DZINTRA ŠULCE

Liepāja University, Latvia

PROBLEMATIC PRONUNCIATION ISSUES

IN THE GRAMMAR OF THE LATVIAN LANGUAGE

KEYWORDS: the concept and norm of orthoepy, standardization of word stress, pronunciation norms for vowels and consonants, pronunciation problems.

Orthoepy, encompassing all pronunciation systems, is an important component of every language. Orthoepy, or correct pronunciation, is “a system of agreed pronunciation rules; the practical observance of such rules” (VPSV 2007: 284). The term is defined similarly in The Grammar of the Latvian Language (LVG 2013: 123).

The standardization of pronunciation norms helps speakers and listeners understand one another—this is the most important condition of communication. Failure to observe pronunciation norms and mispronounced words misdirect the listener’s attention and consequently make the content of speech more difficult to understand. The aim of the article is to discuss contemporary pronunciation problems in The Grammar of the Latvian Language, published in 2013 (hereafter LVG), and in other recent linguistic studies.

The authors of LVG have repeatedly emphasized that the content of the new grammar is based primarily on facts of the standard language. It is argued that, when considering the content of the grammar, the authors should “agree on a model for the theoretical presentation of the grammar and on the methodological and technical principles for its preparation, [...] without losing the individuality of differing viewpoints, and by seeking compromises and agreements, become participants in a joint research project—the grammar of the Latvian language” (Koncepcija 2008: 10). However, an examination of the grammar shows that the authors did not fully realize their original intention; consequently, unresolved questions remain in the work, and discussion will therefore continue about what is to be considered a standard-language norm.

The new grammar contains a variety of linguistic schools, viewpoints, and concepts, and presents differing interpretations of linguistic phenomena. Concrete answers to many fundamental questions—not only in orthoepy but also in other branches of linguistics—are still lacking (it is difficult to judge whether this is an advantage or a disadvantage). Many problems of practical usage remain unresolved.

In the new grammar, questions of correct pronunciation are discussed in the section “The Main Problems of Correct Latvian Pronunciation, or Orthoepy” (Latvian “Galvenās latviešu valodas pareizrunas jeb ortoepijas problēmas”) (LVG 2013: 123–137).

The article examines the following pronunciation-related questions: 1) standardization of word stress; 2) vowel pronunciation norms; 3) consonant pronunciation norms.

First, it is worth reviewing problematic cases of pronouncing syllable intonation (tone). These questions are discussed in the section “Suprasegmental, or Prosodic, Units of Language” (Latvian “Valodas suprasegmentālās jeb prosodiskās vienības”) (LVG 2013: 104–106),

BENDRINĖ KALBA | 87 (2014)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

DZINTRA ŠULCĖ. Probleminiai tarties klausimai Latvių kalbos gramatikoje | 2

however, nothing new concerning pronunciation is presented here. In discussing syllable intonation (tone), the use of systems with three (i.e., sustained, falling, or broken) and two (i.e., sustained and non-sustained) tones in Latvian is debated.

It must be acknowledged that, unfortunately, the authors failed to agree on the placement of word stress in the grammar, and the same theory and examples are repeated in the sections “Word Stress” (Latvian “Vārda uzsvars”) (LVG 2013: 120–122) and “Standardization of Word Stress” (“Vārda uzsvara normēšana”) (LVG 2013: 123–125):

1. Regarding the use of variant forms, e.g.: vienmēr // vien’mēr¹, “always”, varbūt // var būt “perhaps”, diemžēl // diemžēl “unfortunately”, paš’ laik // pašlaik “currently”, pal’ dies // paldies “thank you” (cf. LVG 2013: 120; 123).

2. Regarding a different meaning of a word determined by stress, e.g.: nebūt (auxiliary word) – ne’ būt (particle), patiesi “correctly” – pa’ tiesi “in fact”, vienādi “equally” – vie nādi “always” (cf. LVG 2013: 120; 123).

3. Regarding changes in stress in emphatic speech (cf. LVG 2013: 121; 124).

LVG, as in earlier Latvian-language publications, lists all the exceptions and draws attention to the pronunciation of international words and borrowed proper names, but a more up-to-date perspective is lacking. Relatively much attention is devoted to secondary stress (LVG 2013: 121–122), although it is of no major importance in everyday usage.

Tiriant balsių ir dvibalsių vartojimą (LVG 2013: 126–133), skiriami dviejų rūšių nukrypimai nuo bendrinės kalbos tarties normų:

1) quantitative (distinguishing short and long vowels);

2) qualitative (confusion of different vowels and diphthongs).

Qualitative deviations from the norms are observed both in words of Latvian origin and in loanwords.

The norms for the adaptation, spelling, and pronunciation of foreign words in standard Latvian have changed repeatedly, giving rise to inconsistencies in usage related to quantity. Such variation will persist in the future as well (LVG offers nothing particular in this regard).

Word variants distinguished by vowels of different quality most often involve the use of narrow and broad e and ē, as well as the confusion of short and long o with the diphthong [uo]. Sometimes, to facilitate pronunciation, the sound composition of a word is altered: a vowel is omitted, inserted, or transposed, e.g.: komandants “commandant” (instead of a, the vowel e is incorrectly pronounced), frazeoloģija “phraseology” (instead of e, the vowel i is incorrectly pronounced), alkohols “alcohol” (instead of o, the vowel a is incorrectly pronounced), trenažieris “exercise machine” (instead of a, the vowel e is incorrectly pronounced), oriģināls “original” (incorrectly pronounced as orgināls). The pronunciation and spelling of these words can be checked in the Latvian Spelling and Pronunciation Dictionary (Latvian Latviešu valodas pareizrakstības un pareizrunas vārdnīca) (LVP PV 1995) and the latest foreign-word dictionary, Svešvārdu vārdnīca (2008).

Perhaps, when compiling LVG, greater consideration should have been given to recommending alternative pronunciation forms for such words, with both narrow and broad e or ē, where the prescribed norm has long since ceased to be followed, e.g.: Ventspils “Ventspils”, Zemgale “Zemgale”, bebrs “beaver”, medūza “jellyfish”, mopēds “moped”; and in the present-tense forms of first-conjugation verbs, as well as verb forms derived from the present-tense stem, when their infinitive ends in –rt, e.g.: dzeru “I drink”, beru “I pour”, tveru “I grasp”, sveru “I weigh”, jādzer “one must drink”, jāber “one must pour”, jāsver “one must weigh”, dzerot “while drinking”, sverot “while weighing”, berot “while pouring” (cf. LVG 2013: 126–128).

¹ A dot before a syllable indicates that it is stressed.

BENDRINĖ KALBA | 87 (2014) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204

DZINTRA ŠULCE. Probleminiai tarties klausimai Lietuvių kalbos gramatikoje | 3

Based on earlier research, LVG also emphasizes that difficulties arise in using the phonemes [o], [ō] and [uo], because the aforementioned vowels and diphthong are represented graphically in the same way, e.g.: ola [uola] “egg”; opera [ōpera] “opera”; optika [optika] “optics”; oktobris [oktōbris] “October”. In addition, there is a tendency to replace the non-Latvian vowel [o] or [ō] with the Latvian diphthong [uo], e.g.: sporas [spōras] is pronounced incorrectly as [spuoras] “spores”; poras [pōras] as [puoras] “pores”; novembris [novembris] as [nuovembris] “November”. Particular attention should be paid to the pronunciation of personal and place names; these should be studied further in the future.

Aptariant priebalsių tarties normas (LVG 2013: 133–135) daugiausia dėmesio skiriama pagrindiniam priebalsio tarties variantui, kurio esminiai garsiniai požymiai geriausiai atskleidžiami izoliuotoje pozicijoje. Be pagrindinio varianto priebalsiai gali turėti antrinius variantus, kurie atsiranda tam tikroje pozicijoje ir bendrinėje kalboje yra privalomi kaip ir šalutiniai tarties variantai. Daugiausia priebalsių ir jų variantų, kitokių nei bendrinėje kalboje, ištaria atskirų tarmių atstovai. Kartais kitaip ištariami ir vartojami priebalsiai aiškintini ir kitų kalbų įtaka (ypač pastaruoju metu).

Positional consonant changes do not give rise to major pronunciation problems, whereas historical vowel changes often lead to departures from the norm, for example, in second-person plural imperative forms of verbs: nākt “to come” – nāciet! (≠nākiet!) “come!”, iepīrkties “to buy” – iepērcieties! (≠iepērkieties!) “buy!”, augt “to grow” – audziet! (≠augiet!) “grow!”, but sēdēt “to sit” – sēdiet! (≠sēziet!) “sit!”, celt “to lift” – celiet! (≠ceļiet!) “lift!”, pacieties “to endure” – pacietieties! (≠paciesieties!) “endure!”.

In preparing LVG, greater attention should have been paid to two-syllable male personal names of the second declension whose stems end in the consonants –t- or –d-, e.g.: Uldis, Valdis, Rūdis, Gatis, Artis, Raitis. On the one hand, the authors of the grammar acknowledge that “in recent years the use of [genitive] forms Arša (Artis), Gāša (Gatis), Raiša (Raitis), Rūža (Rūdis), Ulža (Uldis), Valža (Valdis) [...] has increased; the parallel forms are permitted” (LVG 2013: 137). On the other hand, when describing second-declension nouns, the author of the grammar section expresses a negative view of consonant alternation in the forms mentioned above and stresses that “consonant alternation does not occur in two-syllable personal names when the consonants t, d precede the ending -is: Valdis – Valda, Rūdis – Rūda, Artis – Arta, Gatis – Gata” (LVG 2013: 359). Such inconsistencies within a single grammar do not help learners acquire the norms of the standard language correctly.

The second most recent publication in Latvian (LV 2013) likewise presents nothing new relating to pronunciation. It has no section devoted to orthoepy at all. Individual pronunciation issues are mentioned only in the discussion of phonetic matters related to positional and historical vowel alternation (LV 2013: 22–32).

In considering how best to learn pronunciation norms, the opinion has been expressed several times that spelling rules should be reviewed from time to time to determine whether spelling is beginning to differ substantially from pronunciation. This requires carefully conducted studies and surveys. The same applies to the problematic representation of several sounds by a single letter (e, ē and o).

While discussion continues in society and a major spelling reform is avoided, certain problematic pronunciation cases could be discussed at meetings of the Latvian Language Expert Commission—for example, by establishing parallel variants where these already exist in actual usage. Previously, such questions were considered by the Spelling Commission and published in Questions of Latvian Language Culture (Latvian Latviešu valodas kultūras jautājumi) issues, e.g., “Spelling Commission’s conclusions on the reading of the letter o” (Latvian “Pareizrakstības komisijas atzinumi par burta o lasījumu”) (1985: 116–120), or Spelling Commission’s conclusions on pronunciation (Latvian Pareizrakstības komisijas atzinumi par pareizrunu) (1970: 169–174).

BENDRINĖ KALBA | 87 (2014)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

DZINTRA ŠULCE. Probleminiai tarties klausimai Latvių kalbos gramatikoje | 4

Answers to problematic questions related to pronunciation are also sought at the Latvian Language Agency; they are collected in the volume Language Practice: Observations and Recommendations (Latvian Valodas prakse: vērojumi un ieteikumi), in the section “Language Consultations” (Latvian “Valodas konsultācijas”) (2009–2013).

A survey of language users, as comprehensive as possible and addressing problematic questions of pronunciation and spelling, would also be useful, since the last such survey was conducted only in 1960 (Laua 1997: 127) and therefore no longer objectively reflects contemporary language usage.

Analysis of the above-mentioned problematic issues leads to the conclusion that LVG’s discussion of orthoepy does not differ from earlier studies of pronunciation; it concisely repeats information already known (cf. Laua 1997; Strautiņa, Šulce 2004; Strautiņa, Šulce 2009; Šulce 2005; Guļevska, Miķelsone, Porīte 2002). The principal normative source on Latvian pronunciation remains Latvian Spelling and Pronunciation Dictionary (LVPPV 1995).

LVG provides minimal historical research; in it, “the synchronic perspective is supplemented by diachronic insights in only a few cases” (LVG 2013: 19). Yet historical data, when investigating individual issues, would help us better understand processes in contemporary Latvian.

In the future, consideration should be given to how the issues addressed in LVG can be coordinated with the pronunciation courses included in university bachelor’s degree programs, so that differing interpretations do not arise. The preparation of LVG also establishes modern linguistic terminology. A large-scale study is a kind of point of departure for thinking about language and for further investigation of the Latvian language system.

LITERATŪRA

Guļevska D., Miķelsone A., Porīte T. 2002: Pareizrakstības un pareizrunas rokasgrāmata. Latviešu valoda, Rīga: Avots.

Koncepcija 2008: Latviešu valodas gramatika: koncepcija, prospekts, atsevišķu nodaļu pirmvarianti, diskusijas materiāli, Rīga: LU Latviešu valodas institūts.

LV 2013: Latviešu valoda, Andreja Veisberga redakcijā. Rīga: LU Akadēmiskais apgāds.

LVG 2013: Latviešu valodas gramatika, Rīga: LU Latviešu valodas institūts.

LVPPV 1995: Latviešu valodas pareizrakstības un pareizrunas vārdnīca, Rīga: Avots.

Laua A. 1997: Latviešu literārās valodas fonētika, Rīga: Zvaigzne ABC.

Pareizrakstības komisijas atzinumi par burta o lasījumu 1985: – Latviešu valodas kultūras jautājumi 21, 116–120.

Pareizrakstības komisijas atzinumi par pareizrunu 1970: – Latviešu valodas kultūras jautājumi 6, 169–174.

Strautiņa V., Šulce Dz. 2009: Latviešu valodas pareizruna un pareizrakstība. Rīga: RaKa.

Strautiņa V., Šulce Dz. 2004: Latviešu literārās valodas fonētika, ortoepija un ortogrāfija, Liepāja: LiePA.

Šulce Dz. 2005: Daži aktuāli pareizrunas jautājumi. – Valodas prakse: vērojumi un ieteikumi 1, 101–106.

VPSV 2007: Valodniecības pamatterminu skaidrojošā vārdnīca, Rīga: Latviešu valodas institūts.

Svešvārdu vārdnīca, 2008, Rīga: Avots.

Valodas konsultācijas 2009–2013: – Valodas prakse: vērojumi un ieteikumi, Rīga: Latviešu valodas institūts.

Gauta 2014.11.04

BENDRINĖ KALBA | 87 (2014)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

DZINTRA ŠULCE. Probleminiai tarties klausimai Latvių kalbos gramatikoje | 5

ORTHOEPY AND ITS PROBLEMATIC ISSUES IN THE LATVIAN GRAMMAR

Summary

A significant component of any language is orthoepy, which denotes a correct pronunciation system as a whole. It is a system of conventional pronunciation norms and compliance with them in practice. The explanation of this term within this meaning can be found in the Dictionary of Key Terms in Linguistics (2007) and in the recently published Latvian Grammar (2013). Uniformity of pronunciation norms promotes the speaker’s and the listener’s mutual understanding, which is a desirable condition in the communication process.

The authors of the grammar book have repeatedly stressed that the new grammar content is mainly based on literary language facts; however, language is not entirely literal (and therefore normative). Thus, the problematic issues remain and discussions thereof are likely to continue.

In the new grammar book, several schools of linguistics are introduced; thus, a diversity of views and concepts, different interpretations of language phenomena can be observed. However, there are still no definite answers to several essential language issues not only in orthoepy but also in other fields of linguistics. The problematic issues in practical language use largely remain unsolved. In the new grammar book, correct pronunciation issues are discussed in the chapter “Orthoepy: the Main Problems of Correct Pronunciation in the Latvian Language”; it includes the following topics on correct pronunciation: 1. Word accent standardisation. 2. Pronunciation norms in vocalisation (in vowel and diphthong use). 3. Pronunciation norms in consonantism (in consonant use).

The content of the chapter on orthoepy in the Latvian Grammar does not differ from the previous studies on correct pronunciation, but it gives only a short summary of the already known information. Therefore, the problem persists when thinking about potential solutions for successful learning of correct pronunciation rules. It is possible to admit the view that correct pronunciation and the related rules should be reviewed from time to time to see whether any significant differences between spelling and pronunciation have appeared. This requires careful researches and surveys. While the society is still discussing and avoids making radical reforms in spelling, certain problematic pronunciation cases could be discussed at the meetings of the Latvian Language Expert Commission, for example, accepting parallel versions in case they already exist in the language practice.

The creation of the Latvian grammar has considerably strengthened the terminology of modern linguistics as the starting point for thinking about the language and further exploration of the Latvian language system.

KEYWORDS: the concept of orthoepy and norms thereof, word accent standardisation, pronunciation norms in vocalisation and consonantism, problematic issues in correct pronunciation.

DZINTRA ŠULCE

Liepājas Universitate

Kūrmājas prospekts 13, LV-3401 Liepāja

[email protected]

BENDRINĖ KALBA | 87 (2014) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204