Dėl kai kurių žodžių naujojo kirčiavimo vertės

LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI XXXVII (1997) LEKSIKOGRAFIJOS IR LEKSIKOLOGIJOS PROBLEMOS Vilija LAZAUSKAITĖ ON THE VALUE OF THE NEW ACCENTUATION OF SOME WORDS* Reviewing the “Dictionary of Zoological Systematics Terms,” published in 1920, K. Būga argued that stress and accent must be marked in dictionaries, because “words that have spread into the language from written texts are pronounced inhumanly by our intellectuals, that is, they place the stress where it does not occur in the speech of the people. And so they distort the words” (Būga 1961:785). K. Būga points out that intellectuals know words with fixed stress áudra, ýda, óda, próga, rūšìs, šiẽla only from written texts, and therefore many pronounce them audrà, ydà, odà, progà, rūšìs. J. Balčikonis later made the same point, noting, like K. Būga, that intellectuals tend to change the accent of an unfamiliar word and even its stress position (Balčikonis 1978: 95). Disregard for authentic (that is, inherited-stress) variants was and is treated as a violation of the standard language norm. Literatūroje paplitusį teiginį, kad lietuvių kalboje įsigalįs galūninis vardažodžių kirčiavimas, B.Stundžia paremia konkrečių faktų analize, t.y. pateikia statistinių duomenų apie dviskiemenių daiktavardžių akcentinius variantus (Stundžia 1984: 88). Autorius teigia, kad dominuoja šakninio-galūninio kirčiavimo variantai (285 žodžiai, arba 86%), iš kurių produktyvumu ryškiai skiriasi 2/4 akcentinės paradigmos gretybių (50, 2% visų variantų), pavyzdžiui, balà (2) / balá (4), lėkštė (2) / lėkštė (4). Maždaug vienodai 1/3 (18,2%) ir 1/4 (16,7%) akcentinių paradigmų gretybių, pavyzdžiui: béržas (1,3), káinà (1) / kainà (4). B.Stundžios duomenimis, į galūninį kirčiavimą statistiškai reikšmingai linkę prie-balsinio, i ir o kamienų daiktavardžiai, į šakninį – e kamieno žodžiai (pvz., káu-gė (1) / kaũgė (2) (Stundžia 1984: 88). Vadinasi, kirčiavimo varianto pasirinkimą būtų galima sieti su morfonologiniais faktoriais. Dviskiemenių pirminių daiktavardžių kamienų akcentinei galiai ypač svarbus morfologinis veiksnys (Stundžia 1995: 33). D. Mikulėnienė links the emergence of final-stress variants to a general tendency in colloquial speech to simplify the accentuation of inflected words. In her view, this leads to the generalization of two accentual types in urban speech: accent classes 1 and 2 as a paradigm of fixed stem stress, and classes 3 and 4 as a paradigm of mobile stress. The emerging new system of accentuation of inflected words— * I sincerely thank Associate Professor Dr. V. Vitkauskas for suggesting the topic of the presentation (and of this article). 111 —shows an important development: the gradual weakening of the link between a word’s stress position and the accent of its penultimate syllable. The author tends to explain the decline of this connection by the influence of the accentual system of Slavic languages, primarily Russian (Mikulienienė 1993: 78). Final stress alongside the ancient stem stress is also found in dialects, for example, óda (1) Kv / odà (4) Gs (new), Plv (new), Skr (new) (LKŽ VIII 993); próga (1) Klvr, Mrc, Rdn, Rm, Ukm / progà (4) Krž (new), Pv (new), Škn (new) (LKŽ X 785); rūšis (1) Kl, Rt, Sg, Šr, Trk / rūšìs (3) Jrb, Sb (new), Žln (new) (LKŽ XI 1030); siẽla (1) Rtr, Š / sielà (4) Slk (new) (LKŽ XII 518). The first edition of LKŽ gives only the variant áudra (1) (LKŽ I 375). In the second edition, audrà (4) (LKŽ I₂ 458) is given only from DŽ. In V. Vitkauskas’s view, “this is entirely correct (many dialects already have final stress for words from the standard language; we all know this, but it is probably not important for historical research—it is something sociology and the future of accentology must certainly know)” (Vitkauskas 1987: 16). Both accentual variants are found in the supplementary card file of the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language: áudra (1) End, Klp, Krš, Ms, Plšk, Prk, Trk / audrà (4) End, Grnk, Kpr, Snt. The “Dictionary of the North-Eastern Dunininkai Dialects” gives only variants of the word rūšis with a changed stem: rūšè (1) and rūšẽ (3). The nouns áudra (1) and próga (1) are identified as having fixed stress; the other words discussed in the article (oda, siela) are not mentioned. In the Lazūnai and Druskininkai dialects, the words audra, oda, proga, rūšis, siela are not inherited, and therefore are not mentioned at all in LžŽ and DrskŽ. Thus, even the small amount of evidence collected shows that the accentuation of the words under discussion varies even in dialects. A. Girdenis attempted to determine why final stress is becoming established for nominal words. One possible explanation is the undesirable homonymy of inflected forms. For example, singular genitive šakós and plural nominative šakos. In A. Girdenis’s view, “the ‘stem-stressed’ accentuation of words such as yda, oda, proga and others does not take root in the standard language because it may have been determined by the need to differentiate between different cases” (Girdenis 1967: 6). The author believes this hypothesis would be confirmed if it turned out that the shift to final stress is most widespread in those dialects where the homonymy of unstressed endings is greatest (say, in the Northwestern Aukštaitian dialects). Apparently, this is why J. Balčikonis wrote that “one cannot always rely solely on what is now found in dialects, because much there has been corrupted” (Balčikonis 1978: 95). Thus, he observed that this problem concerns not only the speech of intellectuals but also dialects. As an example, the author cited the words óda, próga, rūšìs, saying that in living speech they are pronounced with stress incorrectly shifted to the ending—odà, progà, rūšìs. J. Balčikonis did not explain why the stress position of these nouns changes; he merely described how “our dialects, which preserve final stress, have a tendency, for some unknown reason, to shift the stress to the end in a word that has come from elsewhere” (Balčikonis 1978: 95). Compare standard-language váistai and Southern Aukštaitian vaistai, 112 standard-language móteris and Western Aukštaitian moterà (K). Therefore, K. Būga, J. Balčikonis, and later their students, strictly distinguished authentic dialect facts from newly emerging phenomena, and insisted that inherited word stress and the use of words in dialects be taken into account (cf. Vitkauskas 1988: 99, 103). While linguists consider the conditions under which words with fixed stress shift to the final-stress type, language-culture and dictionary specialists need to determine whether the use of variants with stem and final stress (áudra / audrà) is appropriate. V. Vitkauskas argues that, for research into the history of language, “only inherited facts, historically attested matters, are suitable for scholarly purposes”; however, data from spoken language must not be disregarded either—they must be observed and evaluated (Vitkauskas 1988: 95). Thus, normative variants with stem stress, long prescribed in the standard language (áudra, óda, próga, rūšis, siela), are being displaced in usage by nouns with final stress that are gaining ground (audrà, odà, progà, rūšìs, siẽla). A. Girdenis and A. Pupkis point out that this pattern of stress reveals a contradiction “between codification and the norm (cf. the codified stress pattern in the standard language próga, óda, rūšis and the actual statistical norm progà, odà, rūšìs)” (Girdenis, Pupkis 1970: 66). The contradiction was further deepened by the linguists’ own change to the standard-language norm (Pakerys 1994: 7). The variants mentioned were presented differently in the “Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian.” The 1954 edition of the dictionary gives the following usage norm: áudra (1) / audrà (4) is listed with two variants, while óda (1), próga (1), rūšis (1), and siẽla (1) are given only as words with fixed stress. The second edition of the dictionary notes that “alongside the archaic stress pattern of some words, a new, more viable stress pattern emerges, which is nothing other than the result of the natural development of language” (DŽ₂: III). This dictionary lists first the stress variant more usual in the standard language, regardless of its age. Therefore, the variants under discussion are listed in this dictionary both as words with fixed and with mobile stress: audrà (4) / áudra (1), odà (4) / óda (1), progà (4) / próga (1), rūšìs (4) / rūšis (1), siẽla (4) / siẽla (1). In the new 1993 edition of the dictionary, only two cases remain: áudra (1) / audrà (4), óda (1) / odà (4). The other words are given only with fixed stress: próga (1), rūšis (1), siẽla (1). Stress variants are also included in the “Dictionary of Lithuanian Pronunciation”: audrà (4) / áudra (1), óda (1) / odà (4), próga (1) / progà (4), rūšis (1) / rūšìs (4), siẽla (1) (LKTŽ). Thus, dictionary compilers could not ignore actual tendencies in language usage. However, when approving stress variants, it seems they should be evaluated not only in terms of the norm but also from the standpoint of systematicity (Mikulėnienė 1995: 36), i.e., attention should be paid to how derivatives of these nouns are stressed (cf. próga – próginis, rūšis – rūši-nis). Since the adjective *próginis is not yet used alongside progà, nor *rūšìnis alongside rūšìs, stem and final stress cannot be considered equivalent (Kuzavinis 1981: 7). In other words, an equivalent stress variant must be linked to other forms through derivational relations (Vitkauskas 1985: 11). 113 Thus, the stress variants under discussion are not equivalent. Therefore, variants with fixed (i.e., the older stem) stress must necessarily be placed first in dictionaries. The statistical norm—the variants with final stress—should be given only with the abbreviation šnek. This would distinguish them from the official style of the standard language. On the other hand, variants marked šnek. should not be considered language errors either. For the lower register of the standard language, linguists should apply the criterion of systematicity rather than that of the norm. LITERATŪRA B a l č i k o n i s J. 1978: Netikusi publicistika. – Balčikonis J., Rinktiniai raštai 1, Vilnius: Mokslas. B ū g a K. 1961: Zoologijos sistematikos terminų žodynėlis. – Būga K. Rinktiniai raštai 3, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla. DrskŽ – N a k t i n i e n ė G., P a u l a u s k i e n ė A., V i t k a u s k a s V. Druskininkų tarmės žodynas, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1988. DŽ₁ – Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla, 1954. DŽ₂ – Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas, Vilnius: Mintis, 1972. DŽ₃ – Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 1993. DünŽ – V i t k a u s k a s V. Šiaurės rytų dzūnininkų šnektų žodynas, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1976. G i r d e n i s A. 1967: Kodėl įsigali “galūninis” vardažodžių kirčiavimas. – Mokslinė aukštųjų mokyklų dėstytojų konferencija lietuvių kalbos klausimais. Programa ir pranešimų tezės, 6. G i r d e n i s A., P u p k i s A. 1970: Bendrinės kalbos normos ir jų kodifikacija. – Kultūros barai 7, 65–67. K – Littauisch-deutsches Wörterbuch von F r i e d r i c h K u r s c h a t, Halle a. S: Verlag der Buchhand- lung des Waisenhauses, 1883. K u z a v i n i s K. 1981: Kirčiavimo gretybės ir normos stabilumas. – Mūsų kalba 5, 6–7. LKTŽ – Lietuvių kalbos tarmės žodynas. Sudarė V. V i t k a u s k a s, Vilnius: Mintis, 1985. LKŽ I – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 1, Kaunas: Spindulys, 1941. LKŽ I₂ – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 1, Vilnius: Mintis, 1968. LKŽ VIII – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 8, Vilnius: Mintis, 1970. LKŽ X–XII – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 10–12, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1976, 1978, 1981. LžŽ – P e t r a u s k a s J., V i d u g i r i s A. Lazūnų tarmės žodynas, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1985. M i k u l ė n i e n ė D. 1993: Linksniuojamųjų žodžių kirčiavimo tendencijos. – Kalbos kultūra 63, 75–79. M i k u l ė n i e n ė D. 1995: Variantai normos ir sistemos požiūriu. – Kalbos kultūra 67, 36–39. P a k e r y s A. 1994: Akcentologija 1, Kaunas: Šviesa. Rtr – Lietuviškai-latviškas žodynas. Sudarė J. Ryteris, Ryga, 1929. S t u n d ž i a B. 1984: Lietuvių kalbos dvikskiemenių daiktavardžių kirčiavimo variantai. – Kalbotyra 35, 86–92. S t u n d ž i a B. 1995: Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos kirčiavimo sistema, Vilnius: Petro ofsetas. Š – Lietuvių ir rusų kalbų žodynas. Sudarė d-ras J. Š l a p e l i s, Vilnius, 1921. Taip pat jo užrašyti lapeliai, jei nenurodytas šaltinis. V i t k a u s k a s V. 1987: J. Balčikonio pažiūros į paveldėtąją leksiką. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 26, 13–18. 114 Vitkauskas V. 1988: Ar sunkus lietuvių kirčiavimas, Vilnius: Mokslas. ZUR EINSCHÄTZUNG DER NEUEN BETONUNG EINIGER WÖRTER Zusammenfassung Es werden Substantive des Typs óda (1) / odà (4) untersucht, wobei festgestellt wird, daß diese Varianten nicht gleichwertig sind. Deshalb sollen die Varianten mot dem ständigen Akzent (d. h. der alten Wurzelakzentuierung) in den Wörterbüchern an der ersten Stelle sein. Die statistische Norm (Varianten mit betonter Endung) ist durch die Abkürzung śnek. (umgangssprachlich) zu kennzeichnen und dadurch von der Standardsprache zu trennen. Andererseits soll man die durch die Abkürzung śnek. (umgangssprachlich) gekennzeichneten Varianten nicht als Sprachfehler betrachten. Für die niedrigere Stufe der Gemeinsprache ist von den Sprachwissenschaftlern nicht das Kriterium der Norm, sondern das des Systems anzuwenden. 115