RIMA BAKŠIENĖ

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

Research areas: dialectology, geolinguistics, areal linguistics, experimental phonetics, phonology.

TRANSCRIPTION OF LITHUANIAN DIALECTS USING IPA SYMBOLS: THE WESTERN AUKŠTAITIAN SUBDIALECT OF ŠIAULIAI

Transcription of Lithuanian Dialects Using IPA Symbols: the Western Aukštaitian Subdialect of Šiauliai

ABSTRACT

The article discusses the possibilities of transcribing the Western Aukštaitian subdialect of Šiauliai using the symbols of the current edition of the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA). Until now, in Lithuanian dialectology, dialect sounds have most often been transcribed using the so-called Copenhagen transcription, adapted by Georg Gerullis in the early 20th century. At the beginning of the 21st century, the need for a modern IPA grew considerably as new directions in dialect research emerged in Lithuania; consequently, in 2016, dialectologists at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language compiled a trial set of IPA symbols, which is still being “tested” against the features of all subdialects.

The article presents correspondences between IPA symbols and Copenhagen transcription, written in Palemonas script. The main section analyses examples from Šiauliai subdialect transcribed in IPA, drawn from two different settlements: Ažytėnai, in the southern part of the subdialect area, and Šakyna, in the north, near the Samogitian area. The examples were intended to test the possibilities of recording most of the phonetic features of the Šiauliai subdialect using IPA symbols.

Most of the subdialect’s features posed no transcription problems. The vowel and consonant symbols in the IPA set approximately correspond to the sounds of the subdialect in most cases; some are written with additional diacritics. In the consonant system, the transcription of the so-called “lisping” sounds—intermediate between s, z, c, dz and š, ž, č, dž—is somewhat problematic when using IPA symbols, since the articulatory features of these intermediate sounds have not yet been precisely described. As in other subdialects and in the standard language, the most challenging task in the Šiauliai area remains the transcription of prosodic units, especially variants of pitch accent, using IPA symbols.

Straipsniai / Articles

237

RIMA BAKŠIENĖ

KEYWORDS: dialectology, Lithuanian dialects, Šiauliai Western Aukštaitians, transcription, International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA).

ANNOTATION

The article discusses the opportunities for the application of the latest version of the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) to the transcription of the Western Aukštaitian subdialect of Šiauliai. Until now dialectal sounds were usually transcribed in Lithuanian dialectology using the so called Copenhagen Transcription that was adapted by Georg Gerulis at the beginning of the 20^th century. With the arrival of new fields in dialectology in the early 21^st century, the need for contemporary IPA strengthened, resulting in a pilot set of IPA symbols compiled by the dialectologists of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language in 2016. It is now being “tested” on the peculiar features of all subdialects.

The article presents the equivalents of the IPA symbols and the Copenhagen Transcription recorded by the Palemonas font. The main part analyses the examples of the subdialect of Šiauliai transcribed by IPA symbols from two different residential points – Ažytėnai belong to the southern part of the subdialect and Šakyna located in the north, next to the area of Samogitians. Examples were used to check the opportunities of recording most of phonetic features of the subdialect of Šiauliai by IPA symbols.

Most of the features of the subdialect did not pose any transcription problems. In the majority of cases, the IPA vowel and consonant symbols roughly correspond to the sounds of the subdialect; some of them are marked by additional diacritics. In the consonant system the transcription of the sounds of the so called phenomenon of šlėkiamas – intermediate sounds between s, z, c, dz and š, ž, č, dž – by IPA symbols is slightly more problematic, as there is still no accurate way to describe the characteristics of articulation of intermediate sounds. As in other subdialects and the standard language, the recording of prosodic units, in particular accent variants, by IPA symbols remains most problematic in the area of the subdialect of Šiauliai.

KEYWORDS: dialectology, Lithuanian dialects, Western Aukštaitian subdialect of Šiauliai, transcription, International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA).

1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

For scholars of dialectology, the problem of recording speech in writing, or transcription, has always been a concern. Even the transcription of standard languages cannot convey all the subtle variations in sounds; the written representation is only approximate. It is argued that the transcriber’s subjective interpretation inevitably affects all levels of language—semantics, lexicon, grammar, and phonetics. A transcriber naturally tends to record their own linguistic interpretation, which does not always

238

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVII

Lietuvių patarimų transkripcija TFA simboliais: vakarų aukštaičių šiauliškiai

correspond to the information encoded in the material presented. When recording dialect data, there is considerable ambiguity, especially at the level of phonetics, or more precisely, phonemes, because when decoding recorded text, the transcriber relies on the phoneme system they know best (usually that of their native dialect). Objectivity in transcription is very difficult to achieve; it is acknowledged that writing most often conveys an “impressionistic” picture of living speech¹ (Ladefoged 1990: 32–36; Pandeli, Eska, Ball, Rahilly 1997: 65; Widdowson 2012: 57, etc.).

The choice of a transcription system and the establishment of its principles are also very important for transferring speech to paper. Distinctive national transcription systems often become established in different countries. As we know, the tradition of the so-called Copenhagen transcription, adapted by Georg Gerulis (1930), has been in use in Lithuania for a century; in later periods, it was refined by all the prominent dialectologists (see Gerulis, Stang’as 1933; J’onikas 1939; Salys 1992 [1946]; Zinkevičius 1994; Skirmantas, Girdenis 2001 [1998], etc.; for more on the transcription of Lithuanian dialects from the 20th to the early 21st century, see Bakienė, Čepaitienė 2017a). Although the symbols of this transcription were adapted for Lithuanian dialects on the basis of the IPA (1925 edition), they differ greatly from current IPA symbols. Latvian dialectologists use their own transcription system (see AV 2016: 14–15; BA Pr 2009: 50–57; BA I 2013: I 74–81). However, during joint research projects, which became particularly numerous in the early 21st century, it had to be acknowledged that this greatly limits the scope of research and makes it harder to compare data from several languages². Another factor that increased the need for a universal transcription system for dialect texts was the methodological and ideological changes in inter-dialectal relations that took place in the early 21st century³.

In response to these needs, dialectologists at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language prepared a pilot version of the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) for contemporary

¹ Cf. Antanas Baranauskas’s apt remark on the duality of written and spoken language: “A book is one thing, a mouth another: in a book, language is half dead, but in the mouth it is wholly alive” (Baranauskas 1970: 248).

² In the early 21st century, researchers of the Baltic standard languages encountered transcription problems in particular when comparing the acoustic properties of sounds (see Grigorjevs, Jaroslavienė 2014; 2015; Jaroslavienė 2014; 2015; Urbanavičienė, Indričāne 2015; 2016). Lithuanian and Latvian dialectologists discussed these issues most extensively while preparing BA Pr 2009 and BA I 2013.

³ A universal representation is particularly important when analyzing dialect data using computer programs, for example, RuG/L04, Gapmap (for more, see Nerbonne et al. 2011: 65–89 ff.; Leinonen et al. 2016: 71–83 ff.), among others. These are generally used to carry out dialectometric measurements—calculating, visualizing, and analyzing similarities or differences between dialects, usually with regard to geographical location (see Smrecany 2011: 45).

Straipsniai / Articles

239

RIMA BAKŠIENĖ

FIG. 1. Network of control dialect points (LKA 197, map no. 1)

⁴set of editorial symbols for transcribing Lithuanian dialects. Recently, this set has been presented to the scholarly community and discussed by researchers of Baltic dialects and geolinguists⁵. The next stage of this work is to adapt the carefully selected IPA symbols to each Lithuanian subdialect.

⁴ This work was one of the components of a larger study of Lithuanian dialects, in which IPA transcription was needed to analyse dialect material using computer programs based on the dialectometric method.

⁵ The IPA set prepared for the sounds of Lithuanian dialects was discussed at a meeting of the Geolinguistics Centre of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language on 2016 05 03. It was presented to the scholarly community at international academic conferences in Lithuania (Bakšienė R., Čeipienė A. “Applying the International Phonetic Alphabet (Eng. IPA) to texts in Lithuanian dialects: possibilities and problems.” International academic conference Transformations of Contemporary Baltic Languages and Dialects. Institute of the Lithuanian Language, Vilnius University, Vilnius, 2016 10 19–21) and Latvia (Bakšienė R., Čeipienė A. “Transcription of Lithuanian dialects: tradition and IPA.” International academic conference Teksts un vārds. LU Latvian Language Institute, Riga, 2017 02 22–23; Bakšienė R. “From sound to word: problems in transcribing Lithuanian dialects.” International academic conference Vārds un tā pētniecības aspekti. Liepāja University, Liepāja, 2017 11 30–12 01). Latvian dialectologists are currently preparing a similar set suitable for transcribing Latvian dialects.

240

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVI

Lietuvių patarmių transkripcija TFA simboliais: vakarų aukštaičiai šiauliškiai

...for each Lithuanian subdialect. To this end, a network of 24 points was established (based on LKA 1977), covering all Lithuanian subdialects. Efforts were made to adhere to the principles of coherence and symmetry: the selected locations lie between isoglosses crossing the areas of the main subdialects and represent different regions (see Fig. 1). On the basis of chrestomathic sources (mainly LKŤCh 2004), a set of control words illustrating most subdialect features was compiled from these points. Based on descriptions of local dialects, all the words were transcribed in traditional Copenhagen orthography and using current IPA symbols⁶ (for more details, see Bakšienė, Čepaitienė 2017). So far, only the transcription in IPA symbols of examples from the subdialect closest to Standard Lithuanian—the Western Aukštaitian Kauniškiai—has been examined in detail (see Bakšienė, Čepaitienė 2017a).

The aim of this article is to discuss the possibilities offered by the current edition of IPA symbols for another Western Aukštaitian subdialect, Šiauliškiai, whose phonetic system is also relatively close to Standard Lithuanian. The more specific objectives of the study are: to select from the control word set examples that best illustrate the phonetic and stress features of the Šiauliškiai subdialects; to transcribe the selected examples using Copenhagen transcription and IPA symbols; and to review the possibilities of IPA transcription and the problems encountered. The article aims to continue the discussion of this issue among researchers of Baltic dialects.

^2. CORRESPONDENCES BETWEEN IPA AND COPENHAGEN TRANSCRIPTION SYMBOLS

In preparing an IPA symbol set suitable for Lithuanian dialects, we drew on the current tradition of transcribing Lithuanian dialects. Once the basic principles for representing sounds had become established, the same transcription symbols came to be used in many works on dialects; recently, they have most often been written using Palemonas characters (for more details, see Aleknavičienė et al. 2005). The principles for correlating Copenhagen transcription with IPA symbols have already been discussed in scholarly publications (see Bakšienė, Čepaitienė 2017); therefore, only a consolidated correspondence table is presented here (see Table 1), along with an indication of how many and which IPA symbols for vowels and consonants were used (see Figs. 2, 3).

⁶ This transcription exercise is intended to test the “reference” picture of the dialects recorded in the chrestomathy. For now, changes in the 21st century, new phenomena, and the like are not taken into account. Once an IPA symbol set suitable for all subdialects has been established, recordings of spoken language will also be able to be transcribed.

Straipsniai / Articles

241

RIMA BAKŠIENĖ

TABLE 1. Correspondences between the TFA and Copenhagen transcription symbols for vowels

Sounds and other phonetic units TFA Copenhagen transcription

Vowels

a type [ɑ] [a] [æ] [ɐ] [ɛ] [α]

e type [ɛ] [e] [æ] [æ] [з] [ɛ] [ə] [ə]

ė type [e] [ẹ] [ė] [e] [ə] [ɛ] [ɘ] [ɛ]

i type [iː], [iˑ] [iˑ], [iˑ] [ɪ] [i] [ɪ], [ɪ] [ɪ] [ɪ] [ɪ] [ɪ] [ɪ] [ɪ]

o type [o] [o] [ɔ] [ɔ] [ɔ] [ɔ]

u type [uː], [uˑ] [uˑ], [uˑ] [ʊ] [u] [ʊ], [ʊ] [ʊ] [ʊ]

Vowel quantity and reduction

long ː ·

half-long ˑ ·

reduction ᵃ / (a), i / (i)

unstressed vowel ᵊ, ᵊ

Consonant softness and voicing

softness ʲ ˌ / ˊ / ˜

slight voicing [s], [t]... [s], [t]...

slight devoicing [g], [n]... [g], [n]...

Stress and pitch accents

primary stress ˈ ˈ

secondary stress ˌ ˌ

short-syllable stress unmarked ˌ

falling pitch accent ˆ ˊ

rising pitch accent ˇ ˜

continuing pitch accent ˇˇ ˜˜

broken pitch accent unmarked ˆ

mid pitch accent unmarked ˢ

242

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVI

Transcription of Lithuanian Dialects Using TFA Symbols: Western Aukštaitian Šiauliškiai

FIGS. 2, 3. TFA vowel and consonant symbols selected for transcribing Lithuanian dialects (based on IPA 2015)

3. TRANSCRIPTION OF WESTERN AUKŠTAITIAN ŠIAULIŠKIAI EXAMPLES USING TFA SYMBOLS

To test whether the set of TFA symbols devised is suitable for recording the features of Šiauliškiai, two fairly different locations were selected from the dialect area: Ažėnai, belonging to the southern part, and Šakyna in the north, which stands out particularly for its linguistic distinctiveness (see Fig. 4) (the dialect of the Šakyna area in the mid-20th century was also studied and described in detail by A. Jonaitė; see 1959; 1960; 1960a; 1964; 1967; 1969; 1972). All dialectologists’ works emphasize that the northern and southern parts of the subdialect differ greatly, and that there are also differences between eastern and western dialects. Šiauliškiai is perhaps the least uniform of all Lithuanian subdialects (for more on the differences between the northern and southern parts and the features of individual dialects, see Jonaitė 1960b; Grinaveckis 1974; Zinkevičius 1994: 36–40; ŠPT 2001; LKTCh 2004: 60–75; Kazlauskaitė 2002; 2003; 2005: 9–27; 2008; VAS 2007; Geržotaitė 2012; 2016: 107–131; for the situation in the early 21st century, see Kaikarytė 2010; 2015; Aliūkaitė, Bakšienė, Jaroslavienė et al. 2014: 155–157).

Iš kontrolinio visų patarmių žodžių rinkinio (plačiau žr. Bakšienė, Čepaitienė 2017) atsirinkti pavyzdžiai, aktualūs Šakynos ir Ažėnų punktams, iliustruojantys šiauliškių fonetines ir kirčiavimo ypatybes. Pagrindinės iš jų daugmaž vienodai realizuojamos abiejuose tirtuose punktuose, smulkesniosios – ryškiai skiriasi. Remiantis šnektų aprašais, jie transkribuoti tradicine fonetine transkripcija ir TFA simboliais. Toliau pateikiama išsami transkripcijos apžvalga ir užrašyti pavyzdžiai.

Straipsniai / Articles

243

RIMA BAKŠIENĖ

Fig. 4. VAS locations selected for the transcription illustrations

Stressed stem ie, uo, which determine the Šiauliškiai’s affiliation with the Aukštaitian dialects, are realized in both control locations just as in standard language (LKA 1982: map 64, 66; Zinkevičius 1994: 85; LKTr 2004: 29). To convey the positional variants of these sounds as accurately as possible using TFA symbols, the syllable intonation was taken into account. Circumflex ie, uo are realized identically in both locations, as in many dialects, with strong emphasis on the changing pitch at the beginning. In TFA they are marked [i̯e] and [u̯o]: the symbols [i], [u], denoting close sounds, are written at the beginning, with a diacritic marking a fall in tone (English falling) placed above them (for more on the transcription of intonation, see below), e.g.: ˈs'u̯ĩests – sviests ~ sviestas, d'ūona – duona ~ duona⁷. The realization of circumflex ie, uo differs somewhat in the highlighted locations: in Ažytėnai, the end of the circumflex sound is usually emphasized, whereas in Šakyna, located near the Samogitian dialect area,

⁷ Examples are presented throughout in the following order: transcribed in TFA (in upright type), narrow transcription, and the corresponding standard-language spelling.

244

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVI

Transcription of Lithuanian Dialects Using TFA Symbols: Western Aukštaitian Šiauliškiai

ploto, – pradžia (VAS 2007: 120; LKTChr 2004: 63). Ąžtenų pavyzdžiose tono kilimą (an. rising) žymintis ženklas rašytas ant antrojo dėmens (ˈjėns – šėns ~ šėnas, ˈjɔks – jūks ~ jūkas), o Šakynos – ant pirmojo (ˈjėns – šėns, jɔks – jūks). Aptariamųjų garsų pabaiga nuo priegaidės priklauso mažiau, visas atvejais čia rašyti TFA simboliai [ɛ] ir [ɔ], žymintys vidutinio atviro bal-sius. Atsižvelgiant į kintamą šių garsų artikuliaciją, galima juos transkribuoti ir su jungiamuoju lankeliu (an. linking) apačioje – ˈsʲu̯ɛsts, jɔks / ˈjɔks.

Unstressed ie, uo in the Šakyna location are transcribed using the same TFA symbols as circumflex forms (ˈjėˈnėlis – šienėlis ~ šienėlis, pɔˈdʊks – puoduks ~ puodū-kas). In the southern part, unstressed ie, uo may have two realizations: ie > æ /e, e, uo > u, o (LKA 1982: map 64, 66; Kazlauskaitė 2005: 14). In TFA symbols they are written, respectively, [æ] / [ɛ], [e], [ʊ], [o]—a diacritic indicating a lowered vowel is used to represent the somewhat more open articulation of the last three (English lowered⁸) (ˈjėˈnėlis / ˈjėˈnėˈlis – šėnė.lis / šėnɔ.lis, pɔˈdʊks / pɔˈd̪ʊks / poduks / poduks).

The distinguishing features of the Aukštaitian subdialects—nasal vowels ą, ę and diphthongs an, am, en, em—are also pronounced throughout the Šiauliškiai area as in standard language; variants may arise only through the influence of prosodic features. The sounds are transcribed with the corresponding TFA vowel and consonant symbols (see the corresponding symbols in Table 1; Figs. 2, 3), e.g.: ˈkɑːsn̪is – kā.snis ~ kã.snis, ˈkʲæːstʲ – kǣst / ˈkʲɛːstʲ – kēst ~ kėsti, ˈsɑːmʲis – sā.mis ~ sámis, ˈʃvʲɛːnts – švēn.c / ˈʃvʲɛnts – švēnc ~ švēntas, ˈpʲɛŋkʲi – penki / ˈpʲɛŋˈkʲi – pēˈŋˈki ~ penki.

At the surveyed locations, unstressed long stem vowels are shortened to different degrees. Most Šiauliškiai speakers shorten them completely, but around Šakyna pre-stress long vowels remain half-long (LKA 1982: maps 29, 36, 41, 45; LKTChr 2004: 61). In transcribing with TFA symbols, the Šakyna examples are marked with the half-long sign (English half-long) to the right of the vowel; cf.: ˈgrʲɛːʒʲms – gre.žims / ˈgrʲɛʒʲims – grežims ~ grežimas, gʲiˈvʲɛːnʲtʲ – gi.vē.nī / ˈgʲuˈvʲɛːntʲ – gi.vē.nī ~ gyventi, suˈnʲɛːlis – su.nē.lis / sʊˈnʲɛːlis – sunē.lis ~ sūnelis. When long y, ū are shortened completely, their quality also changes—they become somewhat more open and less tense, so it is recommended that they be transcribed everywhere using the TFA symbols [ɪ], [ʊ]. Only in open, only in closed endings, unstressed long vowels in both locations are shortened to short vowels. They are written using the appropriate TFA symbols for short vowels (see Table 1), e.g.: ˈʃɑka – šā.ka ~ šāka, ˈlɑːpʲɛ – lā.pe ~ lāpė, ˈpʲɛːmʲpʲɛ – pǣ.mpe ~ pēmpė, ˈdɑŋgʊ – dāngu ~ dāngų, ˈmɑːta – mā.ta ~ māto, ˈʃɑkas – šā.kas ~ šākos, ˈgrɑːʒʲes – grā.žes / ˈgrɑːʒʲos – grā.žos ~ grāžios,

⁸ Shortened u < is also considered a somewhat more open sound than inherently short u.

⁹ The Ažėnai location may also use the final-stress variant: kasˈnʲis – kasnīs ~ kɑsnīs.

Straipsniai / Articles

245

RIMA BAKŠIENĖ

'kɑrʲʊ̯es – kɑːrves / 'kɑrʲʊ̯es – kɑːrves ~ kárvės, 'ɑːkʲɪs – ɑːkis ~ akys, 'grɑːz̪s – grãžus ~ grãžūs.

In both localities, short ending vowels are often dropped or elided. When a front vowel is lost (in infinitives or other forms of verbs), softness remains in the consonant cluster (Jonaitytė 1960a; LKA 1982: map 90; LKTChr 2004: 62; Kazlauskaitė 2005: 17). In these cases, at the end of the word the softness of final consonants is consistently marked with the TFA symbol for palatalization (Eng. palatalized)—the superscript ʲ, e.g.: 'ʒʲuˈæŋʲɪ – žvã.ŋė / 'ʒʲuˈɛŋʲɪ – žvė.ŋė ~ žvėngė, kəmʲˈpʲɪtʲ – kamšìt ~ kamšyti.

In the Šiauliai area, the quality of the stressed stem vowel e varies. The southern dialects have generalized the open vowel to a greater extent (LKA 1982: 11, 12; Kazlauskaitė 2005: 15). Therefore, in the Ažytėnai examples, e is transcribed identically before both a hard and a soft consonant cluster—using the TFA open vowel [æ], e.g.: lɛnʲˈgʲælʲɪs – lãngė.lis ~ langėlis, kemʲˈpʲælʲɪs – kampė.lis ~ kampelis, mʲæˈdʲɪs – mẽ.dìs ~ medis. In the Šakyna area, the quality of e tends to be differentiated more according to the following consonant cluster: a closer vowel is more often pronounced before a soft one, and an open vowel before a hard one. In analogous examples, the TFA symbol [ɛ], denoting a somewhat closer vowel, was used (lɛnʲˈgʲɛlʲɪs – lãŋė.lis, kemʲˈpʲɛlʲɪs – kampė.lis, mʲɛˈdʲɪs – mẽ.dis.

A feature noted in all three localities and in other Šiauliai-area dialects near the Samogitian area is the weak diphthongization of vowels e and o (LKA 1982: maps 27, 35; Zinkevičius 1994: 38; LKTChr 2004: 62; VAS 2007: 116). It is proposed that such diphthongization be marked in TFA symbols by placing on the first components [ɪ̯], [ʊ̯] a diacritic denoting an extra-short vowel (Eng. extra short), e.g.: 'tʲɛu – tẽva ~ tẽvą, 'tʲɛˈvʲɛlʲɪs – tʲevė.lis ~ tėvelis, 'kʊ̯ɔjɛ – kóje ~ kója, 'ʊ̯bʊˈlʲɪs – 'ubuo.lis ~ obuolys. Here, transcription with a tie bar below is also possible: 'tʲɛu, tʲɛˈvʲɛlʲɪs, 'kʊ̯ɔjɛ, 'ʊ̯bʊˈlʲɪs. In the Ažytėnai examples, these vowels are transcribed as the closer TFA vowels [e], [o] when stressed; when unstressed, like ie and uo, they may have several variants, e.g.: 'tʲɛu – tẽva, 'tʲɛˈvʲɛlʲɪs – tevė.lis / tʲɛˈvʲɛlʲɪs – tevė.lis, 'kóje – kója, 'ʊbʊˈlʲɪs – ubulìs / 'oˈbʊlʲɪs – obolìs.

The realization of stressed short vowels differs in the selected localities: in the southern dialects they are lengthened to half-long vowels, whereas in the Šakyna area they remain short (LKA 1982: maps 1, 13, 19; Zinkevičius 1994: 37; LKTChr 2004: 62; Kazlauskaitė 2005: 10; VAS 2007: 28, 116). In TFA transcription, positionally lengthened vowels are marked by placing the primary stress mark before the syllable and the half-length mark after the vowel. The so-called middle accent may be left unmarked in these syllables, since they are inherently short and are not typically subject to an accentual opposition, e.g.: 'rɑːts – rã.ts ~ rãtas, 'rʊːts – rù.ts ~ rùdas, 'ʒʲɪb – žì.b ~ žiba, 'sʲæːk – sã.k ~ sėk, 'bʊːvɑ – bū.va ~ buvo. Vowels that have not undergone lengthening are simply written with the appropriate TFA symbols; the primary stress mark is likewise written before the syllable

246

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVI

Lietuvių patarmių transkripcija TFA simboliais: vakarų aukštaičių šiauliškiai

e.g.: ˈrɑts – rãts, ˈrɔts – rùts, ˈʒʲb – žìb, ˈsʲæk – sẽk, ˈbɔu – bùva.

When discussing the northern Šiauliai dialects, it is essential to mention a distinctive feature of their consonant system—the so-called “lisping.” This phenomenon is not described in the control locality of Šakyna itself; it is usually located somewhat farther north, around Žagarė, Skaistgirys, and Rudiškiai (Jonaitė 1960b; Zinkevičius 1994: 38; Girdenis, Pabrėža 2000 [1978]: 119; LKChr 2004: 63; VAS 2007: 120; Kaikarytė 2015 and literature cited therein). More recently, this phenomenon has been described as the realization of prebilabial s, z, c, dz and š, ž, č, dž as intermediate sounds, which were transcribed using the symbols ś, ź, ć, dź in the Copenhagen system. In earlier works (Jonaitė 1960b), these sounds were more often described as “confusion,” “mixing,” or “irregular use.” The phenomenon is most often associated with a Selonian substrate, but according to Girdenis and Pabrėža (2000 [1978]: 119), it may be a very old relic of one Lithuanian linguistic area that lacked an s: š type of opposition. Representing these intermediate sounds with TFA symbols is rather problematic. Even the TFA alphabet’s equivalents for the Lithuanian sibilants s, z, c, dz and fricatives š, ž, č, dž are not entirely exact, since it was designed on the basis of English sounds (for more, see Ambrazėvičius, Leskauskaitė 2014: 166–167; Bakšienė, Čepaitienė 2017). Drawing on data from foreign languages, Girdenis and Pabrėža define these sounds as apical-retroflex (2000 [1978]: 118); other authors describe their articulation similarly (LKChr 2004: 20). Thus, they might perhaps be represented by TFA retroflex consonant symbols with a diacritic added below to indicate apical articulation—[s̺], [z̺]. For now, this is just one of the proposed options.

Some degree of stress retraction is characteristic of the entire Šiauliai area; this is one of the features distinguishing its dialects from the Western Aukštaitian Kaunas dialects (Jonaitė 1959: 112–118; Grinaveckis 1974; LKA 1982: map 105; Zinkevičius 1994: 37; Kazlauskaitė 2005: 18–19; VAS 2007: 27; Kaikarytė 2015: 151–157). In the Šakyna locality, stress retraction is general, whereas in Ažėnai it is only more intensive in certain conditions; therefore, the selected examples are stressed differently. Moreover, in Šakyna, which lies far from the Samogitian area, secondary stress also remains on the syllables from which stress has been retracted, although it is not as prominent as in Samogitian dialects. In transcribing the examples with stress retraction in TFA symbols, both primary and secondary stress marks (where present) have been included, but for now the accentual contours of retracted stress have been left unmarked. The literature contains more data on the accentual contours of retracted stress in Samogitian, while those in the Šiauliai area have not yet been studied in detail, although it is thought that distinctions are made there too, as attested at least by data from individual dialects (for more, see Jonaitė 1959; Kazlauskaitė 2005a). Examples of three types of stress retraction, transcribed in TFA: a) stress retraction from a short ending to a short syllable (retraction occurs only in Šakyna): dɔˈrʲis – durìs / ˈdɔ̞rʲis – dùris ~ dùris, mʲeˈtʲus – metùs / ˈmʲe̞tʲus ~ metùs; b) stress retraction from a short ending to

Straipsniai / Articles

247

RIMA BAKŠIENĖ

a long syllable (stress retraction in both localities; secondary stress remains in Šakyna): ˈtʲiˑlʲs – ˈtʲiˑlʲs – ˈtʲiˑlʲu ~ tylù, ˈjɔˑdɑ – jū́odɑ / ˈjɔˑdɑ – ˈjuo̯dɑ ~ juodɑ, ˈʋeikɑs – ʋaikùs / ˈʋaikɑs – ˈʋai̯kʊs ~ vaikùs, ˈkɛlbɑ – kálbɑ / ˈkɑlbɑ – ˈkálba ~ kalbà; c) stress retraction from a long circumflex ending to a syllable of varying length (stress is retracted only in Šakyna): verˈjɪ̯kɛ – ʋār̃škė / ˈʋarˌjɪ̯kɛ – ˈʋār̃škɛ ~ varškė, zmɔ̄ˈnɔˑs – žmùnōs / zmɔ̄ˈnɔˑs – žmɔ̄ˈnɔˑs / ˈzmɔ̄ˌnɑs – ˈžmùonɑs ~ žmonės, ˈgʲɛˌrɛi – gerai. / ˈgʲɛˌrɛi – ˈgɛˌrai ~ gerai.

One of the most complex aspects of transcription using TFA symbols remains the representation of Lithuanian spoken prosodic units. Although, as in the standard language, there are only two phonological tones in all dialects, there are sound allotones that depend on the dialect’s prosodic system, the syllable-forming sounds, position in the word, and other factors. Notation using TFA symbols is also complicated by the fact that Lithuanian tones are a composite phenomenon, realized through a complex of phonetic features (duration, fundamental frequency, intensity, and quality). The relationships among these features and their importance in distinguishing tones also vary depending on the system of the particular dialect, the syllable nucleus, etc. Recently, opinion has tended toward the view that Lithuanian tones are more tonal in nature (for an overview, see Švageris 2015: 20–36; Bakšienė 2016: 46–55). So far, only two diacritics have been selected from the set of TFA symbols for marking tones: [˄], indicating a fall in pitch, and [˅], a rise in pitch. Quality features would be represented by vowel symbols, and quantity by long / half-long signs placed alongside them. It must be acknowledged that this choice does not allow even all the features of tones in the standard language to be shown: their pitch contour is not always simply falling or rising, and intensity modulations, among other things, remain entirely unrepresented.¹⁰ The possibilities for representing dialectal allotones using TFA symbols will remain a subject for future research and discussion.

Allotones of tones are also found in the Šiauliai subdialect (see Jonaitė 1959; LKA 1982: map 106; LKTCh 2004: 63; VAS 2007: 120). Across the entire area, the first components a, e of diphthongs / mixed diphthongs with a falling tone lengthen to half-long¹¹; accordingly, when transcribed using TFA symbols, they are marked with the falling-tone diacritic on the vowel

¹⁰ Cf. Professor Asta Kazlauskienė’s proposal to mark the tones of standard Lithuanian using TFA symbols simply as stress types 1 and 2, while describing the features of these types separately (paper “The International Phonetic Alphabet for Standard Lithuanian: Vowels, Stress, Tones,” at the conference Linguistika (baltistika) šiuolaikiniuose ugdymo procesuose, held at the Lithuanian University of Educational Sciences on 6–7 May 2017). Incidentally, the acute and circumflex, which are still commonly used to mark Lithuanian tones, likewise convey none of their features; they are purely conventional signs. Cf. Latvians mark the falling tone with a grave accent – melē ‘tongue’.

¹¹ A. Jonaitės (1959: 122) nuomone, jie pailgėja iki ilgųjų, tačiau autorė taip teigė tik iš klausos, jokių matavimų atlikta nebuvo. Kiti autoriai (A. Kaikarytė, R. Kazlauskaitė) šiauliškių tekstuose šioje pozicijoje žymi pusilgius dėmenis.

248

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVII

Lietuvių patarmių transkripcija TFA simboliais: vakarų aukštaičiai šiauliškiai

and placing a half-long sign to its right, e.g.: ˈpãⁿtʲɪs – pã.n̩tis ~ pán-tis, ˈtʲãːmst – tãːmst ~ témsta. However, the components i, u are retained only in the southern area, which also includes Ažytėnai; in the Šakyna locality they are stressed but remain short, and the half-long sign is not shown in their transcription; cf.: ˈtʲɪts – tī.ts / ˈtʲɪts – tìts ~ titas, ˈkùlʲtʲ – kū.lʲtʲ / ˈkùltʲ – kūlʲ ~ kulti.

The location of the prominence of the circumflex tone also distinguishes the Šiauliai area. In the Ažytėnai locality in the southern area, the prominence of the circumflex tone is usually concentrated on the second component, which lengthens to half-long. In TFA symbols, this tone is written with the rising-tone diacritic on the second component and a half-long sign beside it, e.g.: ˈvɑːka – vāka ~ vaika, ˈrɑ̃ːka – rāŋ.ka ~ ranka, ˈlʲeŋʲkʲ – lēŋ.kʲ ~ lenkia, ˈvʲɪlʲks – vīl.ks ~ vilkas, ˈkʊ̃mps – kūm.ps ~ kumpas. In the Šakyna locality, situated next to the Samogitian area, the prominence of the circumflex tone is concentrated on the first component, but the emphasis is slight and the stressed components do not lengthen. In such cases, the TFA rising-tone sign is simply written over the first component, e.g.: ˈvɑka – vāka, ˈrɑŋka – rāŋka, ˈlʲeŋʲkʲ – lēŋkʲ, ˈvʲɪlks – vīlks, ˈkʊmps – kūmps.

4. IN LIEU OF CONCLUSIONS

A review of the material from the Western Aukštaitian Šiauliai subdialect transcribed using TFA symbols leads to the conclusion that most of the subdialect’s features pose no transcription problems. From the point of view of transcription, the Šiauliai subdialect is regarded as one of the simpler dialect systems. The vowel and consonant symbols in the TFA set correspond approximately to the sounds of the subdialect in most cases; some are written with additional diacritics. A few matters remain open to discussion and should be refined through more detailed research.

In the consonant system, the notation using TFA symbols of the so-called “slurred” sounds—intermediate between s, z, c, dz and š, ž, č, dž—is problematic. There are many studies devoted to this unique feature, but the articulation of these sounds has not yet been described in detail, no experimental studies have been conducted, and the descriptions rely on auditory perception alone. It is therefore particularly difficult to select precise TFA equivalents for these consonants, since the articulatory/acoustic properties of all the other sibilants used in Lithuanian also differ considerably from those of English, on the basis of whose sounds the TFA set was developed. As studies in the 21st century show, the “slurring” feature is tending to disappear rapidly; nevertheless, the consonants under discussion retain distinctive articulation in the northern Šiauliai dialect, so their transcription using TFA symbols will most likely need further refinement in the future.

As in other subdialects and in the standard language, the most complex issue in the Šiauliai area remains the recording of prosodic units—especially variants of tones—using TFA symbols. Syllables emphasized with primary and secondary stress can be marked, but the modulations of long stressed syllables associated with different tones are not represented entirely adequately. Compared with the Kaunas dialects discussed above, the prosodic system of the Šiauliai subdialect is more complex,

Straipsniai / Articles

249

RIMA BAKŠIENĖ

because the phenomenon of stress retraction is present. This gives rise to the problem of marking the intonations of retracted stress; moreover, along the boundary with the Samogitians, there are also cases of displaced stress and long syllables emphasized by secondary stress, from which the primary stress has been retracted. At the dialect’s margins, other intonation allophones—mid, broken, and sustained—may also occur. For now, the intonational features of such syllables have not been recorded using IPA symbols; their notation remains a subject for future research and discussion.

LITERATŪRA

Aleknavičienė Ona, Grumadienė Laima, Gurskas Albertas, Skirmantas Petras, Strockis Mindaugas, Tumasonis Vladas 2005: Lituanistinis šriftas Palemonas. Vilnius: Tautinių bendrijų namai.

Aliūkaitė Daiva, Bakšienė Rima, Jaroslavienė Jurgita, Judžentytė Gintarė, Leskauskaitė Asta, Lubienė Jūratė, Meiliūnaitė Violeta, Pakalniškienė Dalia, Ragaišienė Vilija, Rinkauskienė Regina, Švambarytė-Valužienė Janina, Urbanavičienė Jolita, Vaišnienė Dava 2014: Punktų tankis geolingvistinės skirties aukštaičiai: žemaičiai požiūriu. – XXI a. pradžios lietuvių tarmės: geolingvistinis ir sociolingvistinis tyrimas, sud. Danguolė Mikulėnienė, Violeta Meiliūnaitė. Vilnius: Briedis, 129–196.

AV 2016: Avoi vēl neizsēt. Latviešu valodas dialekti 21. gadsimtā, sast. Anna Stafecka, Liene Markus-Narvila, ab. red. Anna Stafecka. Rīga: LU Latviešu valodas institūts.

BA Pr 2009: Baltu valodu atlants (Prospekts) / Baltų kalbų atlasas (Prospektas) / Atlas of the Baltic Languages (A Prospect), sud. Anna Stafecka, Danguolė Mikulėnienė. Rīga: Latvijas Universitātes Latviešu valodas institūts, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

BA I 2013: Baltų valodų atlants / Baltų kalbų atlasas / Atlas of the Baltic Languages. Lek-sika / Leksika / Lexis 1. Flora, sud. Anna Stafecka, Danguolė Mikulėnienė. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, Latvijas Universitātes Latviešu valodas institūts.

Bakšienė Rima 2016: Vakarų aukštaičių kauniškių priegaidės: Marijampolės šnekta. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

Bakšienė Rima, Čepaitienė Agnė 2017: Tarptautinės fonetinės abėcėlės taikymo lietuvių tarmių garsams galimybės. – Baltistica 52(1), 109–140.

Bakšienė Rima, Čepaitienė Agnė 2017a: Lietuvių tarmių transkripcija: tradicija ir IPA. – Linguistica Lettica 25, 203–229 (spaudina).

Baranauskas Antanas 1970: Raštai 1. Vilnius: Vaga.

Gerulis Georg 1930: Litausche Dialektstudien. Leipzig: Markert & Peters Verlag.

250

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica XXVII

Lietuvių patarimų transkripcija TFA simboliais: vakarų aukštaičių šiauliškiai

Gerullis Georg, Stang‘as Christian 1939: Lietuvių žvejų tarmė prūsųse. Kaunas: Spindulys.

Geržotaitė Laura 2012: Pietinės vakarų aukštaičių šiauliškių šnektos: geolingvistinis aspektas ir jo interpretacijos. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 67, 156–174.

Geržotaitė Laura 2016: Lietuvių tarmių klasifikacijos tyrimas geolingvistiniu aspektu. Daktaro disertacija. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

Girdenis Alekas, Pabrėža Juozas 200 [1978]: Nauji šnekėjimo stebėjimai Žagarės apylinkėse. – Alekas Girdenis. Kalbotyros darbai 2. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 117–120.

Grigorevs Juris, Jaroslavienė Jurgita 2014: Dabartinių baltų bendrinių kalbų nosinių sonantų spektrinė analizė. – Žmogus ir žodis. Didaktinė lingvistika 16(1), 35–49.

Grigorevs Juris, Jaroslavienė Jurgita 2015: Comparative study of the qualitative features of the Lithuanian and Latvian monophthongs. – Baltistica 50(1), 57–89.

Grinaveckis Vladas 1974: Apie Joniškio šnektos kirčio atitraukimą. – Eksperimentinės fonetikos ir kalbos psichologijos kolokviumo medžiaga 6, Eksperimentinė ir praktinė fonetika, ats. red. Antanas Pakerys, Vilnius: Vilniaus valstybinis pedagoginis institutas, 156–159.

IPA 2015: International Phonetic Alphabet 2015. Prieiga internete: https://www.internationalphoneticassociation.org/sites/default/files/IPA_Kiel_2015.pdf (žiūrėta 2017 12 11).

Jaroslavienė Jurgita 2014: Spectral characteristics of the Lithuanian vowels: some preliminary results of a new experimental research. – Linguistica Lettica 22, 68–84.

Jaroslavienė Jurgita 2015: Lietuvių kalbos trumpųjų ir ilgųjų balsių kiekybės ir kokybės etalonai. – Bendrinė kalba 88. Prieiga internete: www.bendrinekalba.lt/Html/88/Jaroslaviene_BK_88_straipsnis.pdf (žiūrėta 2017 12 10).

Jonaitienė Aldona 1959: Šaknis tarmės kirtis ir priegaidė. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 2, 109–130.

Jonaitienė Aldona 1960: Šaknos tarmės daiktavardžio kaityba. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 3, 91–111.

Jonaitienė Aldona 1960a: Šaknos tarmės žodžio galo vokalizmas. – Lietuvos TSR MA darbai 1(8), A serija, 151–162.

Jonaitienė Aldona 1960b: Nauji duomenys apie Skaistgirio tarmės konsonantizmą. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 3, 79–86.

Straipsniai / Articles

251

RIMA BAKŠIENĖ

Jonaitė Aldona 1964: Žemaitiškos morfologinės ypatybės Šakynos tarmėje. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 7, 165–177.

Jonaitė Aldona 1967: Latvių kalbos poveikis palatvės vakarų aukštaičių šnektų gramatinei sandarai. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 9, 171–182.

Jonaitė Aldona 1969: Palatvės vakarų aukštaičių šnektų būdvardis, skaitvardis, įvardis. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 11, 183–209.

Jonaitė Aldona 1972: Palatvės vakarų aukštaičių nednesinės fonetikos žodžiai ir jų kilmė. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 13, 31–41.

Jonikas Petras 1939: Pagamčio tarmė. Kaunas: Spindulys.

JŠT 2001: Joniškio šnektų pratimai ir tekstai, ats. red. Janina Švambarytė, sud. Nerija Bartkutė, Rasa Dumčiūtė, Lina Kazlauskaitė, Aušra Kaikarytė, Janina Švambarytė. Šiauliai: K. J. Vasiliausko įmonė.

Kaikarytė Aušra 2010: Joniškio šnektos daiktavardžio linksniavimo sistema. Daktaro disertacija. Vilnius: Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas.

Kaikarytė Aušra 2015: Skaistgirio šnektos ypatybės. – Kalbos istorijos ir dialektologijos problemos 3, 50–173.

Kazlauskaitė Rūta 2002: Pašvijo šnektos fonologinė sistema: vokalizmas ir prozodija. Daktaro disertacija. Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas.

Kazlauskaitė Rūta 2003: Fonemų /e/, /o/ ir /ie/, /uo/ atitikmenys nečiuotuose kamieno skiemenose Pašvijo šnektė. – Kalbotyra 52(1), 71–80.

Kazlauskaitė Rūta 2005: Šiaulių patarmės pietinių šnektų tekstai ir komentarai. Šiauliai: Šiaulių universiteto leidykla.

Kazlauskaitė Rūta 2005a: Atrauktinio kirčio priegaidės Pašvijo šnektėje. – Kal-bos istorijos ir dialektologijos problemos 1, 313–324.

Kazlauskaitė Rūta 2008: Jonavos šnektos fonetinės ypatybės. – Kalbos istorijos ir dialektologijos problemos 2, 600–609.

Ladefoged Peter 1990: What do we symbolize? Thoughts prompted by bilabial and labiodental fricatives. – Journal of the International Phonetic Association 20, 32–36. Prieiga internete: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025100300004254 (žiūrėta 2017 12 10).

Leinonen Therese, Çöltekin Çağrı, Nerbonne John 2016: Using Gmap. – Lingua 178, 71–83.

LKA 1977: Lietuvių kalbos atlasas 1. Le ksika, ats. red. Kazys Morkūnas. Vilnius: Mokslas.

52

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVI

Lietuvių patarmių transkripcija TFA simboliais: vakarų aukštaičiai šiauliškiai

LKA 1982: Lietuvių kalbos atlasas 2. Fonetika, ats. red. Kazys Morkūnas. Vilnius: Mokslas.

LKTChr 2004: Lietuvių kalbos tarmių chrestomatija, sud. Rima Bacevičiūtė, Audra Ivanauskienė, Asta Leskauskaitė, Edmundas Trumpa. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla.

Nerbonne John, Colen Rinke, Gooskens Charlotte, Kleiweg Peter, Leinonen Therese 2011: Gabmap – A Web Application for Dialectology. – Dialectologia. Special Issue 2, 65–89.

Pandeli, Eska, Ball, Rahilly 1997: Problems of phonetic transcription: The case of the Hiberno-English slitt. – Journal of the International Phonetic Association 27, 65–75. Prieiga internete: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0025100300005430 (žiūrėta 2017 12 10).

Salys Antanas 1992 [1946]: Lietuvių kalbos tarmės. Roma: Lietuvių katalikų mokslo akademija.

Szmrecsanyi Benedikt 2011: Corpus-based dialectometry: a methodological sketch. – Corpora 6(1), 45–76.

Skirmantas Petras, Girdenis Aleksas 2001 [1998]: Naujesni tarmių fonetinės transkripcijos rėmenys. – Aleksas Girdenis. Kalbotyros darbai 3. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 335–351.

Šageris Evaldas 2015: Lietuvių ir latvių tarmių monoftongų priegaidžių akustiniai požymiai: lyginamoji analizė. Daktaro disertacija. Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas.

Urbanavičienė Jolita, Indričienė Inesė 2015: Lietuvių ir latvių kalbų trankieji prelbalsiai: lokuso lyčių rezultatai. – Baltistica 50(2), 261–293.

Urbanavičienė Jolita, Indričienė Inesė 2016: Lietuvių ir latvių kalbų uždaromos prelbalsiai: sprogimo fazės trukmė ir FFT spektrai. – Žmogus ir žodis. Didaktinė lingvistika 18(1), 46–79.

VAS 2007: Vakary aukštaičiai šiauliškiai: mokomoji knyga, sud. Rūta Kazlauskaitė, Lionė Lapinskienė, Rima Bacevičiūtė. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

Widdowson John David Allison 2012: Some Elementary Problems of Phonetic Transcription. – Tradition Today 2, 57–69. Prieiga internete: http://centre-for-english-traditional-heritage.org/TraditionToday2/TT2_Widdowson.pdf (žiūrėta 2017 12 10).

Zinkevičius Zigmas 1994: Lietuvių kalbos dialektologija. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla.

Straipsniai / Articles

253

RIMA BAKŠIENĖ

Trancription of Lithuanian Dialects by IPA Symbols: the Western Aukštaitian Subdialect of Šiauliai

SUMMARY

This paper discusses the oportunities for the application of the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) to the sounds of Western Aukštaitian of Šiauliai. From the 20^th to the 21^st century texts of Lithuanian dialects were marked using the transcription that was adapted by Georg Gerullis in 1930. It is a distinctive transcription which differs from those applied to other languages. Nowadays, the usage of this transcription became more complicated after quantitative measurements of language variance became popular. They are usually made by computer programs which require identical data. In order to avoid transcription variation in the future, the pilot study transcribing the sounds of Western Aukštaitian of Šiauliai (from Ažytėnai and Šakyna regions) using IPA symbols was performed.

After review the illustrative material of Western Aukštaitian of Šiauliai, it can be concluded that in the IPA there are almost all characters that are suitable to mark a variety of sounds found in this subdialect. Only a few sounds need to be marked with additional diacritics. Intermediate sounds between s, z, c, dz and š, ž, č, dž are problematic in the consonant system. Appropriate IPA symbols somewhat differ from the dialectal sounds by their characteristics of articulation or function.

The marking of prosodic units in Šiauliai subdialect using the IPA symbols is most problematic. They can be marked as an accented syllable (with primary and secondary stress) and a long-syllable tone fall (= acute) / rise (= circumflex). Some allotones in the accents of Šiauliai subdialect cannot be marked using the IPA. It is the object for future research.

Įteikta 2017 m. gruodžio 6 d.

RIMA BAKŠIENĖ

Lietuvių kalbos institutas

Petro Vileišio g. 5, LT–10308 Vilnius, Lietuva

[email protected]

254

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVI