Kajkavsko narječje – jučer, danas i sutra

U uvodu se daju temeljni podatci o genezi, rasprostiranju i podjeli kajkavskog narječja. Najbliže se činje- ničnom stanju o genezi kajkavskog narječja smatra mišljenje Z. Junkovića koji je smatrao da je kajkavski dijalekt pripadao panonskoj skupini zapadnoga južnoslavenskoga prajezika koju bi po njemu još spadali prleški, prekmurski i neki zapadnoštajerski govori. Osmanlijska osvajanja uzrokovala su velike migracije stanovništva prema sjeveru i zapadu, a stanovništvo koje ga je kasnije supstituiralo bilo je uglavnom s pod- ručja štokavskog narječja. Od mnogih podjela kajkavskog narječja apostrofira se ona Mije Lončarića koji ga je podijelio na 15 dijalekata.U daljem dijelu rada prikazuju se neke najtipičnije jezične osobine kajkavskih govora na fonološkoj, mor- fološkoj i sintaktičkoj razini. Daju se primjeri minimalnih fonoloških parova između različitih istovrsnih samoglasnika o- ili e- kategorije u pojedinim kajkavskim govorima. U nekim govorima izgubljena je opreka po kvantiteti jer je u tim govorima, kako bi se nadoknadila razlikovna obilježja koja postoje u govorima gdje postoje te opreke, došlo do prefonologizacije prozodijskih suprasegmentalnih obilježja u segmentne. Eliminacija kvantitete važna je poveznica kajkavskog govora s istokom slavenskoga sjevera te poljskim i lužičkim jezicima.Od morfoloških osobina posebno se ističe izricanje morfoloških kategorija s alternacijama samoglasni- ka u nekim dijalektima. Još se apostrofira čuvanje supina, gubitak vokativa, nepostojanje duge množine u A-deklinaciji i nestanak dvojine.U zaključku se kaže da će većina opisa kajkavskih govora koji se u dijalektološkoj literaturi još uvijek navode kao sinkronijska činjenica vrlo brzo postati jezična dijakronija jer su kod većine ispitanika prisutni su znakovi procesa erozije govora koje navodi C. Hagège. Tih promjena ispitanici uglavnom nisu svjesni i oni su većinom još uvijek uvjereni da govore izvornom kajkavštinom, a ne interdijalektom u kojem je veći- na specifičnih osobina njihovih mjesnih govora reducirana. Zaključuje se da kajkavsko narječje ipak neće doživjeti svoj nestanak, već će nestati specifičnosti pojedinih skupina i mjesnih govora s trajno očuvanim „čvrstim dijelovima“.The introduction provides basic data on the genesis, distribution, and division of the Kajkavian dialect. It is thought that the closest to the factual situation on the genesis of the Kajkavian dialect is the opinion of Z. Junković, who believed that the Kajkavian dialect belonged to the Pannonian group of the Western South Slavic proto-language, which according to him would still include the dialects of Prlekija, the dialect of Prekmurje as well as some West Styrian dialects. The Ottoman conquests caused large migrations of the population to the north and west, and the population that later replaced it was mainly from the area of the Štokavian dialect. Of the many divisions of the Kajkavian dialect, the one by Mijo Lončarić is usually em- phasized; it divides the Kajkavian dialect into 15 dialects.The following part of the paper continues to present some of the most typical linguistic features of the Kajkavian vernaculars at the phonological, morphological, and syntactic level. Examples of minimal phono- logical pairs between different identical vowels of the o- or e-category in individual Kajkavian vernaculars are given. In some vernaculars, the opposition in quantity was lost because in these vernaculars, in order to compensate for the distinctive features that exist in vernaculars where these contradictions exist, the prosodic suprasegmental features were transformed into segmental ones. The elimination of quantity is an important link between the Kajkavian dialect and the east of the Slavic North as well as the Polish and the Lusatian language.Among the morphological features, the pronunciation of morphological categories with vowel alterna- tions in some dialects stands out. The emphasis is on the preservation of the supine, the loss of the vocative, the absence of the long plural in the A-declension, and the disappearance of the dual.In conclusion, it is said that most descriptions of Kajkavian vernaculars that are still cited in the dialec- tological literature as a synchronic fact will soon become linguistic diachrony because most respondents have signs of the vernacular erosion process cited by C. Hagège. Respondents are largely unaware of these changes and are mostly still convinced that they speak the original Kajkavian rather than an interdialect in which most of the specific characteristic features of their local dialects have been reduced. It is concluded that the Kajkavian dialect will not disappear but the specific features of individual groups and local dialects with permanently preserved “solid parts” will not be preserved.

Ease and Difficulty in L2 Pronunciation Teaching: A Mini-Review

Both L2 learners and their teachers are concerned about pronunciation. While an unspoken classroom goal is often native-accented speech (i.e., a spoken variety of the mother tongue that it not geographically confined to a place within a particular country), pronunciation researchers tend to agree that comprehensible speech (i.e., speech that can be easily understood by an interlocutor) is a more realistic goal. A host of studies have demonstrated that certain types of training can result in more comprehensible L2 speech. This contribution considers research on training the perception and production of both segmental (i.e., speech sounds) and suprasegmental features (i.e., stress, rhythm, tone, intonation). Before we can determine whether a given pronunciation feature is easy or difficult to teach and—more importantly—to learn, we must focus on: 1) setting classroom priorities that place comprehensibility of L2 speech at the forefront; and 2) relying upon insights gained through research into L2 pronunciation training. The goal of the mini-review is to help contextualize the papers presented in this collection.

Comparison of Declarative-Interrogative Intonation in Lampungnese

Intonation is a suprasegmental feature of language that constructs the meaning of utterances. The meaning constructed can be different from the lexical meaning and syntactical structure. This paper tried to examine the intonation system in the Lampung language, especially the acoustic characteristics which distinguish between declarative and interrogative. In this research, the researcher applied the IPO approach to collect and analyze data. Data were gathered by recording native speakers uttering declarative and interrogative sentences that were segmentally identical. Having the data, a perception test was conducted to get the best utterances for each mode as a contour prototype. Next, both prototypes were analyzed respectively using Praat software to find out each acoustic characteristic. Then, they were compared to find the suprasegmental features that characterize the acoustic features of each sentence mode. Based on the analysis, both intonations differed in the pitch of initial, final subject constituent, final complement constituent, initial predicate constituent, final pitch, peak, range of pitch, and duration of utterances. In addition, pitch of peak (H1) and slope (H2) were identified as the most influential component in the formation of a sentence model. Therefore, experiments of manipulating those acoustic features (H1 and H2) and testing them on the perception of native speakers were held to prove the identification. The result of the perception test showed that the peak significantly distinguished the mode of the sentence, the higher pitch of the peak determined the interrogative mode. While the second identification did not give any contribution in creating the meaning.

Detection of Non-native Speaker Status from Backwards and Vocoded Contentmasked Speech

This paper addresses the issue of speech rhythm as a cue to non-native pronunciation. In natural recordings, it is impossible to disentangle rhythm from segmental, subphonemic or suprasegmental features that may influence nativeness ratings. However, two methods of speech manipulation, that is, backwards content-masked speech and vocoded speech, allow the identification of native and non-native speech in which segmental properties are masked and become inaccessible to the listeners. In the current study, we use these two methods to compare the perception of content-masked native English speech and Polish-accented speech. Both native English and Polish-accented recordings were manipulated using backwards masked speech and 4-band white-noise vocoded speech. Fourteen listeners classified the stimuli as produced by native or Polish speakers of English. Polish and English differ in their temporal organization, so, if rhythm is a significant contributor to the status of non-native accentedness, we expected an above-chance rate of recognition of native and non-native English speech. Moreover, backwards content-masked speech was predicted to yield better results than vocoded speech, because it retains some of the indexical properties of speakers. The resultsshow that listeners are unable to detect non-native accent in Polish learners of English from backwards and vocoded speech samples.

The essence of ‘word’

This chapter offers general background for the analysis of ‘phonological word’ and ‘grammatical word’ in a cross-linguistic perspective. It outlines the defining characteristics of phonological word (including segmental and suprasegmental features and phonological processes), formulates restrictions on the length of a minimal word, and places ‘word’ within a hierarchy of phonological units. Defining features of grammatical word are outlined next. In most instances phonological words and grammatical words coincide. In some cases a grammatical word can consist of a number of phonological words, and vice versa. Typical instances of mismatches involve reduplication, compounding, and complex predicates, including serial verbs. Clitics—morphological units which form a phonological unit with a word preceding or following them—account for further mismatches. The reality of word and the nature of its orthographic representation are discussed next. The chapter concludes with an overview of the volume, and an appendix containing points to be addressed by fieldworkers.