Samplaikinių priebalsių „kietumo : minkštumo“ priešpriešos nykimas Pelesos šnektoje

LITHUANIAN KALBOTYROS QUESTIONS XXXVIII (1997) Edmundas TRUMPA TEMPORARY EXTRA FAT HARDHARDNESS : : The Pelesos (Varanasi region, Belarus) dialect, like other peripheral dialects of Lithuanian language, is characterized by an interesting phonological ir phenomenon of the group of consonants that are located before the front or over-fronted vowels of the rear row. — (i.e. [GC left members often do not obey the law of softness assimilation, e.g.: nuzgon.di.s ‘misigandes slept i.n'ū. ‘septyniy’, skiie.s ‘skylés’, glesm a. Ss ‘giesmes’, viizgi ‘visgl, tri-ndu ‘tryniaw’, m4.zsk'inus ‘marskinius’, šašči ‘esti’, girgé-t ‘girdét(iy, garzi ‘gardi’. This dialect phenomenon, which does not conform to the rules of common language, has been observed and described by a number of linguists (cf. Zinkevičius 1966: 157, 163; Sudnik 1975: 65; Grumadienė 1988: 132). Usually, such cases of regressive palatalization tend to be explained by the lack of functional softness of the members of the sampling or by the influence of the phonological systems of foreign languages (Pelesa Lithuanians and Gudi pronounce the consonants r, $, Z ¢ dž hard, although in the sampling they may be soft). The phenomenon is also attempted to be modelled according to phonotactic rules, when unpalatalized samples signal an open junction (Strimaitienė, Girdenis 1978: 61; Girdenis 1995: 40). When discussing this phenomenon, it is particularly useful to refer to the material of Pelesa schnekta, because many of the words of this schnekta containing the mentioned samples are frequent. Samplaikos are easy to hear, "not affected" by specific dialect characteristics, so the soft and hard members are easy to distinguish even with an inexperienced ear. It is even more interesting that these samples often have variants that testify to the existence of the process and allow to assume that the proliferation of unpalatalized samples is not chaotic. The material was collected in 1994 in the villages of Pelesos district: Pavalakėjė, Leliūšiai, Dubiniai, Piliūnai, Paditvyjė, and Pelesojė itself. The area, which is treated as an island of Lithuanian and Gudi bilingualism, reflects several stages of unevenly changed linguistic situation: from the almost complete extinction of the Lithuanian language (in Leliūšiai), when only the old inhabitants (only a few survived in 1994) maintained the Lithuanian language and thus bilingualism, through the balance of bilingualism (in Pelesa, Piliūnai, Dubiniai, Paditvys) to the true, little-touched predominance of the Lithuanian language (in Pavalakė) (Sudnik 1980: 181; Vidugiris, 1988: 24). In six tape cassettes stored in the Department of Linguistic History and Dialectology of the Lithuanian Language Institute (registration 214 ir No. 353-355, 360-362) recorded The 17 speakers' cohesive speech (story or conversation). According to the sociolinguistic questionnaire, all submissions, 1909 — 1936 year, — Lithuanians, from childhood at home ir su with people of their generation who spoke Lithuanian (except 1941 one, born in 1990, whose mother ir was Polish and now considers herself Polish). Informants communicate with foreign-spesu aking neighbors, some — su wives, children and su grandchildren who do not speak Lithuanian. ir As a result, the richness of the speakers’ speech differed, the abundance of words with sampled consonant constructions su varied. Domino triple consonant samples: fully palatalized ((C1C2377 D, You. ve]), and samples that were not entirely affected by assimilatory softening ([C,C continuous solid (CC: ]) samplaikos (for details see Trumpa 1994: 23). They consist of two adjacent consonants, conditionally separated from the binary, trinomial or quaternary group (for example, in the word apksc? ‘early’ pk, ks, sc’ samples are raised) (see Sudnik 1972: 15). Proportionally to the recorded amount of each speaker- ’s text, 30, 50 or 60 consonant groups were selected. Total number of samples found 923. They are distributed as follows: (a) ([C1C' (...)]) -92 samples (437 uses); (b) ([C1C'> (...)]): 82 samples (313 uses); (c) ([CiC; (...) J) — 46 samples (183 use cases). Since the sociolinguistic data of the speakers are not very different, it is appropriate to refer to the age criterion when talking about the use of variant seals. It has been observed that speakers born between 1909 and 1920 maintained the soft consonant correlates in an approximate ratio of 2:1, speakers born between 1920 and 1925 maintained this ratio in an approximate ratio of 1.5:1, and speakers of the younger generation, born between 1925 and 1941, maintained the ratio of 1:1. The reasons for the decline of soft correlates seem to be to be found in the local Gudi dialects and explained by the influence of bilingualism, but this approach should be followed with caution, since, according to M. Lekomceva, “the interaction of Lithuanian, Polish and Gudi dialects is a continuation of linguistic contacts that began in Vilnius as early as the 13th—14th centuries.” (Lekomceva 1972: 127). Variations of the soft-hard correlation of prefixed samplaics are also possible in the Gudi dialect: sp'avAi /sp'avai ‘sing’, zm'él'im | zm 'élim ‘we will sing’; or: the Lithuanian substrate explains the use of the soft r' variant, which occurs most often in the group of soft consonants: barvona | bar'v'ona ‘found’, pars't'onik | p'ar's't'Oonik ‘flower’, etc. (Lekomceva 1972: 126, 127). 215 Thus, the influence of Polish gudy schnekta with ir complex consonantism cannot be denied, but it is necessary to look for the prerequisites of change in the ir language itself. The Polish-Lithuanian Phonetic System. "T. Sudnik, who studied Lithuanian, Gudian and Polish dialects in Lazūnai in the 1970s, determined the distribution fields of phonemes in these dialects and compiled detailed sample tables ir of galliphonems mų (Judge 1972: 10, 22, 31 Table 1). Pelesos ir The phonetic systems of the Lazūnų dialects differ little, so it is possible to make a careful approximation of the data, allowing to make some theoretical assumptions. V Į in this case discovered r. The T'—] type junction table can be moved R'" mas V iš Tables by T. Sudnik (symbol "P" when marked The conjugation found in Peleso Lithuanian dialect, "L" — In Lazūnų Lithuanian dialect, there is a possible conjugation, "G" — In the Lazūnų Gudi dialect, the following conjugation is possible: p b' t' d' k' g cg č'<c 3 m PLG G P P LG LG PLG PG m, PLG LG L L LG LG LG LG n PG G P P PG PG p P n' LG LG PL PL PL PL PL PL PL LG /G PG PG G G G I LG LG PL PL PLG PLG PLG PLG T PLG PLG PL PL PLG PLG PLG PLG PLG I, P P P P P p P P to The presence of Soft m in samples of this type is quite problematic; its palatality should be checked in laboratory conditions. > Lazūnai are south of the boundary beyond which r has no positional and functional softness, (see Urbanavičiūtė 1970: 78), while Pelesojė r' has retained softness in certain rare cases (e.g., in samplaikos). Comparing the data we find several samples, of which: 1) m3'(pasamyi'eli ‘hired’), np'(bMū.pii. T'e-m ‘ipylém(e)’- ), nk’ (lank ala ‘lankel¢’), ng’ (lagg'vdd. ‘lengviaw’- ), Ib’ (Zukodb'é-- c'‘uzkalbét(i)’), Ik' (Saka. lke. ‘place where wood is chopped’) —theoretically possible to explain as resulting from the effect of the phonotactic of the guddy consonants; 2) mt' (kramticis ‘to chew’), md’ (pasamdaū. ‘to hire’), nt (své.nt'ing- .), nd' (dund'a-klis ‘dude’), nc’ (pasvia.nciio. ‘to pass through’), nj’ (n'esuzbIng-3ing'in'e;- jo. ‘he didn’t use it’), as well as rp’ (&f7rp’c’ ‘to work’), r'd’ (abdirb'd'in¢jo. ‘to process’), rt’ (dabar.te.s ‘now’), rd’ (gar'dinfi ‘Gardine’), rk’ (prersp'ir.- k'i. ‘to buy’), rg’ (pask'erge. ‘to kill’), rec’ (arcda. ‘ardiaw’), r’s’ (gir’su “girdžiu (girdau)’) —these are not explained by the phonetic rules of the Gudhi. Thus, sampling cannot be described simply as the result of the interaction of languages — it is a much broader phenomenon and, perhaps, has its own internal laws. , 216 Therefore, it is necessary į to take into account the place of the samples in the word, as well as the į structure of the samples tų and the characteristir ics of the consonants that compose them. First of all, it should be noted that the members of the aforementioned samples belong to different phonological syllables often (0 — ir for different morphemes whose boundaries su coincide with the boundaries of syllables), cf. P'enk? ‘penki’, vienk'e.m'ei ‘one-man-farm’, nurbmgditt' ‘nurinkdyt(i)’, nuzgad.dis ‘nusingdes’, turtingi ‘rich’, skurd''ei. ‘skurdziai’, pirka-le.j ‘pirkeléj(e)’, vierpam ‘verpiam(e)’, 4rc (< arch) ‘art(i)’, da-semmc’'(< d'a-semc’s) ‘deSimt’, Seirzia. 'Sirdin'. The RT consonant junction type (like RS, TS, TT, RR, SS types) has the potential to depalatalize the first member of the junction. This type of junction represents a certain path separation between the implosive (first member) and explosive (second member) groups, and the softening of this path separation is often not overcome by assimilation: ma.rskinus ‘shirts’, /4.pkiska ‘Polish’, [email protected]’ ‘to drink’, insiklepdk ‘to look’, pen.siro.s ‘pensions’, képc’ (<képci) ‘to bake’, barn'v.kas ‘boy’, kd.rve.s ‘cows’, kirme.lé-‘kirméle’, puss as 'ersls ‘pusseseres’. The total number of RT, RS, TS, RR, TT, SS type conjugations accounts for more than half (189 out of 313) of the cases of non-softening of one consonant. 112 are homomorphic samples, which can be explained by the dependence of the members on different phonological syllables, and 77 are heteromorphic samples, which can be treated as the realization of an open junction. When comparing the partially affected (C;,C'>) and soft (CC) RT, RS, TS, TT, RR, SS type correlates, the soft ones were retained slightly more (use ratio 1.89: 2.05). These are, as mentioned, more commonly used by older providers. But how can the remaining 124 cases of semi-soft samples be explained? These are ST, SR, TR-type junctions, which are not divided into phonological syllables and only sporadically belong to different morphemes (39 cases of use): spliėc'as ‘spietias(i)’, sk'ietas ‘skietas’, drūsk'in'i.kuosa "Druskininkuose", rakščė.s “rakšties (karsto)', mo-rk'e.I'išk'e. “Morkeliškė', dukstés'ne.s ‘higher’, misk'7 ‘forest’, šašči ‘Sesti’, bažn'i*ča "church', šn'a-ka ‘Sneka’, g'esma.s ‘giesmes’, paslap'e. ‘paslépe’, tris ‘three’, litv'g-kai ‘Lithuanian’ p/ik'es ‘Naked’, (7)isplé-s¢’ (< (Iišplė:šči) “to spread”, brfnu. ‘blyny’, etc. Here, the reasons for the non-softening of the first member of the samplaika can be found in the articulatory base of Pelesa schneckt. It is known that in this speech $ Ž, (5) and especially ry have lost their positional and partly functional softness. This is cautiously explained by the hardening of the first sampliky members, cf. Sasér ‘SeSi’/sm'aka ‘Smeka’, ŽūrgreI “Žiūri’/ seseZd'a-sermc’ ‘sixty’, s¢-37 ‘sédi’(although the hard s before e, ė is very rare)/ smiielis‘sand’. It is possible that the depalatalization of the consonants £, d, p, b (as well as m, v) is still in its early stages (Urbanavičiūtė 1978: 76). This process is evidenced by T"R* variants: £irff“s ‘three’/tri-n- ‘’du ‘three times’/trėrs ‘three’. , 217 Semi-soft ST, SR, type junctions, TR compared to the entirely soft su variants, are not used so jų widely, apparently because of the appearance of some difficulties in articulation (the first and second members of the sample are not separated by the natural phonological ir syllable barrier). Therefore, despite r, $, ž (in certain positions quite ir s, £, d, p, b) regular hardening, in samples these consonants are more often pronounced softly. Mīnato ST, SR, type TR part iš soft whole ir soft (i.e. (C,C,) ir (C1C')) correlates use ratio of that, 1,2 : 2,4. Be this type of conjunction tends to be pronounced whole solid (108 iš 183 10% of cases). It can be seen that within one syllable members of samples of different softness are not ‘desirable’. Total ratio of iš consonant groups belonging to the same syllable in a portion of depalatalized samples, whose members belong to different ir phonological syllables 1,89 : 1,22. Therefore, į A. Girdenis’s question “The boundary of the phonological syllable: a construct or reality?” can reasonably be answered positively: “(...) the boundary of the phonological syllable is a certain psycholinguistic reality, intuitively perceived by language users” (Girdenis 1985: 5, 9). In the extinct In the Pelesa dialect, the limit of the phonological syllable is signalled by the contradiction of the consonant sampling members with respect to palatality. LITTERACY Girdenis A. 1985: The boundary of the phonological syllable: construct or reality? —Kalbotyra 36 (1), Vilnius, 5 —11. Girdenis A. 1995: Phonology, Vilnius: Petro ofsetas. Grumadienė L. 1988: Sociolinguistic study of Vilnius Lithuanian language: consonantism and accentuation. —Lithuanian language and bilingualism. Lithuanian Linguistics Issues 27, Vilnius, 132 - 149. Lekomceva M. 1972: O vzaimodeistvii fonologi¢- eskih sistem v raione balto-slavjanskogo pogranitsiya. —Balto-slavyanskij sbornik, Moscow: Nauka, 116 —134. Strimaitiené M. Girdenis A. 1978: The duration of prepositional compounds as an indicator of open junction in common Lithuanian language.- —Ka/botyra 29 (1), Vilnius, 61—69. Sudnik T.M. 1972: Lazūnai. Lithuanian, Belarusian and Polish phonological systems. — Balto-slavjanskij sbornik, Moscow: Nauka, 15 —115. Sudnik T.M. 1975: Dialects litovsko-- slavjanskogo pogranicja. Ocerki fonologiceskih sistem (Lazduny, Deveniski, Gervjaty, Zetela), Moscow: Nauka. Judge TM. 1980: History of the language situation of Peljasy. —Balto-slavyanskije etnojazykovyje kontakty, Moscow: Nauka, 181 —191. Trumpa E. 1994: Dephonologization of hardness: softness contradiction in consonant samples (based on Pelesa schneck data). —Lithuanian language: researchers and research. Thesis of the conference [in memory of P.Skardžius], Vilnius, 22 —24. Urbanavičiūtė Ž. 1970: Priebalsiai /, r, s, (2?) against non-vowel č, en in Lithuanian dialects. —Kalbotyra 21, Vilnius, 75 —87. Urbanavičiūtė Ž. 1978: Hardening of Priebalsių £, d, mir b, p, m, v in Lithuanian dialects. —Kalbotyra 29, Vilnius, 69 —78. Vidugiris A. 1988: From the Development of Ethnolinguistic Relations in Pelesas and Nearby Areas. — Lithuanian language and bilingualism. Lithuanian Linguistics Issues 27, Vilnius, 21 —36. 218 Zinkevičius Z. 1966: Lithuanian dialectology. Comparative phonetics ir of dialects Morphology (with 75 map), Vilnius: A thought. DEPHONOLOGIZATION DER OPPOSITION VON NON-PARLIAMENTARY : PALATALEN CONSONANT GROUPS DER MUNDART VON PELESA Summary The aim of this article is to show the causes of the only partial palatalization assimilation in the consonant groups of type [C," Cor]. Some consonant groups remain hard. Until now, the problem of depalatalization V has been explained by the influence of foreign languages on the phonological system of Lithuanian dialects as well as by the absence of functional and positional palatalization in Lithuanian dialects. In the dialect of Pelesa, the boundaries of palatalization usually coincide with the phonological boundaries of the syllables. 219