ALDONAS PUPKIS

ONCE AGAIN ON THE ACCENTUATION OF “EXPERT, CONCERT” AND SIMILAR WORDS

Dedicated to the memory of my dear friend Aleksas Girdenis

KEYWORDS: standard language, accentuation, codification of norms, accent marking, expression of pitch accents.

INTRODUCTION

For more than half a century now, a discussion among specialists in accentology and phonetics has been recurring over the accentuation of international words such as ekspertas, koncertas, nervas, rezervas and so on: should the current official marking of the stressed syllable in such words with the grave accent be retained (i.e., ekspertas, koncertas, nervas, rezervas, classifying these words as belonging to accentuation paradigm 1), or should prewar practice be restored and the falling pitch accent be marked (i.e., ekspertas, koncertas, nervas, rezervas, treating them as words of accentuation paradigm 2). It should be particularly emphasized that the accentuation paradigm of these words and the conditions for applying the penultimate-syllable rule depend on the accent marking (pitch accent).

To an outsider, this dispute may seem rather minor, perhaps even trivial, or may raise the question of why some want to change the tradition of recent decades. But on closer examination, it will become clear that the discussion is not someone’s private whim: it is a fundamental issue connected with the language system and its structure. If left unresolved, many uncertainties remain in usage, disrupting practical work on accentuation and undermining the accentuation skills of public speakers—radio and television presenters and journalists, actors, teachers, and others. This issue becomes all the more pressing when publishing a new Dictionary of Standard Lithuanian that reflects current usage.

It should be stressed that the focus here is on a certain type of international words and other borrowings, and that the aim is to clarify at least two matters: 1) to review the history of accent marking (standardization) for this type of word; 2) to establish the systematic relationships of the stressed syllables in such words within the entire prosodic system of Standard Lithuanian. Once these tasks have been completed, a third objective is to offer reasoned recommendations for the codification of the standard language and for practical work.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

ALDONAS PUPKIS. Dar kartą dėl eksperto, koncerto ir pan. žodžių kirčiavimo | 2

HISTORY OF STRESS MARKING

We have data on the accentuation of foreign (and/or international) words and the marking of stressed syllables with particular accent marks from the nineteenth century—from the dictionaries of Friedrich Kuršaitis (German: Friedrich Kurschat). They contain no traces of words of the type under discussion being marked with the grave accent, but neither is there more precise information that would allow us to determine the origin of the intonation in such words. For example, in the German–Lithuanian dictionary (Kurschat 1870) we find several cases of the accentuation in question: Kellner – kė̃lneris I 681, Nerv – nė́rva II 90, Reserve – rezė́rvai II 130. The Lithuanian–German dictionary (Kurschat 1883) lists the following loans from German: kė̃lmeris ‘a free peasant’ 177, ėrcikis (with derivatives) ‘duke’ 177, while o erbas ‘coat of arms’ 107 is left unaccented. Thus, those dictionaries offer little clarity, and, as Pranas Skardžius said, “we can no longer draw definitive conclusions about Lithuanian accentuation from Kurschat’s grammar and dictionaries alone” (Skardžius 1999: 289).

A fuller discussion of this question can begin with Jonas Jablonskis, who laid the foundations for the standardization of many areas of the Lithuanian language and also established the foundations of Lithuanian accentology. According to Arvydas Vidžiūnas (1997: 147), the first hint about the accentuation of such words is found in Petro Avižonis’s Lietuviškoje gramatikėlėje, written in 1892; it prompted Jablonskis to prepare and publish in 1901 the well-known Lietuviškos kalbos gramatiką (see Piročkinas 1977: 144–145 on this). On p. 10 of that short grammar, the word terminas is given with circumflex intonation (presumably through Jablonskis’s efforts). The authenticity of this accentuation by Jablonskis is confirmed by a text read by Jablonskis in Jurgis Gerulis’s book of dialectological studies: it has tẽrminu (Gerullis 1930: 7).

Daugiau informacijos apie kalbamų žodžių kirčiavimą yra Vidžiūno (1997) monografijoje Jono Jablonskio akcentologija. Išstudijavęs Jablonskio kirčiavimo dalykus autorius teigia, jog turint prieš akis kai kurių tarptautinių daiktavardžių (skolinių) kirčiavimą „spėtina, kad ir ne vienas tarptautinis žodis su kirčiuotais dvigarsiais i, u, o, e + l, m, n, r, kurie šiandien paprastai yra tvirtrapradžiai, Jablonskio kalboje galėję turėti tvirtagalę priegaidę“ (Vidžiūnas 1997: 147–148). Taip esą leidžia manyti ir Jablonskio pasekėjo Benjamino Sereiskio kirčiavimas hercogas, koncėrtas, tẽrminas. Iš tiesų Sereiskis 1926–1928 m. buvo Jablonskio sekretorius, o pats Jablonskis apie jo lietuvių kalbos mokėjimą yra atsiliepęs teigiamai („Sereiskis, būdamas ne lietuvis, lietuvių kalbos mokėjimu daro gėdą daugeliui lietuvių.“ – Juozo Senkaus liudijimas. Žr. Atsiminimai 2010: 357). Tie Sereiskio sukirčiuoti pavyzdžiai cituojami iš jo 1929 m. rusų kalba Kaune išleisto Sisteminio lietuvių kalbos vadovo (žr. Sereiskis 1929).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204

ALDONAS PUPKIS. Dar kartą dėl eksperto, koncerto ir pan. žodžių kirčiavimo

3

Sereiskis’s textbook also includes a certain introduction discussing some matters of Lithuanian orthography, accentuation, and other topics. It explains separately that “[a]ll Lithuanian words are accented according to a single dialect—the western subdialect of the Aukštaitian Nemunas-region dialect, which today forms the basis of the written language” (Sereiskis 1929: V). For this purpose, the author checked the words with several reliable speakers, questioning Professor Jablonskis most extensively. Speakers of this dialect accent foreign words as follows: spórtas, kurórtas, pórcija, <...>, heṙbas, bel̇gas, <...>, kel̇neris, fel̇čeris... tėrminas, heṙcogas, eneṙgija, gubeṙnija, ineṙcija, komeṙcija... (ibid.). Page VII also reminds readers that one should accent konceṙtas, remȯntas, not kòncertas, rèmontas. It goes without saying that the words of interest to us here are accented according to the first accentuation pattern (if the third-to-last syllable of the base form is stressed, except for terminą – 3^b) or according to the second (when the penultimate syllable is stressed).

Thus, all the examples are presented without exception according to a single system. Although this is called dialectal accentuation (Jablonskis’s dialect), it is offered as the basis for an emerging standard-language model for accentuating foreign and/or international words. In fact, this takes into account the tendency in spoken language to give circumflex intonation to foreign words borrowed into Lithuanian from Slavic (Belarusian, Polish) languages (with few exceptions; some Slavic loans that entered the language in the most ancient times have acute intonation, e.g., bažnyčia, lenkas, vyskupas, svietas, etc.), while German loanwords are mostly acute (see Skardžius 1999: 31–36). Most international words, whose origins lie in ancient Greek or Latin, also entered Lithuanian through intermediary languages, but in earlier usage their original origins were of little significance. With the spread of culture, loans from French, as well as Spanish, Italian, and other languages, began to gain importance, and in our time we borrow ever more words from English. It is therefore becoming relevant to take account of the latest ways in which words enter the language and reconcile them with the tradition of borrowing words from earlier periods.

Several accentuation textbooks were also published in Lithuania between the wars. Some of them (Būtėnas 1931, Skardžius 1936) also contain information about the accentuation of the words under consideration.

In 1931, a comprehensive accentuation textbook with an introduction to phonetics by Petras Būtėnas was published; there, this question of interest to us was perhaps explained in detail for the first time. Paragraph 124 discusses the accentuation of foreign words: “As a rule, Lithuanians accent foreign words in the same way as Lithuanian words or borrowed words, e.g.: 1) áltas, álgebra, buhá lteris <...>; krėi̇seris, kel̇neris, fel̇čeris; eneṙgija, heṙcogas, gubeṙnija, ineṙcija, komeṙcija; <...>” (Būtėnas 1931: 113). Midway through the same paragraph it is further added that “[o]ther words are nowadays also accented differently by Lithuanians, namely as they are accented in the languages from which they were taken, e.g.: himnas, kel̇neris, heṙcogas, eneṙgija, ineṙcija, komeṙcija, priṅcipas, cil̇inderis, receṅzija, siṅtaksė, audieṅcija, konfereṅcija, teṙminas” (Būtėnas 1931: 113–114). Moreover, in reviewing the suffixes of foreign words, it is stated,

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

ALDONAS PUPKIS. Dar kartą dėl eksperto, koncerto ir pan. žodžių kirčiavimo

4

that the accentuation diktȧntas, praktikȧntas, muzikȧntas, -òntas, audiėncija, konferencija, koncėrtas is dialectal (trm.; see Būtenas 1931: 114).

From the statements cited here, it is clear that Būtenas regards circumflex accentuation as an unquestionable standard-language norm. Nonstandard accentuation variants are described in a highly contradictory manner. First, it is unclear why “other Lithuanians” accent words also in the way they are accented in the languages from which they were borrowed. What exactly is taken from those languages—the position of the stress or the intonation? Can intonations be transferred from other languages, which have no intonations (or do not distinguish them)? Nothing is said, either, about whether these intonations are taken from Slavic or Germanic languages. On the other hand, it is unclear which dialects the author has in mind, and where, for example, diktȧntas is pronounced, and so on. Perhaps only a different pronunciation of the diphthong was intended here—diktántas (compare diktȧntas)? Thus, nothing is clarified here about a different (acute, marked with the grave accent) pronunciation, because the author probably confused stress position with the intonations of the stressed syllable, applying prosodic features in one case and the so-called mora theory in the other, where the grave marks the first component and the circumflex the second (cf. kȧltas: kãltas, ski̇rtas: skīrtas; see Girdenis 1981: 196). So was Būtenas perhaps the first to set off the confusion in our language over the accentuation of the international words under discussion¹?

The most authoritative interwar textbook on accentology was Pranas Skardžius’s Bendrinės lietuvių kalbos kirčiavimas (1936). It states that foreign words are accented like Lithuanian words of the corresponding accentuation class, but none of the examples there are words of interest to us (see Skardžius 1936: 22–23). However, a few such examples appear in Chapter III of the book, “Words with Stress,” a brief dictionary of accented words. They are desertas p. 47, ekspertas 49, herbas 53, koncertas 58, modernų 64, rezervas 73. No words of this type accented with the grave accent were found. This means that one may conclude that in this work Skardžius, perhaps following the views of Jablonskis and Sereiskis, clearly established circumflex accentuation for international words with the diphthong er in a syllable. This rule should a priori also have applied to words with the diphthong el. Other similar diphthongs, em and en, are accented only with circumflex intonation.

The same accentuation is also affirmed in the Lietuvių kalbos rašybos vadovėlyje, published in 1938. Its preface states that great difficulty was encountered in accentuating foreign words. “In accentuating them, we tried to adhere to this principle: those familiar to us, especially to ordinary people, since before the war are accented as they are pronounced, while new ones follow the rules of our language” (Lietuvių kalbos rašybos vadovėlis 1938: 4). The examples given in connection with this principle do not include the words of interest to us, but they can be found in the dictionary appended to the textbook. It gives the accentuation: energija 89,

¹ Toje Būteno knygoje yra pripainiota ir kitų, ypač fonetikos dalykų (žr. Pupkis 1968).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

ALDONAS PUPKIS. Dar kartą dėl eksperto, koncerto ir pan. žodžių kirčiavimo | 5

končertas 118, konsėrvas 118, peršikas 147, rezėrvas 160, teṙminas 189, but desėrtas 81, kėlnėris 112, nėrvas 136, and sėlteris 166. The acute accent might perhaps be justified by the real or supposed Germanic or Romance origin of these words, but the stress pattern of sėlterio is a clear exception to any system, however understood. In reviewing this dictionary, Skardžius (1938) reproached its authors for a considerable number of shortcomings of various kinds; among these criticisms is the interesting point that the word should be stressed desėrtas, not deseṙtas, and for this reason it is presented in comparison with the stress pattern of the word končertas, etc. (Skardžius 1938: 94–95). This criticism will be very useful in what follows when discussing other cases of stress of this kind in Skardžius’s work.

Information about the stress patterns of the words under discussion is also found in interwar bilingual dictionaries and glossaries². In one of the largest dictionaries begun in that period, the Lietuvių rašomosios kalbos žodynas, whose stress markings were supplied by Alfredas Senas (“only one person, A. Senn, is responsible for the stress markings,” p. XI), words of this type with acute accent and circumflex stress are represented in roughly equal numbers; for example, ené̌rgija 152, ené̌rgiškas 152, hérbas 219, hipérbolė 220, hipérbolinis 220, hipérboliškas 220, iné̌rcija 255, and fė̌lčeris 155, fė̌ldfebelis 155, fė̌ldšeris 155, kėlnėris 459, klė̌kas 491, komė̌rcija 506, komė̌rcinis 506, komė̌rciškas 606, končertas 507, končertinis 507, konsėrvai 508. Only a few examples bear the grave accent: čėlsiškas 93, hėrcogas 219, fėrma 155. It is apparent that the person who marked the stresses had not yet thought everything through consistently, and the use of the grave accent appears to be a kind of exception. Skardžius (1999: 289) has also stated that the stress markings in this dictionary cannot be trusted without reservation.

Mūsų temai labai svarbus Jono Barono (1932) žodynas ir jame sukirčiuoti kalbami žodžiai. Nors Barono žodyno kirčiavimą savo recenzijoje gerokai kritikavo Skardžius (1999: 632–639), bet kirčiuodamas mums rūpimus žodžius autorius elgėsi gana nuosekliai: daugumą žodžių sužymėjo riestiniu kirčio ženklu ir tik kelis – dešininiu. Taigi tvirtagališkai sukirčiuoti: hérbas 94, hėrcogas 94, desė̌rtas 114, desė̌rtinis 114, iné̌tingas 186, iné̌rcija 186, komė̌rcija 207, konsėrvai 208, končertas 209, nėrvas 290 (2x), pė̌rlas 364, pė̌rlamotė 364, pė̌rlinis 364, rezėrvas 488, teṙminas 588. Tik trys žodžiai turi tvirtapradę priegaidę: dėltė „delta“ 112, fėrma 594, fėrmeris 594. Tų trijų žodžių atskyrimo iš bendro būrio motyvai nėra aiškūs. Kairiniu kirčio ženklu žymimų žodžių neteko aptikti.

Later, apparently as the system came to be better understood and pitch accents more carefully distinguished, words marked with the grave accent appeared increasingly rarely in various dictionaries. For example, among words of this type, the Lithuanian–Polish dictionary by J. K. Zablockis and Č. Kuleša gives the following with a grave accent:

² Some larger bilingual dictionaries (for example, Benjamino Sereiskis’s Lietuviškai rusiškas žodynas (1932), the later Vilniaus Pėteraitis’s Lietuviškai angliškas žodynas (1948), and others) did not mark stress, while Jurgis Šlapelis’s dictionaries, which did mark stress, avoided including international words, so we find none of the cases we need in them.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

ALDONAS PUPKIS. Dar kartą dėl eksperto, koncerto ir pan. žodžių kirčiavimo

6

or perhaps only one word, hipèrbole 45. About 10 words in it are marked with circumflex stress: cisternà, –os (2) 23, ekstè̇rnas 34, energìja 35, fèlčeris 36, hèrbas 45, koncèrtas 69, konsèrvai 70, modèrniškas 88, rezèrvas 137, tèrminas (3^b) 176, and a few words with an acute accent: dėltè ‘delta’ 27, desèrtas 28, nèrvas 96 (Zablockis, Kuleša 1940).

Arba tokiame mažučIame K. Tamučio (1940) žodynėlyje duodami tvirtagališkai sukirčiuoti fèlčeris 32, hèrbas 44, nèrvas 83; farmacèutas turi pažymėtą kairinį kirčio ženklą, nors kirčiuotė nurodyta antroji (2). Žodis čerkesas 20 išvis paliktas nesukirčiuotas, bet prie jo nurodyta 1-oji kirčiuotė, vadinasi, kirčiuotas pirmasis skiemuo. Bendrojoje pedagogikos terminijoje (Šalkauskis 1991), svarstytoje 1940 m. balandžio mėn. Lietuvių kalbos draugijos, kurios pirmininkas buvo Pranas Skardžius³, terminologijos sekcijoje, rašoma enèrgija, modèrnų, nèrvas.

We can also take a look at the stress markings in volumes I and II of the great Lietuvių kalbos žodyno, edited by Balčikonis. Interestingly, in volume II (1947), a considerable number of words of this type, some of which might be called international words, were left entirely unmarked for stress, e.g., fèlčeris, ferma, elmè, energìja, while several loanwords are marked with circumflex accent: fèŕnicas (and fèŕnicas), èlkeris “alkierius,” èlkierius “the same,” èlmentas, èlštrikas, and one or two with acute accent: féršas, élskis. No words marked with a grave accent could be found, so it may be concluded that Balčikonis treated international words very cautiously, but was not entirely consistent with other foreign words.

Thus, it may be concluded that before the war there was a clear tendency to mark most international words containing the diphthongs el, er in the stressed syllable with circumflex accent, and less often (depending on the source of the borrowing?) with an acute accent. Words marked with a grave accent should be regarded as certain rare exceptions. These tendencies, which had become apparent by then, were established in the Lietuvių kalbos rašybos žodyne, published in 1948. A large part of that dictionary was written by the well-known linguist Alfonsas Kalnius (Pupkis 2010: 250–251), including the section on stress among others. Since the dictionary was compiled during the war at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language, edited by Antanas Salys, and had already begun to be printed when publication was halted by military action, it should be regarded as a work in the lexicographic and accentological tradition of Salys. This must be taken into account in the following discussion of the history of standardizing the stress of the words under consideration.

The section on stress in this dictionary says nothing about the stress of foreign (international) words, so one must leaf through the dictionary itself and look for stressed examples. Only a few words marked with a grave accent were found in the dictionary: fèrma 201, fèrmeris 201, hèrcogas

³ For terms later used by Skardžius that were discussed in the terminology section of Šalkauskis’s work, see Lietuvių kalbos vadovas 1950: 13.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

ALDONAS PUPKIS. Dar kartą dėl eksperto, koncerto ir pan. žodžių kirčiavimo

7

215. Given the shifting of stress, only fè rma (1) 201 and plėura (1) 301 remain relevant. Most of the other words in this dictionary are marked with circumflex accents: aler̃gija 153, bel̃gas 170, deser̃tas 188, diver̃sija 191, ekspèr tas 198, ekstèrnas 198, ener̃gija 199, fel̃čeris 201, her̃bas 215, iner̃cija 218, iner̃cinis (iner̃tinis) 218, komer̃cija 245, koncer̃nas 246, koncer̃tas 246, konser̃vai 246, rezèrvas 316, sel̃teris 324, terapèu tija 354, ter̃cija 354, terma, -õs 354, ter̃minas 354, ter̃mosas 354. Several words are marked with an acute accent: hipérbolė 215, kélneris 235, pérsas 297, stérlingas 338, while nérvas 281 also has the secondary variant nerṽas. Could the distinction between the accents here perhaps be judged according to whether the words derive from Slavic or Germanic languages? But in general, no clearer motives are really apparent.

A summary of prewar practice may be found in the Guide to the Lithuanian Language (LKV)⁴, published in Germany in 1950 by Pranas Skardžius, Stasys Barzdukas, and Jonas Martynas Laurinaitis. Although it is a collaborative work, it was edited and accented by Skardžius; moreover, the work notes that it also made use of the 1948 Lithuanian Spelling Dictionary (also listed among the sources on p. 20). There are differences from that dictionary in the accentuation of the words under discussion, but they are not substantial and are sometimes difficult to explain. The only word marked with a grave accent is apparently ener̃gija 248, while the 1948 dictionary’s fèrma, hèr cogas, plėura were replaced by férma 254⁵, hèr cogu 281, pleurà, pleūros 439. Apart from these examples, there are only a few words with different accentuation: in 1948—Bel̃gija 388 (and bel̃gas 170), Per̃sija 414 (but pérsas 297), stérlingas 338; in 1950—Bélgija 201, Pérsija (and pérsas) 430, stérlingas 517. In the other cases, nearly 20 in all, the accentuation in both dictionaries coincides; most are marked with a circumflex accent and a few with an acute. It has not been possible to determine why the accent differs in some cases; neither the real nor supposed origin of the international word from one source or another accounts for the difference. Nevertheless, one may conclude that the period from at least 1929 (if we leave aside Kurschat’s accentuation) to 1950 was characterized by a gradually settling, unified system tending toward circumflex accentuation.

A genuine revolution in the accentuation of words in this field was brought about by the Dictionary of International Words, published in 1951. This was a work translated from Russian, whose “adaptation of the material to the needs of the Lithuanian language was carried out” (TŽŽ 1951: 4) by Chackelis Lemchenas, and so he also assigned all the accents. The preface to the Lithuanian edition states that “the headwords are accented according to the usage now most widespread in the Lithuanian language” (TTŽ 1951: 4).

Perhaps the most widespread accentuation practices were indeed taken into account in many cases, but in the group of words under discussion here they were entirely disregarded—almost everything was marked with a grave accent

⁴ It is hard to believe that, under the conditions of the Iron Curtain, the norms presented in that work published in Germany could have had any influence on the language norms established in Lithuania.

⁵ Perhaps the different meanings of that word were decisive: the meaning of that form is not given in the 1948 dictionary (as with the other words), whereas in the LKV it means “structure (in construction)”?

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

ALDONAS PUPKIS. Dar kartą dėl eksperto, koncerto ir pan. žodžių kirčiavimo

8

accent, without distinguishing even the accentuation of the already established word terminas⁶; at least in this respect, an effort was made to act systematically, perhaps with only one or two exceptions, such as perlas. This accentuation cannot be called anything other than a revolution⁷—neither was it mentioned in the dictionary’s preface, nor was it publicly discussed or even alluded to in the press. Thus, without any discussion, this accentuation passed into the 1954 Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian (hereafter DŽ), and continued from one dictionary to another; it entered bilingual dictionaries and encyclopedias and remains, in our own time—at least until the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language (hereafter VLKK) began publishing accentuation recommendations in 2003—the prevailing practice, if we set aside the numerous exceptions and inexplicable accentuation oddities and practical accentuation problems. To be sure, more than one linguist has opposed and continues to oppose this accentuation for many years, publishing arguments of their own, but dictionary editors did not take them into account. Yet discussion of the reform enacted by TTŽ 1951 has continued without interruption for every decade right up to our own time. It concerns not only the practical accentuation of the diphthongs el, er, but also the question of the phonological identity of the vowel e ([ę]) in those diphthongs.

SYSTEMATIC BASES FOR ACCENTUATING THE DIPHTHONGS UNDER DISCUSSION

After the revolution had been carried out in practice, people soon began seeking theoretical (ideological) grounds to justify it. Perhaps the first to speak, in 1957, about the autonomy of the vowel [ę] in foreign, or rather international, words was Janina Dambrauskaitė (Urbelienė), a French-language instructor at the Vilnius Pedagogical Institute (now the University of Educational Sciences). In her article on the phonological system of Lithuanian vowels, she drew on the teachings of Lev Shcherba, founder of the Leningrad (now Saint Petersburg) school of phonetics (his 1948 French Phonetics describes the method of “oppositions”). While acknowledging that international [ę] and Lithuanian [e] “do not differ at all from one another” (Dambrauskaitė 1957: 222), she nevertheless devised the pairs èstù: éstù, kabinètas: kabinétas, kadètas: kadétas, as well as èsti: èsti=škas⁸ and, finding no alternation with the long vowel [ę˙], declares “the right to assign the non-Lithuanian e to independent

⁶ Perhaps the accentuation of this word would not be very informative (in dictionaries it is now accented with the circumflex, and only that), but a glance at other sources reveals cases of different accentuation as well. For example, TŽŽ 1951: 665 gives tèrminas, but TŽŽ 1969: 753 has tė̀rminas, while TŽŽ 1985: 487, TTŽ 2000: 581, and TŽŽ 2013: 811 likewise give tèrminas. Interestingly, TTŽ 2000: 581 introduces a proper name of the same origin (Latin terminus), Tèrminas, “a certain ancient Roman god,” but in TŽŽ 2001: 737 it is already marked with a grave accent—Tèrminas, “a certain ancient Roman god”; the same accentuation is also given in Interleksis, TŽŽ 2013: 811. Nevertheless, in some sources that proper name is accented with the circumflex (LTE XI: 273; VLE XXIII: 688, Kuzavinis 2007: 1050, while AMŽ 1996: 274 and TŽŽ 2007: 1090 have Tèrminas).

⁷ We cannot entirely rule out that this was a deliberate, or at least subconscious, Russification attack on the Lithuanian language as a whole. As is known, after the war Lemchenas translated Lenin’s writings into Lithuanian and compiled a Russian–Lithuanian Dictionary (published in 1949; unaccented), so his constant contact with Russian may have directly or indirectly influenced his decisions on Lithuanian accentuation.

⁸ In fact, those pairs show an opposition between short and long vowels, but not the phonemic autonomy of the vowel [ę].

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

ALDONAS PUPKIS. Dar kartą dėl eksperto, koncerto ir pan. žodžių kirčiavimo

9

phonemes, although alongside this we must emphasize the minimal role of this sound” (Dambrauskaitė 1957: 224). This view was not shared by Bronius Svecevičius (1960: 30), an English-language lecturer at the same institute, since in practice, in his view, we perceive no difference between the two shades of the vowel e.

A more theoretically precise determination of the system of Lithuanian vowel phonemes became necessary in preparation for writing the first academic grammar of Lithuanian. For this purpose, in the second half of the 1950s and the first half of the 1960s, Valerija Vaitkevičiūtė, a researcher at the Institute of Lithuanian Language and Literature, carried out certain phonetic studies and published their results in the scholarly collection Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai. Later, slightly revised results of that work were incorporated into the academic Lietuvių kalbos gramatiką, in the phonetics chapter included in its first volume (1965).

Vaitkevičiūtė correctly described the principles for evaluating speech sounds at the phonetic and phonological levels. Drawing on the propositions of the then Leningrad school of phonetics, she wrote that a phoneme is “the smallest sound unit that distinguishes the meanings of words or morphemes” (Vaitkevičiūtė 1957: 5). “Phonemes are historically formed sound types that distinguish words, their forms, or morphemes, and whose pronunciation does not depend on the phonetic position they occupy in a word” (Vaitkevičiūtė 1961: 19). To determine the phonemic composition of a language, the so-called minimal-pair method is used, and the procedures are demonstrated in the aforementioned articles by Vaitkevičiūtė. For example, vowel length and shortness make it possible to distinguish long and short vowel phonemes in this way: lĩs: lìs, mẽs: mès, mãno: màno, and so on. But when discussing the short vowel [ę], used only in international words, no minimal pair is given; it is merely said that it differs little from the Lithuanian short vowel [ę], that shades of sound are generally indistinct, and that the phoneme in international words is more close and “differs from it by nature” (Vaitkevičiūtė 1961: 21): both stressed and unstressed, it is short, whereas the Lithuanian vowel is long when stressed and short when unstressed (cf. mėta: metù, lėsa: lesù⁹).

These arguments reveal a conflation of the phonetic and phonological levels, a failure to distinguish those levels rigorously¹⁰, and the use of absolute rather than relative scales (Girdenis, Žulys 1973: 207, 208). These are the reasons for the theoretical error: the vowel [ę], used only in international words, is considered an independent phoneme of the standard language. Supporters of this view rely mainly on phonetic features, arguing that the vowel [ę] in international words is closer and more close than the vowel [ę] in Lithuanian words. Elzbieta Mikalauskaitė (1975: 17) maintains that the difference is harder to perceive; in dialects, this difference is said to be smaller. From her

⁹ With this claim, Vaitkevičiūtė contradicts her own definition of the phoneme, which states that the sound types of phonemes do not depend on the phonetic position they occupy in a word.

¹⁰ Both Jonas Kazlauskas and, especially, Aleksas Girdenis have repeatedly criticized the Leningrad school of phonetics in our conversations for its frequent conflation of the phonetic and phonological levels.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

ALDONAS PUPKIS. Dar kartą dėl eksperto, koncerto ir pan. žodžių kirčiavimo

10

Another important point in the discussion is the claim that this vowel in words of foreign origin does not occur at the end of a word (Mikalauskaitė 1975: 17).

Antanas Pakerys (1986) plačiai remiasi ir fonetiniais, ir sintagminiais to tarptautinių žodžių balsio [ɛ] požymiais. Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos fonetikos autorius rašo, kad tas balsis vartojamas kirčiuotuose daiktavardžių kamienuose (lietuviškuose žodžiuose balsio ilgumas priklauso nuo (ne)kirčiuotos padėties: gėlia: geliù, plg. dar ãktas: aktù). Padėtinio ilgumo balsis [ɛ] (gėlia) esti tik senuosiuose skoliniuose, pvz., Pẽtras (plg. Petrù), jis atsiranda ir svetimos kilmės žodžiuose po minkštųjų priebalsių vietoj ilgojo [aː]: pliãžas: pliažù. Tas balsis nepr itempa prie žemutinio pakilimo balsių [ɑ], [ɑ], [ɛ], [ɛ] posistemio. Šie ir kiti požymiai rodantys, kad tas tarptautinių žodžių balsis [ɛ] vartojamas panašiai kaip ir vidutinio pakilimo trumpasis balsis [o], plg. ėpas: òmas, genẽžė: prognòžė, fèrma: fòrma (Pakerys 1986: 38–39).

The functional independence of vowels in Lithuanian and non-Lithuanian words can supposedly be tested by comparing, for instance, the words gèstų (genitive plural of the noun gèstas) and gèstų (the subjunctive of the verb gèsti). “According to our data, the majority (75–80%) of listeners correctly identify these words when pronounced in isolation” (Pakerys 1986: 39)¹¹.

Along with other arguments, this is said to be the most important indicator of the vowel’s independence. Nevertheless, in recent years this argument has rarely been mentioned, since it is understood that the pair is not very sound in the study: first, they are morphological forms of different parts of speech, and the substitution of such words in the same text is virtually nonexistent. And in the most important, classical position for minimal pairs—word-initial position—we might find at most the pair èt: èteris (ètika), but even this is not an entirely identical position (word-final t is aspirated, whereas before front vowels it is softened, i.e. soft). Second, it is even less sound to ask an audience to identify words specially invented to be pronounced in isolation.

ALDONAS PUPKIS. Dar kartą dėl eksperto, koncerto ir pan. žodžių kirčiavimo | 11

In the section of the book “Stress in Words of Other Languages,” she wrote: “In words of other-language origin, the syllable containing the sound combinations el, er is pronounced with a circumflex accent, and such words are assigned to accentuation pattern 1: kẽlneris, desẽrtas, enẽrgija, epidẽrmis, fẽrma, fẽrmeris, hẽrbas, Hẽrmis, inẽrcija, koncertãtas, nẽrvai, pẽršikas, tẽrmosas...” (Laigonaitė 1959: 97). The author is not entirely right here about accentuation pattern 1: words stressed on the penultimate syllable (fẽrma¹², hẽrbas, Hẽrmis, nẽrvai) will belong to accentuation pattern 2, but what is much more important here is to read carefully the author’s footnote accompanying this statement: “In Lithuanian dictionaries, the stress of such words had hitherto been marked with the grave accent: kẽlneris, desẽrtas, fẽrma... However, this does not correspond to actual Lithuanian usage: in words of this type, the vowel e together with the consonants l, r forms the mixed diphthongs el, er, which Lithuanians can pronounce only with either a falling or a circumflex accent. A short accent is impossible here, just as it is impossible in the combinations em, en, am, an, which in words of other-language origin have long been marked with the sign for either the acute or the circumflex accent (cf. diktántas, leitenántas, tendeñcija...)” (Laigonaitė 1959: 97).

Reviewing Volume I of the academic Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos, Jonas Kazlauskas noted that there is no need or justification in Lithuanian for distinguishing yet another vowel in international words [e]. In a review published in 1965, he wrote: “A narrower e does indeed sometimes occur in international words (for example, in the word poetas), but its occurrence here clearly depends on phonetic position (it follows the short vowel o). <...> Why artificially introduce yet another new, unfamiliar sound into the already rich phonological system of Lithuanian, thereby making speech on the stage and radio more difficult?” (Kazlauskas 2000: 223). It should be added that Kazlauskas also provided minimal pairs here and indicated that the vowel e in international words is pronounced as it is in native Lithuanian words. Elsewhere, a year later, he stated that this sound “is pronounced like the e of native words, cf., for example, lèmą and lèpti, šèpingas and šèpti, metòdas and metù, bemòlis and berãnķis, etc. The desire to introduce the new phoneme [e] into the literary language is difficult to understand; moreover, language practice has made these efforts hopeless” (Kazlauskas 2000: 136).

One of the most prominent theorists and standardizers of the standard spoken language, Juozas Senkus, also opposed treating e in international words as a separate vowel. In an article published in 1970 on accentual variants in the Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodyno (1954), he argued that “words with the stressed sound sequence er should be given a circumflex accent and belong to accentuation pattern 1 or 2, e.g.: desẽrtas (2), enẽrgija (1), fẽrmeris (1), hẽrbas (2), inẽrcija (1), koncertãtas (2), nẽrvai (2), pẽršai, pẽršikas (1), rezẽrv as (2), tẽrmosas (1), vẽršija (1)” (Senkus 2006: 543). He also supported this statement with Laigonaitė’s view published in 1959.

¹² According to Saussure–Fortunatov’s law, it should have been fermà.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204

ALDONAS PUPKIS. Dar kartą dėl eksperto, koncerto ir pan. žodžių kirčiavimo | 12

Laigonaitė wrote somewhat differently about the accent marks on these diphthongs in the second edition of her accentuation manual in 1978: “As is known, the acute-accented diphthongs el, em, en, er in international words should, according to current standard-language norms, be pronounced with the short e characteristic of international words. Very few people are able to pronounce them this way. Most Lithuanians in such cases pronounce these words with a circumflex accent: hėrbas, hėrcas, pėrsai. Such usage for some of these words has already been recorded in the “Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodyne.” Alongside nèrvo, it also gives nèrv̇as; only the international words pèrlas, stèndas, tẽmbras are stressed with a circumflex (cf. also the older sè rbas, veñgras). This would indicate a need to reconsider this standard for pronunciation and accentuation in the standard language” (Laigonaitė 1978: 48–49).

Thus, Laigonaitė no longer argues here that it is impossible to pronounce the first component of such diphthongs briefly, but treats them all together, that is, she treats el, er in the same way as em, en. However, she disagrees with the then-current marking of stress on the diphthongs el, er and proposes adopting a different norm that corresponds to actual language usage.

Incidentally, in that 1978 accentology manual, Laigonaitė also draws on the collective opinion expressed in 1971 in Mūsų kalboje by the editorial board of that publication (see Kuzavinis 1971: 14), which supports her position:

The editorial board of “Mūsų kalba”¹³ believes that in the cases under discussion (that is, in the diphthongs el, er, em, en) the circumflex accent should be marked because 1) in dialects they are pronounced either only with a circumflex accent or only with an acute accent and a lengthened e (the latter pronunciation is not recommended for the standard language); 2) standard-language practice shows that a circumflex diphthong is pronounced here, whereas only one or two trained phoneticians know how to pronounce èr with an acute accent and a short e. Therefore, “disyllabic and trisyllabic words with stress on the penultimate syllable should be assigned to accentuation pattern 2, and the others to pattern 1 (rarely pattern 3). The accent of their stressed syllable should be marked with the circumflex accent.”

Even before the war, around 1934, Antanas Salys said that the so-called international [ę] existed (was pronounced) “in the foreign words used by the older generation [of people]” (quoted in Pupkis 2010: 397). He later repeated this idea in two articles written for the Boston encyclopedia. For example, in the article “Tartis” [“Pronunciation”] (LE XXX [1964]) he stated: “Even now, there are aspects of standard pronunciation that are not entirely settled. For example, in foreign words, some pronounce the short vowel e just as in Lithuanian words, while others pronounce it as a half-open e, as in the neighboring Russian and Polish languages. Most Lithuanians pronounce A m è r i k a and e l e k t r à with an e ‘like ė, only shorter’

¹³ The substance of this opinion was formulated by editorial board member Vytautas Būda, and considered and edited by the board. Incidentally, Būda held to this opinion later as well. In a booklet published in 1982 on the accentuation of proper names, he did not mention the cases under discussion, simply passing over them in silence. These cases are also omitted in the article by Kuzavinis (1971), mentioned just above.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204

ALDONAS PUPKIS. Dar kartą dėl eksperto, koncerto ir pan. žodžių kirčiavimo | 13

still sounds somehow un-Lithuanian. Because of this pronunciation, inherited from Russian schooling, attempts were even made three decades ago to write, for example, poezija, poētas, teorēma, but later this was abandoned” (Salys 1985: 100).

A couple of years later, Salys also expressed an opinion in that encyclopedia on marking the stress of diphthongs el, er. Writing about dictionaries and mentioning DŽ 1954, he stated: “Until now, the recommended stress was koncertas, konsertai (like vērtas, mizėrnas), whereas konkèrtas, konkèrnas, konsèrvai are now being proposed. Perhaps they would have to be stressed this way if we agreed that these words should also be pronounced with a half-close e, as in Russian. Although the academic grammar recommends this pronunciation for international words, it is hardly acceptable. Pronounced this way to Lithuanian ears, universitetas, komitetas (with a slightly narrower e, just a short one) sound very Russian. People who have not studied foreign languages usually pronounce here the same e as in the standard-language words tēkti, tēpti” (Salys 1985: 237).

Thus, even more than a decade after the marking of the so-called international [e] in diphthongs with the grave accent had been officially established, Salys still found no arguments to justify this codification. His own arguments derive from the empirical domain, much like Laigonaitė’s: 1) most Lithuanians speaking the living language, unaffected by other languages, do not have (do not pronounce) that sound; 2) the nature of that sound is not Lithuanian—Salys sees its origin in the usage of other (Slavic) languages.

Antanas Salys also adhered in practice to the same view. For example, when marking the stress of headwords in volumes II–IV of Lietuvių rašomosios kalbos žodyno, in volume II he marked all the words in the nérvas entry group with acute stress (6 words), p. 166; in volume III, with acute or circumflex stress, the words pérsikas 50, rezèrvas 543, rezèrvinis 543, sèĮteris 634, sèrbas 642 (cf. also rèversas 543, TŽŽ 1951 revèrsas 583); in volume IV, stèrlingas 97, teṙminas, tè̇rminis, tè̇rmiškas, tè̇rmosas ir tèrmosas 644, 644, 944, 645; and in volume V (in the appendix of proper names and names of peoples), bèlgas, Bèlgija, bèlgiškas, Cèlsijus, Ėlba, Ėlbė, EĮbingas, HeĮsinkis, HeĮbertas, HeĮkulas, keĮtas, keĮtiškas, Kèrčė, Pèrme, pèrsas, Pèrsija, pèrsiskas, Pèrtas, SeĮvinas, Sèrgiijus, Vèlsas 497, 497, 497, 500, 506, 506, 506, 512, 512, 512, 519, 519, 519, 537, 537, 537, 537, 538, 544, 544, 555.

Thus Salys marked stress quite consistently, mostly with the circumflex, but it is impossible to determine more precisely why some words have circumflex stress and others acute stress. An exception, as a second variant, was made only for termosui. It is worth noting that the names Kerčės and Permės, borrowed from Russian, were given circumflex stress; according to the general principle, they too should have been marked with the grave accent (and this is what was later done in encyclopedias).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

ALDONAS PUPKIS. Dar kartą dėl eksperto, koncerto ir pan. žodžių kirčiavimo

14

It should be said that neither in Lithuania nor in America or elsewhere abroad did anyone properly engage with Laigonaitė’s, Kazlauskas’s, and Salys’s arguments¹⁴. Neither living usage nor the possible origin of that sound in other languages was refuted. The move from empirical to linguistic arguments came later, with linguists of a subsequent generation.

The most prominent Lithuanian phonologist, Aleksas Gird enis, seriously questioned at the beginning of his scholarly career whether the vowel [ɛ] in international words should be treated as a separate phoneme, and included it in the inventory of vowel phonemes with a question mark (see Girdenis 2000 [I]: 310). Later, in his Fonologijoje, he wrote: “Some users of the standard language also pronounce a closed [ɛ] in words of foreign origin (usually only in stressed syllables) <...>. This is a facultative sound, since according to the traditional ‘Suvalkian’ norm, a plain short [ɛ] is pronounced in its place—the kind found in words such as sėkti, vežti. Because of this optionality and other peculiarities of usage, [ɛ] (and even more so ɛ) should be regarded as a combination of the phoneme /e/ and a certain sociolinguistic ‘prosodeme’ (or sociolinguistic i n d i c a t o r). This ‘prosodeme’ performs an e x p r e s s i v e function—it indicates that the word belongs to a high style and that the speaker is displaying their high (real or imagined) social status” (Girdenis 1981: 126; emphasis in original).

Girdenis also emphasized the facultative nature of this phoneme in the phonetics chapter of Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatikos, co-authored with Garšva (see DLKG: 23). He wrote similarly later: the sound [ɛ] cannot be considered a phoneme (not even a peripheral one), since its function is not distinctive; its facultative use also precludes treating it as a phoneme. At best, it is a phoneme of a certain local s o c i o l e c t. It performs an expressive function—it indicates high style, so it should not be considered a true phoneme, since its purpose is not distinctive (Girdenis 2003: 191).

It may be added that Vaitkevičiūtė had set out to consistently establish such a high-style pronunciation norm in the standard language (see her 2001). In her pronunciation guide and dictionary, she polemicized with linguists who held a different view and claimed to adhere to the norms of DŽ, “which were established by the older generation of linguists A. Salys, the aforementioned P. Skardžius, J. Balčikonis, and others” (Vaitkevičiūtė 2001: 9). Both that vowel [ɛ] in international words and her advocated rules for pronouncing prebal sio [ʎ] in international words according to other languages (Vaitkevičiūtė 2001: 14, 141–150), together with the varying degrees to which those foreign sounds had become established in the usage of the Lithuanian standard language, were meant to distinguish the pronunciation of the upper class (elite) from pronunciation developing under ordinary conditions and to set the development of the entire standard language on a somewhat different course from the one it follows today.

¹⁴ Antanas Pakerys savo Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos fonetikoje (1986: 39, 6 išn.) apie jų nuomonę neužsimínė. Tiesa, svarstant tų žodžių kirčiavimą VLKK pakomisės posėdyje Laigonaitę paminėjo, bet netiksliai teigė, kad ji esą teikusi, jog „geriau būtų kirčiuoti tvirtagališkai“ (žr. Protokolai 2015).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

ALDONAS PUPKIS. Dar kartą dėl eksperto, koncerto ir pan. žodžių kirčiavimo | 15

Strong linguistic arguments concerning the vowel [ę] in international words were put forward in an article published by Girdenis and Pupkis in 1985 on the principles underlying the codification of standard-language accentuation (see Girdenis 2000 (II): 362–363; author’s note). It states:

Accentuation norms must be purged, as rigorously as possible, of everything that conflicts with the very system of standard-language prosody. Among such features, especially objectionable—and always likely to remain so—is the fictitious marking of the international-word diphthongs en, em and, especially, el, er with the grave accent, as well as the assignment of many such words to accentuation paradigm 1. If we accepted the norm currently indicated in dictionaries, we would have not two but three syllable intonations for diphthongs, since in the same position we would encounter accents of the ėR, èR and ėR types; compare kėltai (kėltas) ‘a group of Indo-European peoples’: kėltas ‘raft’: kėltiš ‘the instep’, compare gėltas ‘yellow’. This would be an unacceptable destruction of the foundations of our prosodic system, because not only the southern Western Aukštaitians but no other Lithuanian dialect either has three phonological intonations.

<...>

In short, the current codification of accentuation for international-word diphthongs of the eR type is the weakest link in the codification of our standard language, justified neither by the language system nor by actual usage. It is not only incomprehensible to users of standard pronunciation, but also unsettles their linguistic intuition—their sense of the system—and thereby undermines the very foundations of our accentology.

Similar linguistic arguments were presented a few years later in a review by two other linguists, devoted to the Dictionary of Lithuanian Pronunciation (see Pupkis, Stundžia 1987). It criticizes the dictionary’s practice of using a three-length vowel system él: ẹl: èl; ér: eŕ: èr, adopted uncritically from other dictionaries. As a result, the pronunciation dictionary contains different accent-marking practices that have no linguistic explanation whatsoever (compare fėlčeris: kėlneris, etc.). Moreover, marking the accent with a grave conflicts with the usage prevalent among television and radio professionals, whose pronunciation koncėrte ‘is nothing other than a fact of dialects that retract the accent, occurring in standard-language usage’ (Pupkis, Stundžia 1987: 52).

The use of the diphthongs ėl, èr is also opposed on various grounds in Pupkis’s later works. An article published in 1995 also presents findings from a study of the pronunciation and accentuation of words in the spoken domain by Lithuanian television announcers and other employees; these show a marked predominance of the circumflex intonation (see Pupkis 1999: 2–3). Arguments supporting this view can also be found in Studies in Language Culture (Pupkis 2005: 239–240).

***

In the works of linguists who hold the opposing view, the phonological value of the diphthongs in question is not discussed; they merely state that the phoneme /ę/ exists. To this day, they have neither answered nor addressed the question of whether a standard language can have three different diphthong lengths and three different ways of marking the accent of those same

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351–7204

ALDONAS PUPKIS. Dar kartą dėl eksperto, koncerto ir pan. žodžių kirčiavimo | 16

diphthongs¹⁵. Antanas Pakerys presents ėl, ėr as a fact: these diphthongs are marked with a grave accent in dictionaries and encyclopedias. The arguments consist mainly of extralinguistic considerations, including empirical, educational, and pragmatic ones.

Turning to systematic issues in the accentuation of the diphthongs under discussion, it may be recalled that contemporary language-planning theory also emphasizes important questions concerning the codification of language norms (see Cooper 1989), while norm-setting theory takes the aforementioned criteria—empirical, educational, pragmatic, linguistic, and others—seriously and seeks to take all factors into account when codifying linguistic phenomena (cf. Danės 1979). But linguistic, or systematic, arguments are never disregarded. Nor should they be disregarded in these cases; it should only be noted that what matters here is systematic linguistic relations, not systematic graphic relations (Protokolai 2015¹⁶). It is one thing to discuss linguistic arguments—the twofold realization of the acute intonation in the diphthongs el, er and eu—and quite another to mark their accents in dictionaries, encyclopedias, and elsewhere. A review of the sources shows that current practice has major gaps in systematic assessment in both respects.

For the author of this article, linguistic (systematic) considerations, at least in phonetics and prosody, seem the most important. In fact, diphthongs of three different lengths—el, er and eu—do not fit into the system of diphthongs and vowel sequences in the standard language at all; they are foreign bodies within it, especially given the western origins of standard pronunciation¹⁷. The practice of current dictionaries and encyclopedias in fact codifies the sole twofold realization of the acute intonation in the standard-language system. There is no way to understand, by any reasonable logic, why only these three are singled out from the entire system of vowel sequences and diphthongs, while the others—first em, en, and then ei—are treated differently, that is, generally assigned the circumflex. We may also recall that Būtenas listed these latter diphthongs and the vowel sequence alongside other examples of the type under discussion; compare his kreĩšeris, kẽlneris (kẽlneris), konferèncija (Būtenas 1931: 113–114). Why are hundreds of international words and other borrowings containing the diphthong ei marked with a circumflex (rarely an acute), while terapèutas is marked with a grave? Why are unstressed diphthongs el, er in international words pronounced just as they are in Lithuanian words (cf. Girdenis 1981: 126; 2000: 136)?

We might even argue that the grave accent here takes us back to the old efforts by some linguists to treat the stress of short stressed syllables as a short intonation. In fact, the prosody of diphthongs is characterized only by the contrast between the acute and circumflex intonations, realized by different accent marks. Proponents of the opposing view, drawing on Kuršaitis’s

¹⁵ It is not appropriate to ask whether the acute-stressed syllables in the words dárbas, dìrba, diégas are of three types (see Pakerys 1993: 6), since those syllables belong to different classes of diphthongs (and vowel sequences).

¹⁶ The protocols can be consulted at the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language.

¹⁷ A threefold realization of intonations is characteristic of neither Lithuanian dialects nor the standard language.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

ALDONAS PUPKIS. Dar kartą dėl eksperto, koncerto ir pan. žodžių kirčiavimo

17

following the tradition of marking the acute accent in diphthongs il, im, in, ir, ul, um, un, ur and ui with the left-facing accent mark, and calling the left-facing accent mark in the diphthongs el, er a representation of the acute accent. But then it becomes unclear why the same diphthongs el and er, when acute (cf. kėltas: kél̇tas: kẽltis, Bèrnas: bérnas: bèrtas), differ in having vowels of different lengths, whereas this cannot be said of Kurschat’s notation of diphthongs (there is not a single example there of il: íl: iĺ).

It is also not appropriate to focus on diphthongs with the short vowel o¹⁸: such diphthongs, “like diphthongs of secondary origin, have nothing to do with the matter here, since they are consistently pronounced with a vowel that never coincides with any ‘native’ vowel” (see Girdenis 2000 (II): 362, n. 2).

Thus, if we accept the hypothetical view concerning the supposed diphthongs èl, èr, we would form the following inventory of mixed diphthongs (see Table 1).

TABLE 1. Accentuation types of diphthongs in the standard language¹⁹

l type | r type | m type | n type a type | ál: àl*: aĺ | ár: àr*: ar̃ | ám: àm*: am̃ | án: àn*: añ e type | él: èl*: el̃ | ér: èr*: er̃ | ém: èm*: em̃ | én: èn*: eñ i type | ìl: íl*: il̃ | ìr: ír*: ir̃ | ìm: ím*: im̃ | ìn: ín*: iñ u type | ùl: úl*: ul̃ | ùr: úr*: ur̃ | ùm: úm*: um̃ | ùn: ún*: uñ o type | òl: ól**: ol̃** | òr: ór**: or̃** | òm: óm**: om̃** | òn: ón**: oñ**

Table 1 shows that acute diphthongs of the ul, il type have been marked with the left-facing accent mark since Kurschat’s time, and marking them graphically with an acute accent, úl, íl, would be unusual. Anyone who pronounces nonstandard spòrtas with a long o (or a lengthened o) as spórtas will also pronounce rajónas, rajõnas, biològija, biolōgija, and so on. Some old borrowings, e.g., mõrkos, tõlkos, are sometimes pronounced in colloquial speech with a circumflex õr, õl, but this is not the standard-language norm. It is inaccurate to compare these words with the minimal pair órlaivis: spòrtas because the diphthong in orlaivio is of secondary origin. The accentuation Koñtrimas, Moñtoydas, Moñtvila in encyclopedias seems rather odd in light of the more commonly heard Kòntrimo, Mòntoydo, Mòntvilos in usage; the former variants are dialectal forms established in the standard language, and the encyclopedias may have adapted them to their standard equivalents (Kańtrimas,

¹⁸ The argument that if the required forms are accented fermà, then we must also allow formà to be accented, merely demonstrates the prosodic illiteracy of the proponents of that view.

¹⁹ One asterisk indicates unusual or impossible cases of accent marking; diphthongs marked with two asterisks are possible in the standard language, but are exceptional or nonstandard.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

ALDONAS PUPKIS. Dar kartą dėl eksperto, koncerto ir pan. žodžių kirčiavimo

18

Mañtūydas) accentuation. Nor does the Dictionary of Lithuanian Surnames offer anything clearer; cf. Kóntautas, Koñtrimas, Moñgirdas, Moñtrimas, Moñtvilas, Móntvyda. There are no cases here in which contrasting pairs with the diphthongs ón: òn arise in surnames. Moñtvila: Mòntvila is simply the pronunciation used in different locations.

It should be added that no one doubts the opposition between long [oː] and short [ɔ], and minimal pairs such as õtas: Òtas, jótas: jòtas, etc., merely confirm the phonemic independence of these vowels in the standard language²⁰.

We cannot deny that in present-day usage one may hear a rather close short vowel [e] in international words, similar to the [e] vowel in Lithuanian words. An obvious example is the pronunciation of Gintaras Deksnys, a news presenter on LNK television. Antanas Salys did not deny that some people pronounce it this way, but he regarded this pronunciation as not Lithuanian, but an artifact of foreign languages. We might hear such a vowel in the speech of some other public figures too, especially those whose speech clearly shows a leveling of pitch accents. But in general usage, the falling-accent pronunciation of these diphthongs predominates, and this calls for a review of their current codification. Former Lithuanian radio announcers and actors have recounted that in the 1950s they were quite persistently taught to pronounce a vowel [e] in international words that was “different” from the one in Lithuanian words. The Lithuanian ear was unable to perceive the distinctiveness of that different vowel, so over time they began to pronounce hard the consonants preceding it. This is how negras, progresas, chemija and the like came into being and became widespread; incidentally, they were also used by some older intellectuals (teachers, etc.). Kazys Ulvydas had called that vowel the aspirated [ɛ] and, like others, made great efforts to get rid of it. This succeeded, whereas efforts to establish in general usage the vowel [ɛ], which is absent from the nature of the Lithuanian language, have still not succeeded. It is reasonable to assume that from the 1960s or 1970s onward it was probably taught both at the Vilnius Pedagogical Institute (now the University of Educational Sciences) and elsewhere. But how can it be that, despite teaching such a pronunciation for decades, it has still not been possible to systematize it?

The results of an exploratory study of television employees’ usage do not confirm the widespread use of the diphthongs èl, èr either (see Table 2).

TABLE 2. Ratio of acute and circumflex diphthongs er, el, eu in the speech of various television channels

èr, èl, èu

ér, él, éu

36 – 16,8%

213 – 83,2%

²⁰ This is in no way inconsistent with the usage of the Western Aukštaitian Kauniškiai dialect either; cf. òpa, òpstais, òtgi, Audrónė, etc.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

ALDONAS PUPKIS. Dar kartą dėl eksperto, koncerto ir pan. žodžių kirčiavimo

19

For this purpose, for a time (April 14–May 3, 2016), the news and other programs of LRT and other Lithuanian television channels were listened to specifically, and the pronunciation of their presenters and correspondents was monitored; the cases discussed here were recorded where the diphthongs el, er, eu are stressed (especially popular words such as ekspertas, energija, koncertas, nervai, etc., older and newer proper names such as Gerda, Velsas, Berm anas, Eltonas, Melburnas, (Angela) Merkel, and so on), as well as em, en, ei (only a small number of these were recorded; the pronunciation of words such as korespondentas, reidas, as well as Džeisonas, Reinas, and so on, was noted). Most data were recorded from the speech and stress patterns of the following people: Eglė Bučelytė, Gintaras Deksnys, Ugnė Galadauskaitė, Gintarė Grikštaitė, Edmundas Jakilaitis, Viktoras Jakovlevas, Marius Jancys, Andrius Kavaliauskas, Rita Miliūtė, Jolanta Paškevičiūtė, Goda Pečiulytė, Rokas Petkevičius, Rasa Tapinienė, Arūnas Valinskas, and Marius Žiedas (their speech can be checked in the LRT Mediatekoje and in the audio and video archives of other television stations). In these speakers’ pronunciation, the circumflex accent clearly predominates: 83.2 percent (of 213 cases, 12 were stressed according to the penultimate-syllable rule [on the ending], and 10 had retracted stress; cases pronounced unclearly were assigned to the èl, èr, èu group). Cases with circumflex stress become even more numerous if we also include the diphthongs em, en, ei, codified with the circumflex accent—up to 93.7 percent. Understandably, the results would be somewhat different if usage in other sources were also examined, but it is unlikely that this would substantially change the proportions of the data presented here.

In some countries, language standardizers sometimes include the authority criterion among the other criteria for codification. In our practice, too, the views of authoritative linguists are often relied upon. This article, for instance, cited the views of Jonas Jablonskis, Antanas Salys, Pranas Skardžius, Aleksas Girdenis, Antanas Pakerys, and others.

The reliance on Skardžius’s view needs to be discussed separately. As already mentioned, Skardžius was among the first to codify the pronunciation of this type of word, characteristic of the nature of standard Lithuanian; he tended toward the circumflex accent. Perhaps he was not entirely clear on how the circumflex and acute accents should relate to one another in foreign words, but he did not propose treating the grave accent mark as the sole means of marking stress in such words. His view was clearly confirmed both in a prewar stress manual and in the postwar Lietuvių kalbos vadove. His 1968 Lietuvių kalbos kirčiavime says nothing at all about international words (perhaps their codification was thought not yet to have been fully established) and, as it states, “refrained from any aim of normalization” (Skardžius 1999: 474). This was deemed necessary because “the question of the fate of the entire Lithuanian language abroad now arises” and “any stricter directives for stress normalization would hardly achieve their goal” (ibid.).

Perhaps it was precisely for this reason that in the first half of the 1970s Skardžius fundamentally changed his earlier view and decided to rely on the stress practices of dictionaries published in Lithuania: in the book Lietuviški

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

ALDONAS PUPKIS. Dar kartą dėl eksperto, koncerto ir pan. žodžių kirčiavimo | 20

tarptautinių žodžių atitikmenys (1973) beveik visus kalbamo tipo žodžius sužymėjo kairiniu kirčio ženklu ir prie visų prirašė 1-osios kirčiuotės nuorodą. Tiesa, yra ir kitaip sukirčiuotų žodžių, bet tai tik vienetai: fėrma 33, tėrminas 61, gal dar vienas kitas. Čia priimtą praktiką Skardžius pritaikė ir rankraščių likusiame Rašybiniame bendrinės lietuvių kalbos žodyne, rašytame maždaug apie 1974 m. (rankraštis yra Vilniaus universiteto bibliotekos Rankraščių skyriuje, f. 118–134).

That change in Skardžius’s view would be understandable if he, or someone else among the accentologists or phonetics specialists, had published important works on this question, or conclusive evidence that the system should switch to marking stress with the grave accent, and so on. But at that time neither Kazlauskas and Girdenis’s view nor the two articles by Antanas Salys, published in the mid-1960s in the Lietuvių enciklopedijoje, had been overturned; those articles clearly set out a position on the stress of the words under discussion. Apparently, here too there were some moral or political motives for relying on Soviet linguistic practice rather than on the prewar tradition that had already taken shape.

Thus, having considered certain matters concerning stress marking and relying solely on systematic linguistic criteria, we must conclude that the vowel [ɛ] in international words, as used in the speech of some people, is merely a phonetic variant of the Lithuanian vowel [e] and should not be considered a separate phoneme for the following reasons: 1) it does not perform a distinctive function; 2) when marked with the grave accent, it falls outside the Lithuanian diphthong system, while within that system it demonstrates a three-part stress-marking pattern, impossible in Lithuanian: a dual expression of the acute accent.

These conclusions make it possible to compile the following inventory of vowel phonemes in the standard language (see Table 3).

TABLE 3. The vowel phoneme system of the standard language

Back vowelsFront vowelsHigh vowels/u/ /uː//i/ /iː/Mid vowels/ɔ/ /oː//ɛ/Low vowels/a/ /aː//e/ /eː/Variable-height vowels/uo//ie/

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)www.bendrinekalba.ltISSN 2351-7204

ALDONAS PUPKIS. Dar kartą dėl eksperto, koncerto ir pan. žodžių kirčiavimo | 21

It should be added here that the efforts of some phoneticians to rely on the symmetry of the phoneme system are not borne out by data on this phenomenon in other languages—the system invariably has empty slots. Thus, this argument cannot substantiate the need for the short counterpart [e] of the long vowel [ɛ] in the vowel phoneme chart. As we have seen, the current formal (graphic) practice of marking stress in spoken diphthongs also contradicts the principle of symmetry.

One of the strongest arguments made by proponents of the opposing view is pragmatic: how could one now revise many bilingual dictionaries, especially terminological dictionaries and encyclopedias, in which this left-hand stress mark is used almost universally? But a closer look at this practice of universal acceptance often reveals not universality but genuine eclecticism in places, frequently forcing users to rely not on an intuition for the language system but to learn the stress of individual words²¹. Retaining the current practice of marking stress would only further compel users to learn the stress of individual words and would continue to erode their psycholinguistic ability to generate stress patterns automatically.

Another argument concerns belief: whether or not to recognize [ɛ] in international words is a matter of belief (see Protokolai 2015). If we already resort to matters of faith even in scientific matters, then there can be no serious scientific discussion here.

CONCLUSIONS

The question of whether the vowel [ɛ] in foreign and/or international words is phonemic, and of the resulting notation of stress in the diphthongs el, er and eu, is a matter not only of phonetics but also of accentology—it relates to the application or violation of the penultimate-syllable rule.

The long history of the accentual adaptation of foreign and international words in Lithuanian shows that, from 1929 onward, there was a consistent move toward marking spoken diphthongs with falling intonation, and that this position was finally established in 1948 in Lietuvių kalbos rašybos žodyne. It implemented the accentual ideas of Jonas Jablonskis, Pranas Skardžius, and Antanas Salys with considerable precision. It was later supported by Adelė Laigonaitė, Jonas Kazlauskas, Juozas Senkus, Aleksas Girdenis, and other linguists.

The revolutionary marking with a left-hand stress sign of spoken diphthongs (but only el, er and eu) in Chuckelis Lemchenas’s 1951 stressed Tarptautinių žodžių žodyne can be regarded as a direct assault on the Lithuanian language system, a destruction of that system and an elimination of systematic rules for stress in the consciousness of standard-language users. In a broader sense, this was, in the second half of the 20th century

²¹ Cf. the data in the article by Rita Miliūnaitė published in this volume of Bendrinė kalba (http://www.bendrinekalba.lt/Straipsniai/89/Miliunaite_BK_89_straipsnis.pdf).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204

ALDONAS PUPKIS. Dar kartą dėl eksperto, koncerto ir pan. žodžių kirčiavimo

22

Valerija Vaitkevičiūtė’s theory of elite pronunciation, in which the pronunciation of words of foreign origin is oriented not toward the adaptation of naturalized foreign words to the system and tendencies of the language receiving them, but toward the pronunciation of those words in the languages from which they are borrowed. This essentially segregationist pseudo-theory, of which marking the stress of the diphthongs ėl, ēr, ėu with the grave accent is part of its legacy, should in principle be alien to a society based on democratic principles and to the codification of its language norms.

While agreeing that in the usage of some speakers of the standard language, a vowel [ɛ] narrower than that in Lithuanian words may be pronounced in foreign, or international, words, we cannot recognize it as a true representative of the phoneme /e/, since we have no clear evidence confirming its distinctiveness.

To finally resolve the phonological status of this vowel, it is necessary to take into account the various contexts in which it functions, encompassing both syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations. Current cases of stress marking in the diphthongs el, er and eu presuppose a twofold realization of the circumflex accent, entirely alien to the systems of the standard language and dialects. On the other hand, current stress-marking practice eliminates from the diphthong microsystem numerous foreign, or international, words with stressed diphthongs em, en and ei, which play exactly the same roles in the standard-language system as the diphthongs el, er and eu. Nor should usage data themselves be overlooked: the systematic realization of the accents of these diphthongs clearly predominates in actual usage.

Even if we were to acknowledge the partial phonemic status of the vowel [ɛ], we still could not include it in the general phoneme inventory, since, from a psycholinguistic point of view, the phoneme /e/ does not generate the vowel [ɛ] in already standardized words (not only with em, en, but also with eu, ei; cf. eūras, reidas, and numerous newly arrived or arriving words, e.g., Bėrnis, Reiganas, etc.)—here, even people who consistently use [ɛ] in other positions pronounce the Lithuanian [ɛ].

The only way to eliminate the distortions of the standard-language system mentioned above would be to switch consistently everywhere to marking the stress of these diphthongs with the circumflex accent, allowing variants, of course, but treating the circumflex stress mark as the primary, principal form everywhere—a start was made in 2003 and in subsequent recommendations by the VLKK. The standardization of the stress of the words in question in terminology, bilingual dictionaries, encyclopedias, and elsewhere is a matter of lexicographic technique, not of linguistics.

ŠALTINIAI

AMŽ 1996 – Antikos mitologijos žodynas, Kaunas: Šviesa.

DLKG 2005 – Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika. Ketvirtoji pataisyta laida, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

ALDONAS PUPKIS. Dar kartą dėl eksperto, koncerto ir pan. žodžių kirčiavimo | 23

DŽ 1954 – Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla.

LE – Lietuvių enciklopedija 1–38, Bostonas, 1953–1966, 1969, 1985.

Lietuvių kalbos rašybos vadovėlis. Su kirčiuotu žodynu. Mokyklai ir visuomenei. Sud. A. Kalnius, Z. Kuzmickis, J. Talmantas, Kaunas: Sakalas, 1938.

Lietuvių kalbos rašybos žodynas. Tartis, skyryba, kirčiavimas, lyčių vartojimas, lietuvių kalbos tarmės, žodynas. Red. K. Gasaravičius, N. Grigas, J. Lazauskas, K. Ulvydas ir A. Žirgulys, Kaunas: Valstybinė enciklopedijų, žodynų ir mokslo literatūros leidykla, 1948.

Lietuvių kalbos vadovas (LKV). Tartis ir rašyba. Kirčiavimas. Kalbos dalykai. Žodynas. Sud. P. Skardžius, S. Barzdukas, J. M. Laurinaitis, Bielefeld: Lietuvių tremtinių bendruomenė, 1950.

Lietuvių pavardžių žodynas 1–2. Ats. red. A. Vanagas, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1985–1989.

Lietuvių rašomosios kalbos žodynas [1] / M. Niedermann’as, A. Senn’as, F. Brender’is. Heidelberg: Carl Winters Universitätsbuchhandlung, [1932]; [2] / M. Niedermann’as, A. Senn’as, A. Salys. Ten pat, [1951]; [3] / A. Senn’as, A. Salys. Ten pat, [1957]; [4] / A. Senn’as, A. Salys. Ten pat, [1963]; [5] / A. Senn’as, A. Salys. Ten pat, [1968].

LKŽ – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 1–2. Red. J. Balčikonis, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 1941; Vilnius: Valstybinė enciklopedijų, žodynų ir mokslo literatūros leidykla, 1947.

LTE – Lietuvių tarybinė enciklopedija 1–12, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1976–1984.

TŽŽ 1951: Tarptautinių žodžių žodynas. Vertė O. Katinskaitė, Ch. Lemchenas, J. Talmantas. Lietuviškąjį leidimą redagavo Ch. Lemchenas, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla.

TŽŽ 1969: Tarptautinių žodžių žodynas. Lietuviškąjį leidimą redagavo Ch. Lemchenas, Vilnius: Mintis.

TŽŽ 1985: Tarptautinių žodžių žodynas, Vilnius: Vyriausioji enciklopedijų redakcija.

TŽŽ 1999–2000: Vaitkevičiūtė V. Tarptautinių žodžių žodynas 1–2, Vilnius: Žodynas.

TŽŽ 2001: Tarptautinių žodžių žodynas, Vilnius: Alma littera.

TŽŽ 2007: Vaitkevičiūtė V. Tarptautinių žodžių žodynas, Vilnius: Žodynas.

TŽŽ 2013: Tarptautinių žodžių žodynas, Vilnius: Alma littera.

VLE – Visuotinė lietuvių enciklopedija 1–25, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas (centras), 2001–2014.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

ALDONAS PUPKIS. Dar kartą dėl eksperto, koncerto ir pan. žodžių kirčiavimo

24

LITERATŪRA

Atsiminimai 2010: Atsiminimai apie Joną Jablonskį. Šaltiniai. Sud. G. Čepaitienė, L. Lapinskienė, Vilnius: Gimtasis žodis.

Avižonis P. 1992: Lietuviška gramatikėlė. Rankraštis (VUB RS f. Lr 6842).

Baronas J. 1932: Rusų lietuvių žodynas. Antras naujai parašytas kirčiuotas žodynas, Kaunas: Sakalo bendrovė.

Būda V. 1982: Nelietuviškų tikrinių vardų kirčiavimas. Metodikos nurodymai, Vilnius: Vilniaus inžinerinis statybos institutas.

Būtėnas P. 1931: Lietuvių kalbos akcentologijos vadovėlis. Mokyklai ir gyvenimui, Kaunas: „Sakalo“ bendrovės leidinys.

Cooper R. L. 1989: Language Planning and Social Change. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Dambrauskaitė J. 1957: Lietuvių kalbos foneminės balsių sistemos nustatymas. – Vilniaus valstybinio pedagoginio instituto Mokslo darbai 3. Istorija ir filologija, 221–240.

Daneš F. 1979: Pastoje a hodnoticí kritéria při kodifikaci. – Aktuální otázky jazykové kultury v socialistické společnosti. Praha: Akademija.

Gerullis G. 1930: Litauische Dialektstudien, Leipzig.

Girdenis A., Žulys V. 1973: [Rec. kn.:] Lietuvių kalbos gramatika. I, Vilnius, 1965; II, ten pat, 1971. – Baltistica IX(2), 203–219.

Girdenis A. 1981: Fonologija, Vilnius: Mokslas.

Girdenis A. 2000–2001: Kalbotyros darbai 1–3, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

Girdenis A. 2003: Teoriniai lietuvių fonologijos pagrindai. 2 pataisytas ir papildytas leidimas, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

Jaroslavienė J. 2015: Lietuvių kalbos trumpųjų ir ilgųjų balsių kiekybės ir kokybės etalonai. – Bendrinė kalba 88. Prieiga internete:

www.bendrinekalba.lt/Html/88/Jaroslaviene_BK_88_straipsnis.pdf

Kazlauskas J. 2000: Rinktiniai raštai 2. Sud. A. Rosinas, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

Kurschat F. 1870: Wörterbuch der littauischen Sprache 1–2, Halle: Verlag der Buchenhandlung des Waisenhauses.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

ALDONAS PUPKIS. Dar kartą dėl eksperto, koncerto ir pan. žodžių kirčiavimo

| 25

K u r s c h a t F. 1883: Littauisch–deutsches Wörterbuch, Halle: Verlag der Buchenhandlung des Waisenhauses.

K u z a v i n i s K. 1971: Tarptautinių žodžių kirčio vietos dėsningumai. – Mūsų kalba 5, 11–22.

K u z a v i n i s K. 2007: Lotynų–lietuvių kalbų žodynas. Antroji patikslinta ir papildyta laida, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

L a i g o n a i t ė A. 1959: Literatūrinės lietuvių kalbos kirčiavimas, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla.

L a i g o n a i t ė A. 1978: Lietuvių kalbos akcentologija, Vilnius: Mokslas.

M i k a l a u s k a i t ė E. 1975: Lietuvių kalbos fonetikos darbai, Vilnius: Mokslas.

P a k e r y s A. 1986: Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos fonetika, Vilnius: Mokslas.

P a k e r y s A. 1993: Aktualīs tarties klausimai. – Aktualūs bendrinės tarties klausimai.

Seminaro tezės. Vilnius: Valstybinė lietuvių kalbos komisija prie Lietuvos Respublikos Seimo, 6–9.

P i r o č k i n a s A. 1977: Prie bendrinės kalbos ištakų, Vilnius: Mokslas.

Protokolai 2015: Valstybinės lietuvių kalbos komisijos Tarties ir kirčiavimo pakomisės protokolas Nr. EP–62.

P u p k i s A. 1968: Knyga apie meninį žodį. – Kalbos kultūra 15, 83–85.

P u p k i s A. 1980: Kalbos kultūros pagrindai, Vilnius: Mokslas.

P u p k i s A., S t u n d ž i a B. 1987: Žvilgsnis į tarties žodyną kodifikacijos ir vartosenos požiūriu. – Kalbos kultūra 53, 44–58.

P u p k i s A. 1999: Bendrinės kalbos normos ir jų kodifikacija. – Gimtoji kalba 5, 1–5.

P u p k i s A. 2005: Kalbos kultūros studijos, Vilnius: Gimtasis žodis.

P u p k i s A. 2010: Andrius Ašmantas: gyvenimas ir kūryba, Vilnius: Trys žvaigždutės.

S a l y s A. Raštai 3: 1985. Įvairūs straipsniai, Roma: Lietuvių katalikų mokslo akademija.

S e n k u s J. 2006: Kalbotyros darbai. Sud. D. Mikulėnienė, R. Senkutė-Kašetienė, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

S e r e i s k i s B. 1929: Систематическое руководство к изучению литовского языка. Часть I, Kaunas: Spaudos fondas.

S k a r d ž i u s P. 1936: Bendrinės lietuvių kalbos kirčiavimas. Teorija su praktiniais pavyzdžiais, Kaunas.

S k a r d ž i u s P. 1938: [Rec.:] A. Kalnius, Z. Kuzmickis, J. Talmantas. Lietuvių kalbos rašybos vadovėlis <...>. – Gimtoji kalba 6 93–96.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351–7204

ALDONAS PUPKIS. Dar kartą dėl eksperto, koncerto ir pan. žodžių kirčiavimo

26

Skardžius P. 1973: Lietuviški tarptautinių žodžių atitikmenys, Čikaga: Lietuvių fondas.

Skardžius P. 1999: Rinktiniai raštai 5. Sud. A. Rosinas, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

Svecevičius B. 1960: Lietuvių ir anglų kalbų balsių lyginimo klausimu. – Vilniaus valstybinio pedagoginio instituto Mokslo darbai 9. Užsienio kalbos, 29–47.

Šalkauskis S. 1991: Raštai 2, Vilnius: Mintis.

Tamutis K. 1940: Lietuviškai lenkiškas žodynėlis. Redagavo L. Dambriūnas, Kaunas: Sakalas.

Vaitkevičiūtė V. 1957: Lietuvių literatūrinės kalbos priebalsinių fonemų sudėtis. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 1, 5–66.

Vaitkevičiūtė V. 1961: Lietuvių literatūrinės kalbos balsinės ir dvibalsinės fonemos. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 4, 19–47.

Vaitkevičiūtė V. 2001: Lietuvių kalbos tarties pagrindai ir žodynas, Vilnius: Pradai.

Vidžiūnas A. 1997: Jono Jablonskio akcentologija, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

Zablockis J. K., Kuleša Č. [sud.] 1940: Kirčiuotas lenkų–lietuvių ir lietuvių–lenkų žodynas. Red. J. Talmantas. 2 dalis, Vilnius: Kazimiero Rutskio ir Juozo Zavad­sko leidinys.

Įteikta 2016 05 04

Priimta 2016 07 05

ALDONAS PUPKIS

[email protected]

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204