STEFANO M. LANZA

Vytautas Magnus University

THE LOSS OF LINGUISTIC INTUITION: IS IT A REAL THREAT?

KEYWORDS: standard language, pitch accent, stress, language sense.

During the Year of Language Culture, every language user should reflect on their relationship with the common wealth of the nation, its state language. Everyone must use this common wealth responsibly: linguistic correctness is by no means solely the concern of linguists. This article seeks to draw attention to the phonetic features and current usage of Lithuanian, presenting facts from cultural, literary, and linguistic history. In this way, it is hoped to help awaken a certain national self-awareness. In fostering the Lithuanian language, which is characterized by a pitch-accent system¹ and distinguishes vowel quantity—a phenomenon that is still phonologically relevant—the decline of the ancient languages most important to European culture should be regarded as a precedent that prompts reflection. What is the current state of the Lithuanian pitch-accent system? The aim of this article is to raise questions: is it possible to determine what causes deviations from stress norms, and what measures can be taken to preserve the distinctive features of the Lithuanian language?

THE PROCESS OF LOSING LINGUISTIC INTUITION: ANCIENT LANGUAGES

Languages change. Whether they develop, flourish, decline, die (or perhaps are born) is determined essentially by a single factor—their users. The idea of language as a distinguishing feature of a group of users (a tribe, nation, or the like) was already recognized in antiquity. In ancient Greece, foreigners were identified by their poor Greek. Anyone who could only babble in Greek was called a barbarian (cf. Ancient Greek βάρβαρος, “one who babbles in Greek”²). In the absence of language policy, ancient classical Greek, based on the language of the Attic region, survived for a long time thanks to the prestige of the works written in it and their authors. Even after independence was lost in 146 BCE, the prevailing view was that “Greece, though conquered...

¹ It would be hard to find a more distinctive phonetic feature of Lithuanian than its pitch-accent system. It is characteristic of all Lithuanian dialects. Antanas Pakerys (1995: 301) distinguishes Lithuanian phonetics from that of the vast majority of other European languages (as well as from neighboring Slavic languages, while also emphasizing its kinship with Latvian); it is so distinctive that the first researchers of Lithuanian, when attempting to describe it, had considerable difficulty (“hi accentus nequeunt exemplificari vocibus Polonis aut aliis,” i.e., “these accents (=stress patterns, pitch accents) cannot be explained by examples from Polish or other languages”; quoted from the 1737 Universitas linguarum Lituaniae; cf. Strockis 2004: 301–302).

² This is a word of onomatopoeic origin (bar-bar). From Greek, the term entered Latin in the form barbarus (cf. the entry in the dictionary written by Festus in the second century: Barbari dicebantur antiquitus omnes gentes exceptis Graecis, “in ancient times all peoples except the Greeks were called barbarians”).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

STEFANO M. LANZA. Kalbinės nuojautos praradimas: ar reali grėsmė? |2

“enslaved the savage victor” (i.e., the Romans)³, and no Roman who had not learned Greek could call himself educated. However, as is well known, as early as the second century BCE, for various political and social reasons⁴, a clear gap had emerged between the literary language used in ancient texts and the common language used in everyday life, that is, the so-called κοινή. The latter language is widely attested in papyri. In documents dealing with practical matters, long and short vowels, diphthongs and monophthongs were often confused, prompting the conclusion that such confusion was also characteristic of spoken language. This loss of sensitivity to sound quality shows that, in parallel (although logically one should say even earlier), a more complex feature of language had also been lost: the pitch-accent system. The process unfolded slowly and gradually, yet the cultural figures of the time— orators and teachers of rhetoric—clearly understood the threat to the beauty of classical language and, more generally, to its very existence. The reaction of those who cultivated good style was embodied in the purist movement known as Atticism. One proponent of Atticism, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, was still teaching in the first century BCE that the accent of classical Greek had been melodic, and that a rise in vocal pitch spanned an interval of three whole tones and one semitone (Περὶ συνθέσεως ὀνομάτων, XI)⁵. Despite these efforts, however, the Atticists’ attempt to keep the old prosodic system alive artificially—since no one spoke that variety of the language in everyday life anymore—proved unsuccessful.

Although scholars still disagree about the nature of Latin stress (dynamic or melodic), it is precisely in this language that the loss of linguistic intuition is best attested⁶. In Latin, the quantitative binary opposition (long / short) between sounds is not only phonologically relevant⁷, but also forms the basis of versification. The evolution of the hexameter testifies to how the phonetic system of Latin completely disintegrated, largely over the course of a couple of centuries. The alternation of syllables of different lengths forms the structure of the classical hexameter:

– ∪ ∪, – ∪ ∪, – ∪ ∪, – ∪ ∪, – ∪ ∪, – ∪

In all feet, though in the fifth only in rare exceptional cases and always for reasons of style, two short syllables may be replaced by one long syllable (that is, a dactyl may be replaced by

³ Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit, writes Horace (Ep. II, 1, 156)

⁴ Traditionally, Alexander the Great’s campaigns are cited as having led to the spread of a simplified language (and the corresponding progressive loss of distinctions in pronunciation) for practical reasons. For a discussion in Lithuanian, see Palionis 1999: 249–250, Poliakov 2008: 152–153.

⁵ This is a fifth interval, although Dionysius does not use this term. This important source, On Word Arrangement, was apparently not available to Zigmas Zinkevičius, since he confined himself to the statement, “It is thought that the Greeks distinguished pitch accents in word endings” (Zinkevičius 1980: 45).

⁶ There is similar disagreement about Latin pitch accents. Despite the surviving written observations of Latin teachers of rhetoric, some scholars still maintain that Latin pitch accents were an invention of late Latin philologists. For a discussion in Lithuanian, see Strockis 2004: 292.

⁷ As in Lithuanian, vowel length in Latin may also be the only way to distinguish words, e.g.: pālus “swamp” and pălus “stake”; lēgo “I gather” and lĕgo “I bequeath (property)”; dīco “I dedicate” and dĭco “I say”; pōpulus “the people” and pŏpulus “poplar”; fūgit “he flees” and fŭgit “he fled.”

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

STEFANO M. LANZA. Kalbinės nuojautos praradimas: ar reali grėsmė? | 3

spondee), while the final “missing” (catalectic) foot may be realized as − − (i.e., a spondee is used instead of a trochee). The usual notation is therefore:

− ∪ ∪, − ∪ ∪, − ∪ ∪, − ∪ ∪, − ∪ ∪, − ∪

Word stress does not necessarily coincide with the strong part of the foot (i.e., with the first long element, known by the term arsis), as it would in tonic versification, for example in Kristijonas Donelaitis’s poetry. However, such coincidence is common in the line ending, the clausula (in the hexameter, the last two feet). Here is the first line of Virgil’s Aeneid (stressed syllables are shown in bold):

Ar-ma vi-rum-que ca-no Tro-iae qui pri-mus ab o-ris.

[ar-ma-vi, rum-que-ca, no-Tro, iae-qui, pri-mu-sa, bo-ris]⁸

− ∪ ∪, − ∪ ∪, − −, − −, − ∪ ∪, − −

As can be seen, the quantitative alternation of syllables corresponds to the structure of the hexameter, while word stress in two places does not coincide with the arsis: in the word cano, the stressed syllable is ca-, but in the meter it forms the second element of the dactyl’s weak part (known by the term thesis), whereas the relative pronoun qui constitutes the weak part of a spondee⁹.

Virgil wrote in the first century BCE. Another, little-known Latin poet, Commodian (Commodianus), three centuries later¹⁰, composed a didactic work in hexameters, Instructiones (“Instructions”). It is a collection of 80 poems divided into two books. Here is the very beginning, the first line of the first poem (stressed syllables are shown in bold):

Pri-ma prae-fa-tio no-stra vi-am er-ran-ti de-mon-strat

[Pri-ma-prae, fa-ti-o, no-stra, vi-am-er, ran-ti-de, mon-strat]

− ∪ −, − ∪ ∪, − ∪, ∪ ∪ −, − − −, − −

The overwhelming majority of his lines (97 percent¹¹) exhibit this seemingly random mixture of different feet. An examination of the hexameter clausulae, especially those comprising the final feet of lines, reveals the poet’s tendency to treat all stressed syllables as long and all unstressed syllables as short. He gives preference to rhythmic stress rather than meter. Alongside the classical, regular clausula combination (− ∪ ∪, − ∪), nearly all other possible trisyllabic and

8 The syllable boundary does not necessarily coincide with the boundary between feet or parts of feet; cf. pri-mu-sa-bo-ris.

9 The preposition ab should be regarded as a word that lacks independent stress in the speech stream.

10 It is not known exactly when Commodian lived. Although the periods proposed by scholars range from the second to the fifth centuries, his works contain hints of historical events from the mid-third century (for a comprehensive discussion, see Salvatore 1977).

11 The statistics were calculated from the 45 poems in the first book (Lanza 1997: 81). It should be noted that in the absence of a regular qualitative sequence of syllables, dividing syllables into feet becomes subjective. In any case, entirely regular hexameters also occur.

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

STEFANO M. LANZA. Kalbinės nuojautos praradimas: ar reali grėsmė? |4

disyllabic feet¹². In such confusion, only the contour of rhythmic stress remains constant: one stressed syllable, two unstressed, then one stressed syllable, one unstressed. This is reminiscent of accentual-syllabic verse. However, the remaining parts of the lines are irregular, and whatever the basis of Commodianus’s versification may be, if there is one at all, one thing is clear: this poet could not distinguish short vowels from long ones in either stressed or unstressed syllables.

The Romance languages best attest to how Latin changed phonetically, which of its features disappeared, and the extent of the quantitative leveling described here. As in Modern Greek, where differences in vowel duration ceased to have a phonological function, the quantitative opposition between vowels became irrelevant. The stress in all these languages is dynamic; there are no pitch accents.

ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LITHUANIAN PRONUNCIATION

The State Commission of the Lithuanian Language has published the Essential Requirements for Lithuanian Pronunciation. In writing Lithuanian here, naturally, the standard Lithuanian language is meant. The language errors listed there are considered particularly serious and must be corrected strictly, since this list is a subsection of the List of Major Language Errors. The title itself is somewhat perplexing. It is obviously ineptly phrased. If these requirements are “essential,” should we conclude that they are more essential than essential? This is flawed both grammatically and logically. Is the idea being insinuated here that disregarding essential requirements is tolerated (or tolerable)?

The requirements are formulated clearly. Regarding vowel pronunciation: 8.1 Distinguish short vowels from long ones in both stressed and unstressed syllables; 8.2 Distinguish the vowels e, ė, o from the diphthongs ie, uo in both stressed and unstressed syllables; 8.3 Distinguish the falling pitch accent of diphthongs and mixed diphthongs from the rising pitch accent. A note is added to these: It is desirable to distinguish the pitch accents of long vowels and the diphthongs ie, uo. An interesting idea is being insinuated once again: not everything in the system of pitch accents is equally important. It is essential (“most essential”) to distinguish lauk – laũk, káltas – kaĩtas, tái – taĩ, rándas – rañdas, téisė – teĩsė, and so on, but it is only “desirable” to distinguish kóp­ti (to climb) – kõpti (to extract honey), kóšė (strained) – kõšė (“pureed”), vý­tis (infinitive) – Výtis, lýti (infinitive) – lỹti (to rain, third-person present), gėlė (to sting, plural nominative participle of necessity) – gėlė (flower, singular accusative), siūsi – siūsi, rūgsta – rūkšta, métos

¹² Instead of a dactyl, there is a molossus (three long syllables; cf. the example already given in Instr. I, 1), an anapest (two short syllables and one long, e.g., dēus aē(ternus), Instr. XXVII, 7), an amphibrach (one long syllable between two short ones, e.g., lōcō mā(ligno), Instr. XXIV, 19), a cretic (one short syllable between two long ones, e.g., essē dī(cebant), Instr. IV, 6), a tribrach (three short syllables, e.g., nēque dō(lores), Instr. XLII, 25), a bacchius (one short syllable and two long ones, e.g., dōlō vī(vendi), Instr. VI, 19), and an antibacchius (two long syllables and one short, e.g., Chrīstō bē(nigno), Instr. XXXVI, 16); instead of a spondee (or trochee), an iamb occurs (one short and one long syllable, e.g., (corpore) sītis, Instr. XXX, 4). A foot consisting of two short syllables, the pyrrhic, is generally very rare in Latin versification and does not occur in Commodianus’s clausulae.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

STEFANO M. LANZA. Kalbinės nuojautos praradimas: ar reali grėsmė? | 5

(to toss about, third-person present) – mėtos (plural nominative), tiek (adverb) – tiek (to pour, second-person singular imperative), juosta (nominative singular) – juosta (to run, third-person present), and so on.

What principle is being followed here? If failure to distinguish pitch accents is prohibited only in certain cases, why should it be prohibited at all? In the second group of examples, too, pitch accents alone distinguish the meanings. If it is understood that the pitch-accent system is a distinctive feature of the Lithuanian language and also a means of communication, these recommendations sound like a conscious renunciation of part of one’s identity. By yielding on the basis of “desirability,” one acknowledges that usage is changing arbitrarily in our own time. Points 8.1 and 8.2 reflect concern that speakers are tending to disregard even more features of the language, and that we are undergoing a certain fundamental stage of language development—the very kind of stage through which Ancient Greek and Latin passed as they changed.

Unlike in antiquity, language cultivation is legally regulated in some countries today. In Lithuania, legislation seeks to preserve Lithuanian as the state language. The first basic provision of Lithuanian language policy is that “the Lithuanian language is the means of communication among the state and its inhabitants in all spheres of public life, one of the most important signs of the state’s sovereignty and integrity”¹³. Punishing errors may be all well and good, but it is more appropriate to understand why people deviate from the norms. Those who do not comply with pronunciation requirements are not seeking consciously or out of malice to violate legal norms. This cannot be treated as an intentional unlawful act. As a result, society tends to disparage language planners and their work as supposedly detached from reality. People should understand that speaking their own language correctly is appropriate not because they want to avoid errors listed in catalogues or legal acts, or because they fear being punished. A sense for language is not innate. It must be cultivated, just like civic-mindedness, social skills, national self-awareness, and so on.

The parallel drawn with the classical languages can be extended. The evolution of Ancient Greek and Latin versification showed how the linguistic intuition of the representatives of those great peoples grew dull until, ultimately, in using their languages they could no longer distinguish short vowels from long ones in either stressed or unstressed syllables; vowels from certain diphthongs in stressed and unstressed syllables; or the falling pitch accents of vowels and diphthongs from the rising ones.

Reflecting on all this gave rise to the idea of examining several well-known Lithuanian verse works, also included in school curricula, in order to form a picture of whether the threat of losing linguistic intuition is a relevant phenomenon in Lithuanian and whether it is attested in writing as well.

¹³ Resolution of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania “On the Guidelines for State Language Policy for 2009–2013,” Article 1, Part 4.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

STEFANO M. LANZA. Kalbinės nuojautos praradimas: ar reali grėsmė? |6

EXAMPLES OF ANALYZING ACCENTS IN LITHUANIAN-LANGUAGE POETRY

To connect Lithuanian versification with linguistic intuition, attention should be paid to rhyme, since it is the most prominent part of lines in terms of prosodic and phonetic features. For this study, neither the clausula nor the entire final stressed syllable of a line is significant, but only the vocalic nucleus of the final stressed syllable, the duration of that vowel (or diphthong), and the type of stress (accent). We will examine whether the rhyming words match one another and whether their stressed vowels (or diphthongs) are identical in quantity and quality. Thus, in addition to exact rhymes (aukštai – kalnai, óras – vóras), approximate rhymes (gañdą – atrañda, žẽmė – sẽmia) and imperfect rhymes (tùrinio – šùlinio, laiką – mainė)¹⁴ are also suitable, provided that the stressed vowels (or diphthongs) are identical, that is, belong to the same articulatory series and height. Applying this method assumes that the six principal Lithuanian vowels ([a], [e], [ę], [i], [o], [u]) and all diphthongs are still distinguished¹⁵; that is, when a poet rhymes words such as ragą and degą, pilti and pulti, we do not conclude that the poet failed to perceive the difference between [a] and [e], or [i] and [u]. Such occasional instances should be regarded as expressions of poetic license. In studying linguistic intuition, the cases worth noting are those in which the nuclei of syllables containing the same vowel (or diphthong) but differing in length and accent are rhymed.

The works selected for the study are those in which the poet’s intention to adhere to a rhyme scheme is beyond doubt—that is, where rhyme functions as a deliberate artistic device. Only works by two authors were selected for analysis: a collection of various well-known poems by Maironis¹⁶ and Justinas Marcinkevičius’s poem for children Grybų karas. These comprise 156 and 164 lines respectively, and 81 and 82 rhymes. Their similar size allows for statistical comparison.

An analysis of the rhymes in Maironis’s works is presented in Table 1.

¹⁴ Juozas Girdzijauskas (1998: 46) uses a somewhat different terminology, though with no major differences.

¹⁵ It should not be forgotten that the discussion concerns sounds, not spelling. The vowels in Maironis’s rhymes match exactly in examples such as: manė – nežinia ar sugrįžę – jaunystė.

¹⁶ = Namely: Mano gimtinė, Užmigo žemė, Augo putinas, Lietuva brangi, Kur bėga Šešupė, Vilnius, Trakų pilis, Milžinų kapai.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

STEFANO M. LANZA. Kalbinės nuojautos praradimas: ar reali grėsmė? |7

TABLE 1. Analysis of the rhymes in Maironis’s works

Rhyme type

Percent

Notes on rhymes

Complete sound correspondence

83,9

prityrėi – didvyriai, su nukeltu kirčiu¹⁷; gailiai – sopuliai – giliai, su nukeltu kirčiu¹⁸; didvyriai – išgyrė, su nukeltu kirčiu¹⁸; mielà – sielà, su nukeltu kirčiu¹⁹; garsiai – matei, su nukeltu kirčiu²⁰; Trakùs – skruostùs, su nukeltu kirčiu²¹.

Accents differ

8,7

piev̇as – Diėvas²²; tevẏne – pamẏne; tevẏne – gẏne; diėnos – rugiėnos; gẏne – tevẏne; diėną – viėną.

Vowel duration differs

7,4

Dubysos – visos [2 instances]; sesytės – įkri̇tės; bekyša – riša; žiba – tikyba; rugpjūtė – matutė.

All the rhymes examined here, although by no means all belong to the category of exact rhymes, share the same vowel as their basis. In slightly less than a fifth, duration and/or pitch accent differ. Juozas Girdzijauskas, in his analysis of the collection Pavasario balsai (1966: 208–269), focuses mainly on metrical and rhetorical devices and their relationship to emotional content²³, and writes almost nothing about the technique of rhyming or the correspondence of sound. Yet indirectly he acknowledges that, because of vowel duration in poetry, “individual sounds and syllables are stressed, lengthened or shortened according to their logical and emotional weight.” Whether this could occur in these rhymes should be regarded as a matter of poetic license, since Maironis’s concern with sound correspondence in his rhymes is evident throughout his works. Debates about Lithuanian poetics were indeed raging in the late nineteenth century, and it is hard to believe that Maironis could have been indifferent to them. In his 1898 article “Tiesos eilėms rašyti,” Vincas Kudirka set fairly stringent requirements for the meter, form, and content of poems,

¹⁷ The stress on didvyris is rightly considered incorrect in standard language. It is likely to have become established partly because of the national anthem (cf. Tu, didvyrių žemė). Interestingly, simply reversing the order of the words in the line would make the rhythm accord with the words’ stress once again: Didvyrių tu žemė. Such a minor change should not even cause offense, given that the anthem’s lyrics have already been changed once: instead of Tegu dirba tavo naudai, Vincas Kudirka had written the Slavic construction Tegu dirba tau ant naudos.

¹⁸ This is a case of metrical transaccentuation (it should be gailiai). Final-syllable stress is not attested in the dialects either.

¹⁹ It is true that the final-stressed variant sielà is recorded in LKŽ_e. However, this is the only such instance in Maironis’s versification (everywhere else the forms are only siela, sielos), and is therefore more plausibly explained as poetic license.

²⁰ This is a case of metrical transaccentuation (it should be garsiai). Final-syllable stress is not found in the dialects either.

²¹ This is a case of metrical transaccentuation (it should be skruostus). The final syllable is unstressed in the dialects as well.

²² No variants of the pitch accents of these words are attested anywhere. For another case of rhyming piev̇as with an acute accent, see footnote 34.

²³ “Maironis <...>, having achieved an organic unity of content and form” (Girdzijauskas 1966: 269).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

STEFANO M. LANZA. Kalbinės nuojautos praradimas: ar reali grėsmė? |8

but at the same time also justified poetic license: “Poetic license²⁴ (licentia poetica) allows the writer to depart from the rules of versification (in rhythm, rhyme, word shortening, etc.), but 1. not too much and not too often; 2. every departure from the surface form must be compensated by the value of the poem’s substance” (Kudirka 1909: 67).

In Maironis’s poetry, the word homeland (homeland’s and so on) carries a special emotional charge, so one could assign it a permanent status of “poetic license.” It rhymes both with the circumflex ỹ (You are beautiful, my dear homeland, / the land where heroes sleep in their graves: / beautiful in the blue of your sky!), and with the acute ý (You are beautiful, my dear homeland, / the land where heroes sleep in their graves: / our forefathers did not defend you in vain), and with the short ì (Oh, I tremble, having known only my own terrible lowliness, / and trembling, I love the high homeland of the Father²⁵). The three remaining cases of mismatched pitch accents in the poems selected for this study (i.e., pėvas – Dievas, dienos – rugienos, dieną – vieną) belong to the so-called “preferred accentuation” category (cf. the note to point 8.3 of the Basic Requirements for Lithuanian Pronunciation: “It is preferable to distinguish the pitch accents of long vowels and diphthongs ie, uo.”)

Comparing the pitch accents of rhymes and checking whether the rhyming sounds match completely is not the whim of a pedantic linguist today. Rather, it is part of aesthetic judgment, because “In Lithuanian verse, accents must also match: rising goes only with rising, and falling with falling: pajuodė – ilgakuodė; rasoto – ploto; tiltas – pripiltas. But these are unsuitable for a true rhyme: žaibas – raibas; išplaukia – laukia; pilkas – šilkas; tėvynė – gadi/nė” (Kudirka 1909: 65–66). As we can see, V. Kudirka had an excellent ear for the sound of pitch accents (pajuodė – ilgakuodė; rasoto – plóto; tiltas – pripiltas, but žaibas – ráibas; išplaukia – láukia; pilkas – šílkas), and the final example tėvynė – gadi/nė (i.e., gadýinė) may even be considered a hint to Maironis himself.

V. Kudirka’s strict instructions do not represent any revolutionary approach. They are simply the logical conclusion of an educated language user who understands the beauty of Lithuanian. Nearly a hundred years earlier, the first Lithuanian theorist of poetics, Kristijonas Gotlibas Milkus, had written in a polemic with a disputant: “Thus, for example, O. [= Ostermejeris; S. M. L.] rhymes in his hymnal: žús and mùs²⁶. 402,6. visame, dukte. 281,5. davė and nè²⁷. 343,2. draudęs and sugáudęs. 193,8. atlėisk,

²⁴Liuosybė is an inadmissible Germanism. However, a term is lacking for naming a specific instance in which poetic license is used. One could consider poetic freedom.

²⁵These are the last two lines of Maironis’s poem God’s Love. It is not included in the collection of works examined here.

²⁶In standard language these words do indeed form a rhyme (žus – mus), but the acute accent marked by K. G. Milkus (źús) points to the Samogitian žús; cf.: “In dialects, the same word often has forms with different vowel quantity and pitch accent, e.g., Samogitian bùs ‘will be’” (Zinkevičius 1981: 119).

²⁷Unless this is a printing error, it is most likely an example of a forced rhyme (davė – nė). Cf. Girdzijauskas 1998: 37.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

STEFANO M. LANZA. Kalbinės nuojautos praradimas: ar reali grėsmė? | 9

nußweisk, the resulting rhymes are so awkwardly formed that when spoken, one can hardly hear the rhyme. These are orthographic rhymes. In fact, only the ear judges a rhyme, not the letters as written.²⁸“

An analysis of the rhymes in J. Marcinkevičius’s The Mushroom War is presented in Table 2.

TABLE 2. Analysis of the rhymes in J. Marcinkevičius’s The Mushroom War

Rhyme type

Percent

Notes on rhymes

Complete sound correspondence

57,1

–

The pitch accents differ

22,2

grỹbų – sodýbų; paliẽpė – liẽpė [2×]; gėdai – rėdai, with the stress shifted²⁹; sijõnas – raudónas; pakláusė – Bobauši; Ūmėdėlė – kėlė; atsimérkti – vėrkti; lūšiai – mūšiui; guõlį – užpúolė; gývas – dývas; gáiliai – káiliai; teisýbę – grýbę; pasilýpėjo – praėjo; sermėgą – bėga; taršo – máršo; bėgti – rėkti; susiraitė – egláitė.

Vowel length differs

20,7

pinavija – lyja; ryto – krito; giria – vyre [2×]; supyko – suriko; pušį – mūšį [2×]; pušys – mūšis [2×]; vyre – girią; ryto – kito; šeimyną – beišmaitina; mano – beišmano; žinių – kaimynę; žinių – pušynę; prikibo – grybo; laiku – vaikų.

²⁸ “Thus, when O. rhymes in his hymnal: zús and mús. 402,6. wissame, Duktė. 281,5. dawė and nè. 343,2. Draudęs and sugáudęs. 193,8. atlėisk, nußweisk, these are such poorly fitting rhymes that, in pronunciation, one can scarcely hear that they are literal rhymes. For rhyme is judged only by the ear, not by the letters written down” (Milkus 1800: 201).

²⁹ The word rėdyti is not recommended. The case is debatable because, with the stress shifted, the accent could also be circumflex.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

STEFANO M. LANZA. Kalbinės nuojautos praradimas: ar reali grėsmė? | 10

Compared with Maironis’s poems, it is clear that J. Marcinkevičius paid very little attention to rhymes. Long and short vowels are also combined here, but so frequently (1/5 of all lines) that it is hardly appropriate to excuse this as poetic license (“neither too much nor too often” was V. Kudirka’s condition). The picture is even bleaker with respect to pitch accents—a complete muddle (22.2 percent of all lines). If we set aside rhymes in which the pitch accent is absent because the vowel forming the syllable base is short (nuramino – pasivadino), and those in which it is impossible to mix them up because identical case endings rhyme (pušų – lašų), or the rhyming words have identical endings (nemadinga – nelaiminga), the percentage would be even higher. It is difficult simply to conclude here that J. Marcinkevičius did not perceive the difference between pitch accents (or even vowel length). But the fact that Bobauši(s) rhymes both with pasiklaũsęs and with paklãusė³⁰ is, to say the least, evidence that the euphony of pitch accents did not matter to him³¹.

Of course, the method of analysis presented here can also be applied to the works of other poets. We may assume that quite a few more examples of mismatched rhymes would be found³². The examples given are enough to consider the threat of losing linguistic intuition.

SUMMARY

The aim of this article was not to criticize one author or another, assess their poetic culture, or test the artistic value of their works according to the criteria set out by V. Kudirka or other Lithuanian scholars of poetics. Lithuanian is a very complex language in terms of prosody. Writing poetry in Lithuanian is difficult because of the nature of stress (its phonetic properties and freedom of placement), as well as differences in vowel length. The Lithuanian versification tradition shows that rhyming is indeed a complex creative process³³. When poems are composed in the standard language, great skill is required to achieve formal perfection.

The article’s aim is likewise not to prove that one poet or another fails to perceive differences in pitch accents or vowel length (which, incidentally, would already be a serious flaw³⁴). The question raised here is whether

³⁰ Cf.: And the ailing Bobaušis / Spoke thus, having listened: and Baravykas asked... / “What are you babbling about here, Bobauši!” One might object and argue that precisely this kind of mismatch, through its variety, draws the reader’s attention to correct stress patterns. However, the problem under discussion arises not because people distinguish pitch accents too well, but because they do not distinguish them.

Similar conclusions would probably be drawn from an examination of his other works as well. Cf. the rhymes in The Spider’s Wedding: puolė – gražuolė, žylė – mažylė; in Lullaby for the Homeland and Mother: sužėlė – gėlė, nenuskynė – tėvynė, lig šiolei – broliai.

³² Everyone could probably quote from memory verses familiar to them. These might be lines from the poem Anykščių šilelis (The forest resounds, resounds: here the oriole / Trills: “Ieva, Ieva! don’t graze in the meadow!), from children’s rhymes (Your stepmother, with a thick nose / you’ll never know how to please; S. Nėris, Našlaite) or songs (We sit young, not yet grown old, having experienced so much. / Mother’s face quietly flickers amid a crowd of tears; Aktorių trio, Motinos veidas).

³³ J. Girdzijauskas, in examining Antanas Baranauskas’s versification, also notes: A. Baranauskas most often uses the word “Lietuva” in a metrical position that requires “Lietuvą” to be stressed (1966: 181); cf. from Dainų dainelė: The land of Lithuania / not as written / there Lithuania / has been through the ages (II, 1–4).

³⁴ Cf. “The most salient feature of the sounds of standard Lithuanian is vowel length” (Pakerys 1995: 44). Whether the poet stresses words differently because of his dialect is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

STEFANO M. LANZA. Kalbinės nuojautos praradimas: ar reali grėsmė? | 11

Do such verses contribute to the cultivation of linguistic intuition? Or do they perhaps work more in the opposite direction? How can we instill in children the beauty and distinctiveness of their mother tongue while leveling vowel length and pitch accents? Whatever one may think, the poems by J. Marcinkevičius presented here for a young audience do not cultivate a sense of language.

Sources on the history of rhymed literature and its criticism show that the leveling of vowel length and pitch accents began long ago. It seems that the concern of educated people was not without reason. The widespread inability today to distinguish pitch accents cannot be explained (much less justified) by the influence of dialects. Rather, it is the result of shortcomings in education and learning, since correct speech can be learned. And ignorance cannot be a basis for language change. Nowadays, it is even more common to hear claims that language change is inevitable and there is no need to worry. But is it normal for a nation to deface its own language and that of its ancestors? Not only language but the nation itself is in danger when what has been passed down is forgotten. This is not simply a case of not knowing the language, but of failing to value it³⁵.

The truth is simple: language users need to be taught. If 12 percent of high-school graduates fail the Lithuanian language exam, there is a deeper reason than a lazy student's poor knowledge. How both prominent and ordinary people pronounce and accent words can be heard every day, including on television programs. Recordings made with modern technology will provide our descendants with irrefutable evidence of how Lithuanians began to forget their mother tongue. To prevent the language from steadily deteriorating (and eventually disappearing), there are many more tools available today than in the time of the purists of antiquity. We need to foster an educated society, train teachers, nurture correct language use in the media, and even adopt the same measures used to teach Lithuanian to foreigners (for example, adding accent marks to texts). Finally, it would be appropriate to tighten pronunciation requirements and abandon accommodating formulations such as “essential,” “desirable,” and “especially unacceptable.”

LITERATŪRA

Commodianus 1965–1966: Instructiones. Testo critico e traduzione di A. Salvatore, Napoli: LSE.

Fraenkel E. 1962–1965: Litauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch 1–2, Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoek and Ruprecht.

Girdzijauskas J. 1966: Lietuvių eiledara, Vilnius: Vaga.

Girdzijauskas J. 1998: Literatūros terminų žodynas: eiledara, Vilnius: Baltos lankos.

³⁵ Ir puolama vis labiau žemyn. Lietuva jau vartoja valiutą, kur netgi ardoma linksnių sistema. Ant eurų kupiūrų parašyta 5 euro, 10 euro, 20 euro ir t. t. Įdomu, kad teisės aktuose pagal naujai priimtą įstatymo papildymą jau leidžiama vartoti vardininką euro. Tik reikia jį grafiškai išskirti, kaip citatą užsienio kalba. Kam išvis ši išlyga?

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

STEFANO M. LANZA. Kalbinės nuojautos praradimas: ar reali grėsmė? | 12

Kudirka V. 1909: Raštai, Tilžė: TMD.

Lanza S. 1997: L’esametro di Commodiano: il primo libro delle Instructiones [Magistro darbas, apdovanotas žyma „Vertas spausdinti“]. Bologna.

LKŽ_e – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas, elektroninis variantas. Red. kolegija: Gertrūda Naktinienė (vyr. red.), Jonas Paulauskas, Ritutė Petrokienė, Vytautas Vitkauskas, Jolanta Zabarskaitė, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2005. – Atnaujinta versija, 2008. Prieiga internete: www.lkz.lt.

Migliorini B. 1927: Dal nome proprio al nome comune, Firenze: Olschki.

Milkus K. G. 1800: Anfangs-Gründe einer littauischen Sprach-Lehre (Lietuvių kalbos mokslo pradmenys).

Palionis J. 1999: Kalbos mokslo pradmenys, Vilnius: Jandrija.

Pakerys A. 1995: Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos fonetika, Vilnius: Žara.

Poliakovas O. 2008: Pasaulis ir lietuvių kalba. Indoeuropiečių ir lietuvių kalbų giminystė, Vilnius: Enciklopedija.

Salvatore A. 1977: Commodiano: Carme Apologetico. Corona Patrum 5. Torino: Società Editrice Internazionale.

Strockis M. 2004: Graikų ir lotynų kirčiavimo įtaka lietuvių kirčio žymėjimui. – Baltistika XXXIX (2), 289–307.

Universitas linguarum Litvaniae. Iš lotynų kalbos vertė ir įvadą parašė K. Eigminas. Vilnius: Mokslas, 1981.

Zinkevičius Z. 1981: Lietuvių kalbos istorinė gramatika 2, Vilnius: Mokslas.

Gauta 2016 11 15

Priimta 2017 01 20

STEFANO M. LANZA

Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas

Humanitarinių mokslų fakulteto

Užsienio kalbų, literatūros ir vertimo katedra

Kristijono Donelaičio g. 52-205, LT-44244 Kaunas

[email protected]

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

STEFANO M. LANZA. Kalbinės nuojautos praradimas: ar reali grėsmė? | 13

Santrauka

Autorius pateikia medžiagos atvirai diskusijai apie plačiai pripažįstamą dabartinės lietuvių kalbos reiškinį, t. y. lietuvių gimtakalbių nesugebėjimą skirti priegaidžių. Lietuvių kalbos padėtį palyginus su klasikinių kalbų nuopuoliu, išnagrinėjus lotynų ir graikų kalbų balsių kiekybinės priešpriešos kitimą ir skiemenų priegaidžių išnykimą, straipsnyje aptariama lietuvių kalbos priegaidžių svarba, remiantis Valstybinės lietuvių kalbos komisijos nurodymais.

Antroji straipsnio dalis – praktinio pobūdžio. Pateikiama dviejų lietuvių poetų, Maironio ir Justino Marcinkevičiaus, atrinktų eiliuotų kūrinių rimų priegaidžių analizė. Remiantis poetikos teoretikų jau nuo XVIII a. nustatytais eilėdaros principais, vertinama rimavimo kokybė, ar rimuojamų žodžių priegaidė ta pati (pajuodę – ilgakūodė tipas). Trumpa analizė parodo gana dažną rimuojamų žodžių priegaidžių fonetinį neatitikimą]. Marcinkevičiaus eilėse (pilkas – vilkas tipas), o retesnę Maironio kūryboje.

Kadangi daugelis šių kūrinių vaikams ir pačių vaikų skaitomi, autorius daro išvadą, kad netinkamas rimavimas gali būti kliūtis ugdant kalbinę nuojautą. Iš tiesų, ir gimtakalbiai savo kalbą turi iš pradžių išmokti. Todėl, jeigu kalbos priežiūros institucijos tikrai ketina ginti ir puoselėti lietuvių kalbą, jos privalo imtis priemonių gerinti gimtosios kalbos mokymą nuo pat vaikystės. Tik aplinkoje, kur taisyklinga kalba vartojama ir jos mokoma, pradedant nuo kalbiškai išprususių tėvų, gali augti taisyklingai kalbantys vaikai.

LOSS OF LANGUAGE SENSITIVITY: IS THIS A REAL THREAT?

Summary

The author provides material for an open discussion on a widely recognized linguistic phenomenon of contemporary Lithuanian, i.e. the loss of intonation perception by native language speakers. After a comparison with the decline of classical languages (Latin and Greek), where the phonetic evolution of quantity opposition in vowels and the disappearance of syllable intonation is thoroughly described, the article offers an overview of the importance of intonation in Lithuanian according to the indications of the Commission of the Lithuanian language.

The second, practical part of the article, offers an analysis of rhymes where intonation is relevant in a few works of two Lithuanian poets, Maironis and J. Marcinkevičius. Principles of rhyming laid down since the XVIII c. by poetics theorists are here taken into account as a means to determine whether rhymes are well conceived, when words share the same intonation

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

STEFANO M. LANZA. Kalbinės nuojautos praradimas: ar reali grėsmė? | 14

(the type pajuõdė – ilgakuõdė). The results of this brief analysis show that in J. Marcinkevičius verses, much more than in Maironis’, phonetic discrepancy between rhyming words is very frequent (the type pilkas – vìlkas).

Since many of these works are read to and by children, the author arrives to the conclusion that bad rhyming could hinder from building language sensitivity. Since native speakers also need to study their language, if there is a real commitment by authorities to safeguard and foster the Lithuanian language, measures have to be taken in order to improve its teaching from childhood onwards. An environment where good language is spoken and taught, starting from educated parents, leads to educated children.

KEY WORDS: standard language, accent and intonation, stress, language sensitivity.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204