Keletas naujesnių Punsko šnektos linksniavimo ir kirčiavimo ypatybių

LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI, XXXIV (1994) LIETUVIŲ KALBOS TARMĖS IR JŲ TYRINĖJIMAI Laima GRUMADIENĖ SOME RECENT FEATURES OF DECLENSION AND ACCENTUATION IN THE PUNSK DIALECT 1. Subject. The Punsk dialect is the western part of the Southern Aukštaitian dialect, separated from the main dialect area not by linguistic features but by the state border between Lithuania and Poland (for a fuller discussion, see Mikalauskaitė, 1933; Šukytė, 1951; Savukynas, 1955; Buch, 1961; Grinaveckienė, 1961; Uzdila, 1963; Valentukevičiūtė, 1967; Grinaveckis, 1972; Smoczyński, 1977; Hasiuk, 1978; Aleksaitė I., 1985; Aleksaitė B., 1985; Stoskelūnaitė, 1990; Garšva, Stoskelūnaitė, Vaina, 1991). The dialect is treated this way in the principal works of Lithuanian dialectology as well—in the “Atlas of the Lithuanian Language” (Vol. 1, 1977; Vol. 2, 1982; Vol. 3, 1991) and Z. Zinkevičius’s “Lithuanian Dialectology” (1966). The inhabitants of the Punsk area have preserved their Lithuanian identity and continuity of linguistic and cultural traditions (cf. Pokropek, 1975; Gajda, 1987; Gataj, 1987; Garšva, Grumadienė, 1988). Like other Lithuanian dialects, the Punsk dialect is still actively used in everyday life. However, the fact that in recent years all speakers of the dialect in the Punsk area (except preschool-age children) have become bilingual (they speak both Lithuanian and Polish), and that the standard language has less influence here than it does on other Lithuanian dialects, gives the dialect its distinctive character. The standard language reaches Punsk Lithuanians through radio, television, the press, schools, and the church, but its influence is nevertheless weaker than in Lithuania. Lithuanian radio and television, and especially the press, are not constant companions of Punsk Lithuanians, since they are often outcompeted by their Polish counterparts, particularly in the lives of young people. Yet even in schools where teaching is in Lithuanian, many textbooks are in Polish. Indeed, direct contacts with Lithuanians living in Lithuania have become more frequent in recent years, and quite a few local young people go to study in Lithuania. 2. Method, research material, and informants. Some studies of Lithuanian dialects have been conducted in accordance with structuralist principles, but the geographical dialectology method predominates. Little changed since the time of J. Gilliéron, it is designed to meet the needs of historical-comparative linguistics. Dialect data are generally collected from elderly informants. In recent decades, when collecting data under the programs of the “Atlas of European Languages,” researchers have taken into account the requirement to interview informants from several age groups and different social backgrounds, but there are still few analytical studies that make use of data of this kind. Thus, Lithuanian dialectology has almost no tradition of systematically comparing the speech of informants of different ages, that is, of different generations (one exception is the work of I. Remenvtė (1992)). This article compares some linguistic features of the speech of the older, middle, and younger generations in the Punsk dialect, that is, (introducing a sociolinguistic— 97 vistinės dialektologijos dimensija — regimasis laikas (Labov, 1966). Lyginant trijų pateikėjų kartų kalbos duomenis, t.y. tiriant atitinkamos linksniavimo ar kirčiavimo ypatybės pokyčius regimuoju laiku, galima nustatyti dabar vykstančio kalbos kitimo kryptį bei intensyvumą, rasti ryšį su kitais vykstančiais kitimais. Taigi tiriamas ne diachroninės, o sinchroninės sociolingvistinės dialektologijos objektas — dabar vykstantys kalbos kitimai. For this purpose, the author and others collected material in 1989–1992 using the manuscript “Program for the Study of Lithuanian Dialects and Their Interaction,” prepared by the Institute of the Lithuanian Language (hereafter, “Dialect Interaction Program”). Most of the data were collected by Punsk natives Irena Gasperavičiūtė and Gražina Sorokaitė, who also wrote and defended their theses at Vilnius University on the basis of the collected material (Gasperowicz, 1992; Sorokaitė, 1992). Dialect data were collected through conversations with informants and from tape recordings of their speech. Responses to the questions in the “Dialect Interaction Program” were collected from representatives of each age group, some of them several times over. This article draws on answers to questions in the “Morphology” section, transcribed onto index cards. Some accentuation features are described on the basis of an analysis of variation in noun declension in apparent time. Additional evidence was sought by listening to tape recordings of other speakers of the Punsk dialect. Recordings of the Punsk dialect, transcribed texts, and completed “Dialect Interaction Program” cards are held in the Dialectology Archive of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language. Dialect data were collected from residents of the villages of Žvikeliai (10 km southeast of Punsk) and Kreivėnai (right next to Punsk), who always speak dialect in their home environment. Middle-aged and younger speakers of the dialect avoided tape recording, so most of their responses were obtained during conversations. Fewer informants from these two age groups were interviewed, but they were frequently and extensively engaged in conversation. Older informants readily agreed to have their speech recorded, so their answers to the questions in the “Morphology” section were selected from recordings. Collecting data in this way requires listening to many recorded texts; consequently, more informants from the older generation whose speech data were used were included. Informants from the older, senior generation (hereafter, SK): Petronėlė Pečiulytė-Gavenienė (born 1912), Juozas Uždiļa (born 1905), Juozas Krivickas (born 1924), Juozas Kliukinskas (born 1924), Adėlė Kliukinskienė (born 1928), and Magdė Grigutienė (born 1925) from Žvikeliai; Katrė Krivickienė (born 1905) and Julijona Gasperavičienė (born 1917) from Kreivėnai; from the middle generation (hereafter, VK): Jōnas (born 1943) and Juozas (born 1954) Gasperavičiai from Žvikeliai; from the younger generation (hereafter, JK): Irena Vainaitė (born 1967), Zita Jankauskaitė (born 1969), Irena Gasperavičiūtė (born 1969) from Žvikeliai, and Gražina Sorokaitė (born 1969) from Kreivėnai. The aim of the study is to determine what changes are currently taking place in the noun declension and accentuation systems of the Punsk dialect. 3. Some trends in change in the noun declension system. Changes in the declension system are related to the productivity and merging of stems, the phonetic adaptation of individual case endings, and the use of certain cases with certain prepositions (see also Grumadienė, 1993, p. 6). 98 When a noun changes gender, its declensional paradigm and stem change. In the speech of older speakers of the Punsk dialect, žvė·rìs and ang·lìs are feminine i-stem nouns, whereas among young people they are now masculine and have become wholly or partly o-stem nouns: Singular Plural SK VK, JK SK VK, JK Nom. žvė·rìs žvė·rìs žvė·ri·s žvė·ri·s Gen. žvė·rìės žvė·ro./žvė·rìės žvė·rũ žvė·rũ Dat. žvė·rài žvė·rùì žvė·rb.m žvė·rá.m/žvė·rb.m Acc. žvė·rì žvė·ri· žvė·rùs žvė·rùs Instr. žvė·rù/žvė·ru žvė·rù žvė·rùm. žvė·rai.s/žvė·rùm. Loc. žvė·rùm./ žvė·rì žvė·ri·sa žvė·ruósė/ žvė·rùm žvė·ri·sá¹ Compare also SK: g'eró·s ang·lìės rai·ktu· nusìpirk·kę; JK: šì·met an·glo· vusà·i n'edau·k susnaudó·j. Analogous changes are also taking place in other stem classes. SK uses the feminine ē-stem dal·g'e· (LKA I map no. 50), whereas JK uses the masculine ia-stem dal·g'is (cf. Zinkevičius, 1966, p. 219); SK has pavė·sė·, JK pavė·sis, e.g., SK: acusė·zų kūr. pavė·sėi | tai nùt langù·au.; JK: l'ì· po·krū·mais g'ǝ·ras pavė·sis. JK uses the old, familiar iu-stem kiša·n'us less often, since the io-stem kiša·n'is is more usual among young people (cf. Zinkevičius, 1966, p. 254). But even in this case, young people retain the endings of some cases, especially dialect-specific ones: they say singular dative kiša·nù, as well as singular genitive kiša·n'ù·, instrumental kiša·n'ù and locative kiša·n'ùì, forms inherited from the iu-stem. The shift of word forms from one stem type to another is not merely a matter of stem productivity. Standard language also influences young people, although, as noted, less than in Lithuania. Therefore, as in other dialects, endings that differ greatly from the standard language are often avoided: SK's iž-ó-stem riešùci·s is usually replaced in JK by the ó-stem riešùtas (cf. Zinkevičius, 1966, p. 221); SK's dancì·s, debesì·s by the i-stems dancìs, debesìs (cf. LKA III map nos. 25, 26; Zinkevičius, 1966, p. 241). SK's u-stems badùs, šaškùs by the ó-stems bà·das, šà·škas (cf. Zinkevičius, 1966, p. 253). The older speakers use singular genitive và·g'o·, singular instrumental vag'ù, plural nominative vag'ęi·, plural instrumental vag'ę·s—that is, precisely the forms that have shifted from the i-stem to the more productive (i)io-stem—whereas young people replace them with forms taken from the standard language: singular genitive vag'ės, singular instrumental vag'ìm., plural nominative và·o·ì·s, plural instrumental vag'ìm. (the last form is shortened in many cases, not only in dialects). Instead of the singular instrumental nakčì, borrowed by older speakers from the io-stem, young people use nakcùm., that is, they “repair” it. ¹ In the Punsk dialect many consonants are consistently hardened, but, for example, in the singular genitive žvė·rìės [r] is pronounced relatively softly for historical reasons. Before front vowels, young people pronounce s as in Polish—[ś]. A less common variant is given after the slash. 99 There are cases in which adjectives take noun endings. Older people in the Punsk area use the following singular nominative forms of adjectives avbžbìn'u, bá.ltu, ma₃bìn'u, vakarì·kšču (incidentally, an isogloss marking the spread of noun forms with the endings -u and -ui runs not far from this area; cf. LKA III map no. 36). Although young people generally retain the traditional singular nominative endings of ō-stem nouns (i.e. -u rather than -ui), with adjectives in this case they behave differently, using avbžbìn'ui, bá.ltui, ma₃bìn'ui, vakarì·kščui. These are noun endings. This may be done in response to the influence of the standard language, but without awareness that the standard-language norm is the pronominal adjective ending. Perhaps also owing to the influence of the standard language, young people replace the old plural locative forms used by older speakers krū'muos(a), mė'₃uos(a), namúos(a), dančì·s(a), akì·s(a), šakó·s(a) (cf. LKA III map nos. 67–70; Zinkevičius, 1966, p. 238) with forms ending respectively in -úosę, -íšę, -ósę, whose endings contain the front vowel e, preceded by the Polish alveolar [ś]. It is worth noting that young people do not use the shortened forms, saying only the adverbialized namúos. They also accent locatives with other endings in the same way as older speakers accent their forms, e.g.: akì·śę, šakó·śę, laukúośę. Young people hardly use the illative. In cases where older speakers use the illative with a locative meaning (as do all Southern Aukštaitian speakers; cf. LKA III map no. 44; Zinkevičius, 1966, pp. 201–202), young people choose noun locative forms, although the illative of pronouns is used, e.g., SK: taì. būvo· bevė.ík ko·žnán. so·₃ún. / taì. da ažarùkan laì.ke·si / ku·rùna tū· má.lku· tañ. kašùkan dracìnen / iš vandenìñ. taì. gál' labáì. ilgáì. negá·li bú·c; VK: šìtan. ažarùki ęvù. niėkas nesimá.udo.; JK: kū· turì tañ. kašùkį / kas tañ. vandenì· plá.₃k'o·ja. Older speakers use the illative in its own, i.e. inward-directed locative, meaning (singular only), whereas young people make do with a prepositional phrase—in + genitive: SK: galvó·n—JK in_gá.lvu·, SK žá.me·n—JK in_žá.mì·, SK stubó·n—JK in_stùbru·, e.g., SK: gá·vo· galvó·n ir_nucùblo· / ir_tran.ke· žá.me·n tū· sklenñ·ču·; VK: išė·jo· muškán. ir_negrì·žo·; JK: nemenkai. dé·jo. in_gá.lvu· / užai.kit nó·r bùski in_stùbu·. Older speakers, too, do not use the plural illative, replacing it with a prepositional phrase—in + genitive (cf. LKA III map no. 48), e.g., SK: a₃nù in_laukùs pažù·rę·c; VK: ęvù. raì.ke važùoc | bá i(n)_namùs neinsilá·s. In young people's speech, only the adverbialized form laũ.kan remains (all Punsk speakers stress the root in this form). Allatives are not common in the Punsk dialect, but adverbialized forms occur in the speech of older people: ruden'òp, galòp, vakaròp (a short o has been recorded), e.g., SK: vakaròp bar.n'o· būvo· | ka(p)_parę·jeù. / vakaròp tàs žvìrblùkas ir_dàžbege· / ruden'òp paraikalá·u in_vaì.sku·. Older speakers use singular locative forms of both nouns and adjectives mažùki· dubùmiki·, ma₃bìnì· krūžùki· (cf. LKA III map nos. 48–49), while young people tend to make a different distinction: they retain dialectal locative forms for nouns, whereas 100 of adjectives are replaced by forms characteristic of the standard language, e.g., JK: mažùkam ažarùki, mažìnam namùki (shortened forms are also characteristic of colloquial standard language). However, young people do not always choose the standard-language variant, and even when they use a standard-language form, they do not always stress it as in the standard language. For example, instead of the consonant-stem singular nominative form mo·teràs used by older speakers (cf. Kazlauskas, 1968, p. 254), young people say mo·ter̃ės; the singular instrumental form mó·terų used by older speakers is of the ā stem, whereas the younger speakers’ form mo·terũñ is of the į-stem, but is stressed differently from the standard language. Older Punsk speakers now more often use the form šùvà, although šúȯi also occurs as a variant (cf. Zinkevičius, 1966, p. 256); young people, however, have abandoned šùvà and use only šúȯi (cf. LKA II, map no. 67 and comments). Older speakers use vocative endings of the ō stem for polysyllabic nouns with ž̇-o stems: tę·vùle, vai·kẽle (l is not palatalized). In this case, young people use the vocative ending -i: tę·vùli, vai·kẽ·li. of the ž̇ō stem Sometimes, in young people’s speech, only the form of one or another word changes within the system as a whole. For example, all Punsk speakers use the vocatives of disyllabic ō-stems with the ending -a: té·vai, jó·nai, but only young people say žá·nte, while everyone else says žá·ntai. Younger people increasingly use cases with prepositions. In the Punsk dialect, the prepositions ik(i), lig(i), per, po, prie are typically used with the dative, e.g., SK: ižá·rk ig_dàgni / dá·rbu· dabà·k ligi ga·li / pà·sako·k per_nau·ji | bà negridė·jæu / po_dà·rbu užà·k / ko_paprašù·c. | kàt pabù·tu· prie_vai·ki. Perhaps because the dialect uses the dative form with the archaic consonant-stem ending -i, which nouns of various declensional types (most often masculine) take, and which differs considerably from forms used in the standard language, young people tend to change the construction itself: that is, they use the aforementioned prepositions in phrases not with the dative but, as in the standard language, with the genitive, e.g., JK: ar_ižgė·rai igi dùgno / po_dá·rbo· bu·nu bai·sęj pai·lsus. A comparison of the morphological features of the speech of Punsk dialect speakers from different generations shows that, although Polish now has a strong influence on all Punsk speakers, who are without exception bilingual, particularly in lexicon and phonetics, its effect on the case system is weaker than that of standard Lithuanian. Nevertheless, instances of interference occur in young people’s speech, especially in the use of cases with prepositions, e.g., JK: ái·k | an bró·lio sakáu ‘go, I say to my brother’ (a calque from Polish do brata); ùž_penkló·lika sapcį·no·s vā·lando·s ‘quarter to seven’ (a calque from Polish za pietnaście minut siódma godzina). Thus, in young people’s speech, more distinctive dialectal case endings are disappearing, there is a shift from one declensional type to another (throughout or in only some cases), phrases with prepositions are becoming more common, and prepositional government is changing. These are phenomena common to all contemporary Lithuanian dialects. The main cause is the influence of the standard language, although in the Punsk dialect the development of certain phenomena may also be catalyzed by Polish. 4. Several tendencies in the merging of accent paradigms. One of the most immediately apparent 101 krintančių kirčiavimo naujovių Punsko jaunimo kalboje (dar žr. Grumadienė, 1993, p.11) yra ta, kad tarmės 3-iosios kirčiuotės žodžius linkstama kirčiuoti kaip 4-osios2, t.y. 3→4; plg. SK, VK: pėˈdas / peˈdà, peˈdáːm / peˈdóːm, pėˈdus / pėˈdąs3 (3) ir JK: pėˈdas, peˈdań, peˈdáːm, peˈdùs (4); SK, VK: žar̃nà, žar̃nóːn, žar̃nóːm, žá.rnas (3) ir JK: žarnà, žarnóːn, žarnóːm, žarnàs (4); SK, VK: taũkaiː, tá.u̯kus (3) ir JK: taũkai, taũkùs (4); SK, VK: drėˈgnas, dręˈgnà, dręgniėm, dręgnóm, drėˈgnus, drėˈgnas, drėˈgnai (3) ir JK: drėˈgnas, dręˈgnà, drėˈgniėm, drėˈgnóːm, drėˈgnùs, drėˈgnàs, drėˈgnai (4); SK, VK: giˈvas, giˈvà, giˈvi̇ėm, giˈvóːm, giˈvùs, giˈvas, giˈvai(3) ir JK: giˈvas, giˈvà, giˈvi̇ėm, giˈvóːm, giˈvùs, giˈvàs, giˈvai; SK, VK: í.lgas, ilgà, iˈgi̇ėm, ilgóːm, í.lgus, í.lgas, í.lgai (3) ir JK: í.lgas, ilyà, ilgé̇m, ilgóːm, ilgùs, ilgàs, í.lgai (4); SK, VK: kietas, kietà, kieˈciėm, kieˈtóːm, kietus, kietas, kietai (3) ir JK: kietas, kietà, kieˈciėm, kieˈtóːm, kietùs, kietàs, kietai (4); SK, VK: šá.ltas, šaltà, šalciėm, šaltóːm, šá.ltus, šá.ltas, šá.ltai (3) ir JK: šá.ltas, šaltà, šalciėm, šaltóːm, šaltùs, šaltàs, šá.ltai (4); SK,VK: vienas, vienà, vieniėm, vienóːm, vienùs, vienas, vienai (3) ir JK vienas, vienà, vieniėm, vienóːm, vienùs, vienàs, vienai (4). In the cases discussed, the middle generation generally accents words in the same way as the older generation; only the accentuation of the young stands out. But there are words whose third accent paradigm is not used by the younger generation alone, but also by the middle generation, although the elderly use the third paradigm; for example, SK: gardùs, gar̃ži, garžiem, garžóːm, gá.rzùs, gá.rzæs, gá.rzæi (3), whereas VK, JK: gardùs, garži, garžiem, garžóːm, garžùs, garžàs, gá.rzæi (4); SK: saldùs, salži, salžiem, salžóːm, sá.lzùs, sá.lzæs, sá.lzæi (3), whereas VK, JK: saldùs, salži, salžiem, salžóːm, salžùs, salžàs, sá.lzæi (4). Thus the accent is shifted to the end even in cases where the base of the acutely accented syllable consists of diphthongs or mixed diphthongs, whose accent contours are clearly pronounced and distinguished in the dialect. It should be noted that final stress is more commonly favored in the plural genitive than in the singular instrumental. That is, one may hear kietùs, kietàs, but kietu (in the dialect the masculine and feminine endings coincide), peˈdùs, but pėˈdu. The reverse phenomenon has been observed: words of the dialect’s fourth accent paradigm are accented according to the third paradigm in both JK and VK, i.e. 4→3; compare SK: gerklėː, gerklėˈn, gerklėˈm, gerklės (4) and VK, JK: gerklėː, gerklėˈn, gerklėˈm, gerklas (3) (in the standard language, also 3); SK: gleˈbiːs, gleˈbiń, gleˈbėːm, gleˈbùs (4) and VK, JK: 2 Here only the position of stress within the word paradigm is meant; the accent contour characteristic of that position is not taken into account. Since accent contours are pronounced quite clearly, the plan to mark only stress position was abandoned. 3 The dialect data for this subsection are presented in accordance with the requirements of the “Accentuation” section of the “Program for Dialect Interaction”: that is, the nominative and genitive forms of nouns in the singular and plural, as well as the instrumental singular, are given, together with the corresponding masculine and feminine forms of adjectives and numerals in the singular nominative and plural nominative and genitive, and the feminine singular genitive. If examples are given in a different order, this means that the requested forms could not be heard in spontaneous speech. 102 glė·bī·s, glė·bīn., glė·bė·m, glē·b'us (3); SK: kā·klas, kaklan., kaklā·m, kaklūs (4) and VK, JK: kā·klas, kaklan., kaklā·m, kā·klus (3). Only in the speech of the young has the word krūvà been observed with third-paradigm accentuation; the elderly use the fourth paradigm. The noun strāzdas is accented according to the third paradigm only by VK, while SK and JK use the fourth. In the 4→3 shift as well, the plural genitive stands out: here stress is more often than expected non-final, whereas the singular instrumental more often retains final stress. A tendency has also been observed to accent words of the second paradigm according to the first, i.e. 2→1, although this is less frequent than 3→4. Incidentally, this is characteristic not only of JK but also of VK speech; compare SK: gul·bė·, gul·bė·m, gul·bės (2) and VK, JK: gul·bė·, gul·bė·m, gul·bes (1); SK: laũ·mė·, laũ·mė·m, laũ·mės (2) and VK, JK: laũ·mė·, laũ·me·m, laũ·mes (1); SK: al·k.snis, al·k.snēm, al·k.sn’ūs (2) and VK, JK: al·k.snis, al·k.snēm, al·k.sn’ūs (1); SK: rā·štas, rā·štam, raštūs (2) and VK, JK: rā·štas, rā·štam, rā·štus (1); SK: saųsai·nis, saųsai·nēm, saųsai·n’ūs (2) and VK, JK: saųsai·nis, saųsai·nēm, saųsai·n’ūs (1). Perhaps only the word rāštas is not, after all, accented according to the first paradigm in dialects that do not retract stress; all the other cases mentioned do occur. In many dialects where gulbė has acute accentuation, sausānis may be a recent dialect word, generally replaced by loanwords. Incidentally, young speakers tend to place the stress of the second-paradigm word vieta consistently on the stem. JK and VK also tend to accent some words of the third paradigm according to the first, i.e. 3→1; compare SK: kó·tas, ko·tā·m, kó·tus (3) and VK, JK: kó·tas, kó·tam, kó·tus (1); SK: žā·ndas, žandā·m, žā·ndus (3) and VK, JK: žā·ndas, žā·ndam, žā·ndus (1); SK: dā·iktas, daiktā·m, dā·iktus (3) and VK, JK: dā·iktas, dā·iktam, dā·iktus (1). Undoubtedly, the accentuation of words such as daiktas could be interpreted as that of the old baritones (preserved even today in some dialects), but it is VK and JK, not SK, that accent words this way. It is therefore more reasonable to regard this as a new phenomenon, perhaps without such deep roots. In the vicinity of Punsk, the collective plural is used especially actively, so final stress on kinship terms or personal names is entirely to be expected, particularly in the plural nominative and accusative, and sometimes also in the nominative and genitive, even though the singular forms are accented according to the first paradigm. For example, speakers of various ages accent the forms uošvė·, uošv’ū, uošvė·m, uošv’ūs; baltaduonē·, baltaduon’ū, baltaduonē·m, baltaduon’ūs. This is archaic dialect accentuation. A shift of an entirely different nature, 1→4, has been observed: the young generation replaces the baritone pattern retained by the elderly with the standard-language norm. For example, SK, VK: ná·ųda, ná·ųdo·m, ná·ųdas (1), while JK accents naųdà, naųdó·m, naųdàs (4). Examples of a shift from a fixed to a mobile accentuation type (in this case 1→2) are also few; compare SK: giminá·įcis, giminá·įcem, giminá·įc’ūs (1) and VK, JK: giminā·cis, giminā·cem, giminai·c’ūs (2). Examples of the reverse phenomenon, i.e. a shift from a mobile to a fixed accentuation type (4→1), are also few; compare SK: pró·tas, pro·tā·n., pro·tū, 103 pro·tì, pro·ta͜i. (4) and VK, JK: prä·tas, prä·tan, prä·tu, prä·ti, prä·ta͜i/pro·ta͜i. (1). There are not many, but there are examples of a shift from 2→3, cf. SK: akė˙c'os, akė˙co·m, akė˙càs (2) and VK, JK: akė˙c'os, akė˙c'o·m, akė˙cæs (3). (Incidentally, no instances of the reverse process, that is, 3→2, were observed at all). The fact that in the Punsk dialect there is a tendency to accentuate words of various accentuation types consistently, or at least more consistently, not only in the speech of young people but also of older speakers, could already provide a basis for one of the interpretations. In all the cases discussed so far, except 3→1, pitch accents and the operation of Saussure’s and Fortunatov’s law associated with them are disregarded: words with a falling accent are treated as if they had a rising accent, although the pitch accent is retained. Thus, a tendency for a fixed accentuation type to become established is emerging. The recorded examples of a shift from 1→3 would hardly refute this hypothesis; cf. SK: li·gus, li·gi, li·giem, li·g'o·m, li·'gus, li·'ges, li·'gei (1) and VK, JK: li·gus, li·gi, li·giem, li·g'o·m, li·'gus, li·'ges, li·'gei/li·gė·j (3), since the standard-language norm is becoming established in the speech of younger people. To some extent, the tendency to shift from a variable accentuation type to a fixed or more fixed one is also shown by the 4→2 process; cf. SK: rū·šùs, ru·ša·m, ru·šùs (4) and VK, JK: rū·ša·m, ru·šùs (2); SK, VK: pä·das, padá·m, padùs (4) and JK: pä·das, pä·dam, padùs (2) (as in the standard language); SK: kandė·, kandė·m, kandės (4) and VK, JK: kan·dė·, kan·dė·m, kandės (2). A review of the direction of change clearly shows that the third accent paradigm is changing the most—it is disappearing (cf. Stundžia, 1984). The most pronounced tendency is 3→4, although from the perspective of pitch accents it is “unjustifiable”: words with a falling accent are treated as if they had a rising accent. That the process underway is not phonetic in nature is shown by 3→1, that is, the possibility of shifting from one paradigm with rising accentuation to another, likewise with rising accentuation (in the case of disyllabic words). From the perspective of pitch accents, the shift 2→1 is also paradoxical, confirming the establishment of a tendency to move toward a fixed accentuation type (cf. Mikulėnienė, 1993). The tendencies 4→2 and 2→4 can be explained naturally in terms of pitch accents. Although there are quite a number of cases of 4→3, the variation in their use seems to imply further change—4→3→1. It seems possible to hypothesize that the accentuation system of the present-day Punsk dialect is becoming polarized: by various routes, some words nevertheless tend to be accented consistently, that is, the system is moving toward the first accent paradigm. Other words tend to be accented according to a variable accentuation type, usually the fourth. The most important point to note when discussing the new accentuation tendencies is that they proceed in a direction that completely disregards Saussure–Fortunatov’s law. A tendency toward columnar accentuation is emerging. LITERATŪRA Aleksaitė B. Punsko ir Seinų krašto vietovardžiai. Dipl. darbas (rankr.). VVU, 1985. Aleksaitė I. Punsko šnektos konsonantizmas. Dipl. darbas (rankr.). VVU, 1985. Buch T. Litewski gwary miejscowe w powiatach Sejny i Suwałki // Onomastica. T. 7. 1961. P. 221—229. 104 Gajda J. Kultura jako czynnik integrujący etniczną grupę litewską w gminie Puńsk // Kultura wsi puńskiej. Warszawa, 1987. P. 86—98. Garšva K., Grumadienė L. Periferinės lietuvių kalbos tarmės: istorija ir dabartis // Veidai’87. Jaunųjų kūrybos almanachas. V., 1988. P. 213—221. Garšva K., Stoskelūnaitė B., Vainas J. Punsko šnektos skirtumų žodynas // Lietuvių leksikos ir terminologijos problemos (Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai. T. 29). V., 1991. P. 32—46. Gasperowicz I. Sociolingvistinis Žvikelių kaimo tarmės aprašymas. Dipl. darbas (rankr.). VU, 1992. Gataj M. Społeczność lokalna wsi puńskiej — refleksje socjologiczne // Kultura wsi puńskiej. Warszawa, 1987. P. 98—110. Grinaveckienė E. Nauji dzūkų tarmės tyrinėjimo duomenys // Literatūra ir kalba. V., 1961. P. 603—608. Grinaveckis V. Nauji duomenys apie vakarų dzūkų tarmės kirčiavimą // LTSR MA darbai. A Serija. V., 1972. T. 4(41). Grumadienė L. Linksnių vartojimas Punsko šnektoje // Jono Jablonskio konferencija. Links­nio kategorija ir linksnių vartojimas. Konferencijos programa ir tezės. Vilnius, 1993 m. spalio 11 d. Vilniaus universiteto Lietuvių kalbos katedra ir Lietuvių kalbos institutas. V., 1993. P. 6. Grumadienė L. Kirčiuočių mišimas Punsko jaunimo kalboje // Lietuvių kalbos tarmės ir jų tyrinėjimai. Praeitis ir dabartis. Antanui Saliui (1902 07 21—1972 07 31) paminėti. Konferencijos pranešimų tezės. V., 1993. P. 11. Hasiuk M. Fonologia litewskiej gwary sejneńskiej. Poznań, UAM, 1978. Kazlauskas J. Lietuvių kalbos istorinė gramatika (kirčiavimas, daiktavardis, veiksmažodis). V., 1968. Labov W. The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washington, 1966. Lietuvių kalbos atlasas / Morkūnas K. (ats. red.). T. 1 (Leksika). 1977; T. 2 (Fonetika). 1982; T. 3 (Morfologija). 1991. V. Mikalauskaitė E. Pakapsės dzūkų tarmės fonetika. Dipl. darbas (rankr.), VU, 1933. Mikulėnienė D. Linksniuojamųjų žodžių kirčiavimo tendencijos // Kalbos kultūra, Nr. 63, 1992. P. 75—79. Pokropek M. Ziemia sejneńska pod względem etnograficznym // Materiały do dziejów ziemi sejneńskiej. T. 2 / Prace Białostockiego towarzystwa naukowego. Nr. 22. Warszawa, 1975. P. 73—250. Remenytė I. Centrinės šiaurės žemaičių tarmės prozodija: instrumentinis ir sociolingvistinis tyrimas. Filolog. m. kand. disertacija. V., 1992. Savukynas B. Leipalingio tarmė. Dipl. darbas (rankr.). VVU, 1955. Smoczyński W. Gwara litewska okolic Puńska. Kraków, 1977. Sorokaitė G. Sociolingvistinė Kreivėnų šnektos analizė. Dipl. darbas (rankr.). VU, 1992. Stoskelūnaitė B. Punsko šnektos diferencinis žodynas. Dipl. darbas (rankr.). VU, 1992. Stundžia B. Lietuvių kalbos dviskiemenių daiktavardžių kirčiavimo variantai tarmėse // Kalbotyra. 1984. T. 35(1). P. 94—102. Šukytė J. Veisiejų tarmė. Dipl. darbas (rankr.). VVU, 1951. Uzdila A. Punsko tarmės fonetika ir morfologija. Dipl. darbas (rankr.), VVU, 1963. Valentukevčiūtė D. Kabelių tarmė. Dipl. darbas (rankr.), VVU, 1967. Zinkevičius Z. Lietuvių dialektologija. V., 1966. 105 EINIGE NEUERE BESONDERHEITEN DER DEKLINATION UND BETONUNG IN DER LOKALMUNDART VON PUNSKAS Zusammenfassung Auf Grund der gesammelten Angaben (1989—1992) nach dem ”Forschungsprogramm der Mundarten und ihrer Zusammenwirkung der litauischen Sprache” wird die Sprache der drei Altersgruppen von Gewährsleuten verglichen. In der Jugendsprache sterben spezifische, mundartliche Kasusendungen ab, es wird von einem Typ der Deklination in den anderen übergegangen (ganz oder nur einige Kasus), es vermehren sich präpositionale Verbindungen, die Präpositionen wechseln ihre Kasus. Der Hauptgrund ist der Einfluß der Standardsprache, obwohl die Entwicklung mancher Erscheinungen auch die polnische Sprache beschleunigen konnte. Das System der Lokalmundart von Punskas polarisiert sich auf verschiedene Weise, einige Wörter werden beständig betont (1), die anderen werden mit dem beweglichen Akzent versehen (4). Die neuen Tendenzen setzen sich durch, ohne auf die Gesetze von Saussure-Fortunatow zu achten. 106