Case study Lithuanian

In lexical accent systems, the location of the surface accent(s) within a phonological word depends on the interaction of the underlying prosodic properties of the morphemes contained in it. A very short list of languages with such systems would include Ukrainian, BCMS, Bulgarian, Modern Greek, Japanese, Lithuanian, Russian, Sanskrit, Modern English, A’ingae, Chamorro and many others (cf. Chung 1983; Halle & Vergnaud 1987 a, b; Haraguchi 1988; Inkelas & Zec 1988; Blevins 1993; Revithiadou 1999; Zec 1999; Alderete 2001; Kushnir 2019, 2022; Dąbkowski 2021). Lithuanian is a very convenient example for anyone who is starting their inquiry into the world of lexical accent, for multiple reasons. Firstly, it has a straightforward system of surface prosody, featuring exactly one main prominent position in non-compound words. Secondly, its accent system is cyclic, with accent resolution happening every time a base and an affix are concatenated (evidence for cyclicity / cyclic optimization in grammar). Furthermore, while the system as a whole provides evidence in favor of the Mirror Principle (Baker 1985), there is a very interesting bracketing paradox found in the domain of verbal participles when preverbs are involved. Finally, Lithuanian provides evidence for the concept of [strength] in grammar, i.e., there are reasons to believe that underlying prosodic units may be weak and strong. In this class, we will have a very brief introduction into the segmental phonology (and phonetics) of Lithuanian, followed by a detailed case study of its prosody, including the nominal and verbal accent subsystems. In order to successfully follow the material presented in this class, a student is expected to have basic knowledge of phonetics and segmental phonology (including IPA) and be at least superficially familiar with the tree-like autosegmental representations of prosodic words, syllabic units and morae (ω-σ-μ-V).

Level: introductory/intermediate