Aldonas Pupkis. „Lietuvių kalbos sąjūdis 1968–1988 m.“

ARNOLDAS PROČKINAS Research interests: contemporary Lithuanian, the development of the standard Lithuanian language, and the history of Lithuania Minor. Aldonas Pukis THE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE MOVEMENT, 1968–1988 Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2016, 496 p. ISBN 978-609-411-182-2 When you look back on the past in your mind, you often get the impression that not only more distant but also quite recent events and people have faded—you remember them imprecisely, entwined with all kinds of later interpretations. It is fortunate when witnesses who experienced those events come forward, willing to share their firsthand experience with the public honestly and objectively. Then posterity can form a more accurate picture and assessment of events and their participants. In this respect, Aldonas Pukis’s new book, The Lithuanian Language Movement, 1968–1988, is particularly valuable. The book’s title gives some grounds for supposing that the monograph will encompass the state of the Lithuanian language throughout those twenty years, the entire movement. In fact, Aldonas Pukis did not set himself such a task: “The purpose of the monograph is to describe the period (1968–1988) of collective efforts to protect, standardize, and cultivate the Lithuanian language, associated with the work of the language sections and the Republican Commission, and to assess it from a professional and ideological point of view” (p. 11)1. Therefore, in assessing this activity, let us keep in mind the author’s deliberately limited aim, which covers a large, perhaps even essential, part of the Lithuanian language movement during those two decades, but leaves some things aside. No one today could more successfully shed light on selected aspects of the state of the Lithuanian language (or, rather, the standard language) during the period in question and on efforts to improve it than Aldonas Pukis. He was at the center, or core, of that movement. Among the many participants in the movement, we might place alongside him Associate Professor Jonas Zemvaldas Balkevičius (1923–2000), who served as the faculty’s vice-dean from 1964 to 1975 and as dean of the Faculty of Philology at Vilnius University from 1979 to 1985. These two linguists differed considerably in the nature of their work, but, in my view, 1 Here and below, the page numbers of the book under discussion are given in parentheses after quotations. Straipsniai / Articles 301 ARNOLDAS PIROČKINAS They can be regarded as the leaders of the language movement under discussion and the initiators of many of its events. I would venture to compare the difference in their roles to the harmonious partnership of the brothers Algirdas and Kęstutis in the fourteenth-century struggle against the Teutonic Order. Like Kęstutis, Aldonas Pupkis would sit in the saddle every day, sword in hand, attending directly to the movement’s organizational affairs; J. Balkevičius, like Algirdas in the past, would step in when particularly difficult challenges had to be overcome. In this, he was aided by an exceptional ability to inspire enthusiasm and support in others—a quality known as charisma. These two most enterprising and resourceful leaders of the Lithuanian language front were supported in their work by Viktoras Alekna, Vytautas Ambrazas, Antanas Balašaitis, Vytautas Būda, Aleksas Girdenis, Jonas Klimavičius, Pranas Kniūkšta, Antanė Kučinskaitė, Vitas Labutis, Vitalija Maciejauskienė, Jonas Palionis, Aldona Paulauskienė, Juozas Pikčilingis, Albertas Rosinas, Bronys Savukynas, Bonifacas Stundžia, Jonas Šukys, Kazys Ulvydas, Aleksandras Vanagas, Regina Vencutė, Vytautas Vitkauskas, Zigmas Zinkevičius, Jonas Žemaitis, Aleksandras Žirgulys, Kazimieras Župerka, and others. Their assistance and contributions varied in scale and nature, but the monograph gives due attention both to them and to those not mentioned here. A large group of active supporters, like the branches that make up a tree’s crown, enabled both movement leaders to withstand unexpected gusts of harsh wind, inspiring confidence and resolve—and perhaps at times prudence as well. Under the Bolshevik regime, this latter quality was especially useful to those working to regulate the language. Even when Nikita Khrushchev officially condemned Josif Stalin’s satrap-like system in 1956, the opportunities for the subjugated nations of the Soviet Union to develop their national cultures and languages independently remained quite restricted and unequal. Over time, Lenin’s language began to be imposed on them, if more subtly, and perhaps even more forcefully. Anyone interested can learn more about the methods and changes involved from Zigmas Zinkevičius’s 1994 book Lietuvių kalbos istorija. VI. Lietuvių kalba naujaisiais laikais. Over the centuries, the Lithuanian nation and its language experienced oppression several times, but nothing compares with what they endured in 1940–1950. The years 1940–1941 and 1944–1953 were especially brutal, when the bloodiest bacchanalia of Stalin’s regime raged. It is astonishing that, even under such harsh conditions, concern for the culture of the standard Lithuanian language did not cease altogether. Though greatly weakened, efforts to protect the language from undesirable outside influence continued. We could say that in Soviet-ruled Lithuania, the “bourgeois” tradition of the standard Lithuanian language continued without any revolutionary changes. When the country became part of the Soviet Union in 1940, more than one Lithuanian who knew more about the national leveling being pursued there must have feared that Moscow’s appointees would begin to “reform” the Lithuanian language, especially its orthography, following the example of the monthly journal Priekalas, published in Moscow from 1931 to 1938: they would eliminate the distinction in the notation of long 302 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVI Aldonas Pukis. Lietuvių kalbos sąjūdis 1968–1988 m. and short vowels and begin imposing literal translations of Russian terms. Eventually, rumors even began to spread that Cyrillic would be introduced—a renewed ban on Latin-based writing. Fortunately, none of this happened. Why? We could list several reasons, but will not discuss them here. It is enough to say that the “dictatorship of the proletariat” left some room for the free regulation of the Lithuanian language. Nationally mature forces, rooted in independent Lithuania between 1918 and 1940, sought to make use of that room. In the first Soviet years, after all “bourgeois” periodicals and “reactionary” organizations had been shut down, Gimtoji kalba and the Lithuanian Language Society remained active. It was a difficult time for the journal: in the second half of 1940, five issues were formally published according to plan, but they were combined into double issues—issues 6–8 (76–78) and 9–10 (79–80). In 1941, before the war began on June 22—that is, during the first half of the year—only one combined issue, 1–3 (81–83), was published. Both the journal and the society had moved to Vilnius that year. Although much less often, an occasional article appeared in Gimtojoje kalboje and in several Communist Party dailies urging people to care about linguistic purity and the correct translation of Russian terms into Lithuanian. As early as June and July, voices of orthographic revolutionaries could be heard in the press, declaring that the time had come to overthrow the yoke of Jonas Jablonskis’s spelling. For instance, the well-known and active educator Antanas Busilas hastened to urge the new government to order a reform of spelling for everyday use, so that it would not be burdened without good reason by the marking of vowel quantity (especially length), that the parallel forms y and i, ū and u, and others be abolished, and that sound modifications be marked with diacritics (= supplementary) signs—perhaps they should not be, A. P.² Gimtoji kalba, edited by its editorial board (Petras Jonikas, Antanas Salys, and Pranas Skardžius), commented on this article quite favorably in its “Review.” That favorable response may have been prompted by Pranas Skardžius’s lingering resentment over Antanas Smetona’s rejection of the “hyphenated” spelling project in 1934. This was a signal to begin a discussion of spelling. After the journal ceased publication, articles also appeared in the dailies⁴. Although not very intensive, attention to language culture did not cease altogether⁵. Thus, at first glance, it might have seemed that the imposed system (in reality, the occupa- 2 A. Busilas. Rašybos reforma – actualus reikalas. – Lietuvos aidas, 1940-07-05, Nr. 316 (525), p. 3. 3 Gimtoji kalba, 1940, sąs. 6–8(76–78), p. 109–110. 4 Žr. Adelė Ubeikaitė. Lietuvių kalbotyra. 1930–1943. Literatūros rodyklė. Vilnius, 1990. Nr. 189, 193, 194, 196, 194, 1937, 1942. 5 See ibid., Nos. 134, 141, 153, 175, 192, 152, 160, 161, 165, 167, 169, 170, 174, 175, 218. Recenzijos / Reviews 303 ARNOLDAS PIROČKINAS the occupation regime) did not intend to suppress or completely stifle efforts to foster the Lithuanian language. It is impossible to know how things might have developed over the three-odd years that followed, when Lithuania had been “liberated” from the grip of the “dictatorship of the proletariat.” At the end of December 1944, Lithuania once again fell into Moscow’s embrace. This time its condition differed greatly from that in 1940: the country had lost many inhabitants. Deportations, evacuations, migration, and deaths had severely depleted the ranks of the intelligentsia. The scale of the losses is illustrated to some extent by the figures for the teaching staff of Vilnius University as it was being re-established in late summer 1944: at that time, 24 professors and associate professors (31%), 34 junior staff members (22%), 32 economic and administrative staff members (31%), and about 600 students (22%) were assembled6. In time, these percentages rose, but it took many years for a new generation of comparable strength to be trained to replace the old specialists. The ranks of Lithuanian linguists lost particularly active and highly qualified scholars Antanas Salys, Pranas Skardžius, Petras Jonikas, Leonardas Dambriūnas, Petras Būtėnas, and Jonas Martynas Laurinaitis. In the summer of 1944, when it became clear that Lithuania would again be subjugated by vengeful Moscow, many capable Lithuanian-language teachers who had until then worked successfully in gymnasiums withdrew to Germany. One authority on the Lithuanian language, Juozas Balčikonis, remained in Lithuania. The Soviet authorities soon recognized his worth as well: he was elected a member of the Academy of Sciences in 1946, and that same year he was awarded the title of professor. Appointed director of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language, he devoted himself to editing the academic Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language and to work in the Lithuanian Language Department at Vilnius University: from 1944 to 1950, he headed the department. It is possible to assess in a sentence or two J. Balčikonis’s contributions to the Lithuanian language during those years. It would not be mistaken to say that he most inspired and strengthened the commitment to their field among Lithuanian-language specialists who graduated from Vilnius University between 1944 and 1960. We would probably also be right to say that, during the years he headed the institute and the Department of the Lithuanian Language, he sought out and found good assistants and diligent linguists. One of the first to be invited to the Department of the Lithuanian Language was Juozas Senkus (1907–1970), in 1944, followed in 1945 by Jonas Kruopas (1908–1975). When ideological watchdogs forced them to leave the department in 1951, they were taken in by the Institute of the Lithuanian Language, probably through the efforts of its director, J. Balčikonis. Kazys Ulvydas (1910–1996) began working as a lecturer in the department in 1949. J. Balčikonis also invited him to join the Institute of the Lithuanian Language. These three linguists had completed their higher education before 1940 and already had teaching experience at institutions of higher education. But he also turned his attention early to postwar linguists who had graduated or were about to graduate from the University. For example, in 1947 Julija Žukauskaitė (1906–2002), who had received her diploma in 1946, was appointed to the department. While still a student, Zigmas Zinkevičius began 6 Vilniaus universiteto istorija. 1940–1979. Vilnius: Mokslas, 1979, p. 46. 304 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVI Aldonas Pukis. Lietuvių kalbos sąjūdis 1968–1988 m. working in the department as a laboratory assistant—a clear indication that he would remain there. In 1950 he became a lecturer straight away. After graduating from the university in 1948, Jonas Palionis was initially admitted to a three-year postgraduate program, which enabled him to obtain the degree of Candidate of Sciences (now a Doctor of Sciences). We may assume that J. Balčikonis was also gathering talented and diligent young people at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language. Staffing both institutions was very difficult throughout. During the first postwar decade, the atmosphere imposed by the brutal regime was especially oppressive7. Among other constraints, Lithuanian-language specialists were also hampered by the politicized “new teaching” of Nikolai Marr (Nikolaj Jakovlevič Marr, 1864–1934), which held sway in the Soviet Union and categorically rejected historical-comparative linguistics as bourgeois science. After 1944, neither the Lithuanian Language Society, which had ceased to function during the Nazi occupation, nor Gimtoji kalba was revived. This was undoubtedly due to the hostility of the Communist Party of Lithuania and the authorities it inspired. Nevertheless, we would be wrong to say that Lithuanian language culture was completely stifled before 1968. Some attention was paid to it both before N. Marr’s pseudotheories were rejected in June 1950 and, all the more, afterward. This is easy to verify by looking at the bibliography of the period—Lietuvių kalbotyra8. Two sections of the publication—“Spelling. Transcription” (pp. 132–137) and “Language Culture” (pp. 138–142)—include writings on the standardization of the Lithuanian language published from 1944 to 1960. In fact, there were more: language-culture issues were also touched on in one or another article in other sections. Nevertheless, there were relatively few of them. Articles about language appeared not only in the professional newspapers Literatūra and menas or Tarybinis mokytojas, but also in the party organ Tiesa. Even its deputy editor, recalling that he had once written for Gimtojoje kalboje, published an article in that newspaper in 1957 entitled “Listening to Some Speakers,” signed with the pseudonym A. Žėris. These publications show that the need to care for language culture, felt before 1940, was so pressing that even the party press had to meet it with an article or two. Other factors also sustained that need. For example, the Lithuanian Spelling Dictionary, published in 1948 in a print run of 20,000 copiesLietuvių kalbos rašybos žodynas, made language culture more topical. Particularly important for stabilizing Lithuanian at the time were the two volumes of Jonas Jablonskis’s Rinktiniai raštai9, published in 1957 and 1959, and the introductory essays by their editor, Jonas Palionis, in each volume (in Volume I 7 This harrowing atmosphere is described in great detail in the book: Zigmas Zinkevičius. Lietuvių kalbos istorija. 6. Lietuvių kalba naujaisiais laikais. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 1994, pp. 44–76. 8 Lietuvių kalbotyra. 1944–1960. Vilnius: Laiškų ir žurnalų leidykla, 1963. 9 Jonas Jablonskis. Selected Writings 1–2. Vilnius: State Publishing House for Political and Scientific Literature, 1957–1959. Recenzijos / Reviews 305 ARNOLDAS PIROČKINAS “J. Jablonskis and His Lithuanian Language Textbooks,” and, in Volume II, “J. Jablonskis’s Linguistic Corrections.” This publication, printed in a machine-run edition (10,000 copies of each volume), undoubtedly had a major impact on the subsequent standardization of Lithuanian: it provided answers to all kinds of questions and encouraged the general public to cherish their native language. Concern for the language was particularly popularized by the initiative of Kazys Ulvydas (probably not without the encouragement of J. Jablonskis’s Rinktinių raštų) to regularly host the radio program Mūsų kalba, which continued until 1984. It is not to be overlooked that the example set by Lithuanian émigrés who had found themselves in Germany and the United States encouraged Lithuanian linguists and other advocates of their native language to expand their language-culture activities. For example, in West Germany, Pr. Skardžius, St. Barzdukas, J. M. Laurinaitis, Izabelė Matusevičiūtė, and the writer Juozas Balčiūnas, known by the pen name Juozas Švaistas, announced on 1946-11-06 at the Redorf camp (West Germany) that the prewar Lithuanian Language Society should be revived. Its first meeting took place on 1947-02-08; 3 of the 17 people who had expressed a wish to join the society attended. After most members left for the United States, the society’s activities in West Germany ceased in 1949. On September 16, 1950, a founding meeting of the society’s chapter was held in Chicago, attended by 19 invited members. The elected board was headed by P. Jonikas until 1956, when he was succeeded by the lawyer Aleksandras Dundulis. Within a few years, the chapter’s membership had grown to 102. Two activities stand out in the work of the Chicago chapter: Lithuanian-language segments broadcast on Chicago Lithuanian radio programs from 1952 to 1955, and the revival of the publication of Gimtosios kalbos in 1958. It would hardly be surprising if the successful initiative of the Chicago Lithuanians also reached those in Lithuania who were prominent in Lithuanian language culture. And that could only have strengthened their resolve to overcome all restrictions and suspicions of nationalism and foster in society a conscious attitude toward its native language. Conditions for the development of language culture in Lithuania eased somewhat after Stalin’s death, as the political and ideological regime relaxed. To my knowledge, none of our historians has drawn attention to Lavrentiy Beria’s initiative—he was poised to become first secretary—to strengthen national cadres in the republics. Nine months after Stalin’s death, Beria was executed, but this initiative of his was not rescinded: many Moscow cadres sent to Lithuania left our country. Local figures took their place, and they viewed the Lithuanian language far more favorably than did newcomers from Arkhangelsk, Novosibirsk, or Moscow itself. We should bear in mind that elements of national culture were treated quite differently in the various republics. What was quite simple and customary in one republic was prohibited in another. Even among the three Baltic republics, where national languages had relatively the greatest scope, there were differences. For example, in Estonia both the Estonian Language Society continued to operate without interruption and its journal continued to be published 306 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVI Aldonas Pupkis. Lietuvių kalbos sąjūdis 1968–1988 m. and its journal. By contrast, every possible means was used to avoid allowing Lithuanians to revive the Lithuanian Language Society and its official organ, Gimtąją kalbą. Seven or eight years had to pass after 1968 before Lithuanian-language enthusiasts managed to publish a journal under a different name. Aldonas Pupkis’s book Lietuvių kalbos sąjūdis 1968–1988 m. presents some facts illuminating the state of the Lithuanian language before the movement began. Its principal focus, however, as noted, is the collective effort to safeguard the Lithuanian language. Here, in this review and presentation of the book to readers, that state of affairs before 1968 is examined in greater detail so that the difficult circumstances under which the movement’s leaders managed to advance it may become clear. This part of the article should therefore be regarded not as a critique of the book, but as a kind of supplement to it. In general, one should not fault studies such as A. Pupkis’s book for not including this or that. Let us be content with, and appreciate, what the author has managed to present to readers. The book under discussion reveals how, after the authorities refused to approve the creation of a Lithuanian Language Society, active linguists from Vilnius University and the Institute of the Lithuanian Language, supported by the president of the Academy of Sciences, Juozas Matulis, and writers Antanas Venclova and Kostas Korsakas, took the initiative to circumvent the ban. The idea arose of establishing a Lithuanian-language section within the Lithuanian Society for the Protection of Monuments and Local Studies, whose central council was chaired by Vytautas Jakelaitis. Jonas Kubilius, rector of Vilnius University, made an effective contribution to putting this idea into practice. On December 11, 1967, the founding meeting of the Lithuanian-language section of this society’s Vilnius city chapter was held in the Assembly Hall of Vilnius University (21 Čiurlionio St.). The event’s significance is evident from the fact that about 400 people attended. The book lists more than 30 prominent intellectuals from the city (see p. 24). The 13 elected members of the section’s council should be added to their number. The election to the council of Klemensas Bagarauskas, head of a department in the editorial office of the journal Komunisto, should be regarded as an attempt of sorts to “legitimize” the newly established section in the eyes of the Party. Later that same day, the council held a meeting at which its leadership was formed: Jonas Balkevičius as chair, Vytautas Ambrazas as deputy chair, and Lilija Kudirkienė as secretary. The council then established eight more committees, tasked with organizing the section’s work in specific areas. For example, the Advertising and Information Committee was to attend to public speech, while the Press Committee was responsible for the language of the press. A special committee administered the consultation office. A particularly important initiative for the section’s work was the regular Lithuanian Studies Mondays, launched by a resolution adopted at the time. They are discussed at length in the book (pp. 39–42). They were held seven to nine times a year in the Column Hall of Vilnius University (now the Small Aula). The book’s author assessed them as follows: “This was indeed a unique phenomenon in the history of Lithuanian-language practice and culture in general, which did not interrupt Recenzijos / Reviews 307 ARNOLDAS PIROČKINAS two decades of activity and having completed his work only on the eve of the great upheaval in the nation’s history” (p. 40). The section’s achievements are surveyed in the substantial second chapter, “Activities of the Vilnius City Lithuanian Language Section” (pp. 36–108). During its existence, eight boards succeeded one another. Each served a two-year term. On 1969-12-15, the board headed by J. Balkevičius was replaced by the second board, chaired by Zigmas Zinkevičius. The third board was headed by Juozas Pikčilingis; on 1974-12-02, Jonas Palionis became chair of the fourth board; from 1976-11-01, Vytautas Būda chaired the fifth board, which was replaced on 1976-10-09 by a board headed by Bronys Savukynas. On 1980-12-03, Juozas Pikčilingis took the helm of the board for a second time. The final board was elected on 1984-12-13, with Regina Venckutė as its chair. The section’s leadership changed over time. Its chairs were people of quite different views and temperaments. So nowadays, the ramblings of some representatives of our “liberal” linguistics about the dictatorial, Bolshevik regime that supposedly prevailed in Lithuanian language culture then sound very strange. The language-culture movement was so broad-based and spontaneous that no cunning intentions of any party or government could have brought it about. Although the section was not an independent organization, the leadership of the Society for the Protection of Monuments and Local Lore allowed it to work and placed no restrictions on it in Vilnius. A. Pupkis assessed the section’s circumstances very favorably: “To the credit of the Society’s leaders, it must be said that throughout the two decades of our collaboration there were no notable attempts to halt or regulate the section’s activities, impose forms of work unacceptable to it, or interfere in its internal affairs. True, we had to comply with the Society’s general ideological principles and experienced some pressure from the institutions overseeing its activities, but there were no major restrictions or objections on the part of the Society. The section’s successful work depended to a considerable extent on the Society’s leadership’s good will and practical assistance to the section’s various areas of work” (p. 39). And those areas of the section’s work were indeed varied, broad, and significant. Without exaggeration, one can say that the activities of the Lithuanian Language Society fostered in independent Lithuania before 1940 were not comparable to them in ambition, scope, or mass participation. Compared with the work accomplished by the Lithuanian Language Section over those two decades, the contribution of today’s Lithuanian Language Society to language culture in our time seems very, very modest. Unlike today, back then one did not hear “wise” voices raising this or that doubt about the value of caring for the culture of standard Lithuanian. A. Pupkis, generally restrained toward those who express views opposed to his own, once nevertheless could not hold back and drew readers’ attention, at least in a footnote, to statements rejecting the present-day traditional Lithuanian approach to language planning: “The efforts to Lithuanianize and cultivate public speech are regarded by sociolinguists and historians of the present neoliberal trend as “direct interference in everyday life, persecution of any member of society, a direct violation of human rights, an expression of communist-style discipline, and other evils, thus attempting to denigrate the entire activity of the language section’s members at that time (see Raila, Subačius 2012)” (p. 51). 308 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVI Aldonas Pupkis. Lietuvių kalbos sąjūdis 1968–1988 m. These are the ideas of E. Raila and P. Subačius’s article “The Omniscient and Omnicorrecting Editor” (Naujasis židinys–Aidai, 2012, no. 3, pp. 153–163), set out in summary form and characteristic of the entire anti-Lithuanianization front on language issues. These ideas lead to a witty, anecdotal answer to the question of how genius differs from stupidity: genius, after all, has limits, whereas stupidity is boundless. Although an analogy is not proof, it would be useful here. Standardizing language may be compared to establishing traffic rules. The difference is that language is an extraordinarily complex phenomenon compared with traffic. It is therefore much more difficult and problematic to regulate language, but its regulation, like that of traffic, is unavoidable if we want it to serve its purpose effectively. The remarkably extensive Lithuanian language-culture movement that developed over those two decades is surveyed in seven substantial chapters of the book. They are supplemented by “auxiliary” sections: “Introduction” (pp. 9–12), “Concluding Remarks” (pp. 450–455), “Appendices” (pp. 456–457), “Sources” (p. 458), “Bibliography” (pp. 459–474), the English summary “Lithuanian Language Movement in 1968–1988” (pp. 475–481), and “Index of Persons” (pp. 482–494). It is simply impossible to present the contents of the seven major chapters in a review article: they are packed with all manner of information. So what is to be done? Since language ideologues have recently appeared who try to portray the language-culture movement that arose then as having been imposed on the nation “from above” or “from outside,” let us present facts that refute this version and reveal it as a broad-based, mass phenomenon. For instance, the second chapter, “Activities of the Vilnius City Lithuanian Language Section,” includes a subsection titled “Work in the Press” (pp. 83–100), in which A. Pupkis surveys the efforts of the section’s members to inform the public about its activities through various media—print, radio, and television. In this respect, Vakarinės naujienos was particularly helpful. The book notes that nearly 150 articles on practical language use had appeared in this newspaper by 1988; including various notices about meetings and reviews of the section’s newsletters and of Mūsų kalbos, which grew out of them, the total number of such pieces would exceed 500. This subsection describes no fewer than 35 newspapers and journals that published material about the Lithuanian language, though in varying quantities. Mentioned first among them are the government’s official newspaper, Tiesa, and the Komsomol organ, Komjaunimo tiesa. These newspapers were not consistent or zealous advocates of language preservation. Nevertheless, even the occasional articles addressing Lithuanian-language topics gave other newspapers and journals some encouragement to become more or less actively Recenzijos / Reviews 309 ARNOLDAS PIROČKINAS to join the language movement, and some periodicals strayed considerably from the restraint of Truth. For instance, over those decades the monthly magazine Science and Life published several hundred articles devoted to the Lithuanian language, according to A. Pupkis’s estimate. Of these, “about a fifth were directly related to language culture” (p. 91). During the same period, the monthly magazine Soviet Woman published a couple of hundred articles on language. The author emphasized that its language column “was, whether abundantly or not, probably the most substantial in the periodical press of the time” (p. 93). Antanė Kučinskaitė headed the column for several years, and Aldona Paulauskienė took over in 1975. A. Pupkis spoke approvingly in this book of the column they edited: “This column differed from those in other newspapers and magazines in that it was well planned, and the tone of its articles was less reproachful than exhortative, appealing to people’s feelings” (p. 82). Leaving readers to continue exploring this highly informative subsection for themselves, we shall briefly review the subsection “About the People in the Section” (pp. 101–107). These people were numerous and very diverse. The section’s activists are listed here in three groups. The first group comprises what we might call the movement’s leading standard-bearers: its most active and prominent leaders and participants in language culture, mostly specialists in language who hold academic degrees. Since their biographies are available in encyclopedias and reference works, only their surnames and given names are listed here. The second group lists by surname (in alphabetical order) those who also almost all appear in reference publications but, unlike the first group, played a more modest part in language culture. The third group is the largest and lists the activists. Another 21 people should be added to them; on the grounds that “less encyclopedic information is available about them” (p. 102), they are mentioned with brief biographical notes. Most of them are philologists, but the group also includes the physicist and academician Adolfas Jucys; the biologist, poet, and linguist Jonas Jurevičius; Valdemaras Michałauskas, a lecturer at the Vilnius Civil Engineering Institute; the mathematician Petras Rumšas; the geologist Eduardas Vodzinskas; and Jonas Stanaitis, head of the Radio Engineering Department at the Vilnius Civil Engineering Institute. Albinas Kilikevičius is briefly profiled here; the Small Lithuanian Soviet Encyclopedia describes him as “a participant in the revolutionary movement.” In 1927 he was even sentenced to death by a Lithuanian court, but after submitting petitions for clemency to the President, he was released from prison in 193210. This circumstance probably prevented him from returning to Soviet rule. Where many people come together for a common undertaking, a wide range of differing views inevitably emerges. The book also touches briefly on the differences among participants in the language movement. There were “traditionalists, or conservatives,” as well as “innovators, or neologizers,” and also those who tried to follow a “middle course.” 10 Small Lithuanian Soviet Encyclopedia. Vol. 2. K–P. – Vilnius: Mintis, 1968, p. 137. 310 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVI Aldonas Pupkis. Lietuvių kalbos sąjūdis 1968–1988 m. A. Pupkis emphasizes: “Everyone had their own views; some held fairly categorical opinions, but no one’s conduct led to scandals or hostile debates (in general, this was not an era of scandals)” (p. 446). The author’s assertion is therefore entirely justified: “What united everyone above all was a sense of responsibility for the fate of their mother tongue” (p. 448), and “the most important result was that the backbone of the language’s structure, its most important components and supports, was preserved” (p. 449). Thus, a proper understanding of the dangerous situation taking shape for the Lithuanian language enabled the language-culture movement that began in Vilnius to become a highly appealing example for intellectuals in other Lithuanian cities and districts who were concerned about the fate of their mother tongue. Similar language sections were established in Kaunas, Klaipėda, Šiauliai, and Marijampolė. In the third chapter, “The Republican Language Commission and Its Work” (pp. 109–217), A. Pupkis describes this process and the need to coordinate it in considerable detail. To this end, on January 30, 1970, the Presidium of the Society for the Protection of Monuments and Local History approved a coordinating commission, which later came to be called the Republican Language Commission. Jonas Balkevičius became its chair. The commission devoted much time and effort to collecting language data. Over those twenty years, local historians in districts and cities recorded nearly a million index cards containing language examples. Through the commission’s efforts, 11 expeditions were organized in 11 districts between 1976 and 1986. The subsection “Publishing Activities” (pp. 127–193) in this chapter reveals the effort it took for the commission to overcome the right of Moscow institutions to withhold permission for a periodical and to establish its own publication, which was given the name Our Language. The history of this publication, which disproves the fabrication that the language-culture movement was controlled by the Party, is worth recounting in greater detail. It all began when, at a meeting of the Vilnius City Lithuanian Language Section on May 7, 1968, someone proposed publishing a leaflet containing statements from presenter Nijolė Sližienė’s paper on bureaucratic language. Through the efforts of the Vilnius City Executive Committee, such a leaflet was printed. The section sent one or two copies to various institutions and organizations, which in turn made as many copies as they needed. The question of what to do arose again after another meeting that same year. Section chair J. Balkevičius approached university rector Jonas Kubilius to ask whether the university could reproduce such leaflets on its rotaprint machine as material for students. The rector agreed. After the second and third leaflets had been published, the issue of paper arose. Feliksas Bieliauskas, chair of the Press Committee of the Council of Ministers, allocated several tons of paper to the university so that it could print future leaflets. In 1971, the first leaflet appeared under the title Our Language. In fact, it was no longer a leaflet but a publication with the characteristics of a journal. A. Pupkis was named its responsible editor. It contained four articles, along with the sections “Our Calendar,” “Readers Write to Us,” and “Chronicle.” Its print run was listed as 2,000 copies and its price as 11 kopecks. It differed from “normal” journals in that it was printed on a rotaprint machine and published illegally, without Recenzijos / Reviews 311 ARNOLDAS PIROČKINAS as a journal. Therefore, there was always a danger (fortunately, no informers turned up) that the glავლit department operating in Lithuania (the abbreviation of the Russian phrase Glavnoje upravlenije po delam literatury i izdatelstv, “Main Administration for Literary and Publishing Affairs”) would eventually classify this continuing publication as a journal and accordingly punish its publishers for acting arbitrarily. When this danger became quite real, Mūsų kalbą was saved by Jonas Bielinis, deputy head of the Culture Department of the Party Central Committee, the university, and the Ministry of Higher and Specialised Education. Finally, on October 11, 1979, the State Committee for Publishing, Printing, and the Book Trade allowed Mūsų kalbą to be designated a commissioned publication of the “Mokslas” publishing house. The problems surrounding the language journal were finally resolved in 1990, when Gimtoji kalba began publication in Lithuania, which had regained its independence. The lines from one of Janina Degutytė’s poems are quite apt for the history of this publication: “One whirlwind tries to sweep it away, / As though brothers, the others prop it up.” Thus, when assessing the language movement of those twenty years, people who did not experience life in those times firsthand should bear in mind that the situation was far more complex than they portray it in their writings. In two subsections of this chapter, we learn about the compilation of Kalbos praktikos patarimai (two editions, 1976 and 1985) and the publication of a six-book series, begun with the book Vardai ir žodžiai (1971) and concluded with the booklet Ženklas ir prasmė (1986). The first publication was compiled by A. Pupkis, with Z. Zinkevičius as editor-in-chief. The six booklets in the series were compiled by Bronys Savukynas. These publications were very popular. A. Pupkis aptly summed up the first publication: “The greatest work on practical language usage from the Soviet era has stood every test of time and, even now, though worn to shreds, is still used in publishing houses and editorial offices (especially for semantics and word formation)” (p. 186). Besides the series compiled by B. Savukynas, which began with the booklet Vardai ir žodžiai (1971) and ended with the booklet Ženklai ir prasmė (1986), the book reviews four less popular publications by the section: Baltų kalbos ir jų tyrinėjimo metodai (compiled by Bronė Balčienė, 1978), Respublikos kalbininkų memorialinės vietos (1985), and two methodological booklets: Kaip rinkti liaudies kalbos duomenis (1975) and Kalbos faktų rinkimo programa (1983). The final subsection is “Disseminating Language Topics on Television and Radio” (pp. 194–215). Chronologically, the radio language segments began first, in 1957, when no one was yet thinking about the language-culture movement in question. That year Kazys Ulvydas began producing a segment entitled Taisyklingai kalbėkime ir rašykime. They were taken over by the Republican Language Commission only in 1984, when long-time host K. Ulvydas was removed from their production for ideological reasons. This was not announced openly, but during one segment he firmly stated that one learns one’s native language well in a monolingual environment and that early foreign-language instruction harmed it. Such a claim clearly contradicted the positions announced at the 1975 and 1979 meetings in Tashkent 312 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVI Aldonas Pukis. Lietuvių kalbos sąjūdis 1968–1988 m. calling for the promotion of Russian-language instruction among other peoples, beginning as early as kindergarten. After K. Ulvydas was dismissed, the radio segments were revived on June 2, 1984, under the name Mūsų kalbos. After three linguists’ candidacies were considered, the television language-program host A. Pukis was appointed presenter. The character of the new segments changed considerably: their subject matter became more varied, and other linguists began to be invited. Time was also set aside for listeners’ feedback. Over six years (through 1990), nearly 300 radio segments were broadcast, more than a third of them on topics suggested by listeners. Listeners were demanding about public language. A. Pukis summed up this concern in the following passage: “From our exchanges with readers [=listeners? – A. P.] it became clear that they wanted language abusers to be reprimanded; letters they sent included many newspaper clippings containing language errors and examples of bureaucratic language” (p. 24). The book’s final section, “Television Language Programmes” (pp. 194–204), also demonstrates the masses’ concern for protecting their language. The first television programme was broadcast on March 11, 1977. It was prompted by the approaching 400th anniversary of the founding of Vilnius University. Regular language programmes, broadcast every two weeks, began on September 24 of that year. From 1978, they were broadcast for a time every Monday, and from September they were shown on Sundays. The book also provides a fairly detailed account of public response. By way of summary, we will note just two of the most striking facts. In 1977–1989, a total of 480 episodes of the television programme Mūsų kalba were broadcast, and nearly 5,000 letters from viewers were received over that period. Most correspondents supported the programmes and the work of the language sections, while some even proposed tightening standards for public language. Thus, in those years, concern for the culture of the native language had spread beyond a small circle of linguists, whom our “modernists” now hold in utter contempt, to encompass various sectors of society. This is also confirmed by the book’s fourth chapter, “The Activities of Language Sections in Cities and Districts” (pp. 218–323). It surveys and assesses the participation of language sections in 50 Lithuanian cities and districts in the Lithuanian-language culture movement. In discussing each locality, it does not fail to mention the active participants in these sections. It also describes the assistance Vilnius residents provided to language sections in other cities and districts. This review cannot set out the chapter’s findings in detail. We hope that readers, especially those concerned about the language movement in their own locality, will turn to A. Pukis’s book themselves. In two chapters of the book—the fifth, “Issues in the Standardisation of the Lithuanian Language” (pp. 324–394), and the sixth, “Issues in Lithuanian Stylistics” (pp. 395–423)—A. Pukis described in detail and perceptively assessed the theoretical foundations of the language movement. These chapters clearly demonstrate the author’s thorough familiarity with the Lithuanian-language literature of that period. Recenzijos / Reviews 313 ARNOLDAS PIROČKINAS When you read the book’s final (seventh) chapter, “Features of the Ideology of the Language Movement” (pp. 424–448), without having specially considered the essence of the concept ideology, you might think that the chapter will examine the system of ideas that guided the movement’s participants. You also expect an account of the developed language movement’s ideological relationship with the party ideology that prevailed and was imposed in the country. In fact, little of what is specific to ideology is to be found here. Usually, these are matters illustrating the Communist Party’s tactics on the national question, and the differing interpretations of very specific language problems, which did not depend on ideological differences. After all, linguists who shared the same ideology disagreed over the terms literary language and standard language. Incidentally, the first term can be considered “of Soviet origin” only with very substantial reservations (p. 436). After 1950, it was introduced into Lithuanian in keeping with Soviet terminology, which had adopted it from tsarist Russian practice. In the latter, it had begun to be used by analogy with the French (langue littéraire). In general, we could call it an international term, since it is used in many languages (perhaps also following the French example?): English – literary language, German – Literatursprache, Latvian – literārā valoda, Estonian – kirjakeel (kirjandus ‘literature’, keel ‘language’), Polish – literacki język. It is therefore plausible that this circumstance, too, encouraged the adoption of an analogous term for Lithuanian after 1950. The relations between members of the language sections and the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language, as described in the chapter, do not reveal ideology either (pp. 443–449). Thus, taken as a whole, the chapter does not fulfill the aim formulated in its title. In describing one chapter or another, we have mentioned the differing attitudes of the Communist Party and members of the government it directed toward the Lithuanian language movement that had emerged and its individual manifestations. Although A. Pupkis’s study The Lithuanian Language Movement, 1968–1988 provides material for assessing that relationship, it generally still awaits a thorough examination, which cannot be expected of the book’s author. On this occasion, I would like to offer a few thoughts on this problem. In the Soviet Union, such an upsurge in the cultivation of language was entirely unusual, and the Party had to assess it ideologically. Yet there was no official assessment: everything was left to the discretion of individual officials and institutions. This gave rise to marked differences in their views and conduct. The Party’s top leadership, and even now some historians or students of history, portrayed and continue to portray the Party as a monolithic entity. In reality, the Party was stratified. There was a sizable stratum that, without questioning anything, blindly carried out directives or hints from the Central Committee in Moscow, and often even went beyond its wishes. But there was also a stratum, or a small stratum (itself likewise heterogeneous), that dared to modify or slow the implementation of the line set by the Party, especially when it ran counter to national interests. Such tactics could be practiced by a generation of Party officials who came to leadership after the death of Joseph Stalin, when the leaders of the republics were given somewhat more room to act independently. That 314 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVI Aldonas Pupkis. Lietuvių kalbos sąjūdis 1968–1988 m. room was severely restricted, but a slight widening of it no longer posed a mortal danger. The book gives several examples of senior Party figures supporting activist linguists who were under attack, including A. Pupkis himself. He describes how, on one occasion, he arrived at the television station and found the host of the Musų kalbos program, his superior, talking on the telephone in his office. The telephone was so loud that his subordinate realized he was speaking with Lionginas Šepetys, secretary of the Central Committee. On hearing A. Pupkis’s surname, Šepetys said: “What are you men playing at? Stop it and let the man work” (p. 437, footnote). From that day on, the harassment ceased. In the Soviet Union, the opportunities for unfree nations to develop their languages depended on many circumstances. These varied greatly from nation to nation, just as the status of the languages differed considerably. The vitality of a national language is reflected in book-publishing data. Where a national language is strong and vigorous, more books are published in that language. The number of books published in the languages of the Soviet republics was comparatively very small. Let us compare the 1975 figures for some republics. For example, in Belarus, of the 2,827 books and brochures published that year, only 471 were in Belarusian. Moreover, the total number of books was quite small for a republic with a population of 9.3 million. In Turkmenistan (about 3 million inhabitants), 509 books were published that year, 264 of them in Turkmen; in Tajikistan, the corresponding figures were 868 and 413; in Kyrgyzstan, 912 and 440; and in Kazakhstan, 2,034 and 764. Meanwhile, all book-publishing figures in the Baltic republics were much more favorable to the national languages. For example, in Latvia (population 2.5 million), 2,362 books were published that year, of which 1,228 were in Latvian. Estonia had a population of about 1.5 million, but the total number of books published that year was 2,118 (the number of books in Estonian is not specified). Lithuania lagged behind its neighbors in the total number of books: 1,875 were published in 1975. However, the number of Lithuanian-language books was comparatively higher—1,361 (about 70%)11. Lithuania was potentially capable of surpassing its Baltic sisters, but could not do so because book publishing was not free: it was strictly “regulated” by Moscow agencies. Their “favor” toward the Baltic republics was connected with the principle of maintaining steady growth in book publishing. To some extent, or in a particular form, this principle correlated with other circumstances determining how different national languages functioned in the Soviet Union—for example, their unequal use in the education system. Thus, the degree of tolerance shown toward the Lithuanian language movement of 1968–1988 should also be regarded as a consequence of this differing recognition of the value of languages. 11 Data for Lithuania from: LTE 5, p. 585. Data for the other republics from: Bolšaja sovetskaja enciklopedija. 3rd ed., vol. 24, book 2. Moscow: Sovetskaja enciklopedija, 1977, pp. 513–541. Recenzijos / Reviews 315 ARNOLDAS PIROČKINAS The title of A. Pupkis’s work is somewhat broader in scope than its stated aim to describe the period of collective protection of the Lithuanian language from 1968 to 1988. I would say that the author has fully achieved this aim. And the fact that the essence of the movement and party line, as well as other areas (for example, the expansion of Lithuanian language culture as a subject taught at the country’s higher education institutions, and analysis of all publications devoted to language culture), have not been examined here should not be held against the author. What he did not do is entirely open to those who rush to condemn the study’s author. The value of every book is enhanced not only by its wealth of facts, but also by the thoughts, incentives, and impulses it arouses in the reader. A. Pupkis’s work strongly encourages an equally comprehensive review of the state of the Lithuanian language in other periods, for example, 1918–1940 and after 1990, when independence was regained. It would be particularly timely, before long, to compare objectively the period discussed with the trends that began spreading in Lithuania at the start of the 21st century and are unreservedly promoted by the circle around the journal Naujasis židinys–Aidai. While writing the monograph, A. Pupkis clearly sensed these trends but deliberately refrained from polemicizing against them. He limited himself to a brief footnote: “I see no need in this book to debate the claims made by sociolinguists and historians of today’s neoliberal orientation concerning alleged human rights violations in the activities of language sections at the time, the use of coercive language measures in everyday life, efforts to artificially create an authoritarian mechanism for language development, and the need to defend oneself against the real or alleged sins of the work done then” (p. 448). Having then stood rather apart from the organizations of the Lithuanian language movement active during those two decades, today I fully endorse the author’s decision—the idea expressed in this significant work. I would say that the movement’s present-day opponents of that period might be judged by the Lithuanian saying: “It takes one to know one.” It is hard to imagine another such dictatorial group in the history of the Lithuanian language as today’s burgeoning neoliberals, blind promoters of Western linguistic trends. I would like to conclude this review and presentation of Aldonas Pupkis’s book to readers with a saying that, while not entirely original, is somewhat paraphrased: 1968–1988 was a highly significant period in the development of standard Lithuanian, worthy of further study, and the book Lietuvių kalbos sąjūdis 1968–1988 m. is worthy of that movement. Submitted on 20 April 2017. ARNOLDAS PIROČKINAS Antakalnio g. 49–9, LT-10325 Vilnius, Lietuva 316 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVI