Go to originalLocalized version was produced by AI. It may contain inaccuracies.
Preparing document pages…
2 short passages of this localized version are shown in the original language because they could not be localized reliably.
Page 1
RIMA BAKŠIENĖ
Institute of the Lithuanian Language
Research areas: experimental phonetics, phonology, dialectology, geolinguistics
SYLLABLE ACCENTS OF DIPHTHONGS IN THE MARIJAMPOLĖ SUB-DIALECT: QUALITATIVE FEATURES
Syllable Accents of Diphthongs in the Marijampolė Sub-dialect: Qualitative Features
ANNOTATION
The article analyzes, using instrumental methods, the qualitative features of the syllable accents of diphthongs in the Marijampolė sub-dialect of the Western Highlanders of Kaunas: spectra, tonality, compactness, diffuseness, and flatness. The study showed that syllable accent has a very strong influence on the quality of the sub-dialect’s diphthongs, especially their first components.
The most universal feature associated with syllable accent is tonality. Low-toned components [a], [u], when stressed by the effect of the corresponding syllable accent, are pronounced lower, while high-toned [e], [i] are pronounced higher. The second most important feature is compactness/diffuseness. Compact components [a], [e], when stressed by syllable accent, are in most cases more compact than unstressed ones, while diffuse components [u], [i] are more diffuse. The feature of tenseness, as an indicator of syllable accent, is important only for the high vowels [u], [i], and for [e], which in the sub-dialect is articulated with a rather high tongue position. The feature of flatness is important only for the first components of the acute diphthongs [áu] and [éu]: they are less flat than the corresponding components of circumflex diphthongs, which undergo strong lip rounding.
ANNOTATION
Based on instrumental methods, the article analyses the qualitative features of syllable accents of diphthongs in the Marijampolė sub-dialect of the Western Aukštaitian dialect of Kaunas: spectrum, tonality, compactness, diffuseness and flatness. The study revealed that the
Marijampolės šnektos dvibalsių priegaidės: kokybiniai požymiai
syllable accent has a great influence on the quality of diphthongs, in particular their first component, in the sub-dialect.
Tonality is the most universal feature related to syllable accent. Low-pitched components [a], [u], highlighted by the pressure of a relevant syllable accent, become lower, whereas high-pitched components [e], [i] become higher. The feature of compactness / diffuseness is the second most important feature. Compact components [a], [e], highlighted by the syllable accent, are in most cases more compact than the components not highlighted by the syllable accent, whereas diffuse components [u], [i] become more diffuse. The feature of tenseness as an indicator of syllable accent is only important for high-rise vowels [u], [i] and vowel [e], which features a rather high position of the tongue in the sub-dialect. The feature of flatness is only important for the initial components of acute diphthongs [áu] and [éu]: they are less flat compared to relevant components of circumflex diphthongs undergoing a strong lip rounding.
INTRODUCTION
1. The Marijampolė sub-dialect belongs to the southern part of the Western Aukštaitian Kaunas sub-dialect. In this area, the length of unstressed vowels in word endings is better preserved, only [a]-type vowels are used at the beginning of words, and the narrow vowel [e] has a much wider distribution than in the northern part of the Kaunas sub-dialect. Among the prosodic features, it is worth noting that the components [i], [u] of acute diphthongs are lengthened, and there is no systematic sustained accent: when circumflex diphthongs or diphthongs are pronounced, vocal effort is concentrated on the second component (for more on the features of the sub-dialect, see Zinkevičius 1966: 118; LKA 1982: 29, 49, 56, map 11, 32, 38; Zinkevičius 1994: 29–31; Girdenis, Zinkevičius 2000 [1966]: 50; LKTCh 2004: 39–44; VAKKA 2005: 93–95, etc.).
The aim of this article is to discuss the results of a comprehensive qualitative study of the syllable accents of diphthongs in the Marijampolė sub-dialect. The following objectives were set: 1) to determine which qualitative features have the greatest influence on differentiating the syllable accents of diphthongs in the Marijampolė sub-dialect; 2) to compare the results obtained with studies of other Western Aukštaitian Kaunas sub-dialects; and 3) to establish whether the qualitative features of the syllable accents of diphthongs in the Marijampolė sub-dialect differ from those in other Western Aukštaitian Kaunas sub-dialects.12
The research material was recorded in Svetlica village, Marijampolė District, located approximately 10 km southwest of Marijampolė. Six speakers participated in the study
1 The qualitative features of the syllable accents of diphthongs, or polyphthongs [ie], [uo], were analysed together with vowels (see Bakšienė 2012: 300–305). The article also does not discuss the diphthong [ui], which has a completely different phonemic structure, or diphthongs of foreign origin.
2 The author has prepared and submitted for publication two other articles on the syllable accents of diphthongs in the Marijampolė sub-dialect: one on quantitative features, for the journal Žmogus ir žodis, and one on tone and intensity features, for the journal Lituanistica. Both articles are currently in press, so those features are not analysed in this publication.
Straipsniai / Articles
155
Page 3
RIMA BAKŠIENĖ
(3 women and 3 men, who speak their native dialect well; mean age approximately 65 years). The recording method was as follows: a speaker who knew the dialect well would say the required sentence3, and the speaker would repeat it 3–5 times. The following words containing the required diphthongs were recorded in short sentences: he aims that rifle: the oven heated up badly; the woman started cursing: she started criticizing that doctor; when he started shooting behind: when he started shouting behind; that sack is completely leaky: that road is very narrow. The PRAAT computer program calculated the mean values, in hertz (Hz), of the three formants (F1, F2, F3) in the middle portion of the first and second components of the diphthongs under study4. They were then assessed using the sound quality analysis program FORMANT2.exe, which calculates the indices of tonality (T), diffuseness (Df), compactness (C), tenseness (Įt), and flatness (B). All illustrative graphs were plotted using EXCEL 2010 (for more on the recording and instrumental analysis methodology, see Bacevičiūtė 2004: 18–22).
2. The accents of Lithuanian diphthongs have been analyzed using experimental methods somewhat less than those of monophthongs. This may be because they are readily distinguished in syllables of this type both in the standard language and in all dialects. In descriptions of diphthong accents, almost all researchers give prominence to such phonetic features as the lengthening of the relevant component and its qualitative prominence. The importance of pitch and intensity features for diphthong accents is more difficult to establish, since these are affected by inherent prosodic characteristics or the nature of phrase intonation (for more, see Laigonaitė 1958; LKG 1965: 60 et seq.; Pakerys 1968; Pakerys, Plakunova, Urbelienė 1972; Laigonaitė 1978: 14 et seq.; Pakerys 1982: 189 et seq.; Anusienė 1984; Pakerys 2003: 219–221; Vaitkevičiūtė 1995: 50 et seq.).
There are almost no experimental studies that analyze in detail the quality of diphthong components and its relationship with accents. Most often, they merely state that the qualitative features of the component bearing the accent are more prominent, without specifying what those features are or how important they are for accent differentiation. Among the most comprehensive studies in this area of the standard language5 are those conducted by Antanas Pakerys (1968; 1982: 180–182). According to his data, the most important qualitative features that depend on accent are the compactness / diffuseness and tenseness / laxness of the diphthong components. The first components [a], [e] of acute-accented diphthongs are said to be more compact and tenser than their counterparts in circumflex-accented diphthongs, whereas the second components [i], [u] of circumflex-accented diphthongs are more diffuse and tenser (Pakerys 1968: 111, 14; 1982:
3 I am grateful to my colleague Ona Aleknavičienė, who helped carry out this work.
4 For the qualitative analysis, no attempt was made to segment the diphthongs precisely into first and second components. After isolating each diphthong, its formant pattern was assessed, and the clearest segment of its first and second parts was selected directly, where the formant trajectories were the smoothest. The mean formant values for those segments were calculated.
5 It should be noted that speakers for studies of the standard language are most often selected from the southern Kaunas subdialect area of the Western Aukštaitians. Thus, the results of studies of the standard language also illustrate, in part, the characteristics of this subdialect.
156
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIX
Page 4
Marijampolės šnektos dvibalsių priegaidės: kokybiniai požymiai
181–182). Particularly important is the researcher’s conclusion that only qualitative differences in the first component matter for the perception of accents and, consequently, for the phonological opposition (Pakerys 1968: 114, 116; 1982: 189).
In recent years, the quality of diphthongs in the Šakiai and Prienai dialects, both in the Western Aukštaitian Kaunas subdialect area, has been studied in greater detail (Bacevičiūtė 2004: 104–110; Jaroslavienė 2010: 91–96). Both researchers note that the quality of the first component has a greater influence on accent. They also emphasize the greater openness and compactness of [a] in the first component of acute-accented diphthongs (Bacevičiūtė 2004: 107; Jaroslavienė 2010: 91). Next, we review analogous studies of the Marijampolė dialect.
QUALITY OF DIPHTHONGS IN THE MARIJAMPOLĖ DIALECT (FORMANT ANALYSIS)
3. The mean values of formants F1 and F26 (see Table 1) indicate that the components of acute and circumflex diphthongs are sounds of different quality. The first components of the acute diphthongs [áĩ], [áũ] are clearer and more vowel-like, resembling [a] more closely, whereas those of the circumflex diphthongs [aĩ], [aũ] are reduced, having undergone the regressive influence of the second component. The first components of both acute diphthongs have a considerably higher F1; thus, the dominant property of the component is openness, or a lower tongue position. The first components of the circumflex diphthongs [aĩ], [aũ] have a lower F1 and are more closed.
The realization of the first component depends not only on the accent but also on the quality of the second component, as shown by the F2 relationships. The F2 of the first component of the diphthong [áĩ] is lower than that of its circumflex counterpart, so it is articulated farther back. In pronouncing the circumflex [aĩ]7, the first component is fronted under the influence of the front [i]. Both components of the diphthong [áũ] are back vowels: one is low, the other high and rounded. The first component of the acute diphthong [áũ] has a higher F2 than that of the circumflex [aũ]. The vowel [u] has very low values for both of its first two formants; therefore, when the circumflex diphthong is pronounced, the F2 of the first component also becomes lower. This is associated with more retracted articulation and stronger lip rounding.
Circumflex diphthongs have a more prominent second component. The second component of the diphthong [aĩ] has a lower F1 and a higher F2, thus more closely resembling the properties of the vowel [i]—it is more closed and articulated farther forward. The second component of the diphthong [aũ] is characterized by a lower F2; F1 showed no clear relationships. This component features a backward shift of the tongue and particularly strong labialization.
6 Mean formant values were calculated for all realizations of each diphthong, with male and female voice data treated separately.
7 In a detailed transcription, circumflex diphthongs with the first component [a] should be transcribed as [aĩ] and [aũ], but additional diacritics have been omitted in the article for simplicity.
Diphthongs with the first component [e]9 also exhibit marked quality variants, associated both with accent and with the interaction between their components.
The first component of the acute diphthong [éi] has a higher F1 and is therefore more open than the corresponding component of the circumflex diphthong. F2 varies, and no clear difference was established. Both components of the diphthong are front vowels, probably explaining why the accent's influence on their front–back articulation features is relatively weak. The first component of the acute diphthong [éu] is characterized by a considerably higher F2, so its most marked difference from the corresponding component of the circumflex diphthong is its more fronted articulation. The second component of this diphthong is the back vowel [u]; consequently, in pronouncing the circumflex diphthong, the first component is also strongly retracted.
8 F3 values were also calculated, but are not presented in the table. Only the values of the first two formants, which are the most important for characterizing sounds, are given. F3 values were used in calculating the quality indices (see Table 2).
9 In the Marijampolė dialect, the first component of the diphthong [au] following a palatalized consonant is strongly fronted; it should therefore be transcribed as [eu] and discussed together with the diphthong [ei]. This pronunciation differs markedly from that of the northern Kaunas dialects, where the degree of fronting is smaller and labialization is more perceptible; for example, [ká.uras] is pronounced.
158
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIX
Page 6
Diphthong Accents in the Marijampolė Subdialect: Qualitative Features
FIGS. 1, 2. Variants of the beginning and end of the diphthong [ai] (acute accent – black)10
The second component of circumflex [ei] has a lower F1, so it is characterized primarily by greater closedness. No difference in F2 was found. The second component of the diphthong [eũ] has lower values for both formants; it is more closed and has a more back articulation.
Summarizing the preliminary formant data, it can be stated that qualitative features are very important for distinguishing diphthong accents in the Marijampolė subdialect. As in the other VAK subdialects studied (cf. Bacevičiūtė 2004: 109; Jaroslavienė 2010: 92), the first components of diphthongs display more pronounced qualitative variants and are more dependent on accent. The influence of accent is most perceptible in the openness of the first components [a] and [e]: in acute-accented diphthongs they are much more open than in circumflex-accented ones. Variation in place of articulation depends more on the influence of the second component. The second diphthong components [i], [u] change less under the influence of accent.
4. The sound features discussed above are also reflected in the scatter plots (see Figs. 1–8). When F2 values are plotted on the x axis in the third quadrant of the coordinate system11, and F1 values on the y axis, the relationships among the sounds under study can be seen. Looking at the distribution of the variants of the diphthong [ai] in the coordinate system (see Fig. 1), the qualitative differences in the first component are more pronounced. The areas occupied by the beginnings of the diphthongs under study overlap very little. The first component [a] of the acute diphthong is more open and further back, while that of the circumflex diphthong is more closed and further front. The qualitative variants of the second component differ less, and the areas they occupy overlap extensively. The second component [i] of the circumflex diphthong (see Fig. 2) tends to be further front and more closed, but the difference is small. The plots also show that the areas occupied by both the first and second components of circumflex diphthongs are more elongated horizontally, indicating greater flexibility in place of articulation. The acute accent shows less variation.
10 Graphs were plotted for the voices of each male and female speaker; however, the relationships among the sounds were found to be similar, so, for the sake of brevity, only one graph for a male voice and one for a female voice are presented.
11 One point represents the mean formant values for one speaker.
Straipsniai / Articles
159
Page 7
RIMA BAKŠIENĖ
FIGS. 3, 4. Variants of the beginning and end of the diphthong [au] (acute accent – black)12
The positional variants of the diphthong [au] arising from accent are particularly pronounced in the plots. It can be seen that the areas occupied by both the first and second components barely touch. The beginning of the acute diphthong [áu] (see Fig. 3) stands out most for its greater openness. Place of articulation differs less: the beginnings of both acute and circumflex diphthongs show considerable variation. Many points for the beginning of the circumflex diphthong cluster on the right, indicating that the component tends to have a more back articulation; however, two points lie off to the left, making the differences in place of articulation difficult to characterize.
The quality of the second components of this diphthong also differs (see Fig. 4). The greatest difference is in the horizontal movement of the tongue—that is, place of articulation. The second component [u] of circumflex [aũ] is much further back than the corresponding component of [áu]. Openness differs less; the end of the circumflex diphthong appears to tend toward greater closedness. The area occupied by the second component of the acute diphthong is more elongated vertically, indicating greater variation in openness, whereas the second component of the circumflex varies more in place of articulation.
The differences between acute and circumflex [ei] are less noticeable. The quality of the first component differs more clearly (see Fig. 5). The beginning of the acute diphthong tends to be more open; its area lies slightly lower, although some sounds are also pronounced with greater closedness. The horizontal movement of the tongue at the beginning of acute [éi] varies considerably, and the area is elongated horizontally.
The differences between the second components of this diphthong are harder to discern (see Fig. 6). The second component of the acute diphthong, which is not stressed by the accentual prominence, displays considerable variation in both place of articulation and openness. The area occupied by its variants is very large and completely covers the area of the second component of the circumflex diphthong. The end of circumflex [eĩ] is more concentrated, and its area lies higher, indicating greater closedness.
12 The graphs for the female voice in this diphthong did not show such clear relationships.
160
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIX
Page 8
The Accents of Diphthongs in the Marijampolė Subdialect: Qualitative Features
FIGS. 5, 6. Variants of the beginning and end of the diphthong [ei] (acute accent – black)
The differences between the acute and circumflex forms of the diphthong [eu] are more clearly visible. The beginning of the acute diphthong (see Fig. 7) is distinguished by more front articulation, although considerable variability in backness and openness of pronunciation is evident. The beginning of the circumflex diphthong varies more in degree of openness, while the backness feature is more stable.
The second component of the diphthong (see Fig. 8) also differs. The end of the circumflex diphthong is more concentrated and less variable, whereas the area occupied by the acute is very large, with points scattered. The second part of the circumflex is characterized by more retracted articulation and a higher tongue position.
FIGS. 7, 8. Variants of the beginning and end of the diphthong [eu] (acute accent – black)
5. The qualitative relations of the sounds under study are also reflected in graphs depicting changes in formant trajectories (see Figs. 9–12).13 First, the direction of formant change differs for each diphthong. The components of the diphthong [ai] are sounds of entirely different quality: [a] has the lowest tongue position and is back, while [i] has a high tongue position and front articulation. Its formant dynamics are therefore perhaps the most pronounced (see Fig. 9): F1 gradually falls, while F2 rises sharply.
13 In preparing the article, graphs were plotted for all speakers and all diphthongs. Those that best reflect the general trends in formant change are presented here.
Straipsniai / Articles
161
Page 9
RIMA BAKŠIENĖ
the distance between the formants is relatively small—the compact [a] is pronounced—whereas at the end the formants diverge considerably, bringing out the diffuseness of the sound [i]. Comparing the acute and circumflex diphthongs [au], it is noteworthy that at the beginning the acute formants are closer together, and their trajectories remain stable for a longer period. F2 begins to rise much later and remains considerably lower throughout. The circumflex F2 rises almost immediately along a steep trajectory. The acute F1 remains higher for almost the entire duration.
The formant dynamics of the diphthong [au] are quite different (see Fig. 10). It too consists of sounds of different quality: [a], as already mentioned, is low and back, while [u] has a fairly high tongue position, is back, and is rounded. Both formants of the diphthong gradually fall, since the formants of the vowel [u] are inherently low. The differences in accent are clearly evident. Both formants of the acute remain higher throughout, while those of the circumflex are lower. In addition, the F1 trajectory differs considerably: for the acute diphthong it runs relatively level for a time (a more open [a] is pronounced), then descends from the midpoint; for the circumflex diphthong it drops immediately, then runs relatively level from the midpoint (a more distinctly articulated [u] is pronounced).
FIGS. 9, 10. Formant dynamics of the diphthongs [ai] and [au] (acute accent – black)14
14 In graphs of this type, only the first two formants are also selected for illustration; the third is not shown.
162
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIX
Page 10
Marijampolės šnektos dvibalsių priegaidės: kokybiniai požymiai
The formant trajectories of the diphthong [ei] vary least of all (see Fig. 11), since it consists of sounds most similar in quality, differing in only one feature—the height of the tongue. The F2 of both acute and circumflex diphthongs changes very little. The F2 rise is somewhat more pronounced in the circumflex diphthong, since its more strongly emphasized second component is more fronted. However, the F2 of the acute diphthong remains considerably higher throughout its pronunciation. Conversely, F1 varies more markedly when pronouncing the acute diphthong: it gradually rises and then follows an approximately level line from about the midpoint.
The component sounds of the diphthong [eu] differ considerably: [e] is fronted and low, while [u] is back and high. Changes in the diphthong’s articulation are reflected particularly clearly in the variation of F2 (see Fig. 12): it drops sharply and continues to descend throughout, following a brief, approximately level line near the 1000 Hz threshold only at the end (which roughly corresponds to the frequency of short [u]). The formant trajectories of the circumflex and acute are very similar; only the F2 of the acute drops somewhat more sharply, because the sound [u] is emphasized more strongly. The accent affects the variation of this diphthong’s F1: at first, the F1 of both sounds rises slightly, but the direction of change soon diverges—the acute continues to rise and descends only at the end, whereas the circumflex gradually descends throughout.
FIGS. 11, 12. Formant dynamics of the diphthongs [ei] and [eu] (acute shown in black)
Straipsniai / Articles
163
Page 11
RIMA BAKŠIENĖ
STUDY OF THE QUALITATIVE INDICES OF DIPHTHONGS IN THE MARIJAMPOLĖ SUBDIALECT
6. To characterize the quality of the sounds under investigation more precisely, experimental phonetics studies commonly calculate qualitative indices (see Table 2). Comparing the indices of corresponding components in acute and circumflex diphthongs makes it possible to describe their most important qualitative features more precisely. The more strongly emphasized component of a diphthong is usually more prominent in quality, but the features brought out by the accent vary and depend on the nature of the particular vowel.
The first component of the diphthong [áɪ] has a lower tone and greater compactness than the corresponding component of the circumflex diphthong; the tension and bemol indices vary. The second component of circumflex [ãɪ] has a higher tone, is more diffuse, and is tenser than the second component of the acute; the bemol indices vary.
15 Because the formant values for male and female voices were calculated separately, the indices are also presented separately. As the calculations showed, the relationships between the indices for male and female voices often vary. In describing the relationship between diphthong quality and accent, only those indices that showed analogous relationships were used.
164
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIX
Page 12
Marijampolės šnektos dvibalsių priegaidės: kokybiniai požymiai
The first component of the diphthong [áu] is more compact and less rounded than the first component of [aũ]; the other indices vary. The second component of [aũ] has a lower tone and is tenser than the corresponding acute component; the other indices, including rounding, which could be important for the articulation of this diphthong, vary.
The first component of the diphthong [éi] has a lower tone (this is particularly confirmed by the female voice indices, while the male voice indices differ little), and is more compact and tenser than the corresponding component of the circumflex diphthong; the rounding index varies. The second component of circumflex [eĩ] has a higher tone, is more diffuse and tenser; the rounding indices do not differ.
The first component of the diphthong [éu] has a higher tone, is much more diffuse (!), tenser, and less rounded than the first component of [eũ]. The second component of [eũ] differs only in its lower tone; all the other indices, including rounding, vary.
SUMMARY
To summarize the study of diphthong quality in the Marijampolė dialect, it can be stated with certainty that pitch accent affects qualitative features. The quality of the first component is particularly associated with pitch accent.
The most universal feature associated with pitch accent is tonality. Low-toned components [a], [u], when stressed by the effect of the corresponding pitch accent, are pronounced lower, while high-toned [e], [i] are pronounced higher than their unstressed counterparts. The only exception is the first component of the diphthong [éi], which has a lower tone compared with the fronted, reduced [e]16 of the circumflex diphthong.
The second most important feature for distinguishing pitch accents is compactness/diffuseness. Compact components [a], [e], when stressed by pitch accent, are in most cases more compact than their unstressed counterparts [a], [e], while diffuse [u], [i] are more diffuse. Of particular interest in this regard is acute [éu]: its first component, although inherently compact, is considerably more diffuse than the unstressed component of the circumflex vowel. This is most likely related to the narrow vowel [e] characteristic of the Marijampolė dialect: in this position it is pronounced especially narrowly and tensely, and at the very beginning of the diphthong sounds perceptually like the vowel [i], as is also confirmed by the formant data (see Table 1 and Fig. 12).
The study showed that tenseness, as an indicator of pitch accent, is important only for high vowels [u], [i] occurring as the second components of diphthongs, and for [e], which, as noted, is produced with a fairly high tongue position in the dialect. This feature is entirely irrelevant for low [a]. Thus, it cannot be claimed that in the Marijampolė dialect acute diphthongs are composed of tense and lax components, while circumflex-
16 In a detailed transcription, [ę] should be marked.
Straipsniai / Articles
165
Page 13
RIMA BAKŠIENĖ
— from untensed and tensed sounds, as is claimed about the diphthongs of the standard language (Pakerys 1968: 118; 1982: 182).
The feature of lowered pitch is relevant only to the first components of the acute diphthongs [áu] and [éu]: they have a lower pitch than the corresponding components of circumflex diphthongs, which undergo strong lip rounding. The second components [u] are similar with respect to pitch in both acute and circumflex diphthongs.
LITERATŪRA
Anusienė Lilija 1984: Kirčiuotų akūtinių ir cirkumfleksinių dvibalsių trukmė lietuvių bendrinės kalbos frazėse. – Kalbotyra 35, 12–17.
Bacevičiūtė Rima 2004: Šakių šnektos prozodija ir vokalizmas. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla.
Bakšienė (Bacevičiūtė) Rima 2012: Marijampolės šnektos ilgųjų balsių priegaidės: kokybiniai požymiai. – Baltistica 47(2), 293–308.
Girdenis Aleksas, Zinkevičius Zigmas 2000 [1966]: Dėl lietuvių kalbos tarmių klasifikacijos. – Aleksas Girdenis. Kalbotyros darbai 1: 1962–1974. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 44–55.
Jaroslavienė Jurgita 2010: Rytinių kauniškių Prienų šnektos fonologija. Humanitarinių mokslų daktaro disertacija. Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas.
Laigonaitė Adelė 1958: Dėl lietuvių kalbos kirčio ir priegaidės supratimo. – Kalbotyra 1, 71–100.
Laigonaitė Adelė 1978: Lietuvių kalbos akcentologija. Vilnius: Mokslas.
LKA – Lietuvių kalbos atlasas 2, Fonetika. Vilnius: Mokslas, 1982.
LKG – Lietuvių kalbos gramatika 1, Fonetika ir morfologija. Vilnius: Mintis, 1965.
LKTCh – Lietuvių kalbos tarmių chrestomatija, sud. Rima Bacevičiūtė, Audra Ivanauskienė, Asta Leskauskaitė, Edmundas Trumpa. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla, 2004.
Pakerys Antanas 1968: Lietuvių literatūrinės kalbos sudėtinių dvibalsių au, ai, ei akustiniai požymiai. – Eksperimentinės fonetikos ir kalbos psichologijos kolokviumo medžiaga 3, 97–118.
Pakerys Antanas 1982: Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos prozodija. Vilnius: Mokslas.
Pakerys Antanas 2003: Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos fonetika. Vilnius: Enciklopedija.
Pakerys, Plakunova, Urbelienė 1972 – Пакерис Антанас, Плакунова Т., Урбелене Янина, Относительная длительность дифтонгов литовского языка. – Garsai, priegaidė, intonacija. Eksperimentinės fonetikos ir kalbos psichologijos kolokviumo medžiaga 5, 3–36.
Vaitkevičiūtė Valerija 1995: Bendrinės lietuvių kalbos priegaidės. Vilnius: Enciklopedija.
166
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIX
Page 14
Marijampolės šnektos dvibalsių priegaidės: kokybiniai požymiai
VAKKA – Vakarų aukštaičiai kauniškiai ir Klaipėdos krašto aukštaičiai, sud. Rima Bacevičiūtė, Danguolė Mikulėnienė, Vilija Salienė. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla, 2005.
Zinkevičius Zigmas 1966: Lietuvių dialektologija. Vilnius: Mintis.
Zinkevičius Zigmas 1994: Lietuvių kalbos dialektologija. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla.
Syllable Accents of Diphthongs in the Marijampolė Sub-dialect: Qualitative Features
S U M M A R Y
The article reveals the experimental analysis of qualitative characteristics in Marijampolė dialect diphthongs. This dialect belongs to the southern part of West Highlanders Kauniškiai. The diphthongs have not been tested experimentally before.
The study showed that the accent has a lot of influence on qualitative characteristics of dialect diphthongs. The quality of the first component especially is associated with the accent.
Tonality is most universal characteristic associated with the accent. Low tonality components [a], [u], highlighted by pressure of the accent, are pronounced lower and the high tonality components [e], [i] – are pronounced higher. Only the first component of diphthong [éi], which is lower in tone compared with a reduced circumflexical diphthong [e] is the exception.
Second in importance is the compactness/diffusive characteristic. Compact components [a], [e], highlighted by accent, in many cases, are more compact than not highlighted, and diffuse [u], [i] are even more diffuse. Only acute [éu] stands out its first component compact by its nature is more diffuse than not highlighted component of circumflexical vowel. This is related with Marijampolės dialect-typical narrow vowel [e].
Tension characteristic as accent indicator is only relevant for high vowels [u], [i], which are second components of the diphthongs, and for vowel [e], which in dialect is pronounced with quite high tongue position. Tension characteristic is quite insignificant for lower tone [a].
Labial characteristic is only important for acute diphthongs [áu] and [éu] first components: they are less labial than corresponding circumflexical diphthong components which are experiencing strong labialization. Second components [u] both in acute and circumflexical diphthongs from labial point of view are similar.
