OLGA MASTIANICA

Institute of Lithuanian History

ORCID id: orcid.org/0000-0003-3094-3539

Research areas: sociocultural phenomena of the nineteenth century, the identity of the intelligentsia and nobility, interethnic relations.

VIOLETA MEILŪNAITĖ

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

ORCID id: orcid.org/0000-0003-0862-0709

Research areas: dialectology, geolinguistics, sociolinguistics.

DOI: doi.org/10.35321/all87-17

Danguolė Mikulėnienė

HISTORY OF THE INSTITUTE OF THE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE: THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF THE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE AND LINGUISTICS

Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language, 2021, 242 pp. ISBN 978-609-411-310-9 (general), ISBN 978-609-411-311-6 (Part I)

Scholarly research on the Lithuanian language has a fairly long and rich history, whose beginnings may be sought as early as the mid-nineteenth century and linked to the establishment of comparative-historical linguistics in linguistics^¹. At that time, such figures as Augustas Schleicheris and Friedrichas Kurschatis emerged in the world of Lithuanian-language research, while representatives of global linguistics—Karlas Brugmannas, Augustas Leskienas, Adalbertas Bezzenbergeris, and others—took an interest in the Lithuanian language. Inspired by their foreign colleagues

^¹ The attempts to research and describe the Lithuanian language, from the earliest times to 2010, were discussed most comprehensively by Academician Algirdas Sabaliauskas History of Research on the Lithuanian Language in a three-volume work (Part I, 1979; Part II, 1982; Part III, 2012).

Recenzijos / Reviews

347

OLGA MASTIANICA, VIOLETA MEILIŪNAITĖ

the native language also began to be studied by Lithuanian intellectuals—Antanas Baranauskas, Jonas Jablonskis, Kazimieras Būga, Kazimieras Jaunius, and others. It seems that the Lithuanian language was receiving no shortage of attention: scholarly grammars appeared (although at first more often not in Lithuanian, since they were written by scholars from other countries), and efforts were made to codify the language and create a common, official variety... But all this took place through the initiative of individual people, in different educational institutions, and often was limited to the efforts of a single person (when speaking of students or other assistants who supplied material, they were more informants than research colleagues) and a single lifetime.

Thus, speaking of the Lithuanian language in general, it must be said that comprehensive, complex, long-term, targeted research meeting the needs of the emerging state was sorely lacking. In the first half of the twentieth century, the evident need arose to consolidate and institutionalize research on the Lithuanian language. It was necessary to establish the position and status of Lithuanian—as the state language—to substantiate its richness and deep historical roots, and, on historical foundations, to create and plan its future development. This task fell to the Antanas Smetona Institute of Lituanistics, founded at the end of the fourth decade of the twentieth century; its establishment and first steps have remained little known to the broader public and called for closer examination.

The opportunity to stir up that history and learn more about it is provided by Danguolė Mikulėnienė’s latest scholarly study^² History of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language: The Institutionalization of the Lithuanian Language and Linguistics^³. This is an exceptionally significant and long-awaited study devoted to the beginnings of the institutionalization of the Lithuanian language and linguistics.

The founding of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language continues to be associated with the establishment of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences on January 16, 1941, although as early as 1999 the historian Antanas Tyla proposed reconsidering the origins of the establishment of the humanities institutes^⁴. Danguolė Mikulėnienė links the history of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language, or more precisely the institutionalization of the Lithuanian language and linguistics, to the establishment of the Antanas Smetona Institute of Lituanistics in 1938 (if we rely on legal acts) or 1939, when the Institute began its activities (p. 9). In seeking to substantiate the Antanas Smetona Institute of Lituanistics as

² The scope of the publication, the comprehensiveness of the facts presented, and the new data undoubtedly allow it to be called a monograph; therefore, classifying it as a study may, on the one hand, be regarded as an expression of the author’s modesty, while, on the other hand, it prompts the reader to await further parts of the extensive research.

³ It should be noted that this study consistently continues the scholar’s research into the history of Lithuanian linguistics— in 2018, a monograph devoted to the history of dialect research appeared History of Lithuanian Dialect Research: Genesis, Development, and Paradigmatic Breaks (Part I, Vilnius: Mokslo and Encyclopaedia Publishing Centre). Since research on the Lithuanian language began with descriptions of individual regional language varieties, this monograph may be regarded as a consistent choice for the study under discussion, and here the reader can find the prehistory of the institutionalization of the Lithuanian language.

⁴ Tyla (1999: 13).

348

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVII

Danguolė Mikulėnienė History of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language: The Institutionalization of the Lithuanian Language and Linguistics

as the predecessor of the present-day Institute of the Lithuanian Language, the author chose the activities of the Lithuanian Language Division as the subject of the scholarly study History of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language: The Institutionalization of the Lithuanian Language and Linguistics. Three divisions operated within the Antanas Smetona Institute of Lituanistics: the Lithuanian Language Division, the Lithuanian History Division, and the Folklore Division. Compared with the Institute’s other divisions, the activities of the Lithuanian Language Division were exceptional, as the author of the study states—the linguists had several additional tasks: “to organize and implement the management of the state language and, together with it, to activate and modernize language science in Lithuania” (p. 10).

In the first chapter of the scholarly study, “An Institutional Characterization of the Antanas Smetona Institute of Lituanistics,” the researcher reconstructs not only the scholarly and organizational activities of the Lithuanian Language Division but also the entire ^{activity of the Institute of Lituanistics. Until now, Lithuanian historiography had examined only the ideological and sociocultural context of the Institute of Lituanistics’ formation and its prehistory⁵}, whereas the Institute of Lituanistics’ aims, tasks, structure, administration, and, most importantly, its personnel and changes in its staff had not been at the center of Lithuanian historiography’s attention. It should be noted that the activities of the Lithuanian History Division of the Institute of Lituanistics constitute a completely neglected field of historical research; only individual personalities and their historical legacy have been studied^⁶. Yet, as Danguolė Mikulėnienė’s latest research shows, historians and linguists cooperated closely, as is eloquently demonstrated by Mykolas Biržiška’s membership in the Council of the Lithuanian Language Division (p. 31). Therefore, the scholarly study History of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language: The Institutionalization of the Lithuanian Language and Linguistics is a major incentive for historians to begin comparative studies, especially since Danguolė Mikulėnienė, with remarkable thoroughness and relying on primary archival sources (plans of the Institute of Lituanistics’ activities, minutes, public speeches, reports), most of which are being introduced into scholarly circulation for the first time, has provided a detailed account of the leadership of the Institute of Lituanistics, the members of the Institute Council, and the personnel of the Lithuanian Language Division and its institutions; she has assessed the scholarly potential of the Institute of Lituanistics’ associates, separately presenting an analysis of their studies at foreign universities (pp. 33–34). This detailed research is excellently complemented by the scholarly study’s appendices, “Biograms. Members of the Council, administrative staff, and language workers of the Antanas Smetona Institute of Lituanistics” (pp. 178–195) and “Documentary Illustrations of Biograms” (pp. 196–207), which present new, previously unknown documentary material about Napalys Grigas, Elena Horodničūtė (Samaniūtė), Viktoras Kamantauskas, Aleksandras Lengvinas, and even the historian Vincas Trumpa, while clarifying facts concerning the duties performed by Mykolas Biržiška as director of the Institute of Lituanistics.

^⁵ Mačiulis (2002: 19–38); Juzefovičius (2019: 88–103).

^⁶ Gieda (2017).

Recenzijos / Reviews

349

OLGA MASTIANICA, VIOLETA MEILIŪNAITĖ

Danguolė Mikulėnienė devoted particular attention to the first signs of the Sovietization of the Institute of Lituanistics. The book History of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language: The Institutionalization of the Lithuanian Language and Linguistics shows how, in June 1940, all books by Antanas Smetona and publications about him were to be removed from bookshops, reading rooms, and libraries; how the director of the Institute of Lituanistics, Kazimieras Masiliūnas, was dismissed; how discussions were held with Aldonas Pupkis concerning attempts to remove Juozas Balčikonis from the position of editor of the great Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language; how Vincas Krėvė-Mickevičius instructed employees to participate obligatorily in processions marking the anniversary of the revolution; and how vividly the arrests and deportations of the people of Lithuania affected the employees of the Institute of Lituanistics.

In the scholarly study, Danguolė Mikulėnienė examines the vision and mission of linguistic and linguistics-related activities on the basis of primary sources—the festive speeches delivered by the Minister of Education Jonas Tonkūnas and the director of the Institute of Lituanistics Kazimieras Masiliūnas on the occasion of the opening of the Institute of Lituanistics, and the minutes of the meetings of the Council of the Lithuanian Language Division (March 18, 1939), which record the Institute’s linguists’ commitments to Lithuanian society. This exceptionally valuable documentary material for the historian of language and the historian is presented in the appendices to the book (pp. 208–226). It is interesting to note that K. Masiliūnas identified the study of the history of the Lithuanian language and ancient written monuments, as well as their publication, as the fourth task (though certainly not the last) (p. 95). As Danguolė Mikulėnienė’s research shows, the Lithuanian Language Division successfully carried out this task (p. 126).

In examining the plans and reports of the Lithuanian Language Division, Danguolė Mikulėnienė arrived at an exceptionally significant conclusion worthy of separate quotation:

“The linguists of the Institute of Lituanistics were creating modern Lithuanian linguistics, which ideologically and methodologically was intended to surpass the schools of [Kazimieras] Būga and [Jonas] Jablonskis of the beginning of the twentieth century and thus bring Lithuanian linguistics into the scientific discourse of linguistics in Europe” (p. 101).

In other words, it may be argued that the process moved from individual, isolated, and often short-lived studies and the goals set for them to the systematic, comprehensive, and long-term planning and organization of scholarly research on the Lithuanian language. By bringing together groups of scholars, the aim was to achieve a more thorough, deeper, and more multifaceted assessment of the objects under investigation. Moreover, it should not be forgotten that the focus was not only on what we might call the local market; the vision was much broader—the goal was to enter the “scientific discourse of linguistics in Europe,” in other words, to eliminate the isolation of Lithuanian linguistics. This is also evident from the fact that the Institute employed scholars who had studied at foreign institutions and knew that European discourse firsthand (see the biograms in Appendix 1).

In a separate section, the second chapter of the scholarly study, “The Vision and Mission of Linguistic and Linguistics-Related Activities: A Reconstructive Perspective,” assesses how the Lithuanian Language Division’s plans for the regulation of terminology differed from earlier

350

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVII

Danguolė Mikulėnienė History of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language: The Institutionalization of the Lithuanian Language and Linguistics

plans; it establishes how the editorial office of the great Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language contributed to the training of specialists in Lituanistics, and how the Lithuanian Language Division was concerned with applied-linguistics fields—for example, toponymy and anthroponymy in Vilnius and the Vilnius region. It is important to note that, for the first time in Lithuanian historiography, this detailed analysis makes it possible to reveal and assess the role played by the Antanas Smetona Institute of Lituanistics, more specifically the Lithuanian Language Division, in the campaigns to liberate Vilnius⁷. Danguolė Mikulėnienė was also concerned with aspects of the linguists’ communication policy—their relations with foreign countries and with local educational and public cultural institutions. It is true that the scholarly study devotes less attention to interdisciplinary cooperation between the members of the Lithuanian Language Division (and its institutions) of the Antanas Smetona Institute of Lituanistics and the members of the Lithuanian History Division. Yet Danguolė Mikulėnienė’s choice is entirely understandable—the activities of the Lithuanian History Division of the Antanas Smetona Institute of Lituanistics have not been examined separately in historiography.

It is also worth mentioning that this study is only part of a broader investigation—beside the title, the reader will easily notice the numeral “1,” which suggests that the research will continue: later periods will be analyzed, the development and continuity of individual studies will be brought to the fore, and attention will be devoted to people who accomplished much in Lithuanian linguistics but remain relatively little known not only to the broader reading public but often even to the linguists’ own community (let us recall the director of the new Institute, Kazimieras Masiliūnas—what could we have said about him before this study?).

The extensive documentation presented in the appendices not only makes it possible to substantiate the scholar’s claims but also enables other researchers to examine this material independently and use it in their own research, which the study under discussion can—and apparently should—encourage. Thus, there is no doubt that Danguolė Mikulėnienė’s scholarly study History of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language: The Institutionalization of the Lithuanian Language and Linguistics provides a solid theoretical and methodological foundation and is a powerful incentive not only for historians of language but also for historians to turn their attention to and begin investigating the processes by which their own fields of scholarship became institutionalized, as well as to compare and evaluate these processes. In addition, it provides much new data not only about the beginnings, first research directions, and scope of the activities of the Institute that became the cradle of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language, but also makes it possible to form an impression of the general life of Lithuania at the time, its contexts, the challenges that arose, and the personalities who addressed them. The attention devoted to the personalities who laid the foundations for comprehensive research on the Lithuanian language, shaped methodologies based on the latest knowledge, outlined the guidelines for the development of the state language, and helped shape the face of the intelligentsia of interwar Lithuania is yet another—and extremely important—distinctive feature of this study.

⁷ Mačiulis, Staliūnas (2015).

Recenzijos / Reviews

351

OLGA MASTIANICA, VIOLETA MEILIŪNAITĖ

Thus, all that remains is to wish the Author every success and await the other parts devoted to the development of the institutionalization of the Lithuanian language and Lithuanian linguistics.

LITERATŪRA

Gieda Aurelijus 2017: Manifestuojanti Kleja. Istorikai ir istorika Lietuvoje 1883–1940 m., Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla.

Juzefovičius Romualdas 2019: Lituanistinių mokslų institucionalizavimas 1939–1955 m.: kultūrologinio diskurso bruožai. – Lituanistica 65, 2(116), 88–103.

Mačiulis Dangiras 2002: Antano Smetonos Lituanistikos Instituto įkūrimas. – Lituanistica 2(50), 19–38.

Mačiulis Dangiras, Staliūnas Darius 2015: Vilnius – Lietuvos sostinė: problema tautinės valstybės projekte (XIX a. pabaiga – 1940 m.), Vilnius: LII leidykla.

Mikulėnienė Danguolė 2018: Lietuvių tarmėtyra: genezė, raida ir paradigminiai lūžiai, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos centras.

Sabaliauskas Algirdas 1979: Lietuvių kalbos tyrinėjimo istorija: iki 1940, Vilnius: Mokslas.

Sabaliauskas Algirdas 1982: Lietuvių kalbos tyrinėjimo istorija: 1940–1980, Vilnius: Mokslas.

Sabaliauskas Algirdas 2012: Lietuvių kalbos tyrinėjimo istorija: 1980–2010, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

Tyla Antanas 1999: Istorija lituanistikos kontekste. – Lituanistika: tradicijos, dabartis, perspektyvos: mokslinės konferencijos, skirtos Lituanistikos instituto įsteigimo 60-mečiui paminėti pranešimai, red. kolegija A. Kalėda, Z. Kiaupa, K. Morkūnas, Vilnius: Lietuvos istorijos instituto leidykla, 13–30.

Įteikta 2022 m. spalio 23 d.

OLGA MASTIANICA Lietuvos istorijos institutas Tilto g. 17, LT–01101, Vilnius, Lietuva [email protected]

VIOLETA MEILIŪNAITĖ Lietuvių kalbos institutas Petro Vileišio g. 5, LT–10308 Vilnius, Lietuva [email protected]

352

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVII