Probleminiai tarties klausimai „Latvių kalbos gramatikoje“

BENDRINĖ KALBA | 87 (2014) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 DZINTRA ŠULCE University of Liepaja, Latvia PROBLEMATIC ISSUES OF THE TREATY LATVIAN LANGUAGE GRAMMATICS KEY WORDS: concept and norm of orthopepy, norming of word accent, norms of vowel and consonant pronunciation, problems of pronunciation. An important component of any language is the orthopedy, which includes all pronunciation systems. Orthoepia, or t ai sy kl in g a ta r t i s, is a “system of conventional pronunciation rules; practical compliance with such rules’ (VPSV 2007: 284). The term is similarly defined in the Latvian Grammar (LVG 2013: 123). The harmonization of speech norms helps the speaker and the listener to understand each other – this is the most important condition of the communication process. Failure to observe the usage norm, incorrectly pronounced words inappropriately divert the listener's attention and therefore make it more difficult to understand the content of the speech. The aim of this article is to discuss the problems of modern pronunciation in the Latvian Grammar (hereinafter – LVG) published in 2013 and in other recent works of linguistics. The authors of the LVG have repeatedly emphasized that the content of the new grammar is based mainly on the facts of the common language. It is stated that when considering the content of the grammar, the authors should “agree on the model of the theoretical arrangement of the grammar, the methodological and technical principles of its preparation, [...] without losing the individuality of different approaches, seeking compromises and agreements to become participants in the common research work – the grammar of the Latvian language” (Koncepcija 2008: 10). However, after examining the grammar, it can be noted that the authors did not succeed in fully implementing the original idea, so unsolved questions remained in the work, and thus will continue to discuss what is considered the norm of the common language. The new grammar contains a variety of different schools of linguistics, approaches and concepts, and presents different interpretations of language phenomena. There are still no specific answers to many fundamental questions not only of orthopedic, but also of other branches of linguistics (it is difficult to assess whether this is an advantage or a disadvantage). Many problems of practical use remain unresolved. In the new grammar, the issues of correct pronunciation are discussed in the chapter “The main problems of correct pronunciation or orthopepy of the Latvian language” (LVG 2013: 123–137). The article examines the following questions related to the pronunciation: 1) normalization of the pronunciation of the word; 2) norms of vowel pronunciation; 3) norms of consonant pronunciation. First of all, we would like to review the problematic cases of syllable intonation (preposition). These issues are discussed in the chapter “Suprasegmentālās jeb prosodiskās vienības” (LVG 2013: 104–106). The variants of words that are differentiated by vowels of different qualities are mostly related to the use of the narrow and broad vowels e and ē and the BENDRINĖ KALBA | 87 (2014) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 DZINTRA ŠULCE. Problems of pronunciation in Latvian grammar | 2 but there is nothing new about pronunciation here. In the discussion of syllable intonation (preposition), the use of three (respectively continuous, descending or breaking) and two (respectively continuous and non-continuous) preposition systems in Latvian is discussed. Unfortunately, it must be admitted that the authors have not been able to agree on the place of ž o d ž i o k i r č i o in grammar, and the same theory and the same examples are repeated in the chapters “Word accent” (LVG 2013: 120–122) and “Word accent norming” (LVG 2013: 123–125): 1. Regarding the use of concomitant variants, e.g.: vienmēr // vien·mēr1 “always”, varbūt // var·būt “perhaps”, diemžēl // diem·žēl “unfortunately”, paš·laik // pašlaik “at the moment”, pal·dies // paldies “thank you” (see LVG 2013: 120; 123). 2. For the other meaning of the word, which is determined by the conjunction, for example: nebūt (auxiliary word) – ne·būt (particle), tiešām „truly” – pa·tiesi „in fact”, vienādi „equally” – vie·nādi „always” (cf. LVG 2013: 120; 123). 3. On the change of accent in emphatic language (see LVG 2013: 121; 124). The LVG, like previous Latvian publications, lists all exceptions, draws attention to the pronunciation of international words and borrowed real words, but lacks a newer approach. Comparatively much attention is paid to the side-word (LVG 2013: 121–122), although it is not of essential importance in everyday use. When studying the use of b a l s and dv ib a l s (LVG 2013: 126–133), two types of deviations from the general norms of pronunciation are distinguished: 1) quantitative (distinction of short and long vowels); 2) qualitative (confusion of different vowels and diphthongs). Qualitative deviations from the norms are observed in both Latvian-origin words and borrowed words. The standards for adaptation, spelling and pronunciation of foreign words in the common Latvian language have changed several times, resulting in quantitative inconsistencies in usage. Such fluctuations will continue in the future (LVG does not offer anything special in this case). confusion of the short and long o with the diphthong [uo]. Sometimes, in order to facilitate pronunciation, the phonological composition of the word is changed: any vowel is omitted, inserted or moved, for example: komandants "commander" (instead of a, the vowel e is incorrectly pronounced), frazeologija "phraseology" (instead of e, the vowel i is incorrectly pronounced), alkohols "alcohol" (instead of o, the vowel a is incorrectly pronounced), trenažieris "trainer" (instead of a, the vowel e is incorrectly pronounced), oriģināls "original" (incorrectly pronounced original). The pronunciation and spelling of these words can be checked in the Latvian Spelling and Pronunciation Dictionary (Latviešu valodas pareizrakstības un pareizrunas vārdnīca) (LVPPV 1995) and in the latest dictionary of international words Svešā vārdu vārdnīcā (2008). Perhaps, when preparing the LVG, it was necessary to consider more thoroughly and recommend alternative variants of such words with both narrow and broad e or ē pronunciation, in which the established norm has long ceased to be observed, e.g. : Ventspils „Ventspils”, Zemgale „Žiemgala”, bebrs „beaver”, medūza „medūza”, mopēds „moped”, as well as the first person of the verbs in the present tense and in the verb forms made from the present tense stem when their communicative ending is -rt, e.g.: dzeru „drinking”, beru „drinking”, tveru „grabbing”, sveru „weighing”, jādzer „need to drink”, jāber „need to drink”, jāsver „need to weigh”, dzerot „drinking”, sverot „weigh”, berot „drinking” (see LVG 2013: 126–128). 1 A dot before a syllable indicates that it is pronounced. BENDRINĖ KALBA | 87 (2014) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 DZINTRA ŠULCE. Problems of pronunciation in Latvian grammar | 3 Based on previous studies, and LVG emphasizes that the difficulties of the use of phonemes [o], [ō] and [uo] arise because the aforementioned vowels and the diphthong are graphically represented in the same way, e.g.: ola [uola] „egg”; opera [ōpera] ‘opera’; optika [optika] ‘optical’; oktobris [oktōbris] “October”, in addition, there is a tendency to replace the non-Latvian vowel [o] or [ō] with the Latvian diphthong [uo], e.g.: sporas [spōras] is pronounced incorrectly [spuoras] “spores”, poras [pōras] – [puoras] “couples”, novembris [novembris] – [noovembris] “November”. Particular attention should be paid to the pronunciation of personal names and place names, which should be further studied in the future. When discussing the norms of p r i eb al si ų pronunciation (LVG 2013: 133–135), the main focus is on the main variant of consonant pronunciation, whose essential sound characteristics are best revealed in an isolated position. In addition to the main variant, consonants may have secondary variants, which appear in a certain position and are mandatory in common language as secondary pronunciation variants. Most of the consonants and their variants, other than in the common language, are pronounced by individual dialects. Sometimes differently pronounced and used consonants can be explained by the influence of other languages (especially in recent times). Positional changes of consonants do not cause fundamental problems of pronunciation, and historical changes of vowels often lead to deviations from the norm, for example in the imperative plural forms of verbs in the second person: nākt „come“ – nāciet! (Come!) „ateikite“, to shop „nusipirkti“ – go shopping! (go shopping!) „nusipirkite“, grow „grown“ – grow! (grow!) „aukite“, but sit „sit“ – sit! (sit down!) „sit down“, celt „lift up“ – lift up! (raise!) “raise”, endure “suffer” – be patient! (apaciešiečio!) "suffer". In preparing the LVG, more attention should have been paid to the second-syllable male personal names whose root ends in -or -d-, e.g. : Uldis, Valdis, Rūdis, Gatis, Artis, Raitis. On the one hand, the authors of the grammar acknowledge that “in recent years, the number of used forms of the [nobleman’s] name has increased: Arša (Artis), Gaša (Gatis), Raiša (Raitis), Rūza (Rūdis), Ulža (Uldis), Valža (Valdis) [...] consonant forms are allowed” (LVG 2013: 137), on the other hand, in describing nouns of the second kind, the author of the grammar section presents her negative view of the change of consonants in the already mentioned forms and emphasizes that “consonant changes do not occur in bi-syllabic personal names when the consonants t, d precede the ending -is: Valdis – Valda, Rūdis – Rūda, Artis – Arta, Gatis – Gata” (LVG 2013: 359). Such inconsistencies in one grammar do not help to properly learn the norms of common language. The second most recent publication in Latvian (LV 2013) does not provide anything new about pronunciation. There is no orthopedic department here at all. Individual issues of pronunciation are only mentioned when discussing phonetic issues related to positional and historical changes of vowels (LV 2013: 22–32). When considering how to learn the norms of pronunciation as successfully as possible, the opinion has been expressed several times that the spelling rules should be reviewed from time to time to see if the spelling does not begin to differ fundamentally from the pronunciation. This requires thorough research and surveys. This also applies to the problematic notation of several sounds with one letter (e, ē and o). While the public is still discussing and avoiding the announcement of a fundamental spelling reform, certain problematic cases of pronunciation could be discussed at the meetings of the Latvian Language Expert Commission, for example, by establishing parallel variants, if such already exist in actual use. Previously, such issues were discussed in the Writing Commission and published in issues of Latvian Language Culture Issues (Latviešu valodas kultūras jautājumi), for example, “Writing Commission’s findings on letters and reading” (Pareizrakstības komisijas atzinumi par burta o lasījumu) (1985: 116–120) or “Writing Commission’s findings on orthography” (Pareizrakstības komisijas atzinumi par pareizrunu) (1970: 169–174). BENDRINĖ KALBA | 87 (2014) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 DZINTRA ŠULCE. The Latvian Language Agency is also looking for answers to problematic questions related to pronunciation – they are summarized in the collection Valodas praksē: vērojumi un ieteikumi (Language in practice: observations and recommendations) in the section “Valodas konsultācijas” (Language consultations) (2009–2013). A more detailed survey of language users concerning the problematic issues of pronunciation and spelling would also be useful, since the last such survey was carried out only in 1960 (Laua 1997: 127) and therefore no longer objectively reflects the modern usage of the language. Having analyzed the aforementioned problematic issues, it is possible to conclude that the discussion of orthopedic LVG is not different from previous studies of pronunciation, it summarily repeats already known information (cf. Laua 1997; Strautiņa, Šulce 2004; Strautiņa, Šulce 2009; Šulce 2005; Guļevska, Miķelsone, Porīte 2002). The main normative source of Latvian pronunciation remains the Latvian Grammar and Pronunciation Dictionary (LVPPV 1995). Historical research is presented minimally in the LVG, “only in a few cases the synchronic approach is supplemented with diachronic insights” (LVG 2013: 19), but precisely historical data, investigating individual issues, would help to better understand the processes of the modern Latvian language. In the future, it should be considered how to coordinate the issues addressed by the LVG with the subjects of pronunciation learning included in the bachelor’s study programs of higher schools, so that there are no cases of different interpretations. The LVG also establishes modern terminology of linguistics. The large-scale study is like a starting point from which to think about the language and further investigate the Latvian language system. LITERATŪRA G u ļ e v s k a D., M i ķ e l s o n e A., P o r ī t e T. 2002: Pareizrakstības un pareizrunas rokasgrāmata. Latviešu valoda, Rīga: Avots. Koncepcija 2008: Latviešu valodas gramatika: koncepcija, prospekts, atsevišķu nodaļu pirmvarianti, diskusijas materiāli, Rīga: LU Latviešu valodas institūts. LV 2013: Latviešu valoda, Andreja Veisberga redakcijā. Rīga: LU Akadēmiskais apgāds. LVG 2013: Latviešu valodas gramatika, Rīga: LU Latviešu valodas institūts. LVPPV 1995: Latviešu valodas pareizrakstības un pareizrunas vārdnīca, Rīga: Avots. L a u a A. 1997: Latviešu literārās valodas fonētika, Rīga: Zvaigzne ABC. Pareizrakstības komisijas atzinumi par burta o lasījumu 1985: – Latviešu valodas kultūras jautājumi 21, 116–120. Pareizrakstības komisijas atzinumi par pareizrunu 1970: – Latviešu valodas kultūras jautājumi 6, 169– 174. S t r a u t i ņ a V., Š u l c e Dz. 2009: Latviešu valodas pareizruna un pareizrakstība, Rīga: RaKa. S t r a u t i ņ a V., Š u l c e Dz. 2004: Latviešu literārās valodas fonētika, ortoepija un ortogrāfija, Liepāja: LiePA. Š u l c e Dz. 2005: Daži aktuāli pareizrunas jautājumi. – Valodas prakse: vērojumi un ieteikumi 1, 101–106. VPSV 2007: Valodniecības pamatterminu skaidrojošā vārdnīca, Rīga: Latviešu valodas institūts. Svešvārdu vārdnīca, 2008, Rīga: Avots. Valodas konsultācijas 2009–2013: – Valodas prakse: vērojumi un ieteikumi, Rīga: Latviešu valodas institūts. Gauta 2014 11 04 BENDRINĖ KALBA | 87 (2014) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 DZINTRA ŠULCE. Probleminiai tarties klausimai Latvių kalbos gramatikoje | 5 ORTHOEPY AND ITS PROBLEMATIC ISSUES IN THE LATVIAN GRAMMAR Summary A significant component of any language is orthoepy, which denotes a correct pronunciation system as a whole. It is a system of conventional pronunciation norms and compliance with them in practice. The explanation of this term within this meaning can be found in the Dictionary of Key Terms in Linguistics (2007) and in the recently published Latvian Grammar (2013). Uniformity of pronunciation norms promotes the speaker’s and the listener’s mutual understanding, which is a desirable condition in the communication process. The authors of the grammar book have repeatedly stressed that the new grammar content is mainly based on literary language facts; however, language is not entirely literal (and therefore normative). Thus, the problematic issues remain and discussions thereof are likely to continue. In the new grammar book, several schools of linguistics are introduced; thus, a diversity of views and concepts, different interpretations of language phenomena can be observed. However, there are still no definite answers to several essential language issues not only in orthoepy but also in other fields of linguistics. The problematic issues in practical language use largely remain unsolved. In the new grammar book, correct pronunciation issues are discussed in the chapter “Orthoepy: the Main Problems of Correct Pronunciation in the Latvian Language”; it includes the following topics on correct pronunciation: 1. Word accent standardisation. 2. Pronunciation norms in vocalisation (in vowel and diphthong use). 3. Pronunciation norms in consonantism (in consonant use). The content of the chapter on orthoepy in the Latvian Grammar does not differ from the previous studies on correct pronunciation, but it gives only a short summary of the already known information. Therefore, the problem persists when thinking about potential solutions for successful learning of correct pronunciation rules. It is possible to admit the view that correct pronunciation and the related rules should be reviewed from time to time to see whether any significant differences between spelling and pronunciation have appeared. This requires careful researches and surveys. While the society is still discussing and avoids making radical reforms in spelling, certain problematic pronunciation cases could be discussed at the meetings of the Latvian Language Expert Commission, for example, accepting parallel versions in case they already exist in the language practice. The creation of the Latvian grammar has considerably strengthened the terminology of modern linguistics as the starting point for thinking about the language and further exploration of the Latvian language system. KEYWORDS: the concept of orthoepy and norms thereof, word accent standardisation, pronunciation norms in vocalisation and consonantism, problematic issues in correct pronunciation. DZINTRA ŠULCE University of Liepaja Kūrmajas prospekts 13, LV-3401 Liepāja [email protected]