Bērnu latviešu valodas attīstība artikulācijas, normu un lingvistiskās vides šķēršļu joslā

Abstract

The history of civilization and our historical contacts lie not only in archaeological digs. Linguistics studies have both a historical and a powerful modern dimension with a significant impact on the future. The Latvian language is an undoubted national value in Latvia, and it should be valued since birth, at least in this country. It is a means of strengthening thoughts and ideas for children, a means of building their worldview, a stimulus for enriching their knowledge, creative activity, and, ultimately, civic thinking. The facts of language history and the traces of language contacts are also found in children’s language; for example, children are more likely to learn sounds that can be found in most languages of the world, while the sounds specific for each language are more difficult to learn for speakers of other languages. This time, I describe such creative linguistic activities of children that remind us of linguistic relationships and older forms and fit into our historical development. I have already analysed the examples observed in children’s Latvian, which, in adult language, we have transformed throughout history, but which very directly show the common grounds of the Baltic languages. For example, the historical change in vocalism known in Latvian phonetics, the sound change determined by the consonant /n/, is not inherited; it appeared in the Latvian language when in > ī, un > ū, an > o [uo], en > ie as a result of historical changes. When we compare Latvian words with Lithuanian, examples can be found: krītu < krintù, jūtu < juntù, protu < prantù, pieci < penkì, arī rankà > roka, etc. The change kind of lives in Latvian children’s language because we can hear examples of it: tinšu kamolā ‘tīšu kamolā’, pint matus ‘pīt matus’, un pinšu bizi ‘pīšu bizi’, dzint bārdu ‘dzīt bārdu’, uzmint uz kājas ‘uzmīt uz kājas’. These are variations of the change mentioned above, and these families had no relationship or other close contact with Lithuanians. Also, an example of simplification has been observed when, alike to the historical loss of consonant /d/, e.g. nīd-a – nī(d) -st-u, a child made a similar change: līd-a – es pašlaik jau lī(d)-st-u `lienu`. In reference to conversations between children and their parents, this article mentions Lithuanian formant -iuk and Latvian affix -uk- that are used to form masculine diminutives, whether the primary word is masculine or feminine. Problems in pronunciation of Latvian and Lithuanian only opening diphthongs ie and o [uo] not common in other languages are also described along with the reminder of play languages of children speaking Latvian or southern part of Zhemaitian subdialects as a signal that children perceive ie and o [uo] as monophonemes in contrast to biphonemic character of other diphthongs. Children learn languages gradually, first memorising the dominant, most frequently heard elements of language, e.g. maybe: es lasu, tu lasi, es nāku…, but why tu nāc? Why not tu nāki or even tu nāci (pres.), thus demonstrating a naturally perceived once occurred change of the consonant k into c in front of the lost front vowel? Maybe the intensity could be escalated by saying, Tu mani ļoti mīli, bet es tevi mīlu ļotāk! Education is an objective necessity, and language skills are important for learning. The five-year-old Eiženija understands this very clearly: “Jaunība ir jauns bērns. Jaunībā ir jāmācās, jo savādāk paliks vecs un neko nezinās.” (‘Youth is a young child. You have to learn when you’re young, because otherwise [one] will grow old and know nothing.’) This article focuses solely on the results of pre-school speech records and parental surveys and highlights the impact of the linguistic environment as a contributing or preventing factor.