RITA MILIŪNAITĖ

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

THE CURRENT CODIFICATION STATUS AND POSSIBLE CHANGE OF LOANWORDS WITH STRESSED DIPHTHONGS el, er, eu

KEYWORDS: stress, standard language, codification of norms, language planning.

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

While preparing a new normative Dictionary of Standard Lithuanian at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language, which will replace the Dictionary of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language (hereafter DŽ), in use for six decades but rarely updated, there is ongoing discussion about how to present variants in spelling, stress, vocabulary, and grammar norms (for more, see Liutkevičienė 2015). Although, since 2014, entries for individual letters of the Dictionary of Standard Lithuanian (hereafter BŽ), reviewed by the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language (hereafter VLKK), have begun to be published online, no final decision has yet been reached on one issue concerning the systematic codification of stress¹. Discussions about the distinctiveness of the short vowel e in loanwords and the pitch accent of stressed diphthongs el, er, eu in such words have continued for decades². The BŽ is the point of reference at which these discussions will either continue to leave the codification of loanwords with stressed el, er, eu unresolved, or finally make it possible to take a step toward a clear decision.

This article is limited to examining the state of codification of the words in question as it has developed in the early 21st century. The focus is specifically on codification, since this is an interesting and rather unusual case, involving not individual words but a substantial group of loanwords in the standard language. Moreover, the inconsistencies and twists in codification over time have created a problem that still needs to be untangled³.

Drawing on codification discussions concerning loanwords with stressed diphthongs el, er, eu that have been taking place over more than the past ten years, the article raises theoretical and practical questions about the standard language

¹ For circumstances that changed while this article was being prepared for publication, see footnote 32.

² For more on the place of the phenomenon in question within the sound system of Lithuanian and the history of its codification, see Pupkis 2016.

³ For the sake of objectivity, it should be noted that the author of this article had no involvement whatsoever in the codification decisions on the problem under examination adopted by the VLKK before 2012. As a VLKK member during the 2012–2017 term, she was not a member of the Commission’s Subcommission on Pronunciation and Stress, and participated in only two of its meetings, in 2015–2016.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Skolinių su kirčiuotais dvigarsiais el, er, eu dabartinė kodifikacijos būklė ir galima kaita | 2

Problems of Lithuanian language codification (the status of variants, the application of codification principles and criteria, codification technique, etc.) and their solutions can be applied to the language planning of other phenomena and to changes in codification. Thus, although the problem of accentuating borrowings with the diphthongs el, er, eu is by no means new, this article approaches it from a new perspective, encompassing various aspects of codification theory and practice.

Until now, discussion of this accentuation problem has focused mainly on international words—more often only common nouns (e.g., konservai, selteris, terapeutas, -ė)—or proper names borrowed from classical languages (e.g., Hermis, Dzeusas). Many other words that do not fall within the concept of international words also function in usage: these include foreign personal names of diverse origins—their adapted forms, adjusted for reading (e.g., Vernas, Zelma)—and place names (e.g., Džersis, Kelnas Kerčė), as well as recent borrowings (including those only beginning to function in Lithuanian and not yet codified); these too need to be accented in spoken language and sometimes in writing. Therefore, the article’s subject is the systematically considered group of all borrowed words containing the stressed diphthongs el, er, eu⁴.

Thus, the aim of the article is to examine the state of codification, as it had developed by the beginning of the 21st century, of borrowings with the stressed diphthongs el, er, eu and to describe possible solutions for changes to this codification. The following objectives are set:

1) to discuss the usage criterion and its reliability in codifying the phenomenon under consideration;

2) to examine the data and recommendations in VLKK accentuation guidelines from 2003–2014 concerning the accentuation of the diphthongs in question, and to reveal their essence and direction;

3) to examine the codification issues concerning borrowings with the stressed diphthongs el, er, eu on the basis of codification theory (strategic directions of codification, relations between competing variants, codification principles and criteria, and codification technique);

4) to assess possible solutions for changes in the codification of the phenomenon under consideration and their consequences.

The study primarily employed comparative and analytical-descriptive methods.

⁴ Since the diphthongs en, em in borrowings and the less common diphthong ei (cf. Džeinė, Bleiras; eirė ‘one hundredth of an Icelandic króna’; einšteinis ‘1. a radioactive, artificial chemical element, Es <...>; 2. E, a non-systematic unit of light energy <...>’, TŽŽ 2013) in borrowings do not pose codification problems, since they are codified without variants (with a falling accent); they will not be discussed further in the article.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Skolinių su kirčiuotais dvigarsiais el, er, eu dabartinė kodifikacijos būklė ir galima kaita | 3

1. THE MAIN CODIFICATION ISSUE OF LOANWORDS WITH STRESSED DIPHTHONGS EL, ER, EU

1.1. Difficulties in usage research

The Grammar of Contemporary Lithuanian (hereinafter DLKG), in its description of the system of vowels, diphthongs, and mixed diphthongs in standard Lithuanian (DLKG 2005: 21), states:

<...> in new loanwords (internationalisms), and sometimes in names, the sounds <e, ɔ> occur, cf.: m<è>tras || m/è/tras, sp<ò>ros. Because of its low frequency (it occurs only in words of foreign origin), [ɔ] should be regarded as a peripheral phoneme, while the vowel [ɛ], pronounced by only some speakers of the standard language [emphasis mine. – R. M.], is a facultative phonological element (a so-called “two-faced” phoneme).

Vytautas Vitkauskas writes similarly in the introduction to The Dictionary of Lithuanian Pronunciation (hereinafter LKTŽ), although in the dictionary itself he formally adheres to initial-stress accentuation of el, er; LKTŽ 2001: 6):

Some of our phoneticians claim that the phoneme e (pǝ̀e-tas, evɔl’uc’ije, etc.) exists. Based on many years of observation, this phoneme is not a real fact of language and is used by very few people. It does not actually distinguish word meanings or forms (the compiler of the dictionary considers it pointless to teach an entire nation yet another new sound with little distinctive function; this sound can always be replaced by the Lithuanian short e, and the Lithuanian phonetic system will not be disrupted in the least). [All emphasis mine. – R. M.].

It is important that it is acknowledged that this vowel is pronounced by only a few users of the standard language. The DLKG provides no more precise data on its distribution, and none could be found in other sources either. This is unsurprising, since it is very difficult to discuss research into the usage of loanwords with the vowel e: there are no reliable criteria for determining the quantity and quality of the short sound as pronounced, and especially, in mixed diphthongs, which accent is produced. Experimental and instrumental studies are of little help in this case, since statistically representative informants who speak the standard language and have not been specially trained to pronounce this sound cannot distinguish it by ear (Jaroslavienė 2015):

<...> the study found that informants do not conceive of the short [ɛ] (“two-faced” phoneme /e/ variant, or allophone) as a separate sound—that is, one pronounced in isolation—and tend to identify it with ordinary [e] (a variant of the phoneme /e/); therefore, [ɛ] was not pronounced in isolation, without any context, for the study [footnote 9 abridged]. It may be assumed that the distinctive usage of the mid-height vowel [ɛ] (and, in addition, its function is not distinctive), its relatively low frequency (facultative status), and the fact that in writing it is represented by the same letter as the low short [ɛ] <...>, among other reasons, hinder its establishment in the standard-language system. No other letter represents two short vowels of different quality <...>.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Skolinių su kirčiuotais dvigarsiais el, er, eu dabartinė kodifikacijos būklė ir galima kaita | 4

Indeed, the difference between Lithuanian [e] and international [e]⁵ is so slight to the ear that there is considerable reason to suspect experimenters’ subjectivity: one hears what one believes in or is accustomed to hearing, on the basis of one’s own conception of the standard of standard-language pronunciation. In other words, in order to document the use of the international [e], one must hear and recognize its distinctiveness, that is, its difference from the usual Lithuanian [e], and also be able to pronounce this sound—a feat that ordinary language users without special training cannot accomplish.

Readers of the article could conduct a small experiment themselves: listen to the model of standard pronunciation—the recording of the teaching aid Standard Lithuanian Pronunciation, published in 1968 and reissued in 2004, by Antanas Pakerys and Aldonas Pupkis (Pakerys, Pupkis 2004 [1968])—and decide what sound they hear in the words èstas, gèstas, Mèksika, Brèstas, nègras (p. 14), as well as komitètas, kilomètras, termomètras, etc. (p. 51)⁶. Incidentally, on page 14 of the booklet accompanying the texts on the same record, the international [e] is discussed:

In international words, the vowel e is always short and is pronounced similarly to the short e in Lithuanian words.

In this sentence, read by actor Juozas Jarūsevičius, the two e sounds are pronounced exactly alike—even the ears of several Lithuanian-language specialists could not detect the slightest difference, so what kind of perceptible “similarity” can one speak of? Generations of Lithuanian-language specialists, journalists, and actors have learned and continue to learn standard pronunciation from this booklet, and it would be hard to believe that anyone learned from it to pronounce an international e differently from the short e in Lithuanian words (cf. tèstų – vèstų, Mèksika – mėgzti). And they could not have learned to pronounce the diphthongs el, er, eu with a falling-rising accent, either. Nor should we forget that in language practice (the stream of speech), ordinary language users do not have a distinction between a loanword and a Lithuanian word (that is, they are not consciously aware of one).

Can surveys of language users help with usage research? If an informant is asked to identify and mark the accent of the diphthongs el, er in international words, this is generally a task that a non-specialist can scarcely accomplish, especially in such a subtle case. If the informant is asked to indicate the stress position in certain inflected forms of words with mobile stress, the results also cannot be reliable unless it is first determined whether the informant is generally prone to retract stress⁷. This was revealed by Rima’s

⁵ In the article, the short borrowed vowel e is represented as in DLKG: [e].

⁶ According to Aldonas Pupkis, one of the authors of this teaching aid, the two authors (who held differing views on the borrowed vowel e) agreed not to include pronunciation examples of international words containing the diphthongs el, er, eu in this work.

⁷ It should be borne in mind that even in those dialects that do not retract stress from the ending, stress is sometimes retracted in the inflected forms of newer loanwords. Compare isolated instances even in present-day Western Aukštaitian Kaunas speech: kaprìzus, išpànus, Lorèta, and so on.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Skolinių su kirčiuotais dvigarsiais el, er, eu dabartinė kodifikacijos būklė ir galima kaita | 5

Bakšienė’s studies⁸. If Lithuanian-language specialists were surveyed—for example, students who had taken a course in pronunciation and accentuation—it is almost certain that they would pronounce and hear what they had been taught, that is, adapt to what is wanted of them. Thus, it can be acknowledged that the treatment of the falling accent of the diphthongs el, er in loanwords is currently rather subjective, based on conviction (belief in one position or another), which is influenced considerably by authorities holding different views on the issue and, at times, perhaps also by a dialectal foundation that differs from the phonetic system of the standard language⁹.

Even if instrumental studies were conducted, the question of their reliability would remain open, if only because, owing to the complexity of data processing, such studies can involve only a very small number of informants. Selecting informants for such a study according to appropriate criteria would be an even more difficult task, especially given that, because standard Lithuanian itself is relatively young, standard pronunciation is not innate but learned by the majority of Lithuanians, who have some degree of grounding in a regional pronunciation (including even the Western Aukštaitian Kaunas subdialect).

Thus, the usage (empirical) criterion, which is important for codification in general, is not entirely reliable in this case. Nevertheless, the key question concerning usage as a criterion for codification can be answered: actual usage has not changed over half a century, and the introduced norm of short international [ɛ], together with short falling-accent diphthongs el, er, eu, has not been internalized by users and has not become a reality (in other words, a norm firmly used in at least two-thirds of cases), one that would clearly differ from the circumflex-accented variants of these diphthongs. Under these circumstances, the importance of codification increases: it becomes either a factor in maintaining and stabilizing actual norms or an obstacle to their natural development.

1.2. The discrepancy between current usage and codified variants

Remiantis minėtu DLKG (2005: 21) teiginiu, kad balsį [ɛ] taria tik dalis bendrinės kalbos vartotojų, darytina išvada, kad tų pačių žodžių kirčiuotuose skiemenyse (pvz., poetas, chemija, elfas, herbas, kempingas, centas, pleura) vieni kalbos vartotojai taria [ɛ], kiti – [e]. Tai reiškia, kad bendrinės kalbos vartosenoje (visõs bendrinės tarties mastu) balsis e skolintų žodžių kirčiuotuose skiemenyse (taip pat ir kirčiuotuose dvigarsiuose el, er, eu) turėtų turėti du tarties variantus: 1)

⁸ The research findings were summarized in a presentation: R i m a B a k š i e n ė. Accentuation of international words with the diphthongs el, er in the Western Aukštaitian Kaunas subdialect. Seminar “Accentuation tendencies among the middle-generation intelligentsia and their relationship to standard-language norms.” Vilnius University, 2016 03 30.

⁹ The pronunciation of short, stressed e in more recently borrowed words in Lithuanian dialects is not the subject of this article, so it should merely be noted that, unlike the foundational dialect of standard Lithuanian—the Western Aukštaitian Kaunas subdialect—the other dialects often do not identify this sound with the short e in Lithuanian words, and pronounce different sounds adapted to their own phonological systems.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Skolinių su kirčiuotais dvigarsiais el, er, eu dabartinė kodifikacijos būklė ir galima kaita | 6

pronounced as in Lithuanian words (cf. gudrėšnis, tėty, kėls, kėrpa, teṃpia, teṅka, žiaurų); 2) pronounced differently from in Lithuanian words.

As the history of standardizing international [ɛ] shows, the pairs of vowels [ɛ]: [ɛ] and mixed diphthongs [ɛl]: [ɛl], [ɛr]: [ɛr], as well as diphthongs [eu]: [eu], can be viewed as variation between native and borrowed elements, which gives rise to variants in the pronunciation and accentuation of loanwords. This raises the central question of codification: what is the normative status of these variants, and how do they relate to one another in the standard language? Incidentally, a decade ago the codification of international [ɛ] was still described as “the biggest problem not only in phonetics, but perhaps in the entire work of standard-language codification” (Pupkis 2005: 240).

Thus, let us look at the current state of codification for loanwords with stressed el, er, eu.

2. THE MAIN SOURCES OF CONTEMPORARY ACCENTUATION CODIFICATION AND THE STATUS OF CODIFICATION FOR LOANWORDS WITH STRESSED EL, ER, EU UP TO 2003

To understand how the codification of the accentuation of the loanwords under discussion, containing el, er, eu, changed at the beginning of the 21st century, we must bear in mind the broader context of contemporary accentuation codification and its strategy.

The stages in the codification of accentuation in contemporary Lithuanian depend primarily on the publication of prescriptive dictionaries (first and foremost DŽ). The factual state of accentuation codification at the end of the 20th century was recorded in DŽ₄. Until this edition, throughout the second half of the 20th century, there had been considerable variation overall in the codification of the accentuation of loanwords with el, er, eu, beginning with a fundamental change from TŽŽ 1951 (see Table 1). DŽ₄, together with TŽŽ 2001, was the key point of reference for the changes in codification initiated at the beginning of the 21st century¹⁰. In subsequent editions of DŽ, whose more frequent publication was driven chiefly not by content updates but by changing public needs and the transition to electronic format, no more significant changes in accentuation codification occurred up to and including the 7th edition.

VLKK accentuation recommendations entered this diverse landscape in 2003, along with the Guide to the Accentuation of Standard Lithuanian (BLKŽ 2007), prepared on their basis and reviewed by VLKK. DŽ₇ (2012) adopted those recommendations to the extent permitted by the dictionary’s virtually unchanged scope (a list of about 200 new loanwords was added at the end of this edition).

¹⁰ TŽŽ 2001, published at the beginning of the 21st century (as well as the electronic INTERLEKSIS prepared on its basis), and TŽŽ 2013 are not normative in the strict sense of codification (the norms they present are not prescriptive for users of Standard Lithuanian), but are oriented toward the standard language and rely on the main DŽ accentuation norms. Since these TTŽ include more borrowed vocabulary than DŽ covers, they may also, with certain reservations, be considered sources for the codification of the accentuation of these words.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Skolinių su kirčiuotais dvigarsiais el, er, eu dabartinė kodifikacijos būklė ir galima kaita | 7

TABLE 1. Variation in the codification of loanwords with the diphthongs el, er, eu, 1948–2001¹¹

Šaltinis belgas, -ė (belgai) herbas koncertas persas, -ė persai terminas terminis, -ė termosas 1. LKRŽ 1948 belgas, -ė (2) herbas (2) koncertas (2) pérsas, -ė (1) teṙminas (1) – teṙmosas (1) 2. TŽŽ 1951 – herbas koncertas – teṙminas terminis, -ė teṙmosas 3. DŽ₁ 1954 belgai, -as, -ė (2) herbas (1) koncertas (1) pèrsai, -as, -ė (1) teṙminas (1) – teṙmosas (1) 4. TŽŽ 1969 – herbas koncertas – teṙminas terminis, -ė teṙmosas 5. DŽ₂ 1972 belgai, -as, -ė (2) herbas (1) koncertas (1) pèrsai, -as, -ė (1) teṙminas (3ᵇ, 1) terminis, -ė (1) teṙmosas (1) 6. TŽŽ 1985 –¹² herbas koncertas – teṙminas¹³ terminis, -ė teṙmosas 7. DŽ₃ 1993 belgai, -as, -ė (2) herbas (1) koncertas (1) pèrsai, -as, -ė (1), pèršai, -as, -ė (2) teṙminas (1, 3ᵇ) terminis, -ė (1) teṙmosas (1) 8. DŽ₄ 2000 belgai, -as, -ė (2) herbas (1) koncertas (1) pèrsai, -as, -ė (1), pèršai, -as, -ė (2) teṙminas (1, 3ᵇ) terminis, -ė (1) teṙmosas (1) 9. TŽŽ 2001 belgai herbas koncertas pèrsai teṙminas terminis, -ė teṙmosas

The accentuation of proper nouns is given in the Universal Lithuanian Encyclopaedia and the five-volume dictionary World Place Names (hereafter PV), as well as in its online version (currently in two volumes) (PV). These sources essentially follow the acute accentuation of el, er, eu, with only minor exceptions (e.g., Belgija) (e.g., Albèrta, Patèrna, Pèrsija¹⁴, Kèlnas, Èura).

¹¹ In the table, accentuation patterns are indicated only where they are given in the sources.

¹² This dictionary includes the word belgà, meaning “Belgian monetary unit, 1926–46”; the nominative accent on the ending indicates that a circumflex accent on the root is accepted.

¹³ Alongside the term with a circumflex accent, this dictionary gives the proper noun of the same origin, Tè rminas, meaning “the Roman god of boundaries (of the state and fields) and of the markers that designate them”; in the previous edition, TŽŽ 1969, this appeared as the third meaning of the common noun tèrminas, which has circumflex accentuation.

¹⁴ This place name is not yet included in the online version of PV.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Skolinių su kirčiuotais dvigarsiais el, er, eu dabartinė kodifikacijos būklė ir galima kaita | 8

3. A SHIFT IN ACCENTUATION CODIFICATION –

VLKK ACCENTUATION RECOMMENDATIONS SINCE 2003

3.1. The principle behind accentuation recommendations – standardization through variants

A new stage in the codification of contemporary Lithuanian accentuation began in 2003, initially linked directly not to the publication of prescriptive dictionaries, but to the preparatory work for such publication. In preparation for the publication of the “Dictionary of Standard Lithuanian,” which is intended to be approved as the principal prescriptive source for vocabulary and its accentuation, VLKK began to review accentuation norms and issue recommendations on changes to codification. These recommendations are needed to enable a gentler, more gradual transition from the codification in DŽ₄ (which in some cases had already diverged considerably from usage trends) to a new one reflecting actual usage norms. As the introductory section of the recommendations puts it, consideration is given “to the traditions of standard Lithuanian accentuation norms and spoken-language tendencies” (Recommendation K-3 et al.).

Antanas Pakerys, then chair of the VLKK Subcommission on Pronunciation and Accentuation, wrote the following in a commentary on the work as a whole when the first recommendation was issued on 29 May 2003 (Pakerys 2003):

Sometimes we may not even suspect that spoken language has already diverged considerably from the codified accentuation norm for certain words. <...> There are several hundred words in standard Lithuanian whose accentuation norm has fluctuated and has still not become fully established. <...> Several times more words are usually discussed at meetings. <...> Only words for which agreement has been reached on clarifying the accentuation norm are included in the Language Commission’s recommendations. In addition, they are continually compared with the latest edition of the “Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian” (DŽ₄). The accentuation variants presented to the public differ in one way or another from the norm recorded in the dictionary mentioned above, cf.: audrà 4, áudra 1 (DŽ₄ has the reverse order – áudra 1, audrà 4); gañdras 2, 4 (DŽ₄ – only gañdras 2); smėlis 2 (DŽ₄ – smėlis 2 and smelýs 4), and so on.

When the fluctuating accentuation norms began to be reviewed, the issue of accentuating borrowed words containing short e in diphthongs arose immediately, first of all when it became necessary to decide how the word euras would be accented.

3.2. The precedent of accentuating euro

As Lithuania prepared to join the European Union in 2004 and the word euras came into more frequent use, VLKK’s first accentuation recommendation in 2003 was issued specifically for this word¹⁵.

¹⁵ It states: “The currency name ‘euras’ is to be accented according to accentuation paradigm 2 – eūras 2.” (Recommendation K-1).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Skolinių su kirčiuotais dvigarsiais el, er, eu dabartinė kodifikacijos būklė ir galima kaita | 9

The euro had already been included in Vytautas Vitkauskas’s Dictionary of Lithuanian Pronunciation (LKTŽ 2001) and the Dictionary of International Words (TŽŽ 2001)—in both sources it is stressed according to accentuation paradigm 1 (euras). At that time, euro was not included in the reference work on accentuation recommendations, DŽ₄ (it appeared only in DŽ₅ₑ).

In the VLKK recommendation of 29 May 2003, only one of the two theoretically possible accentuations in this case (initial-stressed and circumflex) was selected—the circumflex accentuation of the diphthong—even though this accentuation variant of euro had not previously been codified in actual usage. This decision was important for users, since stress mobility also depends on the tone accent. Had the initial-stressed accent been codified for the syllable eu in this word, èuras (the variant éuras would have had even less support in usage), the particularly frequent singular instrumental and plural accusative forms would sound to some users who do not pronounce initial-stressed èu as though they had retracted stress: eūru, eūrus.

Bonifacas Stundžia explained VLKK’s choice to stress the word èuras with a circumflex accent in the recommendation’s commentary as follows (Stundžia 2003):

The main reason for this decision was actual usage—in other words, this is how people stress it. Moreover, quite a few words naming other currencies are also stressed according to accentuation paradigm 2, for example: lìtas (cf. litù, litùs), látas (cf. latù, latùs), zlòtas (cf. zlotù, zlotùs), rùblis (cf. rubliù, rubliùs), svãras (cf. svarù, svarùs).

Thus, there were two strong codification criteria, and their selection was guided by the principle of expediency.

The first criterion was actual usage, since it was noted that the previously codified variant, “with stress on the first element of the diphthong, but pronounced short,” does not correspond to actual usage: “Since only trained speakers can pronounce it this way, it was decided not to codify this accentuation” (Stundžia 2003). The second criterion was systematicity (the accentuation tendencies of a microsystem, that is, semantically related names—words naming currencies). In this case, the codification tradition was a weak criterion of codification (that is, it did not affect the status of the new, circumflex variant), since the earlier codification of euro with an initial-stressed diphthong was rejected altogether, and a decisive break with codification practice was made. Apparently, it was considered inexpedient to sanction two accentuation variants for such a frequently used word.

Į DŽ₅ₑ (2003) ir DŽ₆ₑ (2006) dar pateko du variantai: èūras (2), èuras (1), iš jų pirmenybė teikta tvirtagaliam. Nuo DŽ₇ (2012), atsižvelgiant į VLKK rekomendaciją, paliktas tik tvirtagalis euro kirčiavimas.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Skolinių su kirčiuotais dvigarsiais el, er, eu dabartinė kodifikacijos būklė ir galima kaita | 10

3.3. Presentation of loanwords with el, er, eu in VLKK recommendations

3.3.1. First stage of the recommendations. In the same year, 2003, when disyllabic nouns of foreign origin were being considered, no firm decision had yet been made on the accentuation of loanwords with el, er, eu. Of disyllabic loan nouns, only the word nervai (and nervas) was included in recommendation K-3, “On the accentuation of certain disyllabic nouns of foreign origin” (Recommendation K-3):

nèrvai 1, nèrvai 2;

nèrvas 1, nervàs 2.

In DŽ_4e, only the initial-stressed variant was listed: nèrvai 1, nèrvas 1; it was therefore recommended that an additional—circumflex—variant be sanctioned.

Disyllabic loanwords ending in –a (e.g., delta, derma, ferma, pleura) and other, perhaps somewhat less frequently used disyllabic loanwords with the diphthongs el, er, eu. were not covered by this recommendation.

Four international words with stressed el, er were included in recommendation K-4, “On the accentuation of certain polysyllabic nouns of foreign origin” (Recommendation K-4) (see Table 2 for changes in codification).

TABLE 2. Changes in the codification of polysyllabic nouns of foreign origin containing the stressed diphthongs el, er

DŽ_4e

Recommendation K-4

fejervèrkas 1

firework 1, firework 1

liucernà 2

alfalfa 2, alfalfa 1

gubèrnija 1

governorate 1, governorate 1

tėrmosas 1

termosas 1, termosas 1

Recommendation K-4 might suggest that there was a tendency to legitimize not only the circumflex variant alongside the acute variant (gubernija), but also acute variants where earlier codification prescribed only the circumflex norm (tėrmosas16, liucernà), i.e., a codification in the opposite direction was chosen from that in the case of nervų. In other words, it might seem as though there had been an effort to make the norm variable in any case. Since it was declared that the recommendations sought to follow actual usage rather than the preferences of “trained people,” this decision does not appear to have been consistent. Moreover, viewed consistently, it would have been necessary to legitimize as well the variant corresponding to usage preferences

¹⁶ As was also evident from Table 1, DLKŽ_4e gives tėrmosas, but tèrminis, -ė—such variation can hardly be explained rationally in any way.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Skolinių su kirčiuotais dvigarsiais el, er, eu dabartinė kodifikacijos būklė ir galima kaita | 11

the circumflex-accented variant fejerverkas 2, but this was not done in this recommendation. The commentary to the recommendation says nothing about the codification of these four international words with stressed el, er.

The 2004 recommendation K-11, “On the Accentuation of Certain Suffixed Adjectives” (Recommendation K-11), includes only the adjective nervinis, -ė; its accentuation was brought into line with Recommendation K-3: nervinis, -ė 1, nervinis, -ė 1; that is, a circumflex-accented variant, which was absent from DŽ_4e, was also included.

Thus, in the first stage of VLKK accentuation recommendations, the problem of accentuating loanwords with the diphthongs el, er, eu was only touched upon, without a clear position being set out.

3.3.2. From 2008 onward—amendments to accentuation recommendations K-3, K-4, K-11, K-16.

On October 2, 2008, four VLKK protocol resolutions amended earlier VLKK recommendations on the accentuation of loanwords containing el, er, eu. Words for the amendments were selected from the 100-million-word Corpus of Contemporary Lithuanian according to frequency of use. The frequency criterion was chosen on the assumption that language users are more inclined to adapt more frequent words to the sound-system patterns of Lithuanian. However, as will become clear, recommendations based on this selection criterion are suitable for practical purposes, that is, everyday use, but not for implementing one codification strategy or another, nor for systematizing dictionary data.

Recommendation K-3, which included only nervai (nervas), became K-3.1 and was supplemented with five words (Recommendation K-3.1). Although DŽ_6e was published in 2006, the codification of the accentuation of nervų in it did not differ from that in DŽ_4e; that is, Recommendation K-3 was not taken into account at that time, and no circumflex-accented variants were added (see Table 3).

TABLE 3. Changes in the codification of two-syllable nouns of foreign origin containing the stressed diphthongs el, er

DŽ_4e, DŽ_6e

Rekomendacija K-3.1

—

èl̇fas 1, èlfas 2

hèrbas 1

hèrbas 1, hẽrbas 2

kèltas, -ė 1 kèltai 1

kèltas, -ė 1, kẽltas, -ė 2 kèltai 1, kèltai 2

—

klèrkas 1, klẽrkas 2

nèrvai 1 nèrvas 1

nèrvai 1, nẽrvai 2 nèrvas 1, nẽrvas 2

šèlfas 1

šèlfas 1, šẽlfas 2

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Skolinių su kirčiuotais dvigarsiais el, er, eu dabartinė kodifikacijos būklė ir galima kaita | 12

Thus, Recommendation K-3.1 maintains consistency: alongside the initial-stress pattern found in DŽ, variants with circumflex stress were legitimized. DŽ did not include the two words – elfas, -ė and klerkas, -ė, so their first (initial-stress) variant was apparently taken from TŽŽ. Outside this list was a word not uncommon in scholarly language, such as hercas—perhaps because of its anthroponymic origin, since proper nouns were not included in these recommendations.

Recommendation K-4 became K-4.1 and was supplemented with a comprehensive list of 34 multisyllabic loanwords containing stressed el, er, eu (Recommendation K-4.1) (see Table 4).

TABLE 4. Changes in the codification of multisyllabic nouns of foreign origin containing the stressed diphthongs el, er, eu

DŽ₄ₑ, DŽ₆ₑ

Rekomendacija K-4.1

–

sèrveris 1, sèrveris 1

–

epidèrmis 1, epidè rmis 2

ekstèrnas 1

ekstèrnas 1, ekstẽrnas 1

koncèrnas 1

koncèrnas 1, koncẽrnas 1

–

revèrsas 1, revẽrsas 2

desèrtas 1

desèrtas 1, desẽrtas 2

ekspèrtas, -è 1

ekspèrtas, -è 1, ekspẽrtas, -è 2

koncèrtas 1

concert 1, concert 2

konsèrvai 1

canned goods 1, canned goods 2

molbèrtas 1

Molbert 1, Molbert 2

rezèrvas 1

reserve 1, reserve 2

terapèutas, -è 1

terapèutas, -è 1, terapẽutas, -è 2

alèrgija 1

allergy 1, allergy 1

dispèrsija 1

dispersion 1, dispersion 1

divèrsija 1

divèrsija 1, divẽrsija 1

enèrgija 1

enèrgija 1, enẽrgija 1

hidroenèrgija 1

hidroenèrgija 1, hidroenẽrgija 1

inèrcija 1

inèrcija 1, inẽrcija 1

invèrsija 1

invèrsija 1, invẽrsija 1

komèrcija 1

komèrcija 1, komẽrcija 1

–

kontrovèrsija 1, kontroveršija 1

–

pervèrsija 1, pervẽrsija 1

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Skolinių su kirčiuotais dvigarsiais el, er, eu dabartinė kodifikacijos būklė ir galima kaita | 13

—

revèrsija 1, reveŕsija 1

—

sinèrgija 1, sineŕgija 1

tèrčija 1

tèrčija 1, teŕčija 1

vèrsija 1

vèrsija 1, veŕsija 1

—

cèlsijus 1, celsijus 1

autosèrvìsas 1

autosèrvìsas 1, autoseŕvisas 1

sèrvìsas 1

sèrvìsas 1, seŕvisas 1

hèrčogas 1

hèrčogas 1, heŕčogas 1

hipèrbòlė 1

hipèrbòlė 1, hiper̃bòlė 1

—

univèrsumas 1, univeŕsumas 1

vèrmùtas 1

vermut 1, vermut 1

Thus, alongside the acute-accented variant, a circumflex-accented one appeared everywhere. Since the accentual pattern of polysyllabic words with fixed stress is unaffected by an accent beyond the penultimate syllable, more than two-thirds of these words (24) retained fixed stress, while ten also acquired mobile stress according to accent paradigm 2. The list did not include words that may be less common in general usage but are quite frequent in scholarly and science-communication literature (and consequently in textbooks and reference works) or in certain fields: derbis, džèrsis, kelneris, kerlingas, konversija, modernas, sterlingas¹⁷, among others. Admittedly, as the minutes of the VLKK Pronunciation and Stress Subcommittee meeting of 2008 05 12 indicate, some of these words, which were found to be more frequent in the corpus, were proposed by some for inclusion in this recommendation, while others held that recommendations should not include words absent from DŽ. This decision seems odd, since the recommendations were also intended for the forthcoming BŽ, whose scope would inevitably be broader than that of DŽ; as can be seen from Tables 2 and 3, however, some words absent from DŽ did make it into the recommendations.

K-11 became Recommendation K-11.1 and was supplemented with twenty adjectives—derivatives formed with the suffixes -inis, -ė and -iškas, -a from some nouns included in, or omitted from, the earlier stress recommendations for borrowed nouns with stressed el, er (e.g., geotermija – geoterminis, -ė; ekstravertas – ekstravertiškas, -a) (Recommendation K-11.1). Circumflex-accented variants were added alongside acute-accented ones (e.g., desèrtinis, -ė 1, deser̃tinis, -ė 1; inèŕtiškas, -a 1, ineŕtiškas, -a 1, among others). It is immediately apparent that the list covers only some words of this type in active use; for example, among the nouns, Recommendation K-4.1 did not include introverto (or the spelling-variant

¹⁷ In the consolidated list of recommendations, sterlingas is included, with both stress variants given. Available online: http://vlkk.lt/aktualiausios-temos/tartis-ir-kirciavimas/sarasas (accessed 2016 04 20).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Skolinių su kirčiuotais dvigarsiais el, er, eu dabartinė kodifikacijos būklė ir galima kaita | 14

intraverto), nor does this list include the adjective introvertiškas, -a; although Recommendation K-4.1 included inversija, it does not include the adjective inversiškas, -a, and so on.

Recommendation K-16, “On the stress of certain adverbs,” adopted on 10 November 2005, No. R-12 (k-16), contained no borrowed words; Recommendation K-16.1, however, was supplemented with the sole adverb eksternu, in both stress variants: ekstèrnu, eksternù (Recommendation K-16.1).

By this time, Bonifacas Stundžia, who had taken over as head of the VLKK Pronunciation and Stress Subcommittee after Antanas Pakeris, had written a detailed commentary on the additions to these recommendations (K-3.1, K-4.1, K-11.1, K-16.1), “On the accentuation of borrowed words with stressed diphthongs el, er, eu” (Stundžia 2008), in which he justified the decision to bring the codification of foreign words “closer to actual usage and to harmonize the prosodic integration of similar diphthongs el, er and em, en; eu and ei in foreign words.”

It was noted that “the stressed diphthongs el, er and eu in foreign words (most often international words) and foreign personal names” are presented in dictionaries in four ways:

1) they are generally marked with a grave accent, indicating an acute accent, and follow accent paradigm 1 (dèlta, Kopėrnikas¹⁸);

2) occasionally, alongside acute-accented variants, alternatives with a circumflex accent are provided (pèrsas, –ė (1) || pèrsas, -ė (2); Hèrmìs (1) || Hèrmìs (2));

3) occasionally, words are given only with a circumflex accent (bẽlgas, -ė; Sèrbija (1); eūras (2));

4) occasionally, words with a circumflex accent are given alongside acute-accented alternatives (tèrmosas (1) || tė̀rmosas (1)¹⁹; Èlbingas (2) || Èlbingas (1)).

In other words, sources from the early 21st century codify all possible relationships between variants (a—with an acute accent, b—with a circumflex accent; according to the conventions of normative dictionaries (positive codification), the primary variant is on the left)²⁰:

1) a;

2) a || b;

3) b;

4) b || a.

Bonifacas Stundžia’s commentary (Stundžia 2008) also notes the following points relevant to the aspect of current codification discussed in the article:

1) “The circumflex accent is most often found in older loanwords, usually borrowed from Slavic languages”;

¹⁸ Here and below, when presenting the content of the commentary in outline form, only a few examples are given each time (there are many more in the commentary).

¹⁹ DLKŽ_4e, DLKŽ_6e termosas is accented only with the circumflex, TŽŽ (2001) only with the acute (see Table 1), while LKŽė gives both variants.

²⁰ Dėl variantų vertinimo laipsnių žr. Miliūnaitė 2003: 97–104.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Skolinių su kirčiuotais dvigarsiais el, er, eu dabartinė kodifikacijos būklė ir galima kaita | 15

2) in normative works, until the beginning of the 1950s, the diphthongs in question were generally marked with the acute accent and sometimes with the grave accent;

3) without publishing the reasons or discussing them in the press, from 1951 in TŽŽ and 1954 in DŽ₁ the grave accent began to be used almost consistently;

4) “half a century of practice has not confirmed the validity of that norm [i.e., acute-accentuation. – R. M. note] and most active users of the standard language continue to practice accentuation incompatible with codification—pronouncing koncertàs (singular instrumental koncertù, locative koncertè, plural accusative koncertùs, or with the nonstandard retracted accent koncertų, koncertė, koncertūs), that is, with the circumflex”;

5) drawing on the earlier claims of authors Aleksas Girdenis and Aldonas Pupkis, the principle of systematicity in the sound structure of Lithuanian was advanced: “[t]he grave accent in the case of the diphthongs el, er and eu conflicts not only with actual usage but also with the language system, <...> since it makes possible a contrast between two acute accents. <...> The circumflex accent is consistently codified in loanwords and foreign proper names of similar structure containing the stressed diphthongs em, en and ei.”

Thus, the second stage of supplementing the recommendations in 2008, following the direction of recognizing variants, was fairly consistent: circumflex-accent variants were recognized alongside acute-accent variants, but not all borrowed words in DŽ and TŽŽ containing the diphthongs el, er, eu were included—only those more frequent in usage. In the aforementioned commentary by Bonifacas Stundžia, it was mentioned that the Subcommission on Pronunciation and Accentuation had disagreed over two-syllable nouns ending in –a (delta, ferma, pleura) and deferred them pending a study of actual usage; proper names were likewise omitted from the recommendations, as they were reportedly still under discussion.

3.3.3. The third stage of supplementing the recommendations. In 2014, the recommendation “On the accentuation of some adverbs” was supplemented once again and became K–16.2 (Recommendation 16.2). In addition to adverbs of Lithuanian origin, it included six adverbs formed from adjectives with the international suffix –iškas containing the diphthongs el, er (listed in recommendation K–11.1): alergiškai, ekstravertiškai, hiperboliškai, inertiškai, keltiškai, kontroversiškai. As in the earlier recommendations, the circumflex variant was given alongside the acute-accent variant.

4. WHAT IS THE CURRENT STATE OF CODIFICATION?

Although dictionaries from the second half of the 20th century retained initial-stress accentuation for loanwords with the diphthongs el, er, eu until the 2003 accentuation recommendations, it is clear that this system was not maintained in them; the introduction of some final-stress or variable forms revealed inconsistencies in the codified norm, which could not be regarded as exceptions justified on any grounds (see Table 1).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Skolinių su kirčiuotais dvigarsiais el, er, eu dabartinė kodifikacijos būklė ir galima kaita | 16

Thus, it is practically impossible for language users to grasp the system and know how to accentuate these loanwords as codified without consulting a dictionary. The recommendations somewhat improved the situation, since the acceptance of final-stress variants for at least the more common words allows users to choose whichever one they find more acceptable.

The study of the recommendations revealed three things:

1) a fairly consistent introduction of variants into accentuation codification, i.e. the acceptance of final-stress variants in line with actual usage tendencies where only initial-stress variants had previously been codified;

2) general inconsistency in codification where only final-stress variants had been codified or where final-stress variants came first;

3) a method of resolving the accentuation problem of el, er, eu loanwords that, although based on word frequency, is irrational from a systemic perspective: codifying the accentuation of only some words in lists, thereby leaving many less frequently used common nouns outside the scope of codification variants, not to mention proper nouns.

Since then, two more editions of DŽ₇ have appeared: DŽ₇ (2012, print) and its online version, DŽ_7i (2015), in the “Digital Resources of the Lithuanian Language” (www.lkiis.lt) system. These editions take into account VLKK accentuation recommendations through 2012, so initial-stress variants acquired final-stress variants alongside those words included in the recommendations. Thus, the tendency towards final stress in loanwords with the stressed diphthongs el, er, eu was legitimized not only at the initial (recommendation) stage but also at the dictionary-codification stage. However, across the dictionary as a whole, the unsystematic codification of loanwords with the stressed diphthongs el, er, eu became even more pronounced: some acquired variants, while others (i.e. those not included in the recommendations) mostly retained initial-stress accentuation.

Thus, at the beginning of 2016, it can be stated that two systems intersect in the codification of the accentuation of loanwords with the diphthongs el, er, eu, and that the accentuation of these words in the standard language is unbalanced. This creates difficulties for users of the standard language, both spoken and written (when accentuating dictionaries, reference books, encyclopedias, textbooks, and so forth).

In 2014–2016, the new normative BŽ, discussed by the VLKK Dictionary Subcommittee and published online in instalments (http://bkz.lki.lt), is intended to record the actual current state of accentuation in standard, i.e. norm-governed, Lithuanian. The issue under discussion immediately emerged in the deliberations on the dictionary: what should be done with borrowed words containing stressed el, er, eu but not included in the VLKK accentuation recommendations? The initial codification had seemingly left them untouched.

With this in mind, these questions were raised again in the VLKK Pronunciation and Accentuation Subcommittee from the end of 2015. At the meeting on 21 October 2015,²¹ Bonifacas Stundžia mentioned a possible systematic change to the codification:

²¹ Minutes No. EP-62 of the 21 October 2015 meeting of the VLKK Pronunciation and Accentuation Subcommittee.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Skolinių su kirčiuotais dvigarsiais el, er, eu dabartinė kodifikacijos būklė ir galima kaita | 17

In 2008, following discussions, the subcommittee adopted a compromise decision: it was decided that alongside the more commonly used international words—that is, those more fully integrated into the Lithuanian language system—with initial stress, e.g., terapėutas, -ė 1, the variant with circumflex stress, terapėutas, -ė 2, would also be listed. (Frequency was checked using the Vytautas Magnus University 100-million-word corpus.) In view of the established tendencies, the variants could now be reversed in order, or perhaps a systematic change could be made: circumflex stress could be declared normative, while initial stress would be tolerated on the basis of tradition.

Are there sufficient arguments for taking this step in codification, establishing circumflex stress as the primary norm? Three factors are generally important for the codification of the standard language: the structural characteristics of the standard language, its functions, and language attitudes (Garvin 1993: 37–54). In preparing for a change in codification, it is advisable to answer questions directly related to these factors (for more detail, see Miliūnaitė 2007: 7–23):

1) Have there been actual changes in the relationship between competing variants over a certain period?

2) Are there grounds for changing the degree of evaluation assigned to the variants in the codification?

3) Does usage differ across three generations at the time the codification is reviewed?

4) Is the time ripe for changing the codification?

5) Can a positive user response to the change in codification be expected?

6) Has a plan been prepared for familiarizing users of the standard language with the forthcoming change in codification?

The remainder of the article attempts to answer these questions.

5. CURRENT CODIFICATION OF LOANWORDS WITH EL, ER, EU AND THE POSSIBILITY OF ITS CHANGE FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF CODIFICATION THEORY

5.1. Choosing strategic directions for codification

As the preceding sections of the article show, the short vowel e in borrowed words is not a problem concerning individual words, but rather the codification of the entire sound level of Standard Lithuanian. When codifying both the foundations of individual language levels and specific phenomena within those levels in a more systematic way, the first decisions concern the scope and projected duration of the period of codification change, the goals to be achieved during it, and the strategic directions for codification that will guide it. The most common reference points are:

▪ increasing or reducing variation,

▪ purifying the standard language or tolerating an increase in borrowed features,

▪ tightening or liberalizing the norms of the standard language.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Skolinių su kirčiuotais dvigarsiais el, er, eu dabartinė kodifikacijos būklė ir galima kaita | 18

The choice of strategic directions for codification depends primarily on the state of development of the standard language (or a particular level of it) and on the nature of language policy during the selected period in the development of the standard language.

As far as can be inferred from the commentaries to the VLKK’s stress recommendations, their most important aim is to bring lagging stress codification closer to actual usage. However, they do not address the timing of steps in codification change or the anticipated outcome at even an approximate point in the development of the standard language. This leaves the question: which strategic directions for codification should be chosen when it comes to the stress of loanwords with el, er, eu?

5.1.1. Variation. The history of standardization of Standard Lithuanian, particularly during its first decades, shows that the codification of various language levels aimed to reduce variation, first selecting from among the varying dialectal or foreign features those suited to the system of the standard language. Once this system had taken hold and the standard language began to function independently, moderate variation at all levels (with the possible exception of spelling) was maintained until the end of the 20th century, on the understanding that it was necessary for language change. At the beginning of the 21st century, as the codification of the standard language began to be reviewed systematically (for example, lexical and grammatical recommendations were published in the Kalbos patarimai series), codified norms began to become more liberal and more variable, responding more closely to changes in increasingly dynamic usage. The review of stress codification, all the more so given that the main normative dictionary was significantly delayed and lagged behind usage trends, was no exception. However, variation should be increased in moderation, since an excessively variable and unstable norm is incompatible with the very nature of the standard language. There should be enough variation to reflect tendencies in variable usage and allow the language to change, but it should not be excessive or hinder the standard language from performing its functions.

Increasing the number of codified variants for loanwords with el, er, eu (i.e., accepting variants with falling intonation) is directly related to usage trends and is a means of changing codification. Once codification has been changed—that is, once the primary norm with falling intonation has been adopted and usage has stabilized—the number of variants should naturally be reduced to one. This process, however, takes time.

5.1.2. The relationship of borrowed elements to the Lithuanian language system. Throughout the history of standardization of Standard Lithuanian, efforts have been made to observe the principle of moderate purism, rejecting a strict purist stance while admitting borrowed elements cautiously—purposefully and generally only where they are functionally justified and cannot be replaced by native elements. The pronunciation and stress of the borrowed short [ɛ] and diphthongs el, er, eu should conform to this general direction of moderate purification: borrowed elements are unnecessary in Lithuanian because they are fully matched by the Lithuanian short [ɛ] and the diphthongs el, er, eu with falling intonation. As the codification of international [ɛ] shows

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Skolinių su kirčiuotais dvigarsiais el, er, eu dabartinė kodifikacijos būklė ir galima kaita | 19

historically, this element was artificially introduced into the standard language and throughout its codification history remained not only of little functional value but also harmful to the standard language’s stress system, encouraging irregular retraction of stress.

5.1.3. The mandatory nature of standard-language norms.

As society became more liberal at the beginning of the 21st century, the policy of standardizing the Lithuanian standard language became more lenient. The approach shifted from strict requirements to recommendations, and more variants functioning in actual usage were recognized, in the expectation that conscientious language users would themselves be able to choose the most appropriate linguistic expression. The codification of the stress of loanwords with el, er, eu likewise follows this liberal direction insofar as users are given the opportunity, during the transitional period of codification, to choose among several variants.

5.2. Application of codification principles and criteria

The standard Lithuanian language and its varying usage are standardized by determining the normative value of linguistic phenomena according to universally accepted (and approved by a resolution recorded in the VLKK minutes) codification principles and criteria (cf. Girdenis, Pupkis 1996: 1–5; Principai 1997: 1–3; Pupkis 2005: 157 ff.). The main principles of standardization (i.e., general provisions) are as follows:

flexible stability (maintaining continuity in the standard-language system and creating conditions for the development of the standard language (see also Garvin 1993: 43); standardizing not abruptly, but through variants);

systematicity²² (taking account of the language’s internal laws—standardizing linguistic phenomena not in isolation, but in the context of the entire language system, its subsystems, norms, and usage);

expediency (selecting the strongest codification criteria for a particular case and, with regard to the functions of language in society, choosing the most functional means of expression according to users’ needs).

Having chosen strategic directions for codifying loanwords with the diphthongs el, er, eu and proceeding from these principles, it remains to examine how the codification criteria interact in this case and which of them determine the codification outcome. Roughly speaking, the normative value of particular linguistic phenomena consists of components of value established separately according to each criterion relevant to the phenomenon. These criteria are applied somewhat differently to different levels of language, in accordance with the specific features of each level: the criteria are ranked differently in the hierarchy (for example, the weight of the purity criterion differs across levels); more norm variants are recognized at some levels,

²² In codification, systematicity is understood both as a general principle and as a specific criterion for evaluating linguistic phenomena (Pupkis 2005: 170). At the level of criteria, systematicity often goes hand in hand with correctness.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Skolinių su kirčiuotais dvigarsiais el, er, eu dabartinė kodifikacijos būklė ir galima kaita | 20

Other norms (for example, spelling) vary only minimally, and so on. The weighting of various criteria in the codification of pronunciation and accentuation variants is likewise not entirely uniform. First, in accordance with the principle of systematicity, account should be taken of the features of the sound level of Standard Lithuanian (Pupkis 2005: 169):

The systems of phonology and morphology are especially notable for the strength and clarity of their systematic relations. They are said to be closed systems that, during the years in which a mature standard language exists, are not supplemented with new elements—that is, they neither generate elements themselves nor borrow them from other systems.

The sound system of the Western Aukštaitian Kaunas subdialect, which forms the basis of the sound system of the standard language, does not have the international e²³. In loanwords, the same short e is pronounced as in words of Lithuanian origin. This makes it possible to regard the international e, and thus also the falling-accent diphthongs el, er, eu, to be considered unsystematic in the standard language²⁴. In such a case, to legitimize an unsystematic element in the standard language, strong arguments are needed to justify its appropriateness. The criterion of systematicity also requires that these phenomena be discussed at a higher level, rather than in terms of groups of (derivational) words—on the basis of which accentuation recommendations are prepared—because these phenomena encompass all parts of speech, common and proper nouns, and do not depend on the specific structure of words. Thus, codification decisions must also be made at a higher systemic level.

The supplementary codification criteria relevant here, governed by the principle of appropriateness, are as follows:

a) distinctiveness and economy: some users of the standard language do not recognize as a separate phoneme one that functions in certain positions (in loanwords), much less is there any need in the speech stream to recognize and somehow distinguish the category of loanwords themselves; thus, in this respect, the presence of international [e] in the standard language is not purposeful—it is redundant;

b) prevalence and frequency of use: because of the lack of research and its complexity, these criteria are difficult to apply; however, the acute accentuation of the diphthongs el, er, eu did not arise naturally in usage²⁵ but was artificially introduced, so we can speak only of its taking or failing to take hold; the circumflexing of el, er, eu in more frequently used borrowings, and their alignment with Lithuanian words whose el, er are circumflex-accented, indicate a clear tendency in usage—the acute-accented variant, as one that differs from

²³ Since the system of Standard Lithuanian, including its sound inventory, was formed essentially on the basis of a single dialect (although this is quite rare in terms of the origins of standard languages; cf. Deumert 2004: 3), it is appropriate for codification to preserve the integrity of such a closed level as phonetics. (It should be noted that, as it has developed naturally, the sound system of Standard Lithuanian has also acquired some features that do not coincide with the sound system of the base dialect, but codification lags behind in this respect; cf. Miliūnaitė 2009: 44–45.) Understandably, other, less closed levels of Standard Lithuanian should all the more not be identified with the system of the base dialect: the standard language is already developing independently.

²⁴ For further aspects of the systematicity criterion, including the accentuation of analogous borrowings with the diphthongs em, en, as well as ol, or, see Pupkis 2016.

²⁵ Phenomena that arise naturally in usage usually pass through several stages of development before becoming widespread and eligible for codification (cf. Aitchison 2013), whereas the acute accentuation of borrowings with el, er, eu was codified without regard to this.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Skolinių su kirčiuotais dvigarsiais el, er, eu dabartinė kodifikacijos būklė ir galima kaita | 21

failure to understand the Lithuanian circumflex accent, and consequently its failure to take root over the long period during which Standard Lithuanian has functioned (spanning three generations of users);

c) the tradition of language planning and the authority criterion: the history of the codification of the accentuation of loanwords with the diphthongs el, er, eu shows that there are enough authoritative opinions, supported by thorough arguments, to justify changing the codification so that international words with el, er, eu have the circumflex accent; arguments from authorities holding the opposite view are more concerned with technical and practical aspects of codification and the desire to keep the codification itself as stable as possible;

d) language users’ attitudes: these have been little studied, although the opinions expressed on various occasions also suggest that attitudes vary; two groups of Standard Lithuanian users can be distinguished: norm disseminators²⁶ (teachers, language editors, media workers, actors, and so on; their opinions are shaped by the existing codification and influenced by their habits, and in this case the two do not always coincide) and ordinary language users (as noted, their attitude toward the codification of this phenomenon is fairly neutral, and the accentuation of the words under discussion is not perceived as a problem from the perspective of spoken language).

6. PLANNING A CHANGE IN CODIFICATION

6.1. Stages in planning a change in codification

When discussing changes to codification, it is appropriate to draw on the methodology of language planning, which distinguishes four stages of language planning (cf. Christian 1994: 33–34):

1) the problem is identified (the linguistic situation is clarified, including why a change in codification is needed);

2) a plan for changing the codification is prepared and implemented:

a) data on the current situation are collected;

b) the plan’s goals and objectives are defined, along with the means of achieving them and the possible outcomes;

c) the phenomenon is introduced systematically according to the plan;

3) the plan’s effectiveness is evaluated, i.e., implementation is monitored and the plan is revised as necessary;

4) feedback with language users is maintained.

²⁶ For a fuller discussion of how different groups of language users relate to language norms and their role in disseminating them, see Takahashi 2004: 173–174.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Skolinių su kirčiuotais dvigarsiais el, er, eu dabartinė kodifikacijos būklė ir galima kaita | 22

In the plan for changing the codification of the accentuation of loanwords with stressed el, er, eu diphthongs to circumflex accentuation (its details are reflected in the minutes of the VLKK Subcommission on Pronunciation and Accentuation, in the VLKK accentuation recommendations examined, and in their commentaries), point 2(c) has now been reached and is halfway complete. The final action under this point remains to be carried out: to regularize the accentuation system. Although, as already noted, the aforementioned documents do not directly discuss the anticipated timing of the change’s completion, the gradual publication of the BŽ—which was the reason the accentuation recommendations were begun—is the real opportunity for implementing this codification change, since later editions of this dictionary are unlikely to receive the same public attention as can be expected now, and their impact on usage will be weaker.

If we were to assess similarly the “plan” of the previous codification stage, which lasted more than half a century, to introduce the borrowed short vowel [ę] into Lithuanian usage, we could say that, after assessing the plan’s effectiveness under its third point, it became clear that it had not succeeded.

6.2. Possible solutions

An important step was taken at the VLKK meeting on Pronunciation and Accentuation on October 21, 2015: it was agreed that the codification change should encompass the entire system, not isolated lists of words. The only point of disagreement concerned the pace of the change and its timing. The minutes of this meeting state:

No principled decision was reached regarding el, er, eu in international words. The intention is to seek the Language Commission’s opinion on whether, following a step-by-step approach, the circumflex-accented variant should now be recognized as an alternative for all international words (not only the more frequently used ones), or whether circumflex accentuation can be declared the principal accentuation norm in general (without removing the circumflex variant as an alternative) and this norm established in the “Dictionary of Standard Lithuanian.”

Thus, in the first case it is proposed to show the tendency toward circumflex accentuation in all loanwords with the diphthongs el, er, eu that have acute accentuation, thereby legitimizing universal variation in this subsystem. In that case, those who treat the first variant as the principal one would continue to use acute accentuation. In words for which only the circumflex variant is already codified, it would presumably remain circumflex (bẽlgas, -ė, ẽūras, pẽrlas, and so on), so more meticulous users would still have to memorize these words as before. This case does nothing to ensure consistency in codification. Thus, the codification change would stop halfway, and its planning would remain vague. Is it worth waiting another 10–20 years for all the words to “adapt” (while rarer ones might “fail to adapt”) to the Lithuanian accentuation system, and only then making the circumflex variant principal?

In the second case, it is proposed to regularize the system now:

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Skolinių su kirčiuotais dvigarsiais el, er, eu dabartinė kodifikacijos būklė ir galima kaita | 23

1) all borrowed words with the diphthongs el, er, eu would have circumflex accentuation as their first variant,

2) in words for which the acute-accented variant had previously been codified (as the only variant or as the first alongside a second, circumflex-accented variant), that acute-accented variant would be retained as the second variant.

Thus, in the second case, users would not need to guess: circumflex accentuation would always conform to the principal norm—which is also the tendency in usage—and those accustomed to acute accentuation would not be considered incorrect either. At the VLKK Subcommission on Pronunciation and Accentuation, this case was called revolutionary, although there is no revolution here if we are speaking not of individual words but of the entire accentuation system for loanwords with el, er, eu. As the accentuation recommendations from 2003 onward and their commentaries show, there has been a fairly consistent shift through the variants toward circumflex accentuation, preparing the ground precisely for such a codification change. In keeping with this natural tendency, the accentuation of euro was codified in 2003, as noted, and this proved entirely successful. Still less should the effort to implement the principle of systematicity be called a revolution: applying circumflex accentuation to all borrowed words containing the stressed diphthongs el, er, eu. This follows from the very nature of the phenomenon under discussion.

The codification revolution in TŽŽ was carried out in 1951 without any discussion. What is now needed in practice is to undo its consequences and return to the norm recorded in the 1948 Lietuvių kalbos rašybos žodyne, but, of course, at a new level, incorporating many new borrowed words and, for a time, also providing appropriate secondary acute-accented variants.

7. CODIFICATION TECHNIQUE

7.1. Actions for changing codification

Based on the usage criterion, the relative value of variants is generally determined by the nature of their competition: a) the onset of competition, b) intensifying competition, c) strong competition, d) weakening competition, e) the end of competition (for a more detailed discussion, see Miliūnaitė 2006: 14). Since, as mentioned, the phenomenon under discussion arose not naturally but as a result of artificial codification, and since it is difficult to document in actual usage, it is more appropriate to speak not of competition between norm variants in actual usage, but of its projection in codification. Thus, a change in codification depends more on codification technique than on the relations between competing variants. The essence of the change in codification itself is to move systematically to circumflex accentuation, while deliberately retaining acute accentuation for some time as a secondary variant and a remnant of earlier codification.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Skolinių su kirčiuotais dvigarsiais el, er, eu dabartinė kodifikacijos būklė ir galima kaita | 24

When codification is changed, the following actions are theoretically possible:

a) the codified norm variants are switched,

b) a new variant of the norm is legitimized,

c) one of the norm variants is eliminated,

d) an obsolete norm is eliminated,

e) a phenomenon previously codified negatively (not considered a norm) is legitimized.

Since the codification of the phenomenon in question was inconsistent, all five actions would be needed to make it consistent, taking individual words into account (see Table 5).

TABLE 5. Actions for a consistent change in codification involving the accentuation variants of loanwords containing the diphthongs el, er, eu (a – acute accentuation, b – circumflex accentuation)

Dabartinis kodifikacijos būvis (pagal VLKK rekomendacijas arba, jei jų nėra, TŽŽ 2001) VLKK Tarties ir kirčiavimo pakomisės 2016 m. siūlymai dėl kodifikacijos BŽ 1 atvejis 2 atvejis 1. a (dèrbis, hermenèutika) a || b (dèrbis || dèrbis; hermenèutika || hermenèutika) b || a (dèrbis || dèrbis; hermenèutika || hermenèutika) 2. a || b (hèrbas || hèrbas) a || b (hèrbas || hèrbas) b || a (hèrbas || hèrbas) 3. b (bèlgas, -ė, speltà, èūras) (?) b (bèlgas, -ė, speltà, èūras) 4. b || a (tèrmosas || tèrmosas) b || a (tèrmosas || tèrmosas) b (tèrmosas) 5. naujai ateinantys žodžiai (delfis) a (?) b (delfis)

Table 5 shows that the results of the planned change in codification clearly differ in the first and second cases: the first step does not improve the state of codification, whereas the second creates a clear system.

When planning a change in codification, the question of how to deal with new words entering Lithuanian (neologisms) must also be kept in view. Although some of them eventually acquire Lithuanian equivalents, when they first come into use they must be accentuated somehow. Such

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Skolinių su kirčiuotais dvigarsiais el, er, eu dabartinė kodifikacijos būklė ir galima kaita | 25

Neologisms enter the Lithuanian language every day, for example: derbiai (“classic men’s shoes with open lacing”), internas, -ė “a person in an internship, i.e. a doctor undertaking postgraduate practical training,” selfis²⁷ “a self-portrait photograph, usually taken with a smartphone and posted on social networks,” dalbergija²⁸ “a tree of the legume family,” and so on (see ND).

Following the stress-assignment logic for loans that have “not yet become established,” under case 1 the initial step would be to legitimize the acute-accented variant and allow a longer or shorter period for it to adapt to the Lithuanian stress system; only then, if it proved frequent, would the process move step by step toward the circumflex variant. It is clear that in this case, too, we would continue to be unable to avoid the unsystematic assignment of stress to all loans containing el, er, eu.

7.2. The relationship and status of variants following a possible change in codification

Under the system of four principal evaluation levels established in the codification of Standard Lithuanian, normative variants may be equivalent (a | b), or one may be primary (predominant in practice) and the other secondary (a || b). In theory, the relationship between normative variants indicates the state of their competition and developmental tendencies in actual usage at the time of codification: strong competition between variants or the greater prospects of one of them (and, from a sociolinguistic perspective, its greater prestige). If codification does not lag far behind usage and is adjusted as needed, this system of evaluation levels makes it possible to respond flexibly to changes in usage. Thus, this formal expression of the relationship between normative variants is needed both to record changes in codification through variants and to help language users orient themselves to language tendencies.

In the practice of the standard language, the status of variants must be discussed on two levels: 1) codification sources, and 2) language users.

Works of lexicography (most often dictionaries) are important for the codification of stress. In lexicographic practice, the headword, along with its stress, spelling, and grammatical form, is generally treated as the primary variant, while another variant given alongside it is regarded as equivalent or secondary (depending on the decision of the editors of the particular source). Thus, for the practice of codification, the position of the primary (first) variant is especially important, since in general one of the variants

²⁷ Although a Lithuanian equivalent, asmenukė, was quickly found for this English loanword, usage may still require speakers to pronounce and assign stress to the word itself as well (cf.: Along with the selfie came related words “to take selfies,” “selfie addict”). The position of the stress depends on the chosen accent contour.

²⁸Dalbergia is recorded in 21 entries (with species-specific modifiers) in the Terms Bank of the Republic of Lithuania (LRTB), based on various sources approved by VLKK (only nominative forms were searched; accessed on 2016-04-21). The term is stressed in two different ways here: dalbėrgija (18 occurrences: in VLKK recommendations “On Some Wood Names,” 2003; “On Lithuanian Names of Woody, Fiber, Dye, Tanning, and Other Plants Used for Technical Purposes,” 2008; “On Lithuanian Names of Poisonous Plants (A–J),” 2016, and others) and dalbergija (5 occurrences: in Explanatory Dictionary of Wood Terminology, 2014). Although in this case such variation does not affect the position of the stress, it is highly questionable whether it is needed in principle for terms codified during the same period.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Skolinių su kirčiuotais dvigarsiais el, er, eu dabartinė kodifikacijos būklė ir galima kaita | 26

must be presented as the headword, that is, the primary form. At the same time, this makes it possible to change the order of variants when codification changes.

The status of variants is a source of uncertainty mainly for language users. The codification of standard Lithuanian accentuation norms, perhaps by adhering somewhat excessively to the principle of norm stability, was not consistently reviewed for decades and in some cases fell considerably behind actual usage. Therefore, so that accentuation recommendations would not remain trapped for a long time in a closed loop when the norm is changed by promoting a variant—that is, so that language users could choose variants that better reflect actual usage and their needs even when these had not been codified at all before the 2003 recommendations and consequently often appeared in second place in the recommendations—the VLKK adopted two special resolutions. In 2010 it resolved (Recommendation K-20):

1. Accentuation variants presented in the accentuation recommendations approved by the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language (see http://www.vlkk.lt/aktualiausios-temos/tartis-ir-kirciavimas?view=slides), as well as D. Mikulėnienė, A. Pakerys, and B. Stundžia’s “Guide to the Accentuation of Standard Lithuanian” and the electronic “Dictionary of the Accentuation of Common Words” and “Dictionary of the Accentuation of Proper Names” accompanying it (considered by the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language; Vilnius, 2007 and later editions) are to be regarded as standard, and the use of none of them is to be considered an error. 2. Nonstandard accentuation variants and inconsistent use of standard accentuation variants, that is, alternating between them, are to be regarded as errors.

The commentary to this resolution notes (Stundžia 2013):

Understandably, the first variants in each pair are primary; terminologists traditionally rely on them, as do those who wish to adhere exclusively to prestigious language.

However, terminologists found this solution inconvenient because, when codification is changed by promoting a variant, the first variant in the recommendations may for some time remain a remnant of the old codification, no longer regarded as prestigious in actual usage. This situation arises especially when the DŽ codifies as the sole form a variant that is no longer viable. Once a more viable form is legitimized alongside it in the recommendation as the second variant, another step (and time) is still needed for the second variant to move into first place²⁹.

Taking this into account, in 2015 the VLKK adopted another resolution recorded in the minutes to amend this provision in the “General Requirements for the Preparation of Terminological Dictionaries” (Protocol Resolution PN-

²⁹This is important not only for spoken borrowings containing el, er, eu. The word liauka is often cited as an example: DLKŽ₄ₑ gives only liaukà (2), while líauka (1) predominates in actual usage. Therefore, when changing a norm through variants, the less viable liaukà continues for some time to be presented as the primary variant. In such cases, if language users do not accept the first variant and usage has clearly shifted toward the second, one should not be afraid to skip a step in the codification process.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Skolinių su kirčiuotais dvigarsiais el, er, eu dabartinė kodifikacijos būklė ir galima kaita | 27

8), so that there would be no need to follow the order of accentuation variants given in codification sources (the earlier provision in this clause of the document is shown as deleted in the quoted text):

26. Lithuanian terms in dictionaries (except inadmissible terms and the headwords referred to in cross-reference entries, as well as function words serving as components of terms) must be marked for accentuation. If the recommendations of the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language or the Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian allow several accentuation variants, the first variant should be given in dictionaries (if the accentuation entries in the Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian do not match those in the recommendations of the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language, the latter should be followed). It is not recommended to mark the stress of equivalents in other languages or to indicate vowel length in Latin.

Once the accentuation system for borrowings with el, er, eu has been regularized in the BŽ, this problem will disappear, since the dictionary would reflect the tendencies of actual usage, and the main variant could be used as the basis for accentuating terms.

When usage is variable, or its variation is artificially maintained by outdated codification, some users develop habits of using the less viable norm, and this must be taken into account. For example, radio and television news presenters who have learned to accentuate many borrowings with el, er, eu with initial stress (or at least not to shift the stress) may find it harder to switch to the circumflex variant. Nor is this necessary if a speaker chooses one system (the initial-stress or circumflex variant) and adheres to it consistently, unless all the media sources agree to switch to a common system. It should not be forgotten that language norms also reflect the state of the language in a particular period. Generally, owing to the inertia of linguistic habits, most language users are not inclined to take codification changes into account and relearn, so the norm they have learned may be regarded as a marker of a particular period and/or generation. The different systems chosen by different speakers would allow competition between these variants to settle naturally in actual usage, in line with the tendencies already clearly visible today, which would be further strengthened by a codification change toward circumflex stress.

7.3. Practical implementation of the codification change

Codification theory and practice show that in the current situation, the most rational step is to take the final measure in regularizing the accentuation system: in the BŽ being prepared and intended for approval by the VLKK, to adopt universally the circumflex-stressed variant of borrowings with the diphthongs el, er, eu as the first variant and treat it as the principal norm. Where the initial-stress variant (or only the initial-stress variant) was previously codified, it should be listed second.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Skolinių su kirčiuotais dvigarsiais el, er, eu dabartinė kodifikacijos būklė ir galima kaita | 28

In this case, several practical questions arise. They require a common and clear agreement both among the codifiers themselves and between the codifiers and language users³⁰.

First, what should be done with earlier codification works and various sources accented according to the previous state of codification—dictionaries, encyclopedias, reference books, textbooks, accented databases, and so on? The answer is simple: accept that more substantial codification changes require a transitional period and, consequently, greater tolerance for norms that vary. Codification of certain phenomena of the standard language, or of their subsystems, has been changed decisively before. For example, four decades ago, in 1976, it was decided to write i in the roots of the three Lithuanian words bjaurus, -i, pjauti, spjauti according to pronunciation (although DŽ₂ had been published quite recently at the time—in 1972). Later sources quickly adapted to that decision. In moving to a new codification of the accentuation of borrowings with el, er, eu, those who consciously seek to observe standard-language norms more strictly should follow the latest and principal codification source (i.e., the BŽ), while ordinary language users, who have no need to check accentuation in sources, would not notice the transition at all, since the second variant would also remain a norm. New editions of other sources (easier to produce for electronic sources) would gradually enable a universal transition to common codification recommendations over a longer or shorter period. Since disseminators of norms orient themselves toward codification, other language users would eventually adopt the norms they use.

Second, what should be done with proper nouns (personal names, place names)? Should their accentuation remain unchanged? Since it is not customary to give accentuation variants for proper nouns, how should a transition to circumflex stress be made without violating the principle of changing the norm through variants?

If one decides to regularize the accentuation system, this should also include proper names. Such regularization means that the codification of all words belonging to this group, not just isolated words, should conform to the general rule of circumflex accentuation for loanwords with the diphthongs el, er, eu. There is a precedent, as in the case of the common noun euro. At Vilnius University, the digital database Dictionary of Classical Names: A Digital Database of Ancient Proper Names (AV 2015), containing approximately 12,000 entries, was created, and its developers chose the circumflex-accented variant for names with el, er, eu (e.g., Hėrmìs, Dzeũsas, Minervà).

Initial stress, if it has been authorized, should continue not to be regarded as an error in speech, as a remnant of the old codification; new sources, however, should follow the BŽ, which, among common nouns, also includes the most frequent place names in Lithuania and the world, as well as names associated with cultural or religious realities. Universal Lithuanian

³⁰ In accordance with the current measures of language standardization policy, the most suitable form for such an agreement would be a VLKK resolution and its commentary, as well as dissemination of that resolution among the public.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Skolinių su kirčiuotais dvigarsiais el, er, eu dabartinė kodifikacijos būklė ir galima kaita | 29

encyclopedia, which is a large and important source of proper nouns, could also have its electronic version reoriented in line with a change in codification.

8. LANGUAGE USERS’ HABITS AND EXPECTATIONS

It has already been mentioned that, when codification is changed, two questions requiring answers are directly related to language users’ linguistic attitudes and the dissemination of information about the change in codification. Thus, users play an important role in this process. To answer the question of whether a positive user response to a change in codification can be expected, it should be established what the target groups of language users think—those conscientious users (for example, media representatives who speak publicly) for whom correct accentuation matters. The discussion seminars planned by the VLKK are one way to do this.

In addition to what was said in subsection 5.2 about language users’ linguistic attitudes as one of the criteria for codification, it should be recalled that some users perceive the acute accentuation of loanwords with the diphthongs el, er, eu as retracted stress. Because of dialectal diversity and its continuing influence on the standard language, the penultimate-syllable rule has not always been observed to date; stimulating acute-accented variants of el, er, eu therefore only encourages retracted stress, while also leveling accentual distinctions and weakening the entire accentuation system of the standard language³¹.

When preparing a plan to acquaint users of the standard language with the forthcoming change in codification, particular attention should be paid to the rationale for that change. As various studies of linguistic attitudes show, language users generally tend to view any change in codification rather negatively, and this is understandable, since they seek to preserve established habits and the stability of norms. In the case of the phenomenon under discussion, however, most users will not notice the change in codification at all in spoken language for words in accentuation class 1, kelneris, tercija, termosas, serveris, because the accent is practically indistinguishable by ear, while stress placement remains constant. The words that matter most to language users are those in which stress shifts depending on the accent: koncertas, desert as, ekspertas, elfas, and so on; the stressed diphthongs el, er, eu in such words, in particular, tend to be pronounced with the circumflex accent. Those whose accentuation system in the standard language is robust would also have no difficulty with two-syllable international words ending in –a, whose circumflex-accented variant is stressed according to the second accentuation pattern (e.g., deltà, dermà, fermà, nelmà, nerpà, pleurà and others—cf. peltà, speltà or pemzà, rentà, which are given the circumflex accent in TŽŽ 2013), and the VLKK has so far refrained from issuing accentuation recommendations for these words. The most important practical benefit is that,

³¹ Some spoken-media representatives admit that, following the agreement to use the codified first (prestigious) acute-accented variants, they pronounce an unclear, “mixed-up” accent in this position because they do not know how it should actually be pronounced.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Skolinių su kirčiuotais dvigarsiais el, er, eu dabartinė kodifikacijos būklė ir galima kaita | 30

so that there would be no need to teach people specifically to pronounce artificial sounds or to memorize the many “exceptions” that currently exist because of inconsistencies in codification. Nor would it be necessary to consult recommended accentuation lists for individual words; all loanwords with the diphthongs el, er, eu could be stressed according to an intuitive grasp of the system.

CONCLUSIONS

The history of codifying the accentuation of loanwords containing el, er, eu shows that their acute-accented variant, with the short vowel [ɛ], was an artificial intrusion into the phonological and prosodic system of standard Lithuanian and, especially from TŽŽ 1951 to the present, has substantially disrupted both usage and the codification of norms. The most evident consequences of this phenomenon in current standard-language usage are the leveling of accentual distinctions and the encouragement of retracted stress, as well as inconsistent accent marking in words of the same origin (e.g., termosas and terminis) that were entered in dictionaries at different times.

The international [ɛ], whose distinctiveness is asserted in theory, is difficult to identify in practice, is assessed subjectively by language specialists, and goes unrecognized by untrained language users. Actual usage shows a clear tendency to pronounce the aforementioned diphthongs with the circumflex accent, that is, to adapt loanword pronunciation and accentuation naturally to the phonological and prosodic system of Lithuanian. Consequently, a clear discrepancy between usage and codification has emerged. Under these circumstances, the importance of codification increases: it becomes either a factor in supporting and stabilizing actual norms or an impediment to their natural development.

Taking this into account, and having examined the accentuation recommendations issued by the VLKK from 2003 to 2014 concerning the accentuation of the diphthongs in question, as well as the problems surrounding their codification in light of codification theory, the following conclusions can be drawn.

1. The codification of standard Lithuanian accentuation norms, beginning with DŽ₁—which abruptly adopted from TŽŽ 1951 the accentuation norms for loanwords with el, er, eu, disregarding the codification in LKRŽ 1948—was not systematically reviewed for decades thereafter and in some cases fell far behind actual usage. The VLKK accentuation recommendations of 2003 and 2008 took a step toward recognizing stressed circumflex-accented diphthongs el, er, eu in more frequently used loanwords as a second variant where they had not previously been codified.

2. Since the VLKK accentuation recommendations are based on tendencies in actual usage, for which data are available to the VLKK Subcommittee on Pronunciation and Accentuation, and the circumflex-accented variants of el, er, eu have been recognized as standard and consistent with those tendencies, the strategic

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Skolinių su kirčiuotais dvigarsiais el, er, eu dabartinė kodifikacijos būklė ir galima kaita | 31

The direction of codification should be to pursue systematicity, with the aim of establishing the circumflex accentuation of these words. It is only a matter of time—when the circumflex variant will become the primary one.

3. Changing codification to favor the circumflex accent is suitable for individual words or their subsystems and could theoretically also be suitable at a systematically higher level, to bring the accentuation of borrowings with el, er, eu closer to actual usage. However, until now the codification of these phenomena has been highly uneven and inconsistent in timing. Moreover, the VLKK recommendations cover only more frequent words, not all those included in the headword list of the forthcoming BŽ (let alone proper names). Many variants with different accentuation have arisen, and they are at different stages of change. Thus, this codification technique has so far proved unsuccessful in regulating the accentuation of borrowings with el, er, eu.

4. The theory and practice of codification show that, in the current situation, the most rational solution is to take the final step and decisively adopt a resolution that regularizes the accentuation system, so that all borrowings with el, er, eu, including those newly entering the Lithuanian language, are given circumflex accentuation in accordance with actual usage tendencies. The other variant—the acute-accented one—should be deliberately retained as secondary only where it is a remnant of earlier codification.

5. The normative BŽ currently being prepared and intended for approval by the VLKK provides the best opportunity to regularize the accentuation system and eliminate the contradiction between usage and codification. In practice, this means that BŽ should make a general shift to the circumflex variant as the first-listed form for borrowings with the diphthongs el, er, eu and treat it as the primary norm. This would also meet language users’ expectations of having a clear accentuation system for these words, so that they would not have to check for each word which stage of codification change through variants it is at³².

ŠALTINIAI

AV 2015: Antikos vardynas. Antikinių tikrinių vardų skaitmeninė duomenų bazė. Audronė Kučinskienė, Audronė Kairienė, Dalia Dilytė-Staškevičienė ir kt. Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas. Prieiga internete: http://www.vardynas.flf.vu.lt (žiūrėta 2016 04 21).

BLKŽ 2008: Mikulėnienė D., Pakerys A., Stundžia B. Bendrinės lietuvių kalbos kirčiavimo žinynas [su kompaktine plokštele]. 2 leid. Vilnius: Vilniaus pedagoginio universiteto leidykla.

BŽ: Bendrinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas (rengiamas). Vyr. red. Danutė Liutkevičienė. Prieiga internete: http://bkz.lki.lt.

³² 2016 04 14 ir 2016 06 17 VLKK posėdžiuose šis klausimas buvo svarstytas, ir antrajame balsų dauguma priimtas nutarimas BŽ pagrindiniu skolinių su el, er, eu kirčiavimo variantu sistemiškai laikyti tvirtagališkąjį, t. y. išlyginti kirčiavimo sistemą. Tvirtapradis variantas pateiktinas kaip antras tų žodžių, kurių jis iki tol buvo kodifikuotas.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Skolinių su kirčiuotais dvigarsiais el, er, eu dabartinė kodifikacijos būklė ir galima kaita | 32

DLKG 2005: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika. Red. Vytautas Ambrazas. 4-as pataisytas leidimas, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

DŽ₁ 1954: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas. Atsak. red. Jonas Kruopas. 1-as leid. Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla.

DŽ₂ 1972: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas. Atsak. red. Jonas Kruopas. 2-as leid. Vilnius: Mintis.

DŽ₃ 1993: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas. Vyr. red. Stasys Keinys. 3-as leid. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla.

DŽ₄ 2000: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas. Vyr. red. Stasys Keinys. 4-as leid. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

DŽ₄ₑ 2002: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas. 4-as (elektroninis) leid. Vyr. red. Stasys Keinys. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

DŽ₅ₑ 2003: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas (elektroninis). Vyr. red. Stasys Keinys. 5-as leid. – Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

DŽ₆ₑ 2006: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas (elektroninis). Vyr. red. Stasys Keinys. 6-as leid. – Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

DŽ₆ᵢ 2011: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas (internetinis). Vyr. red. Stasys Keinys. 6-as leid. – Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Prieiga internete: http://dz.lki.lt/

DŽ₇ 2012: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas. Vyr. red. Stasys Keinys. 7-as patais. ir papild. leid. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

DŽ₇ᵢ 2015: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas (internetinis). Vyr. red. Stasys Keinys. 7-as patais. ir papild. leid. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Prieiga internete: http://lkz.lki.lt.

LKRŽ 1948: Lietuvių kalbos rašybos žodynas. Red. K. Gasparavičius, N. Grigas, J. Lazauskas, K. Ulvydas, A. Žirgulys. Valstybinė enciklopedijų, žodynų ir mokslo literatūros leidykla.

LKTŽ 2001: Vitkauskas V. Lietuvių kalbos tarties žodynas. 2 leid. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

LKŽe – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas, elektroninis variantas. Red. kolegija: Gertrūda Naktinienė (vyr. red.), Jonas Paulauskas, Ritutė Petrokienė, Vytautas Vitkauskas, Jolanta Zabarskaitė, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2005. – Atnaujinta versija, 2008. Prieiga internete: www.lkz.lt

LRTB: Lietuvos Respublikos terminų bankas. Prieiga internete: http://terminai.vlkk.lt

ND: Lietuvių kalbos naujažodžių duomenynas. Tęstinis internetinis žinynas nuo 2011 m. Sud. Rita Miliūnaitė. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Prieiga internete: http://naujazodziai.lki.lt (žiūrėta 2016 04 20).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Skolinių su kirčiuotais dvigarsiais el, er, eu dabartinė kodifikacijos būklė ir galima kaita | 33

Protokolinis nutarimas PN-8: Protokolinis nutarimas „Dėl Valstybinės lietuvių kalbos komisijos 2007 m. gruodžio 20 d. rekomendacijos Nr. R-4 „Dėl Terminų žodynų rengimo bendrųjų reikalavimų“ pakeitimo“, 2015 m. gruodžio 3 d. Prieiga internete: http://vlkk.lt/vlkk-nutarimai/protokoliniai-nutarimai/del-valstybines-lietuviu-kalbos-komisijos-2007-m-gruodzio-20-d-rekomendacijos-nr-r-4-del-terminu-zodynu-rengimo-bendruju-reikalavimu-pakeitimo (žiūrėta 2016 04 21); Nauja Terminų žodynų rengimo bendrųjų reikalavimų redakcija. Prieiga internete: http://www.vlkk.lt/aktualiausios-temos/terminija/terminu-zodynu-rengimo-bendrieji-reikalavimai (žiūrėta 2016 04 21).

PV: Pasaulio vietovardžiai. Europa, 2006; Amerika, 2008; Afrika. Antarktida. Australija. Okeanija, 2010; Azija (Afganistanas–Jungtiniai Arabų Emyratai), 2012; Azija (Kambodža–Vietnamas), 2014. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Internetinė duomenų bazė. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos centras, VLKK. Prieiga internete: http://pasaulio-vardai.vlkk.lt/ (žiūrėta 2015 04 25).

Rekomendacija K-1: Rekomendacija „Dėl valiutos pavadinimo „euras“ kirčiavimo“, 2003 m. gegužės 29 d. (Nr. K-1). Prieiga internete: http://vlkk.lt/aktualiausios-temos/tartis-ir-kirciavimas/1-del-euro (žiūrėta 2016 04 07).

Rekomendacija K-3: Rekomendacija „Dėl kai kurių dviskiemenių svetimos kilmės daiktavardžių kirčiavimo“, 2003 m. birželio 26 d. Nr. K-3. Prieiga internete: http://vlkk.lt/vlkk-nutarimai/protokoliniai-nutarimai/del-kai-kuriu-dviskiemeniu-svetimos-kilmes-daiktavardziu-kirciavimo (žiūrėta 2016 04 12).

Rekomendacija K-3.1: Protokolinis nutarimas „Dėl 2003 m. birželio 26 d. rekomendacijos Nr. K-3 „Dėl kai kurių dviskiemenių svetimos kilmės daiktavardžių kirčiavimo“ papildymo“, 2008 m. spalio 2 d. Nr. PN-7 (k-3.1). Prieiga internete: http://vlkk.lt/vlkk-nutarimai/protokoliniai-nutarimai/del-2003-m-birzelio-26-d-rekomendacijos-nr-k-3-del-kai-kuriu-dviskiemeniu-svetimos-kilmes-daiktavardziu-kirciavimo-papildymo (žiūrėta 2016 04 13).

Rekomendacija K-4: Rekomendacija „Dėl kai kurių daugiaskiemenių svetimos kilmės daiktavardžių kirčiavimo“, 2003 m. spalio 26 d. Nr. 5 (K-4). Prieiga internete: http://vlkk.lt/vlkk-nutarimai/protokoliniai-nutarimai/del-kai-kuriu-daugiaskiemeniu-svetimos-kilmes-daiktavardziu-kirciavimo (žiūrėta 2016 04 13).

Rekomendacija K-4.1: Protokolinis nutarimas „Dėl 2003 m. spalio 2 d. rekomendacijos Nr. 5 (K-4) „Dėl kai kurių daugiaskiemenių svetimos kilmės daiktavardžių kirčiavimo“ papildymo“, 2008 m. spalio 2 d. Nr. PN-8 (k-4.1). Prieiga internete: http://vlkk.lt/vlkk-nutarimai/protokoliniai-nutarimai/del-2003-m-spalio-2-d-rekomendacijos-nr-5-k-4-del-

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Skolinių su kirčiuotais dvigarsiais el, er, eu dabartinė kodifikacijos būklė ir galima kaita | 34

kai-kuriu-daugiaskiemeniu-svetimos-kilmes-daiktavardziu-kirciavimo-papildymo (žiūrėta 2016 04 13).

Rekomendacija K-11: Rekomendacija „Dėl kai kurių priesaginių būdvardžių kirčiavimo“, 2004 m. spalio 28 d. Nr. 12 (K-11). Prieiga internete: http://vlkk.lt/vlkk-nutarimai/protokoliniai-nutarimai/del-kai-kuriu-priesaginiu-budvardziu-kirciavimo (žiūrėta 2016 04 13).

Rekomendacija K-11.1: Protokolinis nutarimas „Dėl 2004 m. spalio 28 d. rekomendacijos Nr. 12 (K-11) „Dėl kai kurių priesaginių būdvardžių kirčiavimo“ papildymo“, 2008 m. spalio 2 d. Nr. PN-9 (k-11.1). Prieiga internete: http://vlkk.lt/vlkk-nutarimai/protokoliniai-nutarimai/del-2004-m-spalio-28-d-rekomendacijos-nr-12-k-11-del-kai-kuriu-priesaginiu-budvardziu-kirciavimo-papildymo (žiūrėta 2016 04 13).

Rekomendacija K-16.1: Protokolinis nutarimas „Dėl 2005 m. lapkričio 10 d. rekomendacijos Nr. R-12 (K-16) „Dėl kai kurių prieveiksmių kirčiavimo“ papildymo“, 2008 m. spalio 2 d. Nr. PN-10 (k-16.1). Prieiga internete: http://vlkk.lt/vlkk-nutarimai/protokoliniai-nutarimai/del-2005-m-lapkricio-10-d-rekomendacijos-nr-r-12-k-16-del-kai-kuriu-prieveiksmiu-kirciavimo-papildymo (žiūrėta 2016 04 13).

Rekomendacija K-16.2: Protokolinis nutarimas „Dėl Valstybinės lietuvių kalbos komisijos 2005 m. lapkričio 10 d. rekomendacijos Nr. R-12 (k-16) „Dėl kai kurių prieveiksmių kirčiavimo“ pakeitimo ir papildymo“, 2014 m. spalio 9 d. Nr. PN-4 (k-16.2). Prieiga internete: http://vlkk.lt/vlkk-nutarimai/protokoliniai-nutarimai/del-valstybines-lietuviu-kalbos-komisijos-2005-m-lapkricio-10-d-rekomendacijos-nr-r-12-k-16-del-kai-kuriu-prieveiksmiu-kirciavimo-pakeitimo-ir-papildymo (žiūrėta 2016 04 17).

Rekomendacija K-20: Protokolinis nutarimas „Dėl kirčiavimo variantų vartojimo“, 2010 m. gruodžio 9 d., Nr. PN-9 (k-20). Prieiga internete: http://www.vlkk.lt/vlkk-nutarimai/protokoliniai-nutarimai/del-kirciavimo-variantu-vartojimo (žiūrėta 2016 04 17).

TŽŽ 1951: Tarptautinių žodžių žodynas. Red. Ch. Lemchenas. Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla.

TŽŽ 1969: Tarptautinių žodžių žodynas. Red. Ch. Lemchenas. Vilnius: Mintis.

TŽŽ 1985: Tarptautinių žodžių žodynas. Ats. red. V. Kvietkauskas. Vilnius: Vyriausioji enciklopedijų redakcija.

TŽŽ 2001: Tarptautinių žodžių žodynas. Ats. red. Algimantas Kinderys. Vilnius: Alma littera.

TŽŽ 2013: Tarptautinių žodžių žodynas. Red. Dovilė Svetikienė. Vilnius: Alma littera.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Skolinių su kirčiuotais dvigarsiais el, er, eu dabartinė kodifikacijos būklė ir galima kaita | 35

LITERATŪRA

A i t c h i s o n J. 2013: Language Change: Progress or Decay? 4th edition. Cambridge University Press.

C h r i s t i a n D. 1994: Kalbų planavimas kalbotyros požiūriu. – Sociolingvistika ir kalbos kultūra. Sud. L. Grumadienė, R. Marcinkevičienė. Vilnius: Gimtoji kalba, 29–40.

D e u m e r t A. 2004: Language Standardization and Language Change. The dynamics of Cape Dutch. John Benjamins Publishing Company: Amsterdam / Philadelphia.

G a r v i n P. 1993: A conceptual framework for the study of language standardization. – International Journal of the Sociology of Language 100/101, 37–54. Prieiga internete: http://ukonline-web.uni-koeln.de/remarks/d5134/rm2180577.pdf (žiūrėta 2016 04 07).

G i r d e n i s A., P u p k i s A. 1996: Kalbos norminimo principai. – Gimtoji kalba 8, 1–5.

J a r o s l a v i e n ė J. 2015: Lietuvių kalbos trumpųjų ir ilgųjų balsių kiekybės ir kokybės etalonai. – Bendrinė kalba 88. Prieiga internete: http://www.bendrinekalba.lt/Html/88/Jaroslaviene_BK_88_straipsnis.pdf

L i u t k e v i č i e n ė D. 2015: Bendrinės kalbos normų pateikimas Bendrinės lietuvių kalbos žodyne. – Bendrinė kalba 88. Prieiga internete: www.bendrinekalba.lt/Straipsniai/88/Liutkeviciene_BK_88_straipsnis.pdf

M i l i ū n a i t ė R. 2003: Kalbos reiškinių vertinimo laipsniai. – Acta linguistica Lithuanica 48, 97–104.

M i l i ū n a i t ė R. 2006: Kodifikacijos ir vartosenos santykių modelis. – Kalbos kultūra 79, 9–28.

M i l i ū n a i t ė R. 2007: Kodifikuotų normų keitimas: už ir prieš. – Kalbos kultūra 80, 7–23.

M i l i ū n a i t ė R. 2009: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos vartosenos variantai. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

P a k e r y s A. 2003: Komentaras dėl kirčiavimo rekomendacijų (2003 07 09). Prieiga internete: http://vlkk.lt/naujienos/kitos-naujienos/komentaras-del-kirciavimo-rekomendaciju (žiūrėta 2016 04 12).

P a k e r y s A., P u p k i s A. 2004 [1968]: Lietuvių kalbos bendrinė tartis. 2-as papild. ir patais. leidimas [su kompaktine plokštele]. Vilnius: Gimtasis žodis.

Principai 1997: Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos tvarkybos principai, kodifikacijos kriterijai ir jų taikymas. – Gimtoji kalba 4, 1–3.

P u p k i s A. 2005: Kalbos kultūros studijos. Vilnius: Gimtasis žodis.

P u p k i s A. 2016: Dar kartą dėl eksperto, koncerto ir pan. žodžių kirčiavimo. – Bendrinė kalba 89. Prieiga internete: www.bendrinekalba.lt/Straipsniai/89/Pupkis_BK_89_straipsnis.pdf

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Skolinių su kirčiuotais dvigarsiais el, er, eu dabartinė kodifikacijos būklė ir galima kaita | 36

Stundžia B. 2003: Komentaras dėl „euro“ kirčiavimo (2003 07 09). Prieiga internete: http://vlkk.lt/naujienos/kitos-naujienos/komentaras-del-euro-kirciavimo (žiūrėta 2016 04 07).

Stundžia B. 2008: Dėl svetimžodžių su kirčiuotais dvigarsiais el, er, eu priegaidės (2008 12 05). Prieiga internete: http://vlkk.lt/naujienos/pakomiṡiu-naujienos/del-svetimzodziu-su-kirciuotais-dvigarsiais-el-er-eu-priegaides (žiūrėta 2016 04 07).

Stundžia B. 2013: Kirčiavimo norminamąjį darbą tęsiant (2013 12 23). Prieiga internete: http://vlkk.lt/naujienos/kitos-naujienos/bonifacas-stundzia-kirciavimo-norminamaji-darba-tesiant (žiūrėta 2016 04 20).

Takahashi H. 2004: Language norms. – Sociolinguistics. An international handbook of the science of language and society. Ed. Ammon U., Dittmar N., Mattheier K. J., Trudgill P. 2^nd ed., V. 1. Walter de Gruyter, 172–179.

Įteikta 2016 05 03

Priimta 2016 07 05

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ

Lietuvių kalbos institutas

Petro Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius

[email protected]

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204