Lietuvių kalbos trumpųjų ir ilgųjų balsių kiekybės ir kokybės etalonai

JURGITA JAROSLAVIENĖ Institute of the Lithuanian Language QUANTITY AND QUALITY STANDARDS FOR SHORT AND LONG VOWELS IN THE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE 1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS There have been few systematic instrumental studies of the quantity and quality of short and long vowels in Standard Lithuanian. Nevertheless, studies conducted using both older methods (in the second half of the twentieth century) and modern contemporary methods[1] remain relevant to this day, not only from the perspective of pure linguistics. Their aims and objectives, research material, sample, methods of sound recording and analysis, and the number and gender of informants, among other things, all differ. Therefore, as is well known, when conducting new experimental studies and comparing their data with corresponding data from other studies, it is important to remain methodical, since the quantitative and qualitative parameters of vowels depend on various linguistic and non-linguistic factors. If these are not taken into account, highly contradictory data may be obtained and, consequently, contradictory conclusions drawn. Researchers have mostly studied and described, from one aspect or another, the stressed and/or unstressed vowels of Standard Lithuanian, produced by male informants in separate monosyllabic, disyllabic, trisyllabic, and four-syllable words (cf. Pakerys 1982: 31–34, etc.; Kliukienė 2002: 73–78, 2003: 81–91, 2005: 361–367; Girdenis 2003: 222; Kaukėnienė 2002: 41–59, 2003: 35–47, 2004a, 2005: 65–71; Балшайтийте 2004: 169–175; Kliukienė, Raudžiūtė 2013: 111–119, etc.). (Some of the results and conclusions of these studies will be discussed later in this article.) However, we lack comprehensive synchronic (and diachronic) instrumental and typological studies of variations in the quality and quantity of vowels in spoken language. Certain sounds, their features, and aspects have been studied more systematically in the context of changes in official (public) Lithuanian (cf. Kruopienė, Kačiūskienė 2008: 38–42; Vaicekauskienė 2011: 191–207; Nevinskaitė 2013: 118–136; Čičirkaitė 2014: 45–58, etc.). In other words, a more comprehensive instrumental analysis of the effects of various factors on vowel quantity and quality in public and non-public spoken language is still lacking. In speech acts, there may be less acoustic information than is needed to identify particular phonemes accurately, and whatever is actually missing is usually reconstructed on the basis of other inferred information—the context, the content of utterances, and so on (Girdenis 2003: 224 and cited literature). In addition, researchers have noted that in certain cases it is not enough to study vowel duration alone, since quality may be more stable than duration (cf. Vaitkevičiūtė 2001: 79–80; Kazlauskienė 2002: 33–35, 2009: 27; Kaukėnienė 2004a: 62–63; see also Pakerys 1982: 94, 2003: 26). For example, it has been established that the quantity contrast between particular vowels varies greatly, and a difference in vowel duration of just 15–20 ms may already be statistically significant (in this case, long vowels are approximately 1.1–1.2 times longer than short vowels), provided that the experiment is conducted properly and methodically: that is, speakers with the same speaking rate are selected, and they read the comparison words (preferably with identical or very similar sound structures) with the same intonation, under similar conditions, and so forth (Kazlauskienė 2002: 34; cf. Kaukėnienė 2003a: 46, fn. 8). Sounds produced in isolation[2]—that is, pronounced separately—have also not been studied, although they could serve as a basis for examining the above-mentioned variation among vowel allophones, especially in clarifying thorny questions concerning the normative pronunciation of vowel quantity and quality[3]. They could be regarded as prototypes or targets for Standard Lithuanian when discussing exemplary pronunciation as a value (pronunciation culture[4]) and language policy more broadly in the second decade of the twenty-first century[5]. Recent scholarly research shows that, from a geolinguistic perspective, literacy is one of the most important characteristics of modern society: on the one hand, in communities, the standard language functions as a linguistic factor (that is, a condition) determining changes in regional variation and its transformations; on the other hand, the image of the standard language as a prestigious code has no less influence on the development and change of regional language varieties (for a fuller discussion, see Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė 2014: 257–262; cf. also Zabarskaitė 2015; Mikulėnienė 2015, etc.). Specifically after examining the problem of literacy, negative societal attitudes toward language are identified as one of the important causes of illiteracy. The unfavorable overall linguistic environment is also emphasized, as it makes it increasingly difficult to learn correct language and retain the relevant skills (for a fuller discussion, see Miliūnaitė 2013: 192–211 and cited literature). Given the need for research that would help determine which vowel-duration relationships should or could be regarded as the norm in Standard Lithuanian, and which model articulatory standards for vowel quality are recommended, the aim of this article is, on the basis of instrumental research data[6], to examine long and short Standard Lithuanian vowels with stable articulation, pronounced in isolation (without any context and as naturally as possible), as possible standards for Standard Lithuanian pronunciation. The study investigates both the quantitative opposition between vowels (duration relationships) and their principal qualitative features. A standard for Standard Lithuanian pronunciation is also needed, particularly to improve methods for teaching Lithuanian: ideally, audio teaching materials should meet the essential requirements for Standard Lithuanian pronunciation (cf. Miliūnaitė 2013: 208)[7]. In this article, Standard Lithuanian is understood as the variety of the language used as the codified, standardized variety for the needs of public life and culture (cf. LKE 2008: 87–91). As is well known, it developed on the basis of the Western Aukštaitian Kaunas dialect[8]. 2. RESEARCH MATERIAL AND RESEARCH METHODOLOGY A total of 14 vowel phonemes are distinguished in Standard Lithuanian (DLKG 2005: 23): FIG. 1. The vowel system of the Lithuanian language The long and short vowels of contemporary Standard Lithuanian pronounced separately (in isolation)—including the short [ɔ], which is assigned to the periphery of the phonological system—are the subject of this study (see also Table 1). However, during the study it became clear that informants do not conceive of the short [ɛ] as a separate sound, i.e. one pronounced in isolation: they tend to identify it with the simple /e/ phoneme’s variant, or allophone, and equate it with the ordinary [e] (a variant of the /e/ phoneme). For this reason, [ɛ] was not elicited for the study in isolation, without any context[9]. It is likely that the distinctive use of the non-high (mid) vowel [ɛ] (moreover, it is not used distinctively), its relatively low frequency (facultative status), and the fact that in writing it is represented by the same letter as the low short [e] (see Pakerys 2003: 32–34 and the literature cited therein; cf. also Girdenis, Pupkis 1978: 61–62; Girdenis 2003: 191), among other factors, have hindered its establishment in the system of Standard Lithuanian. No other letter represents two short vowels of different quality; cf. Table 1 (cf. Pakerys 2003: 29, Scheme 2). The [10]ie, uo diphthongs, which in the phonological system of Lithuanian function as independent long, high, variable-height phonemes according to the latest experimental studies (see Girdenis 2009: 213–242; Girdenis 2009: 240), also remain outside the scope of this study for now. They are not examined in this article because they require a different research and description methodology. Indeed, in The Grammar of Contemporary Lithuanian (2005: 23–26) and Alekso Girdenio’s Theoretical Foundations of Lithuanian Phonology (2003: 209, Table 23), the variable-articulation vowels /ie/, /uo/ are classified as non-high vowels (cf. also Bacevičiūtė 2002; Pakerys 2003; Kaukėnienė 2003b, 2004a). It should be noted, however, that classifying the variable-articulation long vowels /ie/, /uo/ as vowels of one height or another is a matter of convention. As can be seen, in Table 1 the vowel phonemes of Standard Lithuanian are also shown in red, in square brackets, using the symbols of the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA or IPA – ang. International Phonetic Alphabet) (for more details, see IPA 2005). Thus, the traditional symbols for Lithuanian vowels with stable articulation /i, e, a, ə, u, iː, eː, aː, oː, uː/ correspond to the following IPA symbols: /ɪ, ɛ, æ, ɔ, ɪː, ɛː, æː, ɑː, oː, uː/. These vowels (i.e. excluding /ė/, /ie/, /uo/ – corresponding in IPA to /e/, /ie/, /uɔ/) will henceforth be described using IPA symbols. These particular IPA equivalents were chosen deliberately (cf. Figs. 3–7 below); the choice will be explained in the discussion of the acoustic features of the vowels, from which certain articulatory properties can also be inferred. TABLE 1. The phonological vowel system of Lithuanian (traditional symbols in black, IPA symbols in red) and the letters representing the vowels (in green)[11] The International Phonetic Alphabet, developed by the International Phonetic Association (International Phonetic Association), is a standardized universal system of symbols adapted to describe and study the sounds of languages around the world with regard to their pronunciation. IPA symbols were adapted for Lithuanian sounds, for example, in the academic grammar of Lithuanian published in English in 1997, Lithuanian Grammar (LG 1997). This article uses a slightly revised IPA transcription, based on the more recent (2005) version of the IPA. 1 lentelėje balsiai suskirstyti pagal diferencinius požymius (plačiau žr. Girdenis 2003: 191 tt.)[12], apie juos plačiau bus kalbama aptariant spektrinės analizės rezultatus. Twelve informants (6 women and 6 men, aged 20 to 50) transcribed the sounds for the study. They were Standard Lithuanian speakers without speech impediments; most had a university-level education in philology, all used Standard Lithuanian daily or almost daily not only in public settings, and they also knew one or more dialects and foreign languages. The informants came from all regiolects of the Lithuanian language area (Fig. 2; for more details, see Aliūkaitė, Mikulėnienė 2014: 257 ff.), so that the research material would be as objective as possible and the results would reflect the pronunciation of vowels in Standard Lithuanian as realistically as possible. This article does not discuss the data of individual informants; in the tables (and in the graphs) summarized data for all informants (mean) are presented. FIG. 2. Regiolects of the Lithuanian language area[13] Recordings were made indoors using a professional recorder (Tascam HD-P2) and a directional head-worn vocal microphone (AKG C 520). Informants were asked to pronounce the material at a normal pace and as naturally as possible. The recordings were then transferred to computer memory and saved in .wav format (over 5,000 files in total). The segmentation of the elements under analysis was performed using free computer programs for sound processing and analysis: Praat 5.3.63 and later versions (developed by Paul Boersma and David Weenink) and WaveSurfer 1.8.8.p4 (developed by Kåre Sjölander and Jonas Beskow). To investigate the qualitative properties of vowels, the entire steady-state (purest) portion of Lithuanian vowels was measured; the values of the first four formants (F1, F2, F3 and F4) (in hertz), fundamental frequency (in hertz), and duration (in milliseconds) were measured. For further analysis of the instrumental study data, MS Excel was used; for example, statistical means (in hertz and bark), standard deviation (in hertz), and the value of the effective second formant (F2′) (in bark) were calculated using the formula of Anthony Bladon and Gunnar Fant (Bladon, Fant 1978: 3; see also Fant 1983: 7). Calculating the latter requires not only the values of the first two formants—which generally determine the main acoustic characteristics of vowels—but also those of the third and fourth formants and the fundamental frequency. The results were converted to bark using Hartmut Traunmüller’s formula (Traunmüller 1988: 97). Vowels are represented graphically not only in acoustic space (hertz), but also in psychoacoustic F2′/F1 space (bark scale)—it is thought that such a representation of the vowel system more accurately reflects the characteristics of human hearing, i.e. atsižvelgiama į logaritminę suvokimo prigimtį (Grigorjevs 2013: 303). Psichoakustinėje erdvėje (žr. 3, 4 pav.; taip pat plg. 5 pav.) tiriamieji balsiai žymimi 1 barko dydžio skersmens apskritimais, atstumai tarp kurių rodo suvokiamos kokybės skirtingumo laipsnį (Iivonen 1987). Apibūdinant bendrinės lietuvių kalbos balsių sistemą, taip pat naudojami tonotopiniai atstumai (barkais) tarp pirmosios formantės ir pagrindinio dažnio (tono) (F1–f0) ir tarp pirmosios ir antrosios formančių (F2–F1): tokie skirtumai glaudžiai susiję su balsių atvirumu ir su balsių priešakinės ir užpakalinės eilės požymiu (Miller 1989: 2119). Kaip bus matyti, rūpimus rezultatus pavertus į psichofizinius vienetus ir naudojant tonotopinių atstumų reikšmes, skirtumai tarp vyrų ir moterų duomenų taškų gerokai sumažėja. The measured formant values and acoustic parameters (compactness, bemolization, tonality, tension) of vowels pronounced by women (summarized data) are presented both in their original, i.e. unnormalized, form (Table 4; for men’s pronunciation data, see Table 7) and normalized using coefficients of 17% (Table 3) and 14% (Table 4), so that the results obtained can be compared as objectively as possible with the corresponding data on men’s pronunciation (for universal coefficients, see Fant 1975: 8). The normalization coefficients were calculated on the basis of data for the second formant of [i] and of specific formant data, which depend on the entire vocal tract or on a particular cavity (see Fant 1975: 8; Grigorjevs 2008: 45–61). To describe more precisely the qualitative relationships between long and short Lithuanian vowels, the program FORMANT2.PAS[14] was used to calculate the following acoustic parameters (numerical values) from the mean values of the first, second, and third formants (Hz): bemolization, compactness, tension, and tonality (see Tables 4–7). As mentioned in the introduction to the article, the results concerning vowel quantity and quality are compared with data from some previous studies (Table 3; Fig. 7). 3. DISCUSSION OF THE STUDY RESULTS 3.1. QUANTITY OF ISOLATEDLY PRONOUNCED STANDARD LITHUANIAN VOWELS The vowel-duration measurements (see Table 2) show that, for both women and men, [ɐ] and [ɛ] are the longest of the short vowels in Standard Lithuanian, while [æː] and [ɑː] are the longest of the long vowels; short [ɪ] and [ʊ] are the shortest of the short vowels, and [iː] and [uː] are the shortest of the long vowels. The other vowels ([ɔ] among the short vowels and, correspondingly, [eː] and [oː] among the long vowels) occupy an intermediate position in terms of duration: they are shorter than the corresponding short and long low vowels, but longer than the corresponding high vowels. These patterns are essentially consistent with tendencies in intrinsic duration (cf. Pakerys 1982: 43–48 and the literature cited therein). TABLE 2. Vowel quantity in Standard Lithuanian: combined data for men and women (N = 60 for vowels pronounced by women, N = 72 for vowels pronounced by men) VOWELS pronounced by WOMEN Mean duration (ms) ± standard deviation (ms) Relative duration VOWELS pronounced by MEN Mean duration (ms) ± standard deviation (ms) Relative duration [i:] 352±40 2.06: 1 [i:] 350±38 2.11: 1 [ɪ] 171±25 [ɪ] 166±18 [e:] 370±44 [e:] 414±55 [æ:] 397±79 1.99: 1 [æ:] 422±42 1.99: 1 [ɛ] 199±29 [ɛ] 212±16 [ɑ:] 406±76 2.06: 1 [ɑ:] 451±38 2.16: 1 [ɐ] 197±17 [ɐ] 209±12 [ɔ:] 393±49 2.14: 1 [ɔ:] 399±37 2.16: 1 [ɔ] 184±13 [ɔ] 185±22 [u:] 362±49 2.07: 1 [u:] 368±43 2.22: 1 [ʊ] 175±14 [ʊ] 166±23 Long: Short 380: 185 2.05: 1 Long: Short 401: 188 2.13: 1 As can be seen from the aggregated results presented in Table 2, the long vowels produced by women and men are 2.1 times longer than the short ones. The confidence intervals for the corresponding short and long vowels do not overlap (this and some other statistical information described below are not presented in the table); their difference in duration is statistically significant (at the highest confidence level). A comparison of the data for men and women revealed a tendency for men to pronounce isolated vowels for longer, but this difference is small and not statistically significant, and the confidence intervals overlap in many cases. However, it was observed that women’s vowel duration varies more (from 7 to 20%) than men’s (from 6 to 14%), respectively. TABLE 3. Quantity ratios of short and long vowels in Standard Lithuanian according to data from some earlier studies POSITION A. PAKERYŠ (1982: 93, 95, 112) L. KAUKĖNIENĖ (2004a: 62) D. BAIŠATYTĖ (2004: 174) Stressed short: long (stressed short: acute: circumflex) 1: 1,72: 2,09 1: 2,2 1: 1,94 Unstressed short: long 1: 1,76 1: 1,4 – As mentioned at the beginning of the article, other researchers mainly studied words pronounced separately (in isolation) (the number of syllables varied from one to four), rather than individual sounds. The informants were predominantly men. However, as we can see (see Table 3), the quantity ratios of stressed short and long vowels (except acute-accented vowels) are quite similar to those described in this article. A closer examination of the results of different studies showed that in words the duration ratios of short and long vowels range from 1.9 to 2.4 times, while acute-accented vowels are only 1.5 to 1.9 times longer than stressed short vowels. In unstressed position, the differences between short and long vowels may be very small, but they prove to be statistically significant: they range from 1.1 to 1.9 times. Nevertheless, it is important to support the phonological opposition between phonemes with differences in quality as well, and to take various linguistic and non-linguistic factors into account. As is known, phonological elements of language are absolute rather than relative: sounds with similar or identical spectral structures may be perceived differently if their sound environments differ, since, as noted, in certain cases there may be less acoustic information, negu jos reikėtų tiksliai fonemoms atpažinti (Girdenis 2003: 224). 3.2. MOST IMPORTANT QUALITATIVE FEATURES OF THE VOWELS OF STANDARD LITHUANIAN Analysis of the results showed that the vowel spectrum depends on the individual speaker; moreover, the smaller size of the female resonator also affects differences between the spectra of vowels pronounced by men and women. Nevertheless, it should be noted that certain fairly stable relationships always remain (cf. Girdenis 2003: 222). This article describes only aggregated data on women’s and men’s pronunciation. As can be seen, after speaker normalization, the differences between women’s and men’s vowels were reduced to a minimum (cf. Table 4 and Tables 5–7). Table 5 was selected to describe the results of women’s pronunciation; the others (i.e., Tables 4 and 6) are provided for comparison and may also prove useful in future instrumental studies. The results of men’s pronunciation are presented in Table 7 and Figure 4. The first formant of [iː], [eː], [ɪ] as pronounced by all informants (both men and women[15]) is higher than 2000 Hz, while the first formant is very low: from 285 Hz to ~450 Hz (see Tables 4–7). Examination of the distances between the first and second formants and between the second and third formants revealed that, among all Lithuanian vowels (both long and short), the greatest distance is between the first and second formants of [iː], [eː], [ɪ], while the smallest distance is between the second and third formants of these vowels. Both formants of [uː], [oː], [ɔ], [ʊ] as pronounced by all informants (both men and women) are relatively low (see Tables 4–7): F₁ ranges from approximately 300 Hz to 600 Hz, and F₂ from 630 Hz to 1100 Hz. Among all long vowels, the smallest distance is between the first and second formants of [oː] and [uː], while the greatest distance is between their second and third formants. The same pattern is observed for the short vowels [ɔ] and [ʊ]. The first formants of [ɑː], [ɐ] and [æː], [ɛ] are relatively high—approximately 610 to 850 Hz—while the second formant of [ɑː] and [ɐ] is relatively low, i.e. not far from the first formant, at approximately 1200–1300 Hz. However, the second formant of [æː] and [ɛ] is higher—approximately 1700 Hz or more; that is, it is higher than the second formant of [ɑː], [ɐ] and lower than the second formant of [iː], [eː], [ɪ] (see Tables 4–7). Of all the long and short vowels, the third formant of [ɑː] and [ɐ] is closest to the first formant. Correspondingly, the third formant of [iː], [eː] and [ɪ] is farthest from the first formant. TABLE 4. Formant values (in hertz) and ratings of short and long vowels in Standard Lithuanian: non-normalized data on women’s pronunciation VOWELS F1 (Hz) F2 (Hz) F3 (Hz) Compactness Flatness Tonality Tenseness [iː] 334 2710 3379 727 105 813 2255 [ɪ] 439 2381 2909 774 105 643 1351 [eː] 468 2611 3227 773 104 655 1870 [æː] 866 2159 2951 869 103 261 1476 [ɛ] 712 2085 2922 846 104 320 1219 [ɑː] 996 1442 2675 935 104 -108 729 [ɐ] 831 1486 2654 904 105 1 499 [oː] 552 868 2620 914 110 -283 804 [ɔ] 677 1090 2598 914 108 -170 685 [uː] 376 745 2658 872 113 -255 1037 [ʊ] 476 1006 2595 869 110 -87 613 TABLE 5. Formant values (in hertz) of short and long vowels in Standard Lithuanian and their assessments: normalized data for women's pronunciation (k = 17 percent) VOWELS F₁ (Hz) F₂ (Hz) F₃ (Hz) Compactness Flatness Tonality Tenseness [i:] 285 2316 2888 721 108 814 1419 [ɪ] 375 2035 2486 770 108 648 674 [e:] 400 2232 2758 768 106 655 1090 [æ:] 741 1845 2522 866 105 260 608 [ɛ] 609 1782 2498 843 106 320 393 [ɑ:] 851 1233 2286 934 107 -107 832 [ɐ] 710 1270 2269 902 107 1 671 [ɔ:] 472 742 2239 912 112 -283 1047 [ɔ] 578 931 2221 912 110 -171 926 [u:] 322 637 2272 869 115 -256 1269 [ʊ] 407 860 2218 866 112 -87 1015 TABLE 6. Formant values (in hertz) and ratings for the short and long vowels of Standard Lithuanian: normalized data on female pronunciation (k = 14 percent) BALSAI F₁ (Hz) F₂ (Hz) F₃ (Hz) Kompaktiškumas Bemoliškumas Tonalumas Įtempimas [i:] 293 2377 2964 722 107 813 1548 [ɪ] 385 2089 2551 770 107 648 755 [e:] 410 2291 2831 769 106 655 1212 [æ:] 760 1894 2589 867 104 261 743 [ɛ] 625 1829 2563 844 106 320 517 [ɑ:] 874 1265 2347 934 106 -108 762 [ɐ] 729 1304 2328 902 107 1 597 [ɔ:] 484 762 2298 912 112 -282 956 [ɔ] 594 956 2279 912 110 -171 859 [u:] 330 654 2331 869 115 -255 1185 [ʊ] 417 882 2276 867 112 -86 925 TABLE 7. Formant values (in hertz) and ratings for the short and long vowels of Standard Lithuanian: aggregated data on male pronunciation VOWELS F₁ (Hz) F₂ (Hz) F₃ (Hz) Compactness Flatness Tonality Tenseness [iː] 287 2351 3059 719 107 799 1623 [ɪ] 385 2001 2609 773 107 601 725 [e] 447 2169 2833 784 106 570 1055 [æ] 745 1697 2610 874 105 171 552 [ɛ] 613 1718 2616 846 106 265 447 [ɑː] 832 1216 2508 932 106 −149 623 [ɐ] 709 1280 2479 900 107 −31 450 [ɔː] 496 743 2562 920 111 −362 823 [ɔ] 576 1036 2522 895 109 −131 562 [uː] 320 631 2571 869 115 −315 1120 [ʊ] 436 893 2592 871 111 −151 763 The acoustic parameters of the vowels calculated from the mean values of the first three formants (see Tables 4–7) are associated with the following features: “high”–“low,” “compact”–“diffuse,” “flat”–“plain,” “tense”–“lax.” In terms of pitch (timbre), the isolated vowels [iː], [e], [æ] and [ɪ], [ɛ] are considered high, bright-timbred sounds (their second formant is above 1500 Hz and their tonality degree is positive[16]), compared with the corresponding dark-timbred[17], or more precisely, non-high vowels [ɑː], [ɔː], [uː] and [ɐ], [ɔ], [ʊ] (the second formant of these vowels is below 1500 Hz, and the tonality degree of all dark-timbred sounds is negative, except for women’s [ɛ]) (cf. also the phonological classification of vowels presented in Table 1). According to the male and female pronunciation data (cf. the second formant and tonality degree in the tables), among the long vowels of Standard Lithuanian, [iː] has the brightest timbre, while [uː] and [ɔː] have the darkest timbres. Among the short vowels, [ɪ] has the brightest timbre, while [ʊ] and [ɔ] have the darkest timbres. It should be emphasized that the vowels with the darkest timbre also have the highest flatness index (see Tables 4–7). According to the acoustic classification, the vowels [ɔː], [uː], [ɔ], [ʊ] are considered flat: [uː] has the highest flatness index, so it may be assumed that the lips are most active in producing this sound. Considering the positions of the first two formants, isolated Lithuanian vowels can be classified according to their degree of compactness (or diffuseness, which is inversely proportional to compactness). As can be seen from Tables 4–7 (cf. Figures 3 and 4), the most compact sound is [ɑː]: as mentioned, the first two formants of this vowel are close to each other and, overall, to the central part of the spectrum (its numerical compactness value is the highest). At the very edges of the spectrum are [iː] and [uː]—non-compact, or the most diffuse, vowels (their spectral energy is dispersed at the edges of the spectrum, and their numerical compactness values are the lowest). Among the short vowels, the most compact is the low vowel [ɛ] (its compactness index is the highest of all the short vowels), while at the edges of the spectrum, but somewhat closer to the center than the diffuse long vowels [iː] and [uː], lie the first and second formants of the short vowels [ɪ] and [ʊ]. The numerical values of tenseness for Lithuanian long and short vowels (cf. the tenseness index in Tables 4–7) show that the mean value of this parameter is considerably higher for the long vowels [iː], [uː], [ɔː] than for the corresponding short vowels [ɪ], [ʊ] and [ɔ]. However, as might be expected (cf. also Girdenis 2003: 222, 226), the differences in tenseness between the long vowels [æ], [ɑː] and their short counterparts [ɛ], [ɛ] are considerably smaller. FIG. 3. Lithuanian vowels in psychoacoustic space: aggregated data on women’s pronunciation (in Bark, N = 60) FIG. 4. Lithuanian vowels in psychoacoustic space: aggregated data on men’s pronunciation (in Bark, N = 72) Vowel spectrum characteristics are closely related to potential articulatory properties (see Figs. 3–4). The second formant is determined by place of articulation: the high sounds [iː], [eː], [æː], [ɪ], [ɛ] are considered front, because they are pronounced with the tongue shifted toward the front of the mouth. The non-high, or low, sounds [ɑː], [ɔː], [uː] and [ɑ], [ɔ], [ʊ] are considered non-front or back, because they are pronounced with the tongue retracted toward the back of the mouth. However, even when vowels of the same place of articulation are pronounced, the tongue’s position differs: of all the vowels, [iː] is the most front and [uː] the most back; among the short vowels, [ɪ] is correspondingly the most front and [ʊ] the most back. The first formant is determined by the openness and height of vowel articulation. Accordingly, Lithuanian vowels are divided into low (compact) vowels, i.e. open vowels [ɑː], [æː], [a], [ɛ], and non-low (non-compact) vowels: high (diffuse), i.e. close vowels [iː], [uː], [ɪ], [ʊ], and non-high, or mid-height, vowels [e] and [ɔ], [ɔ] (non-diffuse and non-compact). In terms of mouth openness, the closest Lithuanian vowel is [iː], and the most open is [ɑː]. In terms of lip position, the short rounded [ɔ], [ʊ] and long [oː], [uː] vowels are labialized (pronounced with the lips rounded). All other vowels (i.e. unrounded, or plain, vowels) are unlabialized. Furthermore, the vowel circles in Figures 3 and 4 do not overlap (or barely touch), which also means that the long and short vowels of standard Lithuanian are perceived as sounds that are essentially different in quality. FIG. 5. Lithuanian vowels in psychoacoustic space (aggregated data on men’s and women’s pronunciation in Bark; the formant values of vowels pronounced by women have been normalized (k = 17 percent)) The potential articulatory properties and relationships of vowels are also depicted directly by the psychoacoustic space diagram (see Fig. 5), whose abscissa plots the differences between the values of the second and first formants (F2−F1), while the ordinate plots the differences between the values of the first formant and the fundamental tone (frequency) (in Bark) (for diagrams of this type, cf. Ladefoged, Maddieson 2002: 284–286; Grigorjevs 2012: 163–165). The diagram shows that the distances between front sounds are considerably greater than those between back sounds: the left side of the triangle, which represents the relationships among front vowels from [iː] to [æː], is noticeably longer than the right side, which connects the back vowels from [ɑː], [ɔ] to [uː], [ʊ] (cf. Фант 1964: 114). As is known, the greater distances between front vowels indicate that their horizontal tongue movement toward the teeth tends to be more pronounced than that of back vowels. The long [iː] is the sound with the most front articulation; when it is pronounced, the tongue is shifted furthest toward the front of the mouth. The long [æː] is the most open and lowest of all the front vowels. The long rounded [oː] occupies the extreme back position. The tongue is lowered furthest when pronouncing the low back sound [ɑː]— it is the most open and lowest not only among the back vowels, but among all vowels overall. FIG. 6. Classification of vowels according to TFA (IPA)[18] The Lithuanian vowel system in Figure 5 can conveniently be compared with the corresponding vowel system according to TFA (IPA) (Fig. 6), which is based on the pronunciation of sounds (the articulatory features of vowels). Thus, the corresponding TFA symbols for Lithuanian vowels were selected with reference to the spectral analysis of long and short Lithuanian vowels and the pronunciation of the sounds. It should only be noted that, according to the international classification, more articulatory features should be used to classify Lithuanian vowels than in the traditional (national) classification (cf. Pakerys 2003: 27, Table 1). For example: 1) according to the highest position of the tongue, front vowels (long /iː, eː, æː/ and short /ɪ, ɛ/), central vowels (short /ɘ/), and back vowels (long /ɑː, oː, uː/ and short /ɔ, ʊ/) are distinguished, whereas traditionally front (/iː, eː, æː, ɪ, ɛ/) and back (/ɑː, oː, uː, ɐ, ɔ, ʊ/) vowels are distinguished; 2) according to the distance between the tongue and the palate, close vowels (long /iː, uː/, while short /ɪ, ʊ/ would in this case occupy an intermediate position between close and close-mid vowels), close-mid vowels (long /eː, oː/, although on the basis of the acoustic parameters obtained, Lithuanian /eː/ could be considered intermediate between close and close-mid vowels), open-mid (/ɛ, æː, ɔ/) and open vowels (/ɑː/) are distinguished, whereas traditionally high vowels (i.e., close vowels /i, uː, ɪ, ʊ/), mid vowels (intermediate vowels /eː, oː, ɔ/), and low vowels (open vowels /ɑː, æː, ɛ/) are generally distinguished; 3) according to lip activity, rounded (i.e., labialized /uː, oː, ʊ, ɔ/) and unrounded (unlabialized /iː, eː, æː, ɑː, ɪ, ɛ, e/) vowels are distinguished, as in the traditional articulatory classification of Lithuanian vowels. The international classification of vowels is particularly useful for studying and comparing the sound systems of different languages according to uniform articulatory principles. FIG. 7. Vowels pronounced in isolation and in words in acoustic space (data from different studies, in hertz) [19] Based on the first- and second-formant values (in hertz), the results of this study (isolated sounds) were also compared with corresponding data from several previous studies—vowels pronounced in words (see Fig. 7): the Lithuanian vowel standards described in this article are marked in acoustic space with large black symbols (circles for long vowels, triangles for short vowels); data from Alekso Girdenis’s study (Girdenis 2003: 222, Table 25) are marked with small light-gray symbols; data from Lidijos Kaukinienės study (Kaukinienė 2004b: 201, Table 1) are marked with small dark-gray symbols; data from Danutės Balšaitytės study (Balšaitytė 2004: 171, Table 1) are marked with small white symbols. As can be seen, most of the vowels examined in this study occupy a more or less similar or more peripheral position in acoustic space compared with vowels pronounced in words. It is noteworthy that the spectra of low vowels show the greatest overlap; however, in all cases, the qualitative characteristics of short Lithuanian vowels and their corresponding long vowels differ significantly: according to various studies, short vowels are shifted closer to the center of acoustic space than their corresponding long counterparts. 4. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS The standards for short and long Lithuanian vowels should be based on differences in quantity and quality: 1. It was established that the duration ratio of isolated short vowels in Standard Lithuanian and their corresponding long vowels is 1: 2.1. When pronounced in non-isolated contexts, quantity ratios may vary; therefore, in instrumental studies of short and long vowels, their qualitative characteristics should also be taken into account. 2. Long vowels pronounced in isolation by women and men occupy a more peripheral position in acoustic and psychoacoustic spaces than their short counterparts. This was to be expected, since Lithuanian long and short vowels differ not only in quantity, but especially in quality. 3. Despite variation across studies in the mean first- and second-formant values established for Lithuanian vowels, general tendencies in the relationships among the vowels remain the same, and vowel classification follows the same (only more idealized and more peripheral) model. Therefore, it may be considered that vowels pronounced in isolation could serve as standards for Standard Lithuanian pronunciation. LITERATŪRA Aliūkaitė D., Mikulėnienė D. 2014: Geolektų ir regioninių dialektų formavimosi ypatumai Lietuvoje. – Mikulėnienė D. ir kt. 2014: XXI amžiaus pradžios lietuvių tarmės: geolingvistinis ir sociolingvistinis tyrimas: žemėlapiai ir jų komentarai. Sudarė Danguolė Mikulėnienė, Violeta Meiliūnaitė, Vilnius: Briedis, 257–262. Bacevičiūtė R. 2002: Lietuvių kalbos kintamųjų garsų [ie], [uo] eksperimentinė analizė. – Kalbotyra 51 (1), 5–17. Bacevičiūtė R. 2009: Instrumentinio garsų tyrimo kryptys ir problemos Lietuvių dialektologijoje. – Respectus Philologicus 16 (21) A, 202–215. Bladon R. A. W., Fant G. 1978: A two-formant model and the cardinal vowels. – Speech Transmission Laboratory – Quarterly Progress and Status Report 1/1978, Stockholm: KTH, 1–8. Cidzikaite D. 2002: Anglų kalbos terminai common language, national language, literary language, King’s language, standard language ir jų lietuviški atitikmenys. – Archivum Lithuanicum 4, 273–282. Čičirkaitė R. 2014: Idealiosios bendrinės tarties beieškant: ilgojo-įtemptojo balsio o vartosena 1960–2011 m. informacinėse laidose. – Darbai ir dienos 62, 45–58. DLKG 2005: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika. Redaktorius Vytautas Ambrazas, autoriai Vytautas Ambrazas ir kt., 4-as patais. leidimas, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. English Phonetics and Phonology. Prieiga internete: https://www.facebook.com/English-Phonetics-and-Phonology-268299689848577/?fref=ts (žiūrėta 2015-10-28). Fant G. 1975: Non-uniform vowel normalization. – Speech Transmission Laboratory – Quarterly Progress and Status Report 2–3, 1–19. Fant G. 1983: Feature analysis of Swedish vowels – a revisit. – Speech Transmission Laboratory – Quarterly Progress and Status Report 2–3, 1–18. Girdenis A. 2003: Teoriniai lietuvių fonologijos pagrindai, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Girdenis A. 2008: Kardinaliniai balsiai. – Žemaičių dzūkai: Tekstai su komentarais, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 29–32. Girdenis A. 2009: Vad dinamųjų sutaptinių dvibalsių [ie uo] garsinė ir fonologinė sudėtis. – Baltistica 44(2), 213–242. Girdenis A., Pupkis A. 1978: Bendrinės kalbos norminimo ir kodifikavimo principai. – Baltų kalbos ir jų tyrinėjimo metodai. Vilnius, 53–66. Pakerys A. 2003: Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos fonetika, Vilnius: Enciklopedija. Grigorjevs J. 2008: Latviešu valodas patskaņu sistēmas akustisks un auditīvs raksturojums, Rīga: LU Latviešu valodas institūts. Grigorjevs J. 2012: Acoustic and auditory characteristics of the Latvian monophthong system. – Linguistische Berichte, Heft 230, Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag, 155–182. Grigorjevs J. 2013, Problems using the traditional acoustic cues for the phonological interpretation of vowels. – Baltistica 48(2), 301–312. Iivonen A. 1987: The critical band in the explanation of the number of possible vowels and psychoacoustical vowel distances. – Helsingin yliopiston fonetiikan laitoksen monisteita 12, Helsinki: University of Helsinki. IPA 2005: International Phonetic Association. Prieiga internete: <https://www.internationalphoneticassociation.org/content/full-ipa-chart> (žiūrėta 2015 09 11). Jakobson R. ir kt. 1963: Preliminaries to Speech Analysis, 4th ed., Cambridge: The MIT Press. Jaroslavienė J. 2014: Spectral characteristics of the Lithuanian vowels: some preliminary results of a new experimental research. – Linguistica Lettica 22, 68–84. Jaroslavienė J., Kaukėnienė L. 2004: Danielo Joneso kardinalių balsių spektrinės charakteristikos. – Kalbotyra 53(1), 25–38. Jassem W. 1973: Podstawy fonetyki akustycznej, Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Kaukėnienė L. 2002: Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos nekirčiuotų balsių spektrai. – Kalbotyra 51(1), 41–59; Kaukėnienė L. 2003a: Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos nekirčiuotų balsių kiekybė. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 48, 35–47. Kaukėnienė L. 2003b: Lietuvių kalbos kirčiuotų ir nekirčiuotų kintamos artikuliacijos balsių [ie], [uo] kokybinės ir kiekybinės charakteristikos. – Žmogus kalbos erdvėje: mokslinių straipsnių rinkinys 3 (1), Kaunas. Kaukėnienė L. 2004a: Dabartinių baltų bendrinių kalbų nekirčiuotų skiemenų vokalizmas (Instrumentinis tyrimas), Humanitarinių mokslų daktaro disertacija, Vilnius, Vilniaus universitetas. Kaukėnienė L. 2004b: Dabartinių baltų bendrinių kalbų balsių spektrai. – Baltistica 39(2), 199–211. Kazlauskienė A. 2002: Balsių trukmė: norma ir vartosena. – Profesinė kalba: teorija ir praktika, Vilnius: Lietuvos teisės universiteto Leidybos centras, 33–35. Kliukienė R. 2002: Regresyvinis minkštųjų priebalsių poveikis trumpųjų balsių spektrui bendrinėje lietuvių kalboje. – Kalbotyra 51(1), 73–78. Kliukienė R. 2003: Bendrinės kalbos nekirčiuotų trumpųjų balsių spektrų dinamika. – Kalbotyra 52(1), 81–91. Kliukienė R. 2005: Bendrinės lietuvių kalbos trumpųjų balsių spektrų dinamika (žvalgomasis tyrimas). – Kalbos istorijos ir dialektologijos problemos 1. Sudarė Saulius Ambrazas ir kt., Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla, 361–367. Kliukienė R., Raudžiūtė I. 2013: Minkštųjų priebalsių poveikis lietuvių bendrinės kalbos ilgųjų kirčiuotų balsių spektrui. – Žmogus ir žodis 15(1), 111–119. Kruopienė I., Kačiukienė G. 2008: Ilgųjų ir trumpųjų balsių realizavimas sakytinės žiniasklaidos darbuotojų kalboje. – Žmogus ir žodis 10(1), 38–42. Ladefoged P. 1975: A course in phonetics. New York, Chicago, etc.: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc. Ladefoged P., Maddieson I. 2002: The Sounds of the World’s Languages. Malden: Blackwell Publishers. LG 1997: Lithuanian grammar. Redaktorius Vytautas Ambrazas, Vilnius: Baltos lankos. LKE 2008: Lietuvių kalbos enciklopedija. Sudarė Kazys Morkūnas, redagavo Vytautas Ambrazas. 2-as patiksl. ir papild. leidimas, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Mikulėnienė D. et al. 2014: XXI amžiaus pradžios lietuvių tarmės: geolingvistinis ir sociolingvistinis tyrimas: žemėlapiai ir jų komentarai. Sudarė Danguolė Mikulėnienė, Violeta Meiliūnaitė, Vilnius: Briedis. Mikulėnienė D. 2015: Valstybinė lietuvių kalba: lūkesčiai ir rūpesčiai. Prieiga internete: http://alkas.lt/2015/02/06/d-mikuleniene-valstybine-lietuviu-kalba-lukesciai-ir-rupesciai/ (žiūrėta 2015 09 11). Miliūnaitė R. 2013: Raštingumo problema interneto bendruomenės ir mokytojų akimis. – Kalbos kultūra 86, 192–211. Miller J. 1989: Auditory perceptual interpretation of the vowel. – Journal of the Acoustic Society of America 85, 2114–2134. Murinienė L. 2007: Rytinių šiaurės žemaičių fonologija: vokalizmas ir prozodija, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, Vilniaus pedagoginis universitetas. Nevinskaitė L. 2013: Viešosios kalbos kaitos kontekstas: viešosios erdvės ir žiniasklaidos raidos Lietuvoje bruožai. – Lietuvių kalba: idealai, ideologijos ir tapatybės lūžiai (pirmasis kolektyvinės monografijos variantas). Sudarė Loreta Vaicekauskienė, 118–136. Pakerys A. 1982: Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos prozodija, Vilnius: Mokslas. Pakerys A. 2003: Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos fonetika, Vilnius: Enciklopedija. Pakerys A., Pupkis A. 2004: Lietuvių kalbos bendrinė tartis: kompaktinės plokštelės tekstai, Vilnius: Gimtasis žodis. Roca I., Johnson W. 1999: A course in phonology, Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Traunmüller H. 1988: Analytical expressions for the tonotopic sensory scale. – Perilus 8, Stockholm: University of Stockholm, 93–102. Vaicekauskienė L. 2011: Oficialioji lietuvių kalba yra negyva kalba. Žurnalistai apie lietuvių kalbos standartą televizijoje ir radijuje. – Darbai ir dienos 55, 191–207. Vaitkevičiūtė V. 2001: Lietuvių kalbos tarties pagrindai ir žodynas, Vilnius: Pradai. Valstybinės lietuvių kalbos komisijos nutarimas „Dėl lietuvių bendrinės tarties būtiniausių reikalavimų“. Prieiga internete: http://www.vlkk.lt/aktualiausios-temos/tartis-ir-kirciavimas/apie-skyriu-tartis-ir-kirciavimas (žiūrėta 2015-11-10). Valstybinės lietuvių kalbos komisijos nutarimas „Dėl valstybinės kalbos vartojimo, norminimo ir sklaidos programos patvirtinimo“, 2015-04-30, Nr. N-2 (157). Prieiga internete: http://www.vlkk.lt/vlkk-nutarimai/nutarimai (žiūrėta 2015 11 10). Zabarskaitė J. 2015: Pasaulinė raštingumo diena: Lietuvių kalbos ir skaitmeninės visuomenės santykis šiandien, 2015-09-08, straipsnį parengė Dovilė Balčiūnaitė. Prieiga internete: http://www.fm99.lt/pasauline-rastingumo-diena-lietuviu-kalbos-ir-skaitmenines-visuomenes-santykis-siandien/ (žiūrėta 2015 09 11). Балашайте Д. 2004: Спектральные характеристики гласных (монофтонгов) современного литовского литературного языка. – Respectus philologicus 5(10), 169–175. Фант Г. 1964: Акустическая теория речеобразования. Москва: Наука. Пиотровский Р. Т. 1960: Еще раз о дифференциальных признаках фонемы. – Вопросы языкознания 6, 24–38. Gauta 2015 11 17 Priimta 2015 12 16 JURGITA JAROSLAVIENĖ Lietuvių kalbos institutas Petro Vileišio g. 5, LT–10308 Vilnius [email protected] [1] Šiuolaikiniai eksperimentiniai garsų tyrimai (paprastai tiriami garsų akustiniai požymiai) dažniausiai atliekami specialiais prietaisais arba kompiuterinėmis programomis. Svarbiausi metodai – oscilogramų, spektrogramų analizė, garso trukmės, pagrindinio tono ir intensyvumo matavimai. Norint nustatyti tiriamų elementų fonologinį savarankiškumą, atliekami ir audiciniai eksperimentai. Jeigu neaptariami audiciniai eksperimentai, tik instrumentiniams tyrimams apibūdinti vartojamas instrumentinės fonetikos terminas (Bacevičiūtė 2009: 202). [2] Atkreiptinas dėmesys, kad natūraliu kalbėjimo tempu izoliuotai ištarti balsiai nepainiotini su Danielo Joneso kardinaliaisiais (arba kitaip – kardinaliniais) balsiais (Ladefoged 1975: 194–199; Jassem 1973: 190, lentelė 13.1) ir pagal specialius reikalavimus ištartais lietuvių kalbos (ir kitų kalbų) bei tarmių izoliacijaistais balsiais: kardinalieji balsiai naudojami kaip teoriniai konstruktai, tam tikra etaloninė sistema konkrečių kalbų ar tarmių balsynui apibūdinti ir palyginti, tačiau visai tiksliai nesutampa su jokios konkrečios kalbos atitinkamais garsais (pvz., plg. Roca, Johnson 1999: 126; Jaroslavienė, Kaukenienė 2004: 25–45; Kaukenienė 2004b: 199–211; Murinienė 2007: 116–118; Girdenis 2008: 29–32 ir kt.). [3] Iš lietuvių kalbos būtiniausių tarties reikalavimų minėtini bent keli: skirti trumpuosius balsius nuo ilgųjų ir kirčiuotuose, ir nekirčiuotuose skiemenyse; skirti balsius e, ė, o nuo ie, uo kirčiuotuose ir nekirčiuotuose skiemenyse; skirti dvibalsių ir mišriųjų dvigarsių tvirtapradę priegaidę nuo tvirtagalės; laikytis kietųjų ir minkštųjų priebalsių tarimo taisyklių ir pan. Kirčiuotų trumpųjų balsių negalima pailginti (netaisyklingas jų tarimas griauna balsių sistemą, nes trumpė lietuvių kalboje yra vienas iš skiriamųjų balsių požymių, tik balsių ilgumu gali skirtis kitais atžvilgiais vienodi žodžiai: mẽs – mès, lĩs – lìs ir pan.). Plačiau apie tarties normas žr. Valstybinės lietuvių kalbos komisijos (toliau – VLKK) nutarimą „Dėl lietuvių bendrinės tarties būtiniausių reikalavimų“; taip pat žr. Girdenis, Pupkis 1978; Girdenis 2003: 24–25; Pakerys, Pupkis 2004 ir kt. [4] Arba kitaip – kultūros kalbą (žr. Mikulėnienė 2015), kaip pridėtinės vertės ženklą, kurį reprezentuoja ne tik kalbos kultūros išmanymas, bet ir taisyklinga, aiški tartis. [5] Kaip žinoma, pagrindinis valstybinės kalbos politikos tikslas – stiprinti valstybinės kalbos statusą ir prestižą, skatinti jos plėtrą, užtikrinti lietuvių kalbos funkcionalumą visose viešojo gyvenimo srityse, išlaikyti ją kalbų rinkoje (žr. VLKK nutarimą „Dėl valstybinės kalbos vartojimo, norminimo ir sklaidos programos patvirtinimo“, 2015-04-30, Nr. N-2 (157)). [6] Straipsnyje aptariami rezultatai apskaičiuoti Lietuvių kalbos institute 2013–2015 m. vykdant Lietuvos mokslo tarybos finansuojamą projektą „Dabartinės baltų kalbos: spektrinės garsų charakteristikos (instrumentinis tyrimas)“. Projekto vykdytojai: dr. Juris Grigorjevas, dr. Inesė Indričānė, dr. Jurgita Jaroslavienė (projekto vadovė) ir dr. Jolita Urbanavičienė. [7] Taisyklingos, aiškios tarties klausimas aktualus ne tik lietuvių kalbai, priskiriamai prie mažai vartojamų pasaulio kalbų, bet ir didžiosioms kalboms, tokioms kaip anglų. Pvz., žr. internete English Phonetics and Phonology <[https://www.facebook.com/English-Phonetics-and-Phonology-268299689848577/?fref=ts]> (žiūrėta 2015-10-28). [8] Vis dar trūksta išplėtotų diskusijų ir nusistovėjusios nuomonės dėl dabartinės bendrinės kalbos (angl. common language), standartinės kalbos (angl. standard language), paprastosios kalbos (angl. plain language) sampratos, vartosenos ir vartojimo sričių bei santykio su valstybine kalba. Glaustą tokių terminų kaip rašomoji kalba, bendrinė kalba, literatūrinė kalba, standartinė kalba vartosenos apžvalgą žr. Cidzikaitė 2002: 280–282 ir ten min. lit. [9] Norint panagrinėti, ar svetimos kilmės žodžių balsio [ɛ] (t. y. fonemos /ɛ/ alofono) tarimas (ypač kokybė) panašiose pozicijose skiriasi nuo paprasto trumpojo [e] (t. v. fonemos /e/ alofono), planuojama atlikti instrumentinį ir audicinį tyrimą pasirenkant atitinkamo pobūdžio tiriamąją medžiagą. Antano Pakerio duomenimis (2003: 33), balsių [ɛ] ir [e] funkcinį savarankiškumą galima patikrinti palyginus žodžių formas gęstų (daiktavardžio gęstas dgs. kilm.) ir gęstų (veiksmažodžio gęsti tariamoji nuosaka): 75–80 proc. klausytojų teisingai atpažino tuos izoliuotai ištartus žodžius. [10] Izoliuotai ištartų kintamojo pakilimo ilgųjų balsių pavyzdžių galima pasiklausyti paspaudus „[ie]“ ir atitinkamai „[uo]“. [11] Minkštumo ženklo žymėjimas prieš a, ą tipo raides simbolinis (laikydamiesi nuoseklumo, turėtume rašyti ir prie u, ū, uo tipo raidžių), norint parodyti, kad tuo atveju garsas vartojamas po minkštojo priebalsio, dėl to jo kokybė pakinta. Du šio vienodai rašte žymimi skirtingos kokybės trumpieji balsiai apibraukti raudonai (plačiau dėl raidžių žr. Pakerys 2003: 29, 3 išn. ir min. lit.; Girdenis 2003: 194; DLKG 2005: 24–25). [12] Kaip žinoma, efektyvi gali būti tik tokia fonemų klasifikacija ir tokia diferenciacijų požymių sistema bei hierarchija, kuri leidžia kuo nuosekliau ir paprasčiau aprašyti visų fonologinių elementų santykius ir visos fonologinės sistemos funkcionavimą (Girdenis 2003: 201tt.; taip pat plg. Pakerys 2003: 32–37; DLKG 2005: 21–26). [13] Paveikslas imtas iš XXI amžiaus pradžios lietuvių tarmės: geolingvistinis ir sociolingvistinis tyrimas: žemėlapiai ir jų komentarai, sudarė Danguolė Mikulėnienė, Violeta Meiliūnaitė, autoriai D. Mikulėnienė ir kt., Vilnius: Briedis, 2014. [14] Kompiuterinę programą FORMANT2.PAS sukūrė Aleksas Girdenis, remdamasis Raymond Piotrovsky (Пиотровский 1960: 24–38) pasiūlytu metodu. [15] Nenormalizuotų ir normalizuotų duomenų rezultatai smulkiau neaptariami. [16] Kuo aukštesnis tembras, tuo didesnė antrosios formantės skaitinė reikšmė ir tonalumo koeficientas (laipsnis), rodantis garso aukštį. [17] Lietuvių kalbos balsiai [ɔ], [uː], [ɔ], [ʊ] (taip pat [uo]) realizuojami dvejopais alofonais: prieš šiuos balsius gali eiti ir kietieji, ir minkštieji priebalsiai (ir /j/). Po minkštųjų priebalsių (ir /j/) vartojami supriešakėję balsių variantai: jų tarimo pradžioje liežuvis yra gerokai pasislinkęs į priekį, bet paskui dažniausiai atsitraukia į pagrindinį („paprastųjų“) alofonų padėtį (plg. Girdenis 2003: 192 ir min. lit., 229; Jaroslavienė 2014: 76–77). Šiame straipsnyje nagrinėjama pagrindinių (nesupriešakėjusių) alofonų kokybė ir trukmė. [18] Paveikslas parengtas pagal https://www.internationalphoneticassociation.org/content/ipa-chart (žiūrėta 2015 09 02). Labializuoti (lūpiniai) balsiai išsidėstę kiekvienos kraštinės dešinėje pusėje, nelabializuoti (nelūpiniai) – kairėje. [19] Paveiksle apskritimai žymi ilguosius balsius, trikampiai – trumpuosius balsius.