw the graphs FOR WINDOWS program. 1 A. Pakerio notes that the southern Highlanders pronounce and perceive the prefixes of syllables with mixed diphthongs more accurately than the western Highlanders and Žemaites (Pakerys 1982: 154). ? The article is based on the methodology of the study of prepositions of the common language, eastern Highland Utenis, western Highland, southern Zemgale Raseiniškis and northern Zemgale dialects (Pakerys 1968; Pakerys 1974; Pakerys et al. 1974; Pakerys 1978; Pakerys 1982; Girdenis, Pupkis 1974; Kosienė 1982; Mažiulienė 1996; Atkočaitytė 1998). 3 In dialect this word is new, but already widely used. Only the old generation uses the old shōpa. * Since it is not easy to distinguish the sounds of some biphasic instruments, the study was based not only on hearing, but also on oscillogram and spectrogram variations. 153 2.1. Results of the total duration of mixed doubles (see section 4.4). 1 lent.) showed that the strongdiphthongs are slightly longer už about once. — 1.1 This relationship is very similar to the į relationship of the duration of the ir continuous mixed diphthongs of the southern Samogitians of Raseiniškiai, which is 1,2 : 1 (Atkočaitytė 1998: 96). In common language, the strong a, beginings e+R are not longer tvirtagiliai, už u+R are longer o i, tvirtagiliai (Pakerys et al. ir 1974: 9). Some strong-end diphthongs do ir not differ in length (e. g. dm ir xm. the confidence intervals almost completely overlap, respectively — ms, the value of 188+246 ms ir 197+219 the Student o criterion is less than critical: už 0,69<2,1. The first two elements of the double-stringuž ed solids the second longer 1,9 time (zr. 2-3 slow. ). Thus, the accentuated vowels are strongly lengthened (plg. Būga 1961: 25; LKA 2 1982: 38-39, map. 20; 83, map. 68; 86-87, map. 70; 1998: 12; Skardžius 1999: 483-484). A similar ratio of lengths is found in the southern Samogitian raseiniskiy dialect (Pakerys ir et al. ir 1974: 9; Atkocaityté 1998: 96). This is due to the fact that most of the first-generation ones have a larger front end. ir A. According to ir Packer’s other researchers, in common language, the first solid-origin e+R elements a, are also longerni už second, but firm beginnings i, «+R first second ir elements look almost equal (Pakerys ir et al. 1974: 9). Tvirtagaliy diftongsiy the ratio ir of the duration of the first second frets is 1,3: 1 Such a result contradicts LKA’s 2 “traditional” statement that the pronounced second accent of mixed diphthongs is pronounced longer than the first už (LKA 2 1982: 125; map. 106). In the dialect of Eržvilkas, the second elements of continuous mixed diphthongs are also almost always shorter than the first ones, and the duration tends to be concentrated in the first element (Atkočaitytė 1998: 97). In common language, the first strongly pronounced a, e, i, u+R elements are shorter than the second ones už (Pakerys ir et al. 1974: 9). In both cases, both the first and the second fractions of the fraction are equally important. The total length of a diphthong is ne determined by the spontanir eous jų length of the individual vowels and consonants. Mixed diphthongs, the first syllable of which is a low-rising vowel (a, e), are longer than diphthongs with a high-rising vowel i, u (length ratios respectively VR: ViR= 1.5:1; VYR: ViR= 1.3:1)". Similarly, as in the common language (Pakerys et al. 1974: 15, 17; Pakerys 1982: 51) and in the Eržvilkas dialect of the southern Samogitians of Raseiniai (Atkočaitytė 1998: 96), the length of the diphthongs in the Seirijų schnekta is mainly influenced by the sonant x. 2.2. Looking at the duration of individual vowels in mixed diphthongs pronounced firmly and firmly (see table 2), it is clear that 0(L), i(L), i(m.), “ Symbols: V* —rear-order vowel, V” —front-order vowel, R —sonant. 154 K M ss S as EG esa k G ss Ms o i i sa i Table 1 Total duration of mixed diphthongs of strong-start and strong-end” Diphthongs n X+s (ms) v (%) 95% confidence interval int. (ms) tt dl 9 173421 12,2 157+189 232>2.117* al. 9 193+14 73 182+203 am 9 217+38 17,3 188+246 0.69<2.1% am. 9 208+14 6,6 197+219 dn 9 234412 5,0 225+244 4,79>4.01** an 9 200+17 8.6 187+214 or 9 201+16 8.0 188-+213 6.71>4,02** ar 9 147+18 12.0 134+161 él 9 204426 12.6 184224 2.88>2,11% el. 10 177+14 8.1 167+187 em 10 233417 7.5 220-245 6.65>3,02- %* em. 9 191+10 5.0 184+198 én 10 245431 12.5 223+266 3,70>3,22* en. 9 198+23 11,4 181+216 er 9 199427 13,6 180+218 2.43>2.11* er. 9 168+28 16,4 147+190 r 10 196+14 7.3 186206 0.64<2.10* il. 9 190+25 13.1 172208 rm 9 161420 12.1 147-176 1.01<2.11% im. 9 153+16 10,4 141+165 and 9 230+18 7.8 216+244 6.33>4,02- %* in. 9 178417 9.6 165+191 r 9 179+19 10.3 165-193 5.46>4,02- %* iF. 9 126+22 17.8 109-143 il 9 161+19 11.6 149-174 0.16<2.10* ul. 9 162+17 0,34 150+175 im 9 18149 5.0 174-188 4.75>4.02** hours 9 201+9 4.2 194+207 min 9 179+26 14.6 159-200 0.71<2.11* un. 9 187422 11.5 171-204 h 9 164+18 10.7 150+177 0.41<2.11* h 9 161415 9.3 The confidence intervals 149+172 u(m.), u(7.) fall into the intervals d@-(1), (I), i-(m), u(m), iv (r) (cf. d (I) —97+128 ms, a(l) —102+128 ms; (I) —93+114 ms, i(l) —77+104 ms, etc.). In these cases, the vowels do not differ substantially in length. * Symbol values: £ — arithmetic mean, s — standard deviation, v — coefficient of variation, + —9596 confidence interval, 7 — Student’s criterion, 1, — Student’s criterion critical value. 7* — 95% reliability of results, ** — 99.9% reliability of results. The intersecting confidence intervals of a: (m) and a(m.), u-(I) and u(l) indicate that the vowels in these cases have almost no difference in length. In general, the first strand of the hard-toothed doubles is 1.3 times longer than the first strand of the hard-toothed mixed doubles. The first démens of the lower rise a, e of the solid-rooted doublets are 1.3 times longer than those of the upper rise u, i of the solid-rooted doublets. The first démens of the lower rise a, e and the upper rise u, i of the solid-rooted doublets differ much less — 1.1 times. Table 2 Duration of first elements of mixed diphthongs of solid beginners and solid ends Diphthongs n x+s (ms) v (%) 95% confidence interval int. (ms) tt, da) 9 113420 17.8 97+128 0.28<2.11* a(l.) 9 115+16 14,2 102+128 d-(m) 9 127+24 18,6 109+145 1,66<2.11- *% z(m.) 9 112+14 12,0 101+123 am) 9 156+9 5,7 149+163 5,75>4,02- %* am.) 9 116+19 16,1 102+131 a (r) 9 151+16 10.6 139-164 7.95>4.02- %* él) 9 151432 21.1 (7) 9 93+15 16,2 81+104 127+176 3.93>3.22- %* ed) 10 107+15 14,1 96+118 é(m) 10 167+14 8.4 157+177 8,55>3,97- %* e(m.) 9 90+12 10,7 105+124 ė mn) 10 167+20 11.8 153+181 7.09>3.97- %* ef.) 9 108+16 14,8 96+120 é(r) 9 150+24 15,9 132+168 4.021>4,015** e(r.) 9 103+25 24,3 84+123 (1) 10 103+14 13,8 93+114 1,74<2.11* id) 9 91+18 19.9 77-104 I (m) 9 92412 12,4 83+101 0,76<2,11* i(m.) 9 87+17 19,6 74+100 im) 9 127413 10,0 117+137 5.22>4,02- %* ir(n.) 9 90+17 19,1 77+103 (r) 9 130+18 14,1 116+144 7,153>4,015** i(r.) 9 74+15 19,6 63+85 (i) 9 99416 15,8 87+111 1,02<2.11* ud.) 9 109+24 21.9 90-127 ii (m) 9 100+14 14,2 90110 0.14<2.11- *% u(m.) 9 101+10 10,2 93+109 iin) 9 114+18 16.0 100128 3,03>2, 28% un.) 9 92+12 13,2 83+101 t (r) 9 117+17 14,1 104+129 1,09<2,11* u(r.) 9 109+15 13,9 97+120 table Duration of solid-started and solid-end mixed diphthongs Diphthongs n Xts v (%) 95% confidence interval int. (ms) 12% (dl 9 60+19 31.7 46+75 2.12>2.11- ** 156 The first elements a, e of the solid-started mixed doublets are 1.4 times longer than the first elements a, e of the solid-started doublets of the upward rise a, e. 3 (2). 9 78+15 19,5 66+89 (a-)m 9 90+20 21,9 75+105 0,71<2,11* (a)m. 9 96+17 17.4 83+109 (dn 9 78+12 16,0 68+87 1.04<2.11- %* (2.)i 9 84+14 16.4 74+95 (dr 9 50+6 11,7 45+54 1.28<2.11* (2)F. 9 54+10 18.2 47+62 (€-)I 9 53+10 19,5 45+60 3.79>3,22- %* (e)l. 10 70+10 13.6 63+77 (In 10 66+9 13.1 6072 2.57>2,11- %* (e)m. 9 76+9 11.4 70+83 (E)n 10 78+14 17,3 68:88 2,31>2,11- ** fe)n. 9 90+11 12.3 83+100 (&)r 9 49415 31,3 37+61 2.70>2.11- ** (e)r. 9 65+9 13.3 58+72 (i-)I 10 92+8 8.5 87+98 1.44<2,11* (il. 9 99+13 13.1 89+110 (r)m 9 69+12 17,3 60+79 0.72<2,11* (i). 9 66+6 8.8 62+71 years 9 103+14 13.9 92+114 2.53>2,11- %* (in. 9 88+10 11,5 80-96 a)r 9 4949 18,4 42+56 0,58<2,11* (i)r. 9 52+11 21.9 43+60 ai) 9 58+21 36.3 42:74 0.44<2.11* aul. 9 54421 38,8 38+70 (ū-)m 9 81+11 13,7 7390 2.96>2,92- %* (u)m. 9 100+16 15.6 88+112 (ūr)n 9 66+21 31.8 50:82 3.51>3,25- %* (u)n. 9 95+15 15.8 84+107 (ir) 9 4744 9.3 44+50 1.41<2,11* (u)r. 9 51+7 13.8 45+56 2.3 When analyzing the duration of the mixed double second domains, it was observed that The confidence intervals (adr)m, (dr)n, (dr)r, 0), (t)r, (@)r fall within the intervals (x)m, (2)n, (2)F, (i)L, (i)F, (u)F (see (i)r —44+50 ms, (u)f —45+56 ms; (F)r —42+56 ms, (i) —43+60 ms, etc.). This shows that in these cases the second spots of the doubles do not actually differ in length. 157 Second mixed doubles (t)m, (t)! spots slightly longer uz (i)m. ir (u)L second characters (plg. jų confidence intervals: ()m — 60+79 ms, (1) — 42+74 ms ir (i)m. — 62+71 ms ir (w)l — 38+70 ms). Iš In comparison, the second strand of the strong-sided double-stranded is twice as long as the 1,1 second strand of the strong-startuž ed double-stranded. Thus, the anticipation affects ir the duration of the second spot (plg. ir Pakerys 1982: 160). 2.5. In linguistic literature, the duration of the two doubled accents in Southern Highlands varies. Both the strong-started and the strong-end double accents of the Druskininkai dialect are considered semi-long (e.g., kd.l'v'i "kalvi" and ger.s "gers") (DTŽ 1988). Kitur (LKT 1970; Mikalauskaitė 1975: 140, 142; Markevičienė 1999) The first elements of all solid-start doubles are presented as long, the second elements of solid-ends as semi-long. — The LKA 2 states that the strong-vowels am, an, em, the second en sand is long (LKA 2 1982: 84-85, map. 69; 87-88, map. 71; 125, map. 125). The ratio of the total lengths of the first strands ir of all double-stranded solid-start double-strands to the total lengths 1,5 : 1, o of the second ir strands — 2,8: 1. Total duration of ir the solids ratio of the double first elements — 1,8 : 1, to the ir total duration of the second elements 2,3 : 1. Thus, the strong-started double-vowel accents should be considered long, and the o strong-end sonates should be considered semi-long. 3. Iš results of the experiment" show that the vowel elements of both the strong-started and strong-end diphthongs are lowa, e o i, u — high-toned (plg. d-(I) F,=1240 Hz, 2(L) F,=1210 Hz; r(n) F,=2000 Hz, i(n.) F,=1710 Hz ir kt ). This is confirmed ir by the tonality index (plg. €(r) T=115, I(r) T= 597, a- (I) T=-34, u(n.) T=-13 kt. ir ). High-pitched strong-vowels of mixed diphthongs a+r, accents i, n (plg. 7=584, T=364), 0 e, u, a+!, is a m lower tone (plg. a@-(m) T=1, a(n.) T=-32). TvirtapradZiy a, e kompaktiSkumo index more or less higher than ar in the solid mixed diphthongs (plg. d'(n) C=901 ir z(n). C=880; ¢(r) C=882 ir e(r.) C=861 kt. ir ). Vowels i, u the diffusivity index is higher in the case of mixed diphthongs pronounced firmly (plg. 4:(n) df=710 ir u(n.) df=580; i(1) df=1640 ir i(L) df=1130; (m) df=1430 ir i(m.) df=1340 ir kt ). In all cases, the first elements of strong-beginning mixed diphthongs are a, e, i, u pronounced with much more tense language tools than strong-beginning diphthongs (cf. d-(!) wt=540 and x2(L) wt=430; (m) wt=630 and i(m.) wt=470; w(r) wt=690 and u(r) wt=470 etc. ). 5 E. Mikalauskaitė (1975: 99, 142) has also initially thought so. ? Since it is believed that the qualitative differences between the strong and strong-end mixed diphthongs are determined more by the first elements than by the second (cf. Pakerys 1982: 64; Atkočaitytė 1998: 98), the article is limited to discussing only the qualitative differences between the vowel elements. 158 The bemolarity index shows that in strong initial diphthongs it is slightly more bemolar than in u the case when the second diphthong spot receives a strong prefix (see (I) b=112 and u(l) b=111; w(m) b=112 and u(m.) b=110, etc. ). The remaining sounds are considered non-molar (see their non-molarity indexes). The compactness index of the solid a, e is more or less higher than that of the solid mixed diphthongs (cf. a-(n) C=901 and x(n.) C=880; e:(r) C=882 and e(r) C=861, etc.). The diffusivity index of the vowels í, u is higher when mixed diphthongs are pronounced firmly (see ti: (n) df=710 and u(n.) df=580; i-(I) df=1640 and i(L) df=1130; 1 (m) df=1430 and i(m.) df=1340 ir kt ). In all cases, the first elements of the mixed diphthongs a, e, i, u are pronounced with much more tense language devices than those of the mixed consonants (cf. a: (1) it=540 and 2(L) it=430; (m) it=630 and i(m.) it=470; vi (r) it=690 and u(r.) it=470, etc.). The bemolarity index shows that in strong-started diphthongs u is slightly more bemolar than in the case when the second diphthong spot receives a strong-end prefix (cf. w(l) b=112 and u(l) b=111; i-(m) b=112 and u(m.) b=110, etc.). ). The remaining sounds are considered non-molecular (see their bemoliSkum indexes). Differences in the articulation of the investigated doubles are also noticeable. The first elements a, e of solid-started mixed binary are much more open than those of solid-end binary (cf. d-(/) F,=690 Hz, “(I) F,=640 Hz; d-(r) F,=690 Hz, “(r.) F,=630 Hz; é(m) F,=730 Hz, e(m.) F,=600 He é(r) F,=700 He elf) F,=600 Hz, etc.; Table 4). Thus they are of lower elevation (cf. and bk. 1974: 148 Atkočaitytė 1998: 88). As in the common language (Pakerys 1995: 174), the first elements of the mixed diphthongs with a firm beginning (except for 1!) i, u are pronounced more closed than the firm beginnings of the diphthongs with a firm beginning — cf. 4-(m) F =450 Hz, u(m.) F,=530 Hz; u(n) F, =450 Hz, u(n.) F, =490 Hz; r(n) F, —390 Hz, i(n.) F, =500 Hz: I(r) F. =380 Hz, iff) F, =490 Hz, etc. Solid-state mixed bipolar uF, Lower, oi higher than solid-state F, (cf. @ (1) F,=780 Hz, u(l) F,=890 Hz; tt:(n) F,=840 Hz, u(n.) F,=1050 Hz; i-(n) F, = 2000 Hz, i(n.) F, = 1710 Hz; (r) F, =1980 Hz, iF) F, =1590 Hz, etc.). Thus, the u of strong-started mixed diphthongs is more posterior, and the u of strong-end diphthongs is less posterior. In the case of a strong initial mixed diphthong, i is much more pronounced than in the case of the second part of the syllable with a diphthong. The values of a, e, F, of the solid-end and solid-start mixed double first sands vary (cf. «d-(m) F,=1270 Hz, 2(m.) F,=1160 Hz; ‘-(I) F, = 1400 Hz, e(l) F, = 1400 Hz; é¢(r) F,=1470 Hz, elf) F,=1460 Hz). Thus, the qualitative characteristics of strong-origin double-vowel accents are more pronounced, "truer". In the case of strong-tailed vowels, they are paler and give way to reduction. Such a difference in the quality of the mixed vowel elements of the strong-end and strong-start vowels, as in the common language and in Eržvilko- ’s dialect of the Southern Samogitians (Pakerys 1974: 151; Atkočaitytė 1998: 99), is one of the important indicators of the precociousness. 159 Table 4 The quality of ir the first elements of solid-started mixed doublets" Diphthongs| Fi(Hz) | F>(Hz) F; (Hz) bi Cc 17 df jt a:(I) 690 1240 2410 107 900 -34 550 540 a2(l.) 640 1210 2500 108 891 -39 570 430 d-(m) 690 1270 2330 107 897 1 580 590 a(m) 630 1160 2300 108 895 -32 530 670 d-(n) 700 1260 2310 107 901 -8 560 630 a(n.) 630 1310 2400 108 880 55 680 420 d-(r) 690 1330 2340 107 892 40 640 520 2(F.) 630 1340 2390 107 877 76 710 400 el) 670 1400 2500 107 881 68 730 270 el) 600 1400 2500 107 865 116 800 200 č (m) 730 1470 2370 106 888 97 740 390 e(m.) 600 1530 2400 107 856 211 930 230 én) 690 1370 2330 107 888 67 680 490 ef.) 610 1410 2320 108 868 148 800 380 ė (r) 700 1470 2370 107 882 115 770 260 er) 600 1460 2410 107 861 169 860 230 (i) 360 2000 2570 108 764 636 1640 710 id.) 450 1580 2390 108 814 366 1130 240 i-(m) 420 1850 2300 108 794 549 1430 630 i(m.) 460 1800 2370 108 807 473 1340 470 in) 390 2000 2670 107 774 584 1610 780 in) 500 1710 2530 107 820 364 1210 240 I(r) 380 1980 2610 108 772 597 1600 710 ir.) 490 1590 2530 108 824 309 309 130 il) 510 780 2270 112 917 279 710 710 u(l.) 480 890 2310 111 888 -146 630 820 i (m) 450 910 2270 112 874 91 640 870 um) 530 950 2370 110 894 -144 520 710 ii: (n) 450 840 2200 112 885 -147 710 1010 ui.) 490 1050 2320 110 869 -13 560 640 ii (r) 440 920 2180 112 870 -54 640 960 u(r.) 500 1080 1080 110 868 21 580 470 4.As shown by examples such as kd-ltxs „kaltas“ and kal.tas „kaltas“, kd-rk „kark“ and kar.k „kark“', in this dialect (as well as in the whole Southern Highland area) the strong-start and strong-end consonants are clearly distinguished in the mixed diphthongs. E. Mikalauskaitė (1975) in describing the southwestern Dzūkų accents refers to the following symbols: V —vowel, F, —values of the first form (Hz), F, —values of the second form, F, —values of the third form, C, —compactness index, b, bemol, T. —degree of tonality, df —diffusity, ít —tension. The evaluations of formants were carried out according to Piotrovskij (Piotrovskij 1960) methodology. 160 engaged in experimental studies of monophonic sounds. According to her, in this dialect, the strong-first preposition is "more of a falling than a rising nature", and the strong-last one is a rising one. The author considered the place of pressure as the main distinguishing feature of the pretemporary (Mikalauskaitė 1975: 140-143). When a mixed diphthong receives a firm-beginning consonant, its pressure is concentrated in the first, when a firm-ending one — in the second consonant"* (cf. also LKA 2 1982: 125, no. 106). As can be seen from Figures 1-3, the main tone curves of the solid-start mixed doublets are usually descending or descending-ascending, the solid-ends are ascending. The tops of the main tone in the strong-beginning doubles are closer to the beginning, in the strong-ending closer to the end. The upper tone is usually used for strong beginner vowels. However, there is no strict rule: sometimes the tone of a doublet is clearly higher than that of a doublet. of 8 14th or © I + 10 er %+ 8 - 74 4 6+ | at 24 [1] La | a RA EE A Ey Figure 1. The main tone and intensity of the mixed diphthongs [fm] and [ir] in the words priki'msta (—) and kim.šta (---). Figure 2. The main tone and intensity of the mixed diphthongs [tn] and and [ufi.] in the words punskas (---) and atkuni.ta (—). " The acute of Lithuanian common language, especially of western dialects, is characterized by the concentration of energy in one specific point, the circumflex — its breakdown throughout the pronounced syllable (in northern Samogitian dialects — throughout the center of the syllable) (Girdenis 1996: 71, 82). 161