At first glance, my approach may seem identical to the well-known analyses of Lithuanian that explain the acute-circumflex contrast as the different placement of stress on one of the two moras. But these analyses also presume the same treatment of the accents on long vowels so that both long monophthongs and
diphthongs (diphthongal sequences) are seen as having stress on one of the two moras. I claim, on the contrary, that modern Lithuanian does not have the con- trast between stressed and unstressed moras in stressed syllables. Instead, the lengthened elements in diphthongs and diphthongal sequences must be treated as corresponding to two moras, as well as long vowels (either lengthened or his- torically long).
Under the acute accent, the considerable lengthening of the first compo- nent, which made it comparable, if not equal, to long monophthongs, could only mean that the second component was banished to the periphery of the syllable, which is confirmed by the drop of the second component in some Lithuanian dialects. The stranded mora was given to the first component (52a). This part of the change is shared by Livonian and, to some extent, Latvian. But the main argument against the unstressed moras is the first component of circumflex diphthongs and diphthongal sequences, which, after the reduction, has clearly become non-moraic. Its mora must have been transferred to the second com- ponent (53). Lengthening the stressed elements meant making them bimoraic, and the second component of circumflex diphthongs and diphthongal sequen- ces was re-analyzed as lengthened under stress. Although ascribing two moras to less sonorous element of the syllable, when the more sonorous element has none, may seem very unusual, it is justified by the unusualness of the situation it is meant to capture.
(52) a. Lithuanian káltas [ˈkɑˑltas] or [ˈkɑːltas] ‘chisel’
μμ μμ μμ
| | > | ǂ > \/
kaltas kaltas kaːltas
b. Livonian *leiba>lēba [ˈleːbɑ(ː)] ‘bread’
μμ μμ μμ μμ
| | > | ǂ > \/ > \/
leiba leiba leːiba leːba
c. Latvian *var̃na>vā̃rna [vɑːːrna] ‘crow’
μμ μμ μμ
| | > | ǂ > \/
vɑrːnɑ vɑrnɑ vɑːːrnɑ
(53) Lithuanian kal̃tas [ˈkəlˑtas] ‘guilty’
μμ μμ
| | > \/
kalˑtas kəlˑtas
My approach is similar to that of Dogil (1999b: 887), who explains the cont- rast between acute and circumflex syllables as determined by their different pro- sodic structures. In my analysis, the structure is essentially the same, but the way it is linked to the segments of the former acute syllable is different from that of the former circumflex syllable.
5 Conclusion
The difference in the realization of Lithuanian diphthongs and diphthongal sequences, such as in aũkštas [ˈɒuˑkʃtas], taĩką [ˈtəiˑkɑː] vs. áukštas [ˈɑˑʊkʃtas], táiką [ˈtɑˑɪkɑː], goes beyond the phonetic manifestation of the tonal contrast. The traditional analysis of the distinction as the one between the accents, acute and circumflex, is only true in a historical sense, as the modern pronunciation has indeed developed from the tonal contrast. At present, diphthongs and diphthon- gal sequences differ in the way how the two moras of the heavy stressed syllab- les correspond to the components of the diphthong or diphthongal sequence. In former acute diphthongs and diphthongal sequences, the two moras are linked to the first component, whereas in former circumflex diphthongs and diphthongal sequences, the two moras are connected to the second component. The reduction of the first component under the former circumflex is explained by its being non- moraic.
The unusual development of former circumflex diphthongs and diphthon- gal sequences, where the more sonorous element is reduced while the less sono- rous element is lengthened, was made possible under special circumstances. It is the product of two independent lengthening processes that are also found in the neighboring languages, both related and unrelated. One is the lengthening of the more sonorous component of diphthongs and diphthongal sequences and the other is the lengthening of stressed syllables. The latter established the con- nection between stress and vowel length in Lithuanian, and both changes were identified as resulting in bimoraic vowels under stress.
The lengthening of the first component was created by the reassignment of the second mora, which initially corresponded to the second component. The change was mainly brought about by the need to intensify the suprasegmental contrast on diphthongs and diphthongal sequences, and this was achieved in two different ways in different dialects and languages. Aukštaitian Lithuanian, East Latvian, and Livonian preferred to replace contrasting accents (tones) with different syllable structures. In this case, the lengthening of the first component, which led to the substitution of a diphthong or diphthongal sequence with a long monophthong, only applied under one of the contrasting accents (tones).
Žemaitian and West Latvian chose to completely transfer the accentual (tonal) contrast from diphthongs and diphthongal sequences to long monophthongs, which resulted in the lengthening of the first component and the consequent change of syllable structure independently of the accent (tone).
The choice between the two opportunities may have been conditioned by the ability of long monophthongs to maintain the suprasegmental contrast, at least in Lithuanian. The fact that the lengthening of the first component in Aukštaitian only occurs under one of the accents seems to be related to the progressing loss of the contrast on long monophthongs. In Latvian, the change was specifically aimed at preserving not only the tonal contrast, but also the syllable weight in diphthongal sequences with r. Notwithstanding the special nature of the change in Latvian, it is interesting that the adjoining areas of Latvian and Lithuanian dialects show the same preference for the lengthening of the first component with respect to the suprasegmental contrast. But Livonian, which is more similar to Lithuanian in that it lengthens the first component in all diphthongs and diphthongal sequences, only has the lengthening under one of the contrasting accents, although the surrounding Latvian dialects, for the most part, are indiffe- rent to the tone of the syllable in which the lengthening is found.
Although the lengthening of stressed vowels applied in the whole Lithuanian area (with a minor exception), its interaction with the lengthening of the first component was different for Aukštaitian and Žemaitian. In Aukštaitian, where the first component was only given the second mora under the acute, the second component of circumflex diphthongs and diphthongal sequences retained its mora, which was phonetically manifested as the lengthening of the second com- ponent. But due to the newly developed connection between length and stress, the second component was re-analyzed as corresponding to two moras, the addi- tional mora being taken over from the first component. Consequently, the non- moraic first component was reduced.
It is possible that the area comprising Southern Žemaitian and the northern part of the Kaunas subdialect of Western Aukštaitian, where the first component of the circumflex diphthongs and diphthongal sequences is not reduced, corres- ponds to the more archaic stage in the development of Aukštaitian, but the lack of reduction (actually reported as the lengthening on both the first and the second component) may as well be a product of the Žemaitian influence. In Northern Žemaitian, where the lengthening of the first component took place under both acute and circumflex, the identification of the two types of lengthening did not have much impact on the further development of diphthongs and diphthongal sequences.
What is very important for the understanding of the changes I postulate for Lithuanian is that they are not completed, and some of them will probably never
be completed. The vowels resulting from both lengthening processes are only partly identified with historically long vowels, since they may be realized as only half-long, which impedes their analysis as bimoraic. In some varieties of Lithua- nian, including the standard language, the lengthening processes only apply to low vowels. The loss of the acute-circumflex contrast on long monophthongs in Aukštaitian is an ongoing process that is not complete even in Eastern Aukštaitian.
The connection between stress and length has not been fully established, since the lengthening of stressed vowels is not automatic and vowels contrast for length at least in stressed syllables. In many dialects and in the standard language, the length contrast is also preserved in unstressed syllables. This means that the ana- lysis that I propose for Lithuanian can only be viewed as a tendency that may be stronger or weaker depending of the dialect. Still I maintain that if this tendency is not recognized, Lithuanian phonology cannot be fully understood.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Peter Arkadiev and an anonymous reviewer for highly useful com- ments and suggestions on the earlier version of my chapter. All errors are my own.
Abbreviations
acc accusative dat dative
f feminine
fut future gen genitive hab habitual imp imperative inf infinitive ins instrumental loc locative
m masculine nom nominative part partitive pl plural pst past prs present prtc participle sbjv subjunctive sg singular
References
Abele [Ābele], Anna. 1924. k voprosu o sloge [On the issue of syllable]. Slavia 3: 1–34.
Ābele, Anna. 1932. Par neuzsvērto zilbju intonācijām [On the intonations of unstressed syllables]. Filologu biedrības raksti 12: 148–163.
Adamovičs, Fricis. 1923. Dundagas izloksne [The dialect of Dundaga]. Filologu biedrības raksti 3: 94–106.
Adamovičs, Fricis. 1925. Dundagas izloksne (turpinājums) [The dialect of Dundaga (continuation)]. Filologu biedrības raksti 5: 125–142.
Andronov, Aleksej. 1996. Nekotoryje zamečanija o prosodičeskix javlenijax v dialektax latyšskogo jazyka i ix predstavlenii na karte [Some remarks about prosodic phenomena in dialects of Latvian and their representation on the map]. Baltistica 31(2): 201–212.
Arkadiev, Peter. 2012. Stems in Lithuanian verbal inflection (with remarks on derivation). Word Structure 5(1): 7–27.
Atkočaitytė, Daiva. 2002. Pietų žemaičių raseiniškių prozodija ir vokalizmas [The prosody and vocalism of the Southern Žemaitian dialect of Raseiniai]. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla.
Bacevičiūtė, Rima. 2004. Šakių šnektos prozodija ir vokalizmas [The prosody and vocalism of the Šakiai dialect]. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla.
Bacevičiūtė, Rima. 2009. Dėl baltų kalbų priegaidžių eksperimentinių tyrimų [On the experimental research of accents in the Baltic languages]. Baltu filoloģija 18(1/2): 17–30.
Bacevičiūtė, Rima. 2011. Vakarų aukštaičių kauniškių monoftongų priegaidžių fonetiniai požymiai [The phonetic features of syllable accents on monophthongs in the Western Aukštaitian dialect of kaunas]. Baltistica, VII Priedas: 13–26.
Balode, Laimute & Axel Holvoet. 2001a. The Latvian language and its dialects. in ệsten Dahl &
Maria koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds.) Circum-Baltic languages. Vol. 2: Past and present, 3–40.
Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Balode, Laimute & Axel Holvoet. 2001b. The Lithuanian language and its dialects. in ệsten Dahl & Maria koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds.) Circum-Baltic languages. Vol. 2: Past and present, 41–79. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Blevins, Juliette. 1993. A tonal analysis of Lithuanian nominal accent. Language 69(2): 237–273.
Buch, Tamara. 1968. Zur phonologischen Wertung von lit. ie, uo und lit. ẹ, e. Lingua Posnaniensis 12/13: 77–80.
Bye, Patrik. 1997. A generative perspective on ‘overlength’ in Estonian and Saami. in ilse Lehiste & Jaan Ross (eds.) Estonian prosody: Papers from a symposium, 36–70. Tallinn:
institute of Estonian Language.
Ceplītis, Laimdots, Aina Miķelsone, Tamāra Porīte, & Silvija Raģe. 1995. Latviešu valodas pareizrakstības un pareizrunas vārdnīca [The orthographic and orthoepic dictionary of Latvian]. Rīga: Avots.
Collinge, Neville. 1985. The laws of Indo-European. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Daugavet, Anna. 2010. Syllable length in Latvian and Lithuanian: Searching for the criteria.
Baltic Linguistics 1: 83–114.
Daugavet, Anna. 2012. Register and contour in the analysis of Latvian and Lithuanian tones. Paper presented at the 45th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea, Stockholm.
Daugavet, Anna. 2013. Geminacija soglasnyx v latyšskom jazyke: sledy pribaltijsko-finskogo vlijanija [Consonant gemination in Latvian: traces of Finnic influence]. in Petr M. Arkad’jev &
Vjacheslav V. ivanov (eds.) Issledovanija po tipologii slavjanskix, baltijskix i balkanskix jazykov [Studies in the typology of Slavic, Baltic and Balkan languages], 280–319. Saint Petersburg: Aletheia.
Dogil, Grzegorz. 1999a. The phonetic manifestation of word stress in Lithuanian, Polish, German and Spanish. in Harry van der Hulst (ed.) Word prosodic systems in the languages of Europe, 273–310. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Dogil, Grzegorz. 1999b. Baltic languages. in Harry van der Hulst (ed.) Word prosodic systems in the languages of Europe, 877–896. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ekblom, Richard. 1933. Die lettischen Akzentarten. Uppsala: Almquist and Wiksells Boktryckerei.
Endzelīns, Jānis. 1951. Latviešu valodas gramatika [The grammar of Latvian]. Rīga: Latvijas valsts izdevniecība.
Garšva, kazimieras. 2003. Lietuvių kalbos priegaidės [Lithuanian syllable accents]. Kalbų studijos 4: 12–16.
Garšva, kazimieras & Aleksas Girdenis. 1997. Fonologija [Phonology]. in Vytautas Ambrazas (ed.) Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika [Grammar of contemporary Lithuanian]. Vilnius:
Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.
Girdenis, Aleksas. 1967. Mažeikių tarmės priegaidžių fonetinės ypatybės [The phonetic properties of syllable accents in the dialect of Mažeikiai]. Kalbotyra 15: 31–41.
Girdenis, Aleksas. 1971. Review of: Lietuvių kalbos tarmės (Chrestomatija), Leidykla „Mintis“, Vilnius, 1970. Baltistica 7(2): 201–209.
Girdenis, Aleksas. 1974. Prozodinės priegaidžių ypatybės šiaurės žemaičių tarmėje [The prosodic properties of syllable accents in Northern Žemaitian]. in Antanas Pakerys (ed.) Eksperimentinė ir praktinė fonetika [Experimental and practical phonetics], 160–198.
Vilnius: Vilniaus pedagoginis institutas.
Girdenis, Aleksas. 1996. Energetinė šiaurės žemaičių tarmės priegaidžių fonetinės prigimties interpretacija [The energetic interpretation of the phonetic manifestation of syllable accents in Northern Žemaitian]. Baltistica 31(1): 71–84.
Girdenis, Aleksas. 1997a. Phonology. in Vytautas Ambrazas (ed.) Lithuanian grammar, 13–58.
Vilnius: Baltos lankos.
Girdenis, Aleksas. 1997b. Morphonology. in Vytautas Ambrazas (ed.) Lithuanian grammar, 61–84. Vilnius: Baltos lankos.
Girdenis, Aleksas. 1998. Šiaurės žemaičių priegaidžių skiriamieji požymiai [The differentiating features of syllable accents in Northern Žemaitian]. in kazys Morkūnas (ed.) Lietuvių kalba: tyrėjai ir tyrimai: Kazimiero Jauniaus 150-osioms gimimo ir 90-osioms mirties metinėms paminėti: konferencijos pranešimų tezės, 1998 m. spalio 22–23 d. [Lithuanian language: Scholars and studies: Abstracts from the conference dedicated to kazimieras Jaunis], 37–38. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.
Girdenis, Aleksas. 2002. Dėl kirčiuotų pusilgių balsių prozodijos [On the prosody of stressed half-long vowels]. Baltistica 37(2): 211–213.
Girdenis, Aleksas. 2003. Teoriniai lietuvių fonologijos pagrindai [The theoretical grounds of Lithuanian phonology]. Vilnius: Moklso ir enciklopedijų leidybos insitutas.
Girdenis, Aleksas. 2009. Vadinamųjų sutaptinių dvibalsių [ie uo] garsinė ir fonologinė sudėtis [The phonetical and phonological structure of the so-called gliding diphthongs]. Baltistica 44: 213–242.
Grigorjevs, Juris. 2008. Latviešu valodas patskaņu sistēmas akustisks un auditīvs raksturojums [The acoustic and auditory analysis of the Latvian vowel system]. Rīga: LU Latviešu valodas institūts.
Grinaveckienė, Elena, Aldona Jonaitytė, Jonina Lipskienė, kazys Morkūnas, Birutė Vanagienė &
Aloyzas Vidugiris. 1982. Lietuvių kalbos atlasas II. Fonetika [The atlas of the Lithuanian language ii. Phonetics.]. Vilnius: Mokslas.
Grinaveckis, Vladas. 1973. Žemaičių tarmių istorija (Fonetika) [The history of the Žemaitian dialects (phonetics)]. Vilnius: Mintis.
Halle, Morris & Jean-Roger Vergnaud. 1987. An essay on stress. Cambridge, MA: MiT Press.
Hint, Mati. 1997. Two issues in Estonian phonology. in Mati Hint, Eesti keele astmevahelduse ja prosoodiasüsteemi tüpoloogilised probleemid [Typological problems of the system of gradation and prosody in Estonian]. Tallinn, Helsinki: Eesti keele Sihtasutus.
Hulst, Harry van der (ed.): 1999. Word prosodic systems in the languages of Europe. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter.
Javnis, kazimir [kazimieras Jaunis]. 1908–1916. Grammatika litovskogo jazyka. Litovskij original i russkij perevod [The grammar of Lithuanian. Lithuanian original and Russian translation]. Petrograd: imperatorskaja Akademija Nauk.
kačiuškienė, Genovaitė & Aleksas Girdenis. 1997. Rytų aukštaičių ir šiaurės žemaičių priegaidės: Bendrybės ir skirtumai [Syllable accents in Eastern Aukštaitian and Northern Žemaitian: Similarities and differences]. Kalbotyra 46(1): 31–36.
kariņš, krišjānis. 1996. The prosodic structure of Latvian. institute for Research in Cognitive Science, University of Pennsylvania PhD dissertation.
kazlauskas, Jonas. 1968. Lietuvių kalbos istorinė gramatika (kirčiavimas, daiktavardis, veiksmažodis) [The historical grammar of Lithuanian (accentuation, substantive, verb)].
Vilnius: Mintis.
kettunen, Lauri. 1938. Livisches Wửrterbuch mit grammatischer Einleitung. (Lexicae Societatis Fenno-Ugricae V.) Helsinki: Suomalais-ugrilainen Seura.
kiparsky, Paul. 1995–2006. Livonian stứd. http://www.stanford.edu/~kiparsky/. Accessed 28 July 2012.
koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria & Bernhard Wọlchli. 2001. The Circum-Baltic languages: An areal- typological approach. in ệsten Dahl & Maria koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds.) Circum-Baltic
languages. Vol. 2: Grammar and typology, 615–750. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
kudirka, Robertas. 2005. Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos monoftongų priegaidžių akustiniai požymiai [The acoustic features of syllable accents on monophthongs in Standard Lithuanian]. Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 52: 1–21.
kuleshov, Vyacheslav. 2012. Livonian word accent system. in Natalya V. kuznetsova (ed.) Fenno-Lapponica Petropolitana, 104–131. (Acta Linguistica Petropolitana. Volume Viii, part 1). Sankt-Peterburg: Nauka.
kurschat, Fridrich. 1876. Grammatik der litauischen Sprache. Halle: Verlag der Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses.
Ladefoged, Peter & Jan Maddieson. 1996. The sounds of the world’s languages. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Laua, Alise. 1997. Latviešu literārās valodas fonētika [The phonetics of Standard Latvian].
Rīga: Zvaigzne ABC.
Lehiste, ilse. 2003. Prosodic change in progress. in Paula Fikkert and Haike Jacobs (eds.) Development in prosodic systems, 47–65. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lehiste, ilse, Pire Teras, Valts Ernštreits, Pọrtel Lippus, karl Pajusalu, Tuuli Tuisk, & Tiit-Rein Viitso. 2008. Livonian prosody. Helsinki: Suomalais-ugrilainen seura.
Lehiste, ilse, Pire Teras, karl Pajusalu & Tuuli Tuisk. 2007. Quantity in Livonian: Preliminary results. Linguistica Uralica 48(1): 29–44.
Leskauskaitė, Asta. 2004. Pietų aukštaičių vokalizmo ir prozodijos bruožai [The characteristics of vocalism and prosody of Southern Aukštaitian]. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.
Markus, Dace & ilze Auziņa. 2008. Fonētika un fonoloģija [Phonetics and phonology]. in inga Jansone (ed.) Latviešu valodas gramatika: koncepcija, prospekts, atsevišķu nodaļu pirmvarianti, diskusijas materiāli [Latvian grammar: Conception, prospect, initial descriptions, discussions], 52–58. Rīga: LU Latviešu valodas institūts.
Mažiulienė, irena. 1996. Centrinės šiaurės žemaičių tarmės prozodija: instrumentinis ir sociolingvistinis tyrimas [The prosody of central Northern Žemaitian: An instrumental and sociolinguistic study]. Kalbotyra 44(1): 5–115.
Murinienė, Lina. 2007. Rytinių šiaurės žemaičių fonologija: vokalizmas ir prozodija [The Phonology of East Northern Žemaitian: Vocalism and prosody]. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, Vilniaus pedagoginis universitetas.
Pajupuu, Hille & Tiit-Rein Viitso. 1986. Livonian polyphthongs. in Estonian Papers in Phonetics 1984–1985, 96–131. Tallinn: Academy of Sciences of the E.S.S.R. institute of Language and Literature.
Pakerys, Antanas. 1970. Skiemenų sudaromieji ir skiemeniniai garsai [Syllable constituent sounds and syllabic sounds]. Tarybinė mokykla 10: 29–30.
Pakerys, Antanas. 1982. Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos prozodija [The prosody of Standard Lithuanian]. Vilnius: Mokslas.
Pakerys, Antanas. 1995. Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos fonetika [The phonetics of Standard Lithuanian]. Vilnius: Žara.
Penttilọ, Aarni & Lauri Posti. 1941. Uber die steigende und sog. Stossintonation im Livischen.
Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 27: 235–272.
Pupkis, Aldonas. 1980. Kalbos kultūros pagrindai [The grounds of speech culture]. Vilnius:
Mokslas.
Rudzīte, Marta. 1964. Latviešu dialektoloģija [Latvian dialectology]. Rīga: Latvijas valsts izdevniecība.
Rudzīte, Marta. 1993. Latviešu valodas vēsturiskā fonētika [A historical phonology of Latvian].
Rīga: Zvaigzne.
Rūķe, Velta. 1939. Latgales izlokšņu grupējums [The grouping of dialects in Latgale]. Filologu biedrības raksti 19: 133–188.
Rūķe, Velta. 1940. kurzemes un Vidzemes lībiskais apgabals [The Livonian region in kurzeme and Vidzeme]. Filologu biedrības raksti 20: 75–128.
Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1922. Recueil des publications scientifiques. Heidelberg: Winter.
Senn, Alfred. 1966. Handbuch der litauischen Sprache. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
Strelēvica-Ošiņa, Dace. 2009. Latviešu valodas lībiskais dialekts un tā lietotāju identitāte:
pārdomas pēc pētījuma [The Livonianized dialect of Latvian and the identity of its speakers: Thoughts after research]. Acta Universitatis Latviensis 746. Linguistics. Latvian Studies and Finno-Ugristics, 94–112.
Stundžia, Bonifacas. 1995. Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos kirčiavimo sistema [The accentuation system of Standard Lithuanian]. Vilnius: Petro ofsetas.
Tuisk, Tuuli & Pire Teras. 2009. The role of duration ratios and fundamental frequency in spontaneous Livonian. Lingustica Uralica 45(4): 241–252.
Tuisk, Tuuli. 2012. Tonal and temporal characteristics of disyllabic words in spontaneous Livonian. Linguistica Uralica 48(1): 1–11.
Viitso, Tiit-Rein. 1974. On the phonological role of stress, quantity, and stứd in Livonian.
Sovetskoe finno-ugrovedenie 20(3): 159–169.
Viitso, Tiit-Rein. 2003. Structure of the Estonian language: Phonology, morphology and word formation. in Mati Erelt (ed.) Estonian language (Linguistica Uralica. Supplementary Series 1), 9–92. Tallinn: Estonian Academy Publishers.
Viitso, Tiit-Rein. 2008. Liivi keel ja lọọnemeresoome keelemaastikud [The Livonian language and Finnic linguistic landscapes]. Tartu, Tallinn: Eesti keele Sihtasutus.