PIETRO UMBERTO DINI

University of Pisa

Research interests: comparative Baltic linguistics, the historiography of Baltic linguistics, Prussian studies, translation studies.

BETWEEN BALTIC STUDIES AND BALTICITAS, OR THE QUESTION OF BALTIC STUDIES ABROAD^*

0. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

The aim of this text is to discuss the development of Baltic studies and its prospects in the academic world abroad (i.e., outside the Baltic countries). As will become clear from what follows, a certain challenge already lies within these prospects...

First, it is worth looking at the development of Baltic studies over the past decade from a broader historical perspective and attempting a concise summary—as if from a bird’s-eye view—of what happened during this period.

It seems to me that I could say that the fate of Baltic studies in Europe is closely connected with the fate of Europe itself.

A general feature is observable in Western European countries: Baltic studies found a receptive audience in the academic world alongside the independence of the Baltic countries. Indeed, it is no coincidence that the academic world turned its attention to Baltic studies both in the interwar years and in the last decade of the previous century. This happened in many countries. During the Soviet period, however, interest in Baltic languages and cultures in academic circles in these countries had either completely collapsed or, at best, struggled to survive, with only individual scholars working in the field of Baltic studies. In Central and Eastern Europe, on the other hand, interest in Baltic languages and cultures continued, but Baltic studies there faced considerable ideological pressure.

In Central Europe, Germany was a special case, and it is easy to understand why. On the one hand, this country’s ties with the Baltic countries have always been

^* The text was prepared on April 6, 2017, on the basis of a paper delivered at the session Lithuanian Studies (Baltic Studies) in the Planning of the Contemporary Educational Process: Prospects at the World Conference on Lithuanian Studies (Baltic Studies). The conference was organized as part of the EU SF-funded project Promoting Cooperation between Foreign Baltic Studies Centers and Lithuanian Research and Higher Education Institutions and was held in Vilnius, at the Lithuanian University of Educational Sciences. The text deliberately retains features of the style of an oral presentation.

256

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVI

Between Baltistics and “Balticitas,” or on questions of Baltistics abroad

strong; they cannot even be compared with any other Western European country. On the other hand, as is well known, it was precisely in Germany that the continent’s wound remained unhealed for a long time. Thus, Baltistics was cultivated in both the German Democratic Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany. In both, despite the imposition of different ideological positions, the old, traditional school of German comparative linguistics survived, and it was particularly prominent in Baltistics research.

The United States of America was a complete exception. The situation in the United States cannot be compared with Europe. There, the teaching of Lithuanian studies at universities was ensured by departments of Baltistics established with community funding (as was the case in Chicago¹ and as will probably be the case in Seattle).

1. WHAT IS THE STATE OF BALTISTICS ABROAD TODAY?

It seems to me that the main problem facing Baltistics abroad is still how this discipline is structured and where it is positioned within the philological and linguistic sciences and studies; that is, for Baltistics (and/or other Baltic studies) to become or remain an independent discipline, all levels of Baltistics studies (bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral) would need to be established.

Ideally, at least one department of Baltistics offering all levels of study would be found in every European country with a tradition of Baltistics. In some countries, where historical ties and interest are particularly strong, there could, of course, be more departments of Baltistics. This, I emphasize, would be ideal. Yet the situation is truly uneven in this respect as well. I will try to systematize it (although I fear I may forget something or present it inaccurately). It appears that there are three distinct geographical zones.

(1) The first zone comprises those European countries where Baltistics studies are (or at least appear to be) more or less solidly structured and have prospects for the future (such as Sweden², Finland, the Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Poland, and perhaps elsewhere). Here, Baltistics disciplines may be integrated into Indo-European studies, Slavic studies, or Northern European studies, or into similar BA or MA programmes.

(2) The second zone comprises those European countries where Baltistics studies are structured, but Baltistics is taught only as a separate course (examination),

¹ The history and present state of Lithuanian studies (Baltic studies) in exile were surveyed by Giedrius Subačius in his presentation “Lithuanian Studies in Chicago.”

² It also became clear from Pēteris Vanags’s presentation “Baltic Language Studies at Stockholm University: History and Current Issues” that the situation in Sweden is far from rosy.

Įžvalgos / Insights

257

PIETRO UMBERTO DIN

for example, to students in undergraduate or graduate linguistics programs. Such a situation exists in Italy³. The situation is similar, but probably better, in France (including courses at INALCO)⁴. At present, Baltic studies may also be taught in various BA and MA programs. However, the future of Baltic studies here is uncertain; these programs are under threat, especially in this era of constant higher-education reforms...

(3) The third zone comprises those European countries where Baltic studies are (as yet?) not structurally established. This is the case, for example, in Spain. But today, unfortunately, Baltic studies are no longer taught even in Norway, a country with a fairly deep tradition in the field. Moreover, there are countries where no Baltic studies tradition exists, or hardly exists at all, for example Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Greece, and Portugal. Of course, this does not mean that every European country needs Baltic studies (although this would be desirable). Nor does it mean that these countries have no specialists or experts at all: spontaneous—that is, para-academic or extra-academic—provision predominates there: for example, various projects, or research carried out independently by individual scholars or groups of scholars. However, these initiatives may be brought to an end by the powers that be. I would like to mention a reverse phenomenon taking place outside the EU, in Switzerland, where there are plans to revive Baltic studies.

². THE DEFINITION OF BALTIC STUDIES

One important distinguishing feature of Baltic studies in the Baltic countries and abroad is probably that the need for definition is felt more strongly in the latter. Baltic studies abroad need to be defined, as they say, both horizontally, that is, by comparison with other philologies and linguistics, and vertically, that is, by comparison with Baltic studies in the Baltic countries and in their own country.

The conception and teaching of Baltic studies at universities around the world has been, and continues to be, a varied phenomenon, shaped by many factors. It is normal for teaching to change constantly: methods, interests, and, ultimately, fashions change. However, regardless of all this, it may be worth saying that the Balts in the Baltic countries and the Balts

³ Guido Micheli’s presentation revealed that the situation of Lithuanian language teaching at the University of Parma is also critical.

⁴ I thank Hélène de Penros for her comments and information during the conference.

⁵ The conference announced for this purpose, Revitalizing Baltic Studies, will take place in early May 2017. Incidentally, I would remind readers that the first conference was organized in 2008 by the Lithuanian Community in Switzerland together with the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Vilnius University (Internationale Konferenz zur litauischen Sprache und Literatur „Position und Bedeutung des Litauischen im europäischen Kontext“, 4.–6.06.2008, Fribourg, Bern, Zürich).

258

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVI

Between Baltic studies and Baltic-ness, or on questions concerning Baltic studies abroad: because of different traditions and different audiences, the same object of research is sometimes understood and taught differently.

Could it be that Balticists in the Baltic countries and Balticists abroad differ in that they follow different conceptions of Baltic studies, perhaps even different canons? And could it be that a different canon of Baltic studies is followed implicitly, without even realizing it or paying much attention to the theoretical aspects... Perhaps this is an occasion, and this conference a place, to raise the question of whether fundamental Baltic studies is possible. Is there reason to consider (and perhaps try to establish) a certain common canon of Baltic studies?

This also raises other questions, for instance, whether Baltic studies as a discipline is defined clearly enough. And how many such definitions are there, if any? Could it be that this important question—both theoretical and applied—still has no adequate answer? It may be that this problem has not yet been thought about and reflected on enough.

How many definitions of Baltic studies do we know? I tried to quickly gather at least a few definitions from publications that were at hand (though this topic would be worth exploring further).

Jānis Endzelīns, Ievads baltu filoloģijā (1945: 5):

“Speaking specifically of Baltic philology, one can say that its object of study is the spiritual activity of the Baltic peoples, expressed in spoken words and in written or printed texts—that is, Old Prussian, Lithuanian and Latvian language, literature (with metrics) and mythology; moreover, Baltic philology seeks to trace the course of development of Baltic languages, literature and beliefs.”

Džomas Devotas, Kvietimas į baltų filologiją (2004: 83 [iš italų k. vertė R. Kliostaitė]):

“The first task of Baltic philology is to define the concept of Baltic commonality not as a branch of an immobile tree, but as a constantly and dynamically established balance between opposing currents that arrive from various directions.”

Jonas Kabelka, Baltų filologijos įvadas (1982: 6):

“One of the branches of Indo-European philology is Baltic philology, or Baltic studies, whose object of research is the Baltic languages and the literature and folklore of the Baltic peoples in connection with the history and cultural history of these peoples.”

Rainer Eckert ir kt., Die baltischen Sprachen (1998: 5; Vorwort):

“The present introduction to the study of the Baltic languages... aims to use the languages as a means of introducing readers to the unique cultures of these peoples.”

Įžvalgos / Insights

259

PIETRO UMBERTO DINI

A[lgirdas] S[abal(i)auskas], Lietuvių kalbos enciklopedija (2008: 55):

“Baltistics, the philology of the Balts, is the comparative study of the languages, literature and folklore of the Baltic peoples; in the broad sense, it is a comprehensive branch of scholarship investigating the history, languages, literature and folklore of the Baltic peoples (depending on which Baltic people’s history, language, literature and folklore are studied, it is further divided into Lithuanian, Latvian and Prussian studies).”

What do all these definitions have in common? Everything. All the definitions mentioned emphasize the historical purpose of Baltistics or Baltic philology, primarily its Indo-Europeanist orientation, encompassing language, literature, mythology, folklore and history. Interestingly, the term philology is used and understood here roughly as “the study of culture as a whole through the prism of language.” And this is the understanding that has prevailed (or long prevailed) in Baltistics studies, judging from the definitions presented, for well over half a century. No difference is felt (or was felt) between the labels; this meant that Baltistics = and Baltic philology were synonymous, and vice versa.

Is that really the case today? Can one claim, for example, that the Balts are still equally well-versed Indo-Europeanists today? Far from always. Can one claim, for example, that the Balts are interested not only in language but also in literature and/or folklore? This is far from always the case. And it probably was not always so in the past, either. In fact, the definitions presented delineate the ideal boundaries of the discipline.

Nevertheless, these considerations provide grounds for asking whether the labels “Baltistics” and “Baltic philology” are still understood as synonymous today. Probably not. A certain semantic shift can be sensed in usage, prompting this question. Incidentally, this is a very common phenomenon in languages. It is well known that words outlive concepts, so in the same way (that is, with the same word) we name concepts that have become obsolete or have otherwise changed. Every language offers many examples of weakening, loss or change of motivation. It seems to me that this is happening (or has even already happened) with the terminus technicus “Baltistics.”

I do not know; perhaps this is just my impression. It would be interesting if respected colleagues could confirm or refute it.

Let us also consider the policy of the well-known international journal Baltistica. In the journal’s first issue, published in 1965, a brief “Editorial” (p. 5) introduces and describes the journal’s purpose:

“This publication will carry articles on questions of the phonetics and phonology, accentology, morphology, syntax and lexicon of the Baltic languages; it will also devote attention to the methodology of Baltic-language research and to contacts with other Indo-European (especially Slavic) and non-Indo-European languages.”

260

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVI

Between Baltic Studies and Balticitas, or on questions of Baltic Studies abroad

As can be seen, the first priority was to define the areas of scholarly research to be pursued—that is, the areas of scholarly work, namely, the grammar and lexicon of all the Baltic languages. It may be surprising, however, that nothing was written about the methods of the research to be carried out. Why? Because it was self-evident that they were to be historical-comparative, concerned with language relations, and typological in nature. This self-evident conviction is also clearly singled out and defined in the article by Academician Kostas Korsakas (p. 11), which immediately follows the “Editorial”:

“...the present publication’s aim and duty is to link today’s Baltistics research more closely with the current problems of international comparative linguistics, and especially with those branches of philological scholarship that have long had deep traditional ties with Baltistics and have made a substantial contribution to the study of the past, language and culture of the Baltic peoples.”

The journal’s current online statement of its aims differs very clearly from this:

“The journal gives preference to historical, comparative and typological studies of the Baltic languages and their dialects, questions concerning the relations between Baltic and other languages, and the historiography of Baltic linguistics [...] Since 2006, the journal has devoted more attention to synchronic research on modern Baltic languages, including experimental, descriptive and applied work.”

This clearly shows that the understanding of the discipline under discussion has undergone a certain break. It seems that the scholarly international journal titled Baltistica still lists historical research among its priorities, but substantially revises its 1965 policy and also includes synchronic research among its areas of scholarship. The break is recorded from 2006, although the changes themselves began earlier. As a result, over the past two or three decades, many more synchronic studies of the Baltic languages have been published both in the Baltic countries and beyond.

Is this not de facto recognition that the concept of “Baltistics” has changed substantially? I would say that today the label “Baltic philology” is associated only with diachrony and problems of language change, and perhaps specifically with textual (text-related) studies. On the other hand, the label “Baltistics” tends more toward synchronic and typological aspects of research. In any case, this “Baltistics” is understood more as post-Indo-Europeanist (perhaps even post-comparative) and possibly typological. Let us say that today the label “Baltistics” is synonymous with the label “Baltic linguistics.”

It seems to me that the system that prevailed until recent decades has been erased, that is:

Įžvalgos / Insights

261

PIETRO UMBERTO DINI

• I)

HYPERONYM:

1. Baltistics

↙

↘

COHYPONYMS:

2. Baltic linguistics

3. Baltic philology

a binary system is taking shape, or perhaps has already taken shape, namely:

• II)

HYPERONYM:

1a. Baltistics = 1b. Baltic linguistics

↓

2. Baltic philology

Linguistically speaking, there has been a shift from a cohyponymic to a meronymic relationship. Roman Jakobson emphasized long ago that Ferdinand de Saussure’s dichotomy of diachrony and synchrony is merely a didactic fiction; it is not real. Therefore, in my opinion, we should view positively the fact that synchronic studies have been incorporated into the broader, contemporary concept of “Baltistics.”

Some Balts are somewhat concerned that traditional diachronic linguistic research has now almost been excluded from this concept and relegated to the background as “Baltic philology”...

However, I think that regardless of each scholar’s preference for one or another understanding of this discipline, we will probably have to get used to a changing conception of Baltistics... The very concept of our field of study will probably have to become broader.

Incidentally, foreign Balts—more or less consciously—have always had to interpret “Baltistics” in this way, since they need to talk more about the forest than about individual trees: they must present an overall picture of Baltic studies and not separate from philology not only linguistics, but also literature, mythology, translation, and cultural history. By contrast, Balts in the Baltic countries can afford the “luxury” of dividing the discipline into smaller constituent parts and thus ensuring research progress. Both aspects are important and useful. Both approaches can coexist harmoniously, since together they constitute what elsewhere I have called “our common balticitas”⁶.

⁶ Apie tai jau ne kartą esu samprotavęs pančios programis, plg. KB, 2005, 11, 57–58; LŽA Vėstis 2010, 64, 3./4., 132–134; BF, 2010 [2011], 19–1/2, 135–137).

62

Acta Linguistica Lituanica LXXVI

Tarp baltistikos ir balticitas, arba užsienio baltikos klausimais

3. FUTURE PROSPECTS FOR BALTIC STUDIES ABROAD

Balticists abroad in particular must invoke the concept of a shared Balticitas, that is, a shared sense and/or feeling of belonging that connects Balticists from the Baltic and non-Baltic countries. Baltic studies and Balticitas are like two poles between which our dialogue as Balts takes place, between the Baltic countries and abroad.

Abroad, the fate of Baltic studies programs and disciplines depends both on the work of individual scholars and on the policies of individual foreign universities. Yet it is no secret that narrow specialties are currently at risk at universities around the world. Let me once again invoke the rhetoric of the term “orchid specialties,” coined in Germany (Ger. Orchideenfächer), and also say that this is precisely how representatives of other (especially “powerful”) disciplines perceive Baltic studies abroad. Many would be satisfied if we taught not Baltic philology but some general component of linguistics (I would say, any component at all).

We should speak about this not apocalyptically, but soberly and objectively.

Current economic conditions are bringing about an entirely new and fundamental divide between Baltic and foreign Balticists, and are making the situation of the humanities more difficult everywhere, in both Baltic and non-Baltic countries. However, although one might think that Baltic studies will not commit suicide in the Baltic countries, abroad the discipline faces a serious threat: it may disappear, and with it its future prospects. This threat is particularly evident where Baltic studies are not firmly established institutionally; where there is no tradition of Baltic studies, their emergence is made more difficult.

It goes without saying that the future prospects of Baltic studies abroad are closely linked to ensuring continuity. The question of continuity is becoming particularly acute, as there may be no successor when the current professor retires. Worse still, there may be no successor not because suitably trained young specialists are lacking, but simply because appropriate science policy decisions have not been made. Far from flourishing—perhaps except in the countries of the first zone—Baltic studies programs elsewhere in Europe are trying to avoid any kind of “reduction” and at least preserve the status quo.

4. CHALLENGES FOR BALTIC STUDIES ABROAD

I think it is clear that the survival and support of Baltic studies abroad is equivalent to the survival and support of Baltic studies in the Baltic countries themselves. Only from the outside can these appear to be two different things. And, as is well known, appearances can be deceptive.

Įžvalgos / Insights

263

PIETRO UMBERTO DINI

This raises the question: what should be done so that we can preserve Baltic studies? I will not conceal that it is easier to identify these problems than to suggest measures for solving them... There is nothing particularly new here. However, it is necessary at least to consider the problems and try to put forward proposals.

It seems to me that the following measures could be not burdensome, but useful:

Organize and teach joint courses (that is, strengthen cooperation and collaboration among universities) and develop joint, multilateral study programs at least from the MA level onward.

Create a joint doctoral studies project by bringing together Baltic studies departments operating in different countries; ideally, all departments would cooperate. To this end, make use of all available opportunities and existing international agreements.

Offer a joint European doctoral degree, providing various opportunities for cooperation among countries according to their specializations.

Provide short- or long-term funding for Baltic studies lecturers and associate professors, including those from abroad, to ensure that courses are taught if a university cannot or does not wish to use its own budget for this purpose.

It is easier to say what should not be done, for example:

Avoid allocating European Union project funds to foreign universities without obtaining from them a clear commitment to take over the funding after the project ends. This is short-sighted, as it may simply amount to wasting money (from a long-term perspective).

In addition, it would be more expedient to strengthen existing Baltic studies centers abroad rather than open new ones. It is wiser at present to provide them with energy and resources rather than scatter them in small amounts all over the world. And where it is nevertheless possible to consider establishing new centers, it is worth consulting with long-established centers, where the necessary and already qualified staff may be found.

5. PROJECTS⁷

In concluding this presentation, I would like to publicly pay tribute to the work carried out in the previous project Lithuania Here and There, and especially to Loreta Vilkienė, head of the Department of Lithuanian Studies and project leader, for her transparent, fair, and balanced leadership.

The activities of the current project, Promoting Cooperation between Foreign Baltic Studies Centres and Lithuanian Research and Study Institutions (No. 09.3.1-ESFA-V-709-01-002, budget €5.8 million), planned for 2017–2023, cover mobility only. This

⁷ This section is based in part on Ila Lemškinė’s presentation “Where Does the Path of Foreign Baltic Studies Lead?”, the text of which is also published in this issue of the journal.

264

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVI

Between Baltic studies and Balticitas, or on questions concerning foreign Baltic studies

may unnecessarily duplicate other initiatives (since sometimes quotas remain unused from previously signed and still valid agreements between universities, ministries, the Erasmus programme, and so on) and, most importantly, does not address the centres’ fundamental problems or their academic needs; consequently, foreign centres question the value of participating in the project.

A project that would ensure their continued existence and development is vital for Baltic Studies centres⁸. No such project exists to date.

The needs and requirements of each foreign Baltic Studies centre differ. Ideally, foreign centres would receive a budget and use the grant at their discretion for specific needs (fair remuneration, lectorates, book purchases, archival research expenses, scholarships for talented students, and funds for acquiring, for example, copying equipment).

The Lithuanian side cannot keep abreast of developments at foreign universities; that is, it cannot know the specific needs of the centres. Its task is only to verify that the funds are used for their intended purpose.

And finally, would it not be realistic to consider establishing an international association of Balticists, which would, among other things, oversee and safeguard the future of Baltic studies in various countries? A similar association does in fact exist: AABS (although it is not a Baltic organization in the narrow sense). We would probably greatly benefit from a strong association for fundamental Baltic studies. In short—and I will have the final word—we should probably aspire to and work even harder for Baltic studies!

Submitted on 17 April 2017.

PIETRO UMBERTO DINI

University of Pisa

Department of Philology, Literature and Linguistics

via S. Maria 36, 56126 Pisa

[email protected]

⁸This need, by the way, was clearly emphasized by more than one conference participant during the round table on April 8.

Įžvalgos / Insights

265