Priegaidžių defonologizacijos tendencijos Gervėčių tarmėje

LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI, XXX (1993) PERIFERINĖS LIETUVIŲ KALBOS TARMĖS Danguolė MIKULĖNIENĖ TENDENCIES IN THE DEPHONOLOGIZATION OF TONE ACCENTS IN THE GERVĖČIAI DIALECT § 1. The dialect of the Gervėčiai area attracts linguists’ attention not only through its archaisms but also through its innovations. Like other islands separated from the main Lithuanian-speaking area, it is, in Z. Zinkevičius’s words, a natural laboratory for investigating various stages of language mixing and decline (Zinkevičius, 1966, p. 29). Gervėčių tarmės bruožai aprašyti P. Arumos (Arumaa, 1930), J. Kardelytės (1975), T. Sudnik (Судник,1975), A. Vidugirio (1972, 1974, 1989), J. Lipskienės (1972, 1989), E. Grinaveckienės (1973), A. Romančiuk (Романчик,1988), A. Jonai­tytės (1989) ir kitų kalbininkų. Remiantis jų darbais, nesunku nustatyti pokyčius, naujai besirandančius tos tarmės atstovų kalboje. § 2. In terms of accentuation, the Gervėčiai dialect is very similar to the other Eastern Aukštaitian Vilnius-area dialects (see in more detail Kardelytė, 1975, p. 6; Jonai­tytė, 1989, p. 230). Local Lithuanians, especially those of the older generation, distinguish the tone accents—acute and circumflex—very well (cf. Zinkevičius, 1966, p. 33; Kardelytė, 1975, p. 13)1. In addition to the described instances of the acute and circumflex tone accents, J. Kardelytė’s monograph and the works of other linguists also mention the middle tone accent, characteristic of the vowels i, u, which in stressed position lengthen to half-long iˑ, uˑ (vi­sas, bū.va)2. That middle tone accent is associated with the lengthening (“half-lengthening”) of a short vowel and should therefore be regarded as a quantitative characteristic of a stressed vowel (cf. Garšva, 1977, pp. 77–78). Thus, phonologically, this middle tone accent is not an accent at all: with a long stressed syllable, it does not form a phonological opposition in terms of tone accent (cf. Kazlauskas, 1968, p. 6; Girdenis, 1981, pp. 188–189; Garšva, 1982, p. 65). § 3. Only the opposition between long stressed syllables should be regarded as a systematic feature of this dialect. It is this opposition that has been taken into account in the claim that in the Gervėčiai area, as well as in other eastern peripheries of the Lithuanian-speaking area, the acute tone accent “is clearly distinguished from the circumflex in all cases” (Zinkevičius, 1966, p. 33; see also dialect texts—Lietuvių, 1970, pp. 394–395; Kardelytė, 1975, pp. 120–140). 1 Tone accents, as a phenomenon characteristic exclusively of Lithuanian, are dispensed with in T. Sudnik’s monograph (Судник, 1975), which typologically compares the phonological systems of all Belarusian, Lithuanian, and Polish dialects distributed across the same area. 2 The middle-tone-accent mark also indicates stress in non-Lithuanian words, such as: o čitat’ lietu.viskai čito.us’u. For the marking of the middle tone accent in other cases, see Zinkevičius, 1974. 95 The dialect’s phonological system has remained unchanged. However, existing amid Slavic languages, it is subject to various forces that unsettle the system. §4. Since, from a sociolinguistic perspective, the language of the local inhabitants of the Gervėčiai area is not homogeneous, at least three groups of language users can be distinguished: 1) Lithuanian residents who do not know, or know very little, Belarusian (they refuse to talk in Belarusian about household matters, baking bread, or growing flax—"I don’t know how to speak properly"); 2) Lithuanian residents who speak Lithuanian at home but, in addition to their native language, also know Belarusian and Polish (the middle-aged and younger generations also know Russian); 3) non-Lithuanian residents who have learned some Lithuanian in mixed families. Understandably, the Lithuanian spoken by each group varies considerably, as does their degree of knowledge and use of other languages. However, when the linguistic features of members of all the groups are compared, newly emerging dialect changes become apparent. They must not only be observed, recorded, or modeled, but also predicted—that is, their possible effect on the dialect’s accentuation system must be anticipated. §5. In the speech of informants from the first group, the intonations of both long stressed vowels and diphthongs are clearly audible (see Text 1). They are distinct in all stress positions: at the end of a word (žirgais / ark'l'ais / t'enais / tais / san'aa / tai / ragai / klanañ / gaiž'ai / vel'n'ai / žinat), in the penultimate syllable (á.rkl'us / ei.na / ei.nam / is'imá.ud'e's), and at the beginning of a word (p'é.reina / p'é.rn'eš'u3). Thus, the distinction between acute and circumflex intonations is realized in all cases, indicating that the dialect’s accentuation system is well preserved. §6. In J. Kazlauskas’s view, in the dialects of southern, southwestern, and eastern Lithuania, the lengthening or length of a stressed diphthong component is apparently associated with stress, while shortness is associated with an unstressed position (Kazlauskas, 1968, pp. 8–9). Thus, the opposition between intonations may also be interpreted as a quantitative contrast between diphthong components. The acute intonation of a diphthong may then be understood as a contrast between a long first component and a short second component (á:R = L̄ ˘), while the circumflex intonation is an opposition between a short first component and a long second one (aR̄ = ˘ L̄)⁴. §7. Like many Eastern Aukštaitians, Lithuanians in the Gervėčiai area pronounce circumflex diphthongs in word-final position somewhat briefly, failing to sustain their second component. Compared, for example, with the pronunciation of the southern Western Aukštaitians, this sound is heard as more open and as having lost its inherent quantity. The stressed component then loses its length, and the sustained intonation becomes its own allotone, also known among linguists as the middle intonation: aR̄⁽˙⁾ ⇒ aR̄⁽˙⁾, i.e., ˘L̄ ⇒ ˘L̄ (cf. Gerullis, 1930, pp. 48–49). 3 The examples given here are only those with stressed diphthongs (mixed diphthongs aR, eR and compound diphthongs), whose intonations are readily distinguished by ear by speakers of all dialects. 4 The conventional symbols of the "Atlas of European Languages" ("Atlas linguarum Europae") are used to indicate quantity (Лингвистический, 1981, c. 24). — a stressed (long) diphthong component, — an unstressed (short) diphthong component, — a stressed diphthong component that has lost its length ("half-long"). 96 This mid pitch accent—an allophone of the circumflex accent—is neither phonetically nor phonologically identical to that other mid pitch accent—the marker of a short vowel lengthened under stress (see § 2)⁵. §8. It is true that both homonymous pitch accents primarily mark quantitative changes in the stressed vowel, but they are manifested differently: the allophone of the short stressed vowel is associated with an increase in quantity (+ lengthening), while the allophone of the continuative accent is associated with a decrease in it (- lengthening)⁶. One may say that the allophone of the continuative accent under discussion is a positional variant of the continuative accent. In the speech of local monolingual Lithuanians, it is generally heard in word-final position, before a pause—as the intonation of a phrase or sentence falls—for example: p’irm’au / paskuĩ / beveik (see Text 1). Such instances are even more frequent in the speech of bilingual and trilingual informants (see Texts 2 and 3). § 9. The manifestation of the circumflex accent as this allophone in word-final position is a natural prosodic phenomenon, whose origin is associated with the general tendency toward neutralization of pitch accents characteristic of word-final position (cf. Girdenis, 1981, p. 191). Thus, when discussing the prosodic system of the Gervėčiai dialect, it is necessary to take into account how the contrast between pitch accents is realized in non-final (i.e., word-stem) syllables. And secondly. Changes in the quantity of a stressed diphthong’s component in word-final position may promote the further defonologization of pitch accents, i.e., the loss of their contrast in other, non-final, syllables of the word. §10. In the speech of bilingual and trilingual Lithuanians, changes in the word-final circumflex accent are considerably more frequent and pronounced. Here a stressed circumflex diphthong is often pronounced with the vocal effort shifted from the second syllable to the first component, in other words, aR₍ˌ₎ ⇒ àR₍ˌ₎, cf.: vaikái / labài / vaikài / vaistài. Often, when it receives stress, the first component is lengthened, i.e., aR₍ˌ₎ ⇒ ǎːR₍ˌ₎, e.g.: jinái / daug’ǎ.u / p’irm’ǎ.u / labǎ.i / dabǎ.r / san’ǎ.u / t’e.vǎ.i / vaikǎ.i / lungv’ǎ.u (see Texts 2 and 3). Then the circumflex accent of the diphthong differs from the acute accent only in the different realization of the first component; cf. ǎ₍ˌ₎R (ˌˌ) and ǎːR (ˌˌ). The vowel with acute stress is pronounced more intensely and abruptly, but the auditory difference, for example, between á.u and à.u is not particularly pronounced; cf. á.uk and à.uk (‹ àd.k). Its most important feature is duration (for further discussion, see Грумадене, Стунджа, 1987, 97-98). § 11. In the speech of informants from the second group, this frequent prosodic phenomenon was recorded not only in word-final position but also in the penultimate-syllable position, e.g.: žaid’ė. / skáito. / skǎ.usmo. / pǎ.ukšč’ài / paskǎ.ito. / r’e.ik’á / rù.ṅko.m / l’î.nksma / sù.nk’ái (see Texts 2 and 3). 5 Šiuos abu atvejus A. Salys vadino antrine tęstine priegaide (Salys, 1992, p. 125). Antrinės terminas ypač tinkamas tvirtagalės priegaidės alotonui. 6Apparently, taking this into account, Z. Zinkevičius considers the mid pitch accent a heterogeneous accent (Zinkevičius, 1966, p. 36), but in that case its distinguishing features remain entirely unclear. Moreover, it has not yet been experimentally demonstrated that in both instances of the mid pitch accent the same sound can arise quantitatively and qualitatively, as would be expected in the case of a heterogeneous accent. 97 Thus, the dialect’s characteristic phonological opposition between circumflex accents áR: aR⁽ⁱ⁾ in Lithuanian diphthongs and triphthongs has already considerably eroded—á.R: ǎR (⊥ ∪: ∪ ∪). § 12. Voice prominence is especially often shifted to the first component in mixed diphthongs, for example: pi.ļβo. / sū.ŋk’ai / rū.ŋko.m / k’etvī.rtu. / deši.mts / ji.-rgī / l’i.ŋksma / v’isu.r (see texts 2 and 3). This shows that the defonologization of circumflex accents is strongly supported by the surrounding Slavic languages: following the example of Belarusian and Polish, only the vowel is considered the nucleus of the stressed syllable (these languages have no mixed diphthongs). Thus, the basis of the stressed syllable in Lithuanian words—the mixed diphthong—is already treated, regardless of its accent, as a combination of a vowel lengthened under stress and a simple consonant, cf. píl’t’ (í·ə R = ⊥∪) and pi.rk’t’ (i·ə R = ∪́).7 This idea is also supported by an examination of the speech of informants from the third group. They pronounce stressed diphthongs identically—the voice prominence is always concentrated on the first component (see text 4). §13. The defonologization of diphthong accents is a spreading dialectal phenomenon. This is attested by data from an experiment conducted with younger local residents8. When asked to read a text, the female informants who had completed Lithuanian-language schooling readily recognize heterotones—words that differ in accent, for example: šauk and šaũk, aũk and aũk, kaũšo and kaũšo, kaũkė and kaũkė. However, when trying to pronounce them correctly, they most often make errors with the circumflex accent: they always stress the first component of the diphthong. Especially often—apparently because of its similarity to Belarusian oỹ—the circumflex aũ is defonologized (⇒ ǎ.u): šaũk, a.ũk, kã.ušo. §14. Thus, comparing the speech of informants from all groups, it is clear how the accents of stressed diphthongs are currently being defonologized. Changes in prosody were found in the speech of representatives of every group; these can be regarded as a certain degree of erosion of the accent opposition, cf.: ⊥ ⇒ ⊥̩ ⇒ ∪̩ ⇒ ⊥̩ ∪ ⇒ ⊥̩ (∪̩). §15. It may be assumed that, as the phonological accent opposition in diphthongs erodes, the accents of stressed long vowels will change similarly. However, (at least at present) this is not the case: both monolingual and bilingual (trilingual) local Lithuanians most clearly realize both accents—the acute and the sustained accent—cf. s’ú· s’ím and s’·a s’ím, m’íŋkštó·kas and šeštó·kas9. 7 — the symbol for conjunction, denoting a sum. 8 In the summer of 1988, the experiment was conducted by Dr. L. Grumadienė. Informants: Joc Valda, born in 1950 in Petruki village, Lithuanian; Karalienė Valentina, born in 1954 in Gudinykai village, Lithuanian. The tape recording is kept in the phonotheque of the Department of Language History and Dialectology at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language. Recording registration No. 673. 9 This fact supports A. Pakeris’s claim that the accents of stressed long vowels and diphthongs are not of the same phonetic nature (Pakerys, 1982, p. 154). Moreover, it confirms once again that in the East Aukštaitian area the accents of long vowels must have been not only pronounced but also distinguished (for more details, see Zinkevičius, 1974, pp. 93–94; Eidukaitienė, 1977, pp. 18–23). 98 As the defonologization process expands, over time the opposition between the intonations of long stressed vowels would apparently also disappear from the dialect; for some time, however, both intonations would still exist in the speech of local inhabitants—long stressed vowels retain the phonetic features of intonation the longest (cf. Labov, 1978, p. 297). § 16. The disintegration of the intonation opposition shows that, under the influence of Belarusian and Polish, the intonations of the dialects around Gervėčiai are gradually losing their most important role—the distinguishing (distinctive) function—and may therefore eventually become merely an additional phonetic characteristic of the duration of a long stressed vowel (or diphthong). The phonological opposition between stressed and unstressed vowels may turn into the simpler quantitative opposition between long and short vowels (see the schema). Schema The latter is characteristic of neighboring Slavic languages. In J. Kazlauskas’s view, given the low functional load of intonations, such a situation may prove decisive for the further development of stress (Kazlauskas, 1968, p. 9). This may apply not only to the Gervėčiai dialect but, possibly, to all Lithuanian and Slavic borderland dialects. Texts10 Efforts were made to record differences in the informants’ speech using the most precise phonetic transcription possible. The following less common symbols are therefore used: α — "faded", short allophone of the vowel a, æː — open, long allophone of the vowel e, ɛ — retracted, backed allophone of the vowel e, β — rounded, allophone of the consonant v, w — labial-velar, allophone of the consonant v. 10 All texts were recorded by L. Grumadienė and A. Romančuk in the summer of 1988. The article’s author transcribed the tape recording. 99 Consonant softness is marked above the letter with an apostrophe (except for the always-soft consonant j). Before a front vowel that has not undergone a qualitative change, a consonant may also be hard. Consonant hardness is not marked separately, e.g., šit iei, žinau. Phrase intonation is marked with arrows: ↗ — rising, ↘ — falling. 1 | ↗ Well, ↘ the priest ↗ says. That person ↘ | ↗ when he had first gone ↘ | then ↗ he | ↘ says | ↗ rides ↘ at night | ↗ well, then we go out with the horses ↘ | with the horses | ↗ rides ↘ at night grazing ↘ the horses already | says | the fire is lit ↗ | he goes after it ↘ | ↗ says, he goes out ↗ somewhere ↘ there | ↗ says | ↘ gives [them] to cook | ↗ cooks [them] | ↘ says | everyone has papyrus ↘ | all of them have paper, too ↘ | ↗ gives [them] | ↗ cooks [them] | ↘ says | ↗ not paper | but these are tin ↘ | from me ↘ [...] | how ↗ they were cooking ↘ | [...] | ↗ well, another time | they’re already going with the horses ↘ | already ↗ riding | riding ↘ through here | through the marshes ↘ | already ↗ such a good road | because the road ↗ was like that ↘ | that one says | the balloon gets stuck in the mud ↘ | so it can’t get out ↘ | and with those horses, already, ↘ home | how they got home ↘ | my ↗ mother also told me this | how ↗ they got home ↘ | then ↗ it was true ↘ | [...] | ↗ goes | by the river ↘ goes past | comes up | a baron stands there, ↘ some sort | horns ↗ | says | ↘ big | ↗ says | ↘ big | follow | says | after me ↘ | ↗ I | says | ↗ will cross this river first ↘ | says | ↗ I’ll carry you into some valley. ↘ And | says | well, you can hardly get out ↘ of this valley | then, after about two hours, ↗ already | they’ve been waiting ↗ and they start ↘ to look | then ↗ he already | these ↗ devils or whatever ↘ | where ↗ he ↘ disappeared | then ↗ the person | says | ↘ wet ↘ | soaked | hardly has any strength left ↘ | ↗ when he gets home ↘ | ↗ to his mother: he tells it all ↘ like this | [...] | ↗ I know that | I remember ↘ | ↗ remember it, and they ↘ | Lukaitienė Genė, born 1923, Galčiūnai village. Recording registration No. 673. 2 | we are from ↘ Petrukai. | ↗ We were born in Petrikai | there, ↗ grew up there, and there ↘ settled. | They ↗ then, no ↘ | my ↗ father was born there ↘ | ↗ and my mother | wasn’t from Švenčionys ↘ | at home ↗ in Lithuanian | ↘ how [it was] | [...] ↗ our children are all ↗ Lithuanian 100 It was | [...] ↗ bigger ↘ | it was much more ↗ bought | not in front of ↘ the hearth | when the Petrikai burned down ↗ | so now everything is ↘ different | ↗ earlier, it was very ↘ beautiful | very small ↗ fields ↘ there were | the Petrikai were very beautiful | now ↗ they’ve gotten a little more beautiful ↘ | after the fire ↗ around here we already had a lot of ↘ smoke | the children there ↗ gathered together | whether ↗ they were ↗ making a fire | or whether ↘ they were playing with matchsticks | we don’t know | ↗ no one really ↘ knows | some ↗ say | whether the people nearby ↗ did that ↘ | how ↗ before | there, ↗ those little hills boiled ↘ | [unclear] | they put firewood underneath ↗ | ↗ those little hills boiled ↘ like moonshine | from the little hills ↗ there are very good remedies ↘ | ↗ from the little hills | for ↗ what | ↘ for paralysis | ↗ or what ↘ like that | well, ↗ for paralysis that is very good ↘ | for ↗ the stomach | ↗ for a bloated stomach’s ↘ pain | Petrikienė Vanda, gim. 1922. Petrikų k. Įrašo registracijos Nr. 674. 3 When I ↗ grew up, it was very ↘ hard | my parents were poor | ↗ we were eight children ↘ | there wasn’t much ↗ to work | so, for ↗ example | when ↗ Father went ↘ to thresh | ↗ he went to thresh | ↗ we used to thresh rye | with ↗ flails | ↘ by hand | then Mother ↗ stayed home and baked pancakes ↘ | for the hungry ↘ children | ↗ it was cold ↘ | ↗ there was only one window ↘ | so ↗ all the children ↘ would sit on the stove | ↗ well, then Mother would ↗ bake pancakes ↘ | through the smokehole ↗ she’d hand them to the children ↘ | to the eight children, when ↗ she gave one pancake | then, piece by piece, ↘ we would scrape it clean | and there was nothing left ↘ | then all of us would wait again | starving like birds ↘ | and another ↗ | ↗ another ate it all up | ↗ and a third | ↗ and a fourth | Mother ↗ counts | ↗ counts | counts a lot more ↘ | not even ten ↘ | and all ↗ the children are still hungry ↘ | then ↗ she says | enough ↘ | children ↗ are asking ↗ | I won’t give any | when Father comes back from ↗ threshing ↗ | he needs the horses ↘ taken care of ↘ and fed | you ↗ have eaten everything ↘ | the children still ↗ say | ↗ we haven’t eaten enough yet ↘ | ↗ well | ↘ she says | ↗ nothing | ↗ I’ll boil some beans again ↘ then | and later they would ↘ go to sleep | well, then Father would be left with it ↗ | he would give the children more | and that’s how we ↘ lived | ↗ it was hard | when we were ↘ little | but when ↗ we grew up | we were already ↗ young people | ↗ girls | boys ↘ | even though ↗ we lived hard lives | ↗ it was very ↘ cheerful | we sang all sorts of ↗ songs ↘ | when we ↗ went out in the evening | everywhere ↘ | in every village ↘ there was a youth gathering | [...] | still | ↗ things seem easier and better now | 101 ↘ g'īvãːna ↘ žmō'nę's | but dainù are not ↘ | vīsu.r ↗ t'ika | that kó kis ↗ drunk kūr ↘ ažb'l'ã.una | this is everything | Marija Mažeikienė, born in 1923 in Petrikai village. Recording registration No. 674. 4 I s. ↗ I arrived in the thirty-first year | I had already learned | ↗ in the third year I was ↘ speaking | during ↗ two years I ↘ learned | [...] | when ↗ I arrived | then I ↘ learned | they ↗ laugh at me | of course | when ↘ you don’t know how | I ↗ still can’t say it properly ↘ in Lithuanian | really ↘ | that’s how ↗ we speak | the way we ↘ here | we speak | everyone ↗ speaks | our ↘ speech | here ↘ differently, as already | here, after all, ↗ Lithuanian isn’t really much spoken ↘ at home | but ↗ how much has already been translated ↘ | ↗ how much had been learned | next to us ↘ they put me | then ↗ already in Gervėčiai they speak much more Belarusian ↘ | ↗ in the Belarusian villages | ↗ in Gaigaliai | well | ↘ in those villages | [...] | well, when the Belarusian women arrived ↗ | who don’t want to ↗ either with us | the Belarusian women ↘ don’t speak | [...] | ah ↘ from one of them | ↗ already, well, ↘ she has been ill for seventeen, eighteen years ↘ | last month ↘ she was | ↘ fourth | she has already died | [...] | here, after all, everything ↗ belongs to Petrikai | ↗ this village and the landladies ↘ are Petrikai people | [...] | ↗ I have one ↘ | such a one | ↘ little | ↘ girl | I have one ↘ girl | well, what now ↗ is | how ↗ if you don’t have one | I ↗ won’t go anywhere ↘ | ↗ won’t get anywhere ↘ to buy | when I slaughter ↗ | then ↘ my own | until the children ↗ arrive | until they ↗ come | then ↘ wait | ↗ you’ll sit hungry ↘ | Marija Petrikienė, born in 1911 in Petrikai village. Recording registration No. 674. Literatūra Arumaa P. Litauische mundartliche Texte aus der Wilnae Gegend mit grammatischen Anmerkungen. Dorpat, 1930. Kudukaitienė E. V. Kupiškėnų monoftongų priegaidės (Audicinis tyrinėjimas) // Kalbotyra. V., 1977. T. 28(1). P. 18-23. 102 Garšva K. Akcentuacijos ir vokalizmo sąryšis šiaurės vakarų panevėžiškių tarmėje // Lietuvių arealinės lingvistikos klausimai (Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai. T. 17). V., 1977. P. 76-88. Garšva K. Svarbesnės šiaurės vakarų panevėžiškių fonologijos ypatybės // Baltistica, V., 1982. T. 18(1). P. 65-74. Gerullis G. Litauische Dialektstudien. Leipzig, 1930. Girdenis A. Fonologija. V., 1981. Grinaveckienė E. Kai kurios Gervėčių tarmės veiksmažodžio ypatybės // Baltų kalbų veiksmažodžio tyrinėjimai (Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai. T. 14). V., 1973. P. 221-229. Jonaitytė A. Tarmės apžvalga // Gervėčiai. V., 1989. P. 230-237. Kardelytė J. Gervėčių tarmė. V., 1975. Kazlauskas J. Lietuvių kalbos istorinė gramatika. Kirčiavimas, daiktavardis, veiksmažodis. V., 1968. Labov W. On the Use of the Present to Explain the Past // Readings in Historical Phonology. Chapters in the Theory of Sound Change. The Pennsylvania University Press, 1978. P. 275-312. Lietuvių kalbos tarmės. Chrestomatija. V., 1970. Lipskienė J. Gervėčių tarmės frazeologizmai // Leksikos tyrinėjimai. (Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai. T. 13). V., 1972. P. 111-141. Lipskienė J. Gervėčių tarmės ištiktukai // Kalbų ryšiai ir sąveikos. (Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai. T. 28). V., 1989. P. 118-122. Pakerys A. Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos prozodija. V., 1982. Salys A. Raštai. T. 4. Lietuvių kalbos tarmės. Roma, 1992. Vidugiris A. Iš Gervėčių tarmės semantinių dialektizmų // Leksikos tyrinėjimai (Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai. T. 13). V., 1972. P. 19-29. Vidugiris A. Gervėčių tarmės leksiniai dialektizmai // Lietuvos TSR Mokslų Akademijos darbai. A Serija. V., 1974. T. 1(46). P. 117-127. Vidugiris A. Iš kalbinių kontaktų raidos // Gervėčiai. V., 1989. P. 238-254. Zinkevičius Z. Lietuvių dialektologija. V., 1966. Zinkevičius Z. Dėl akūto ir cirkumflekso skyrimo rytų Lietuvos tarmėse // Baltistica, 1974. T. 10(1). P. 93-94. Грумадене Л., Стунджа Б. Динамика оппозиции слоговых интонаций в фонологических системах диалектной и городской речи (на материале литовского языка) // Proceedings XIth International Congress of Phonetics Sciences. August 1-7 1987. Tallin. Vol. 5. P. 95-98. Лингвистический атлас Европы. Второй вопросник. М., 1981. Романичук А. Фамилии в условиях многоязычия (на материале говоров д. Гервят и окрестностей) // Lietuvių kalba ir bilingvizmas (Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai. T. 27). V., 1988. P. 55-66. Судник Т. М. Диалекты литовско-славянского пограничья. Очерки фонологических систем. М., 1975. 103 TENDENCIES OF DEPHONOLOGIZATION OF INTONATION IN THE DIALECT OF GERVĖČIAI Summary The present article deals with the changes of prosody that were noticed in the language of unilingual and polylingual local Lithuanians. It discusses the reasons that could determine the decline of opposition of intonation in diphtongs (ǎR: aŘ). Allotones (aŘ / ǎR) that appeared as a result of the alteration of the circumflex (aŘ(.)) differ from the acute (ǎR) only in duration. The dephonologization of intonation in the dialect of Gervėčiai is strongly maintained by the neighbouring slavonic languages. In due course, after the loss of its most important distinctive function intonation may become only an additional phonetic characteristic of duration in a long stressed vowel (resp. diphtong). 104