Go to originalLocalized version was produced by AI. It may contain inaccuracies.
Preparing document pages…
Page 1
ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI XLIII (2000)
Asta LESKAUSKAITĖ
Institute of the Lithuanian Language, Vilnius
THE ACCENTS OF MIXED DIPHTHONGS IN THE SEIRIJAIAI DIALECT
0. The accents of mixed diphthongs in the Southern Aukštaitian dialect and their acoustics have not been discussed and described in detail1. General descriptions of the dialect and individual subdialects usually rely on empirical observations—there are no experimental studies on this topic. Here, on the basis of instrumental analysis, the quantity and quality of mixed diphthongs in the Seirijai subdialect (Lazdijai District) and the distinguishing features of the acute and circumflex accents are discussed.
1. For the study2, diphthongs were selected in the following words: káːltas, kãːltas, káːm, kãmːpas, pakáːrtas, kãːrtas, tráːntas “an old, useless object,” krãːntas, nukẽːltas, tẽlːpa, tãːmsta, kẽmːša, plẽːntas, šʹvẽnːtas, péːrkas, perːka, píːlkas, šílːkas, prikíːmsta, kímːšta, sʹpʹinːta3, apsʹpʹinːta, sʹkíːrtas, pirːktas, užpúːltas, stulːpas, ustúːmtas, kumːpas, púːnskas “Punsk,” atkunːta, užkúːrtas, tūrːtas.
Short sentences (3–5 words) were constructed using the words listed above. They were read with declarative intonation by three male speakers of the dialect (two from the town of Seirijai and one from the village of Pošniǫ). Their average age was 60.
Using the PRAAT386 computer program for speech-signal processing, the total duration of mixed diphthongs and of their individual4 first and second components was measured; their fundamental frequency (in semitones—ht) and intensity (in decibels—dB) were determined, and the formants of the vowel components were identified. A. Girdenis’s STUDENT.PAS program was used to evaluate the resulting quantitative data. The formants were assessed, and the indices of compactness, diffuseness, bemolization, tonality, and tension were determined using the FORMANT2.PAS program. The EXCEL5.0 FOR WINDOWS program was used to draw the graphs.
1 A. Pakerys notes that Southern Aukštaitians pronounce and perceive the accents of stressed syllables based on mixed diphthongs more accurately than Western Aukštaitians and Samogitians (Pakerys 1982: 154).
2 The article draws on the methodology used to study accents in Standard Lithuanian, the Utena subdialect of Eastern Aukštaitian, Western Aukštaitian, the Raseiniai subdialect of Southern Samogitian, and Northern Samogitian dialects (Pakerys 1968; Pakerys 1974; Pakerys et al. 1974; Pakerys 1978; Pakerys 1982; Girdenis, Pupkis 1974; Kosienė 1982; Mažiulienė 1996; Atkočaitytė 1998).
3 This word is new in the dialect, but is already widely used. Only the older generation itself uses the old šėpa.
4 Since it is not easy to distinguish the components of some diphthongs, the analysis relied not only on listening but also took into account changes in the oscillogram and spectrogram; inverse listening was used to check whether traces of other sounds could be heard.
153
Page 2
2.1. The results obtained for the overall duration of mixed diphthongs (see Table 1) showed that acute-accented diphthongs are slightly longer than circumflex-accented ones—by approximately a factor of 1.1. This ratio is very similar to the duration ratio of acute-accented and sustained mixed diphthongs in the Southern Samogitian Raseiniai dialect, which is 1.2: 1 (Atkočaitytė 1998: 96). In Standard Lithuanian, a, e+R are not longer than circumflex-accented ones, whereas o, i, u+R are longer (Pakerys et al. 1974: 9). Some acute- and circumflex-accented diphthongs do not differ in duration (e.g., áˑm and ãm. The confidence intervals almost completely overlap—188÷246 ms and 197÷219 ms, respectively—and the Student's t-test value is below the critical value: 0.69<2.1.
The first components of acute-accented diphthongs are 1.9 times longer than the second components (see Tables 2–3). Thus, stressed vocalic components are considerably lengthened (cf. Būga 1961: 25; LKA 2 1982: 38–39, map 20; 83, map 68; 86–87, map 70; Zinkevičius 1983: 120; Buch 1998: 12; Skardžius 1999: 483–484). A similar duration ratio is also found in the Southern Samogitian Raseiniai dialect (Pakerys et al. 1974: 9; Atkočaitytė 1998: 96). This shows that most of the force of the acute accent falls on the first component, lengthening it. According to data from A. Pakerys and other researchers, in Standard Lithuanian the first components of acute-accented a, e+R are also longer than the second components; however, the first and second components of acute-accented i, u+R appear to be almost equal in length (Pakerys et al. 1974: 9).
The duration ratio of the first and second components of circumflex-accented diphthongs is 1.3: 1. This result contradicts the “traditional” claim made in LKA 2 that the stressed second component of mixed diphthongs is pronounced longer than the first (LKA 2 1982: 125; map 106). In the Eržvilkas dialect of the Southern Samogitian Raseiniai dialect, the second components of sustained mixed diphthongs are also almost always shorter than the first; duration tends to be concentrated in the first component (Atkočaitytė 1998: 97). In Standard Lithuanian, the first components of circumflex-accented a, e, i, u+R are shorter than the second components (Pakerys et al. 1974: 9).
Thus, for the overall duration of both acute- and circumflex-accented diphthongs, the first component has greater influence.
The overall duration of a diphthong is determined not only by its accent but also by the inherent duration of its individual vocalic and consonantal components. Mixed diphthongs whose first element is a low vowel (a, e) are longer than diphthongs with high vowels i, u (the duration ratios are, respectively, V̄uR: V̄R = 1.5: 1; V̄uR: V̄R = 1.3: 1)5.
Taip pat, kaip bendrinėje kalboje (Pakerys ir kt. 1974: 15, 17; Pakerys 1982: 51) bei pietų žemaičių raseiniškių Eržvilko šnektoje (Atkočaitytė 1998: 96), Seirijų šnektos tvirtrapradžių (ir tvirtagalių) dvibalsių ilgumui daugiausia įtakos turi sonantas n. Kiek trumpesni tvirtrapradžiai dvigarsiai, kurių antrasis sandas m. Mažiausiai dvigarsį ilgina l.
2.2. Looking at the duration of individual vowels in acute- and circumflex-accented mixed diphthongs (see Table 2), we can see that α(ī), i(ī), i(m̄),
5 Symbol meanings: Vⁿ – back vowel, Vⁱ – front vowel, R – sonorant.
154
Page 3
Table 1
Overall duration of acute- and circumflex-accented mixed diphthongs6
u(m̄.), u(r̄.) confidence intervals fall within the intervals for áˑ(l), íˑ(l), íˑ(m), úˑ(m), úˑ(r) (cf. áˑ(l) – 97÷128 ms, a(l̄) – 102÷128 ms; iˑ(l) – 93÷114 ms, i(l̄) – 77÷104 ms, etc.). Thus, in the cases mentioned, the vowels do not differ substantially in duration.
6 Meaning of symbols: x̄ – arithmetic mean, s – standard deviation, v – coefficient of variation, ÷ – 95% confidence interval, t – Student’s t-test statistic, tα – critical value of Student’s t-test statistic.
7 * – result confidence level 95%, ** – result confidence level 99.9%.
155
Page 4
The overlapping confidence intervals for á·(m) and α(m̃.), ú·(l) and u(l̃.) show that in these cases the vowels differ very little in duration.
In general, the first component of acute-accented diphthongs is 1.3 times longer than the first component of circumflex-accented mixed diphthongs.
The low vowels a and e that form the first components of acute-accented diphthongs are 1.3 times longer than the high vowels u and i in acute-accented diphthongs. The low vowels a and e and the high vowels u and i occurring as the first components of circumflex-accented diphthongs differ much less—by a factor of 1.1.
Table 2
Duration of the first components of acute- and circumflex-accented mixed diphthongs
The first components a, e of acute mixed diphthongs are 1.4 times longer than the high vowels a, e in circumflex diphthongs. The duration ratio of the first components i, u in acute and circumflex diphthongs is 1.2: 1.
Table 3
Duration of the second components of acute and circumflex mixed diphthongs
2.3 Analysis of the duration of the second components of mixed diphthongs showed that the confidence intervals for (áˑ)m, (áˑ)n, (áˑ)r, (íˑ)l, (íˑ)r, (úˑ)r fall within the intervals for (α)m̄, (α)n̄, (α)r̄, (i)l̄, (i)r̄, (u)r̄ (cf. (úˑ)r – 44÷50 ms, (u)r̄ – 45÷56 ms; (íˑ)r – 42÷56 ms, (i)r̄ – 43÷60 ms, etc.). This shows that in these cases the second components of the diphthongs do not in fact differ in duration.
157
Page 6
The second components of mixed diphthongs (i̇)m, (u̇)l are slightly longer than the second components of (i)m̄ and (u)l̄ (cf. their confidence intervals: (i̇)m – 60÷79 ms, (u̇)l – 42÷74 ms, and (i)m̄ – 62÷71 ms and (u)l̄ – 38÷70 ms).
The comparison shows that the second component of circumflex diphthongs is 1.1 times longer than the second component of acute diphthongs. Thus, accent also affects the duration of the second component (cf. also Pakerys 1982: 160).
2.5. In the linguistic literature, the notation for the duration of both components of South Aukštaitian diphthongs varies. In the Druskininkai dialect, the stressed components of both acute and circumflex diphthongs are considered half-long (e.g., ká.l'v'i ‘smith’ and ger.s ‘will drink’) (DTŽ 1988). Elsewhere (LKT 1970; Mikalauskaitė 1975: 140, 142; Markevičienė 1999), the first components of all acute diphthongs are presented as long, and the second components of circumflex diphthongs as half-long. LKA 2 states that the second components of circumflex am, an, em, en are long (LKA 2 1982: 84–85, map 69; 87–88, map 71; 125, map 125)⁸.
Comparison of the overall duration of all diphthongs with the duration of the first components of acute diphthongs yielded a ratio of 1.5: 1, while the ratio of the overall duration to that of the second components was 2.8: 1. The ratio of the overall duration to the first components of circumflex diphthongs was 1.8: 1, and the ratio of the overall duration to the second components was 2.3: 1.
Thus, the vocalic components of acute diphthongs should be regarded as long, while their circumflex sonorants should be considered half-long.
3. The experimental results⁹ show that the vocalic components a, e in both acute and circumflex diphthongs are low-toned, while i, u are high-toned (cf. á.(l) F₂=1240 Hz, α(l.) F₂=1210 Hz; í.(n) F₂=2000 Hz, i(n.) F₂=1710 Hz, etc.). This is also confirmed by the tonality index (cf. é.(r) T=115, í.(r) T=597, á.(l) T=-34, u(n.) T=-13, etc.). The vocalic components i, a+r, n of acute mixed diphthongs are pronounced at a higher pitch (cf. T=584, T=364), whereas e, u, a+l, m are lower in pitch (cf. á.(m) T=1, α(n̄.) T=-32).
The compactness index of acute a, e is more or less higher than in circumflex mixed diphthongs (cf. á.(n) C=901 and α(n̄.) C=880; é.(r) C=882 and e(r̄.) C=861, etc.). The diffuseness index of vowels i, u is higher when mixed diphthongs are stressed with an acute accent (cf. ú.(n) df=710 and u(n̄.) df=580; í.(l) df=1640 and i(l̄.) df=1130; í.(m) df=1430 and i(m̄.) df=1340, etc.).
In all cases, the first components a, e, i, u of acute mixed diphthongs are pronounced with considerably greater articulatory tension than those of circumflex diphthongs (cf. á.(l) įt=540 and α(l̄.) įt=430; í.(m) įt=630 and i(m̄.) įt=470; ú.(r) įt=690 and u(r̄.) įt=470, etc.).
8 Taip iš pradžių yra maniusi ir E. Mikalauskaitė (1975: 99, 142).
9 Since it is assumed that the qualitative differences between acute and circumflex mixed diphthongs are determined more by their first components than by their second ones (cf. Pakerys 1982: 64; Atkočaitė 1998: 98), the article limits its discussion to the qualitative differences between the vocalic components.
158
Page 7
The flatness index shows that in acute diphthongs u is somewhat flatter than when the second component of the diphthong bears a circumflex accent (cf. ú·(l) b=112 and u(l̄) b=111; ú·(m) b=112 and u(m̄) b=110, etc.). The remaining sounds should be considered non-flat (see their flatness indices).
The compactness index of acute a, e is, to a greater or lesser extent, higher than in circumflex mixed diphthongs (cf. á·(n) C=901 and α(n̄) C=880; é·(r) C=882 and e(r̄) C=861, etc.). The diffuseness index of vowels i, u is higher when mixed diphthongs bear an acute accent (cf. ú·(n) df=710 and u(n̄) df=580; í·(l) df=1640 and i(l̄) df=1130; í·(m) df=1430 and i(m̄) df=1340, etc.).
In all cases, the first components of acute mixed diphthongs a, e, i, u are pronounced with considerably more tense articulators than those of circumflex diphthongs (cf. á·(l) įt=540 and α(l̄) įt=430; í·(m) įt=630 and i(m̄) įt=470; ú·(r) įt=690 and u(r̄) įt=470, etc.).
The flatness index shows that in acute diphthongs u is somewhat flatter than when the second component of the diphthong bears a circumflex accent (cf. ú·(l) b=112 and u(l̄) b=111; ú·(m) b=112 and u(m̄) b=110, etc.). The remaining sounds should be considered non-flat (see their flatness indices).
Differences in the articulation of the diphthongs under study are also noticeable. The first components of acute mixed diphthongs a, e are considerably more open than those of circumflex diphthongs (cf. á·(l) F₁=690 Hz, α(l̄) F₁=640 Hz; á·(r) F₁=690 Hz, α(r̄) F₁=630 Hz; é·(m) F₁=730 Hz, e(m̄) F₁=600 Hz; é·(r) F₁=700 Hz, e(r̄) F₁=600 Hz, etc.; see Table 4). Thus, they are lower in height (cf. also Pakerys 1974: 148; Atkočaitytė 1998: 88).
Kaip ir bendrinėje kalboje (Pakerys 1995: 174), tvirtapradžių mišriųjų dvigarsių (išskyrus ū·l) pirmieji dėmenys i, u tariami uždarau negu tvirtagalių – plg. ú·(m) F₁=450 Hz, u(m̄) F₁=530 Hz; ú·(n) F₁=450 Hz, u(n̄) F₁=490 Hz; í·(n) F₁=390 Hz, i(n̄) F₁=500 Hz; í·(r) F₁=380 Hz, i(r̄) F₁=490 Hz ir kt.
In acute mixed diphthongs, u has a lower F₂, whereas i has a higher F₂ than in circumflex diphthongs (cf. ú·(l) F₂=780 Hz, u(l̄) F₂=890 Hz; ú·(n) F₂=840 Hz, u(n̄) F₂=1050 Hz; í·(n) F₂=2000 Hz, i(n̄) F₂=1710 Hz; í·(r) F₂=1980 Hz, i(r̄) F₂=1590 Hz, etc.). Thus, u in acute mixed diphthongs is farther back, whereas u in circumflex diphthongs is less far back. When acute mixed diphthongs are pronounced, i is considerably more fronted than when the second part of the syllable containing the diphthong is stressed.
The F₂ values of the first components a, e vary between circumflex and acute mixed diphthongs (cf. á·(m) F₂=1270 Hz, α(m̄) F₂=1160 Hz; á·(l) F₂=1400 Hz, e(l̄) F₂=1400 Hz; é·(r) F₂=1470 Hz, e(r̄) F₂=1460 Hz).
Thus, the qualitative properties of the vowel components of acute diphthongs are more pronounced, more “authentic.” By contrast, in circumflex diphthongs they are less distinct, and the vowels are susceptible to reduction. This difference in the quality of the vowel components of circumflex and acute mixed diphthongs, as in the standard language and in the Southern Žemaitian dialect of Eržvilkas (Pakerys 1974: 151; Atkočaitytė 1998: 99), is one of the important indicators of accent.
159
Page 8
Table 4
Quality of the first components of mixed diphthongs with acute and circumflex accents10
4. As examples such as káltas “guilty” and kəl.təs “guilty,” ká·rk “bark” and kəˉr.k “bark” show, in this dialect (as throughout the entire southern Aukštaitian area), acute and circumflex accents are clearly distinguished in mixed diphthongs. In describing the accents of the southwestern Dzūkian dialects, E. Mikalauskaitė (1975) ob-
Symbol meanings: V – vowel, F₁ – first-formant values (Hz), F₂ – second-formant values, F₃ – third-formant values, C₃ – compactness index, b₂ – flatness, T₃ – degree of tonality, df – diffuseness, it – tenseness. Formant measurements were made using the methodology of Piotrovskij (Piotrovskij 1960).10
160
Page 9
served them through experimental studies of monophthongs. According to her, the acute accent in this dialect is “more falling than rising in character,” while the circumflex is rising. The author considered the location of stress prominence to be the main distinctive feature of accent (Mikalauskaitė 1975: 140–143).
When a mixed diphthong bears the acute accent, its prominence is concentrated on the first component; with the circumflex, it is concentrated on the second component11 (cf. also LKA 2 1982: 125, map 106).
As can be seen from Figs. 1–3, the fundamental-tone curves of mixed diphthongs with the acute accent are generally falling or falling-rising, while those with the circumflex are rising. The fundamental-tone peaks of acute-accented diphthongs occur closer to the beginning, whereas those of circumflex-accented diphthongs occur closer to the end. Acute-accented diphthongs are generally pronounced with a higher tone. Nevertheless, there is no strict regularity: sometimes the tone of circumflex-accented diphthongs is clearly higher than that of acute-accented ones.
Fig. 1. Fundamental tone and intensity of the mixed diphthongs [íˑm] and [im̄] in the words prikˑmsta (—) and kim̄.šta (– –).
Fig. 2. Fundamental tone and intensity of the mixed diphthongs [úˑn] and [un̄] in the words pūˑnskas (– –) and akun̄.ta (—).
In Lithuanian Standard, and especially in western dialects, a characteristic of the acute is the concentration of energy at one specific point, while the circumflex involves its distribution throughout the stressed syllable (in the northern Samogitian dialects, throughout the center of the syllable) (Girdenis 1996: 71, 82).11
161
Page 10
Fig. 3. The fundamental frequency and intensity of the mixed diphthongs [ù·m] and [ùm̥] in the words ustù·mas (—) and kuṁ·pæs (- - -).
Intensity changes in a similar way: toward the end of acute-accented diphthongs it weakens, while in circumflex-accented diphthongs it strengthens to a greater or lesser extent. It is noteworthy that the intensity curves of circumflex-accented mixed diphthongs have a clearly rising–falling contour, whereas those of acute-accented diphthongs remain level for a while and then fall at the end of articulation. The intensity peaks of acute-accented diphthongs, like their fundamental-frequency peaks, are closer to the beginning, while those of circumflex-accented diphthongs are concentrated in the middle or closer to the end.
It should be noted that the relationship between fundamental frequency and intensity in acute- and circumflex-accented mixed diphthongs is by no means consistent. Often, the fundamental frequency of both types changes in much the same way—that is, it rises—and spans a narrow range. The fundamental frequency may reach its highest point at the end of the articulation of either acute- or circumflex-accented diphthongs. The intensity curves, however, differ clearly (see Figs. 4–5). Thus, for distinguishing the accents of mixed diphthongs in the Seirijai dialect, intensity is often more important than pitch. This idea has been expressed with regard to eastern dialect accents12.
Fig. 4. The fundamental frequency and intensity of the mixed diphthongs [í·n] and [iñ.] in the words sp'rįta (—) and apšpinta (- - -).
12 It is thought that fundamental frequency is not very important for distinguishing eastern dialect accents and is more susceptible to the influence of phrase intonation (Kačiūskienė, Girdenis 1997: 35).
162
Page 11
Fig. 5. The pitch and intensity of the mixed diphthongs [áˑr] and [aˑr] in the words pakáˑrtas (- -) and kaˑrtas (—).
5. The results of the experiment discussed above allow the following conclusions: a) the first components of acute-accented mixed diphthongs in the Seirijai dialect should be considered long, while the second components of circumflex-accented diphthongs are half-long; b) in overall duration, acute-accented diphthongs are only slightly longer than circumflex-accented ones; c) the type of accent (circumflex or acute) determines the quality of the vowel component of a mixed diphthong, which in turn helps distinguish the accents; d) intensity is more important for distinguishing the accents of acute- and circumflex-accented mixed diphthongs in the Seirijai dialect; fundamental frequency often changes in much the same way. e) the quantity and quality of the components should be considered the most important distinguishing features of the accents.
LITERATŪRA
Atkočaitytė D. 1998: Dvibalsių ir mišriųjų dvigarsių priegaidės Eržvilko šnektoje: kiekybė ir spektrai. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 40, 88–101.
Buch T. 1998: Opuscula Lithuanica, Warszawa.
Būga K. 1961: Rinktiniai raštai 3. Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla.
Girdenis A. 1996: Energetinė šiaurės žemaičių tarmės priegaidžių fonetinės prigimties interpretacija. – Baltistica 31(1), 71–84.
Girdenis A., Pupkis A. 1974: Pieninių vakarų aukštaičių priegaidės. – Eksperimentinė ir praktinė fonetika 6, Vilnius, 107–125.
Girdenis A., Kačiuškienė G. 1997: Rytų aukštaičių ir šiaurės žemaičių priegaidės: bendrybės ir skirtumai. – Kalbotyra 46 (1), 31–36.
Kosienė O. 1982: Rytų aukštaičių uteniškių monoftongų priegaidės. – Kalbotyra 33(1), 61–71.
LKA 2 1982: Lietuvių kalbos atlasas. Fonetika, Vilnius: Mokslas.
LKT 1970: Lietuvių kalbos tarmės: Chrestomatija, Vilnius: Mintis.
Markevičienė Ž. 1999: Aukštaičių tar mių tekstai. I dalis, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla.
Mažiulienė I. 1996: Centrinės šiaurės žemaičių tarmės prozodija. – Kalbotyra 45(1), 30–115.
Mikalauskaitė E. 1975: Lietuvių kalbos fonetikos darbai, Vilnius: Mokslas.
Naktinienė G., Paulauskienė A., Vitkauskas V. 1988: Druskininkų tarmės žodynas, Vilnius: Mokslas.
Pakerys A. 1968: Lietuvių literatūrinės kalbos sudėtinių dvibalsių au, ai, ei akustiniai požymiai. – Eksperimentinės fonetikos ir kalbos psichologijos kolokviumo medžiaga 3, 7–118.
163
Page 12
Pakerys A. 1974: Tvirtapradžių ir tvirtagalių dvigarsių spektras.– Eksperimentinė ir praktinė fonetika 6, 142–155.
Pakerys A. 1978: Artificial Modification of Prosodic Features of Lithuanian Accents. – Estonian paper in phonetics.
Pakerys A. 1982: Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos prozodija, Vilnius: Mokslas.
Pakerys A. 1995: Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos fonetika, Vilnius: Žara.
Pakerys ir kt. 1974: Pakerys A., Plakunova T., Urbelienė J. Lietuvių kalbos mišriųjų dvigarsių santykinė trukmė.– Eksperimentinė ir praktinė fonetika 6, 3–47.
Pakerys A. ir kt., 1978: The Pitch of Lithuanian Diphthongs. – Estonian paper in phonetics, Tallinn.
Piotrovskij 1960: Пиотровский Р. Г. Еще раз о дифференциальных признаках фонемы. – Вопросы языкознания 6, 24–38.
Skardžius Pr. 1999: Rinktiniai raštai 5, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.
Zinkevičius Z. 1966: Lietuvių dialektologija, Vilnius: Mintis.
Zinkevičius Z. 1983: Dėl lietuvių kalbos kirčio ir priegaidžių raidos. – Baltistica 19(2), 120–122.
Zinkevičius Z. 1994: Lietuvių kalbos dialektologija, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla.
PITCH IN DIPHTHONGOID SEQUENCES IN THE SEIRIJAI DIALECT
Summary
The paper offers an analysis of the mutual relationship between acoustic features and pitch in diphthongoid sequences in the dialect of Seirijai. Experimental investigations show that the principal differentiating features of pitch in such sequences are the quantity and quality of their components. The overall length of diphthongoid sequences with acute pitch slightly exceeds that of sequences with circumflex pitch, the ratio being 1.1 to 1. The first component in a sequence with acute pitch should be considered long, the second component in a sequence with circumflex pitch half-long. Among the remaining prosodic features, viz. fundamental tone and intensity, the latter is more important as a means of differentiating pitch. The timbre quality of the first component in a sequence with acute pitch is more clearly pronounced and closer to that of vowels proper, whereas in circumflexed sequences the first component is subject to various degrees of reduction.
Asta LESKAUSKAITĖ Lietuvių kalbos institutas Antakalnio g. 6 LT-2055, Vilnius, Lietuva El. paštas [email protected]
