Wege der deutschen Entlehnungen in die ostpreußische Zeitung „Naujasis Tilžės keleivis“ (1924–1940)

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LIV (2006), 27 – 47 Routes of German Borrowings into the East Prussian Newspaper Naujasis Tilžės keleivis (1924–1940) INDRE BROKARTAITE-PLADIENĖ Šiaulių universitetas In this article an attempt is made at evaluating the chronological layering of the German loanwords attested in the newspaper Naujasis Tilžės keleivis, whose period of publication spans the last decades of the existence of the Prussian-Lithuanian linguistic community. An overview is given of the typological properties (structure, chronological distribution) of this group of loanwords. The basic German language varieties serving, to various extents, as sources of German loanwords in the Lithuanian language of East Prussia are discussed: these are the Lower German dialects of East Prussia and the standard language that grew out of the written language and developed its professional and political variants. Attention is further given to the Lithuanian language varieties that could have influenced the structural transformation or ousting of German loanwords; the way in which German loanwords were adapted in Prussian Lithuanian from the 18th century onward; the public discussions regarding their use in the written Lithuanian language of East Prussia; and the extent to which the nascent standard language affected their use in the Naujasis Tilžės keleivis. 0. PRELIMINARY REMARKS The Lithuanian newspaper Naujasis Tilžės keleivis, published in Tilsit from 1924 to 1940, offers an opportunity to investigate German borrowings in the Lithuanian press of East Prussia during a period when Prussian Lithuanian1 had already become an independent language variety— 1 In the aforementioned newspaper, this minority language is referred to by its speakers themselves using the synonymous terms Prūsų lietuvių/lietuvi(n)inkų kalba (German: Preußisch- 27 INDRĒ BROKARTAITĖ-PLADIENE —had evolved, whose specific character was shaped to a significant extent by the consequences of language contact and societal bilingualism (cf. Schiller 1999: 225–226, 228). Based on the foundations of contact linguistics2, this contribution aims to trace the routes taken by German borrowings into the aforementioned newspaper and is therefore intended to cover two areas: 1. Theoretical conceptualization of the subject of investigation (German borrowings in Naujašis Tilžės keleivis), which presupposes both a broader theoretical approach (analysis of typological and structural characteristics) and a historical overview. 2. An illustrative account of the routes taken by German borrowings into Naujašis Tilžės keleivis, based on a qualitative analysis of the collected corpus. 1. ON THE PARTICULARITIES OF THE SUBJECT OF INVESTIGATION The German loanwords in Naujašis Tilžės keleivis can be described as a difficult-to-classify and non-systematic object of investigation, which presents terminological, typological, and structural Lithuanian) or Rytprūsių lietuvių kalba (German: East Prussian Lithuanian). Of these two designations, which reflect political affiliation, the first has become more established in German-language literature, while the geographically more precise designation East Prussian Lithuanian is used by Zinkevicius (2002b: 476). Lithuanian linguistic research prefers the term Mažosios Lietuvos lietuvių kalba (German: Little Lithuanian), which German authors also cite as a synonym for Prussian Lithuanian (cf. Hinderling, Hasselblatt 2004: 3272). Nowadays, all these designations are considered historical terms, since the Prussian-Lithuanian linguistic community is already dying out. 2 Contact linguistics studies situations in which two (or more) languages come into contact and at least one of them changes as a result of this contact. Such change is to be regarded as a complex of closely intertwined linguistic and extralinguistic phenomena (Oksaar 2004: 3160, Clyne 1996: 12). Contact linguistics is considered a relatively young and dynamic linguistic discipline and is still working toward a clear definition of its theories and tools; the state of knowledge achieved to date has been documented encyclopedically in the two contact linguistics volumes of the HSK series (Goebl, Nelde, Stary, Wölck 1996, 1997). 28 Deutsche Entlehnungen im Naujasıs Tilžės keleivis requires further clarification. Since no compact theoretical framework exists for research of this kind, this section discusses the fundamental characteristics and research methodology of loanwords in the aforementioned newspaper, drawing on conceptual research into loan material and studies of German loan material in other Prussian-Lithuanian primary sources. 1.1. Preliminary Terminological, Structural, and Typological Remarks The subject of investigation is designated by the result- and process-oriented term BORROWING3, owing to the newspaper’s thematic specificity. The chronological layering of the corpus can be illustrated particularly well by the following examples4: … Bernas, ant Staldo (1) Bertainio (2) stowėdamas, nuwirto …. (1926-52-3, Iß muſu Kraßto), … apſirėdžjuſi jūdu Kedeliu (3) … (1924-62-3, Iß muſu Kraßto), … atidengė Piningų (4) Szmugeli (5)… (1938-72-3, Iß muſų Kraßto), … nuwirto ant Szaſijos (6) į Kampą ſukdamas … (1926-8-4, Margumynai), … Wokietijos Führeris (7) ir Reichskancleris (8) Adolf Hitler … (1937-46-2, Politikos Naujienos) While staldas ‘stall’, bertainis ‘a compartment in the barn situated at the sides of the threshing floor’, kedelis ‘women’s skirt, smock’, piningas ‘piece of money, coin’, szmugelis ‘smuggling’, and szaſija ‘chaussée’ are also attested as German loanwords in other sources (see Alminauskis 1935, Čepienė 1995, Kurschat 1883), führeris ‘leader, guide’, reichskancleris 3 On the basis of Betz’s typology, borrowing has developed into a broad concept in German specialist literature (comprising both lexical borrowing and loan translation, but also the borrowing process) and no longer corresponds in meaning to the Lithuanian equivalent skolinys (loanword). 4 The example sentences printed in German Fraktur in Naujasıs Tilžės keleivis are reproduced here in Latin type (while retaining several characteristic Fraktur letters). 29 INDRE BROKARTAITE-PLADIENĖ ‘Reichskanzler’ are considered vocabulary items adopted later, which had not yet become established in other writings. Accordingly, in my opinion, it would be useful to distinguish chronologically between two groups of borrowings: 1. Loanword vocabulary adopted through natural German-Lithuanian language contacts and used in both spoken and written Prussian Lithuanian, for which this newspaper clearly serves only as a secondary source of use (Examples 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). In examining the linguistic features of such German borrowings in Naujasisis Tilžės keleivis, I rely on the comparative method, comparing the examples with data from dialectological research (in neighboring dialects; see Zinkevičius 2002a), entries in East Prussian dictionaries (Drotvinas 1987, Kurschat 1883, Alminauskis 1935), lexical studies of these dictionaries (Čepienė 1993, 1995, 2000b), or other East Prussian writings (Čepienė: 1998a, 1998b, Kaukienė: 1997, Palionis: 1995). Comparison with other Lithuanian newspapers of East Prussia is possible only to a very limited extent, since, according to J. Range (1994: 216) and Z. Zinkevičius (2002b), German loan material in the Prussian Lithuanian press from the beginning of the 20th century to the present has been investigated only cursorily, as have German borrowings in the East Prussian press of earlier periods (see Palionis 1995: 175). 2. New borrowings indispensable to the press as a medium, some of which are still in the process of being borrowed but occur with high frequency in texts (Examples 7, 8), although some show only weak phonological and morphological integration (Example 7). In terms of the dynamics of synchrony, such vocabulary should be classified as borrowings5, because for them this newspaper is the primary source of occurrence. Their linguistic analysis draws mainly on the works of C. Berning (1960), K. Doerr (2002), S. Müller (1994), and A. Wolf (1991). 5 Vaicekauskienė (2004: 8) definiert die dynamische Synchronie als variablen Gebrauch von Fremdwörtern in Verbindung mit den primären Ergebnissen dieser Entwicklung, d.h. als die Herausbildung bestimmter Verhältnisse zum Sprachsystem (s. dazu auch Tesch 1978: 23–24, Bechert, Wildgen 1991: 9, Wolff 2004: 21, Coseriu 1975: 138). 30 Deutsche Entlehnungen im Naujasis Tilžės keleivis A further remark concerns the structural diversity of the corpus. Since language contacts are based on a dynamic model, the examples also exhibit structural blends and hybridizations (cf. Bechert, Wildgen 1991:154, Vaicekauskienė 2004: 124, Weinreich 1976). The structure of the borrowings ranges from word borrowing (Examples 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12), through loan translation (Examples 9, 10, 11a), to hybrids (Example 11b): Beto travels alone Trukis (9) from Klaipėda (1924-54-4, by rail (10) Travel Schedule) By air (11a) (1925-44-1, Latest News) ... thus became great Oršėpis (11b)... disguised (1925-72-1, Latest News) Winterhilfēs (12) The work will be carried out this winter. (1936-63-1, Politikos Apžwalga) One should, of course, distinguish structurally prototypical and peripheral elements, while separating borrowings from their extensions in the language (derivatives, imitations). Structurally, the term German borrowings here refers above all to the outcomes of word borrowing (which are themselves divided into loanwords and foreign words; Range (1994: 218), however, considers this distinction unhelpful for the Baltic languages). Vernacular forms of borrowing cover everyday areas of vocabulary and are usually found as assimilated loanwords (Examples 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). This group includes both internationalisms of German origin (reichskancleris ‘Reich Chancellor’) and internationalisms mediated by German (szafija ‘chaussée’, automobylas ‘obsolete form: automobile’). In addition to word borrowings, the preferred forms of loan formation are also examined here (especially loan translations (trukis < train, gelžkeltrukis < railway train, orlaivis < airship) and hybrid forms (oršėpis < Lith. oras + Lith. šēpis / Ger. Schiff). The different forms of borrowing usually compete for a place when a new designation is introduced, for example, the loan translation and the hybrid form (orlaivis vs. oršėpis). J. Range (1994: 211) regards loan formations in Prussian Lithuanian as linguistic interferences that arise by way of 31 INDRĖ BROKARTAITE-PLADIENĖ of literary borrowing. Thus, examples 9, 10, and 11 give reason to suspect that the authors of the texts also deliberately participated in determining the form of the borrowings, which calls for a historically oriented overview establishing the extent to which historical circumstances could have influenced the inventory of German loan material in the Naujasis Tilžės keleivis. 1.2. Historical background The collected corpus cannot be regarded as a true reflection of the actual inventory of German loanwords in written Prussian Lithuanian at the beginning of the 20th century, which is largely attributable to the newspaper’s specific characteristics, e.g., the text authors’ attitudes toward language and linguistic knowledge, and the varying quality of borrowings (general vocabulary vs. specialized terms). Although the use of borrowings in East Prussian Lithuanian newspapers was often dependent on individuals6, the Naujasis Tilžės keleivis aspired to preserve the Lithuanian language and was counted among the patriotic newspapers. In addition to providing information about political, social, and cultural life, it encouraged the Lithuanians of East Prussia to engage in cultural and linguistic preservation activities (Kaunas 1996: 548). Its editor, Enzys Jagomast, was known as a publisher of Lithuanian writings in East Prussia and an active cultural worker; questions of identity were addressed in Vydūnas’s articles7. For this reason, the Naujasis Tilžės 6 Nach Palionis (1995: 175) kam es dabei meistens auf den Herausgeber an: auch im Keleivis von F. Kurschat (bis 1880) gibt es entbehrliche Entlehnungen: festungas ‚Festung‘, kurbas ‚Korb‘. Alminauskis (1935: 14) führt auch unbegründete Verwendung von Entlehnungen an: „Fehlt dem Zeitungsschreiber für irgendeinen Ausdruck das litauische Wort, so bedient er sich des deutschen Wortes mit litauischer Endung. Zu solchen Fremdwörtern gehören bestimmt armekoras „Armeechor“, hautitsas „Hauptitze“. Am Anfang des 20 Jhs. störten solche Bildungen die zweisprachigen Leser nicht mehr. 7 For example, in 1924 his articles appeared in German and Lithuanian: No. 1 Tėviškės žemė / Heimaterde, No. 2 Tikrasis lietuvių gymis / Das wahre litauische Gesicht, No. 8 Klaipėdos krašto bažnyčia / Die Kirche im Memelgebiet (and polemics: No. 20 response by Pastor Römer, No. 33 Vydūnas: A response to the response), No. 21 Vokiečiai ir Lietuviai / Deutsche und Litauer, No. 37 Lūkesčiai / Erwartungen, No. 43 Kaip mums pasielgt reikėtų / Wie wir uns verhalten sollten. 32 Deutsche Entlehnungen im Naujasis Tilžės keleivis keleivis is to be understood not only as a record of language use8, but also as a cultural product and, in part, as an instrument of corpus planning, as reflected in the few articles on language cultivation (especially in the years 1936–1938). 2. GERMAN BORROWINGS IN THE NAUJASIS TILŽĖS KELEIVIS: THE GERMAN LANGUAGE VARIETIES SERVING AS SOURCES AND PRUSSIAN LITHUANIAN MEDIATION This undertaking is, of course, closely connected with historical and sociocultural developments in Prussian Lithuania from the 13th century to the middle of the 20th century, as well as with the sociolinguistic differentiation of each language. The fundamental questions in this research are: From which German language varieties had borrowings previously entered Prussian Lithuanian dialects or writings, and thus also appear in the newspaper? From which German language varieties were the borrowings adopted directly? In examining the German source varieties, this analysis aims to identify characteristic thematic groups as well as the subject-related stratification of the loan material. In presenting the Prussian Lithuanian varieties of mediation, it also discusses the extent to which the corresponding conceptual trends of the time were brought to bear on the use of borrowings. All of this requires a chronological approach and terminological clarity, which can in turn be presented only very schematically, since overlaps and intersections must always be expected. The earliest source of borrowings (German dialects) may be considered the local dialect (settlement dialect) Low Prussian (also: East Prussian), which was predominant in the former Prussian Lithuania and is subsumed under the general term Low German (also: Plattdeutsch). Those based on West Aukštaitian features 8 Bei der Untersuchung der Entlehnungen wurde auch Grosses (2002: 257) Hinweis in Acht genommen, dass die Zeitung eine mosaikartige Gemeinschaftsarbeit vieler Autoren ist, wobei die Gefahr subjektiver Spracherscheinungen entsteht. Deswegen wurde in dieser Forschung die individuelle Verwendung (z.B. wenn die Entlehnung nur einmal vorkommt) als Sonderfall behandelt. 33 INDRE BROKARTAITE-PLADIENĖ The Prussian-Lithuanian dialects may be regarded as Lithuanian intermediary varieties. A more recent variety of borrowings may be identified, from a historical perspective, as the German written language. The Prussian-Lithuanian written language is considered a possible intermediary variety here. The most recent borrowing variety is referred to as the German standard language (as it was collected and codified in dictionaries and grammars at the beginning of the 20th century) or High German (here, this term is understood in opposition to Low German, although it has become ambiguous in the present day). For historical reasons, no Prussian-Lithuanian language variety can be cited as an intermediary variety. 2.1. General vocabulary borrowed from German settler dialects and its Prussian-Lithuanian intermediary varieties The Lithuanian dialects of East Prussia naturally served as the primary sources for borrowings from German settler dialects. Since the beginning of the 13th century, German vocabulary has been adopted orally into Prussian-Lithuanian through intensive vernacular contact. The newspaper uses nouns for material culture that were borrowed from German dialects into Prussian-Lithuanian, and which reveal aspects of Eastern European social history (cf. Čepienė 1993; cf. for Polish, Wiktorowicz 2002: 337). These borrowings belong to the following thematic groups: household items (kurbas ‘basket’ < East Prussian korb, korv9, dekis ‘blanket’ < East Prussian dęk), clothing (kedelís ‘women’s jacket’ < East Prussian kėdel, ceikis ‘cloth’ < East Prussian zeik), buildings and parts of buildings (staldas ‘stable’ < Middle Low German stall, stuba ‘room’ < Old High German stuba), building materials (balkis ‘beam, rafter’ < Middle Low German balke, planka ‘plank’ < East Prussian planke), administrative vocabulary (vaktmistras ‘sergeant’ < East Prussian wachméster), food (šmanta ‘cream, sour cream’ < East Prussian šmant, plume / pliume ‘plum’ < East Prussian plume). Their integration into Prussian-Lithuanian is evidenced by extensions, especially diminutive formations (Ked分lukas ‘little women’s jacket’, 9 The East Prussian borrowing forms are cited on the basis of Alminauskis (1935), Drotvinas (1987), Fraenkel (1962), and Kurschat (1883). 34 Deutsche Entlehnungen im Naujasis Tilžės keleivis Stubelė, ‘little room’). In some borrowings, a development from a Low German form (Burgermijtras) to a High German form (Burgermejteris, Bürgemejteris) can be demonstrated. Since many such borrowings are known from dialectological studies of the West Lithuanian dialects of the 20th century, they should also have been widespread in spoken Prussian Lithuanian. As regards their assimilation, however, it can be demonstrated for only a few examples that the newspaper directly used the borrowing forms present in spoken Prussian Lithuanian: thus, for ‘prison, penitentiary’ the New Tilžė Traveller uses not the folk-etymologically altered form shitūžė, but Cuktūžė, which is closer to the original form zuchthūs. The newspaper examples suggest that the Naujasis Tilžės keleivis used written forms of vernacular borrowings that were common in other written documents. Thus, the Prussian-Lithuanian written language proves to be an intermediary variety. German loan material passed from spoken Prussian-Lithuanian (in some cases also directly) into the written variety (religious texts, dictionaries, and later also the language of the press). Indeed, the Naujasis Tilžės keleivis contains borrowings of vernacular origin that were used in 16th–17th-century writings, e.g. stunda ‘hour’, turmas ‘tower’, stukis ‘piece’ (cf. Čepienė 1998a, 1998b, 2000b). It can nevertheless be said that language-planning ideas concerning borrowings were put into practice only to a limited extent in Prussian Lithuania. The general Lithuanian written language of East Prussia developed on the basis of the West Aukštaitian dialect and was codified by Daniel Klein in his grammars of 1653 and 1654 (Rimša 1972: 75, Palionis 1995: 39). In the 18th century, ideas about purifying the language and using Prussian-Lithuanian more widely spread alongside ideas about purifying the German language. Michael Mörlin’s treatise Bedencken über das principium primarium in lingva lithvanica (1706) was a project10 for reforming religious texts (Girčienė 2003: 397; see also Aleknavičienė, Schiller 2002: 91–97, 10 The treatise called for the avoidance of Polonisms and Germanisms (one should not use anything German if another expression can be found for it) and cautioned against placing too much trust in the vernacular, since it is corrupted by Germanisms. Unintelligible terms should be paraphrased, not 35 INDRĖ BROKARTAITĖ-PLADIENE Palionis 1995: 125). Dieses Traktat veranlasste philologische Diskussionen zur Sprachsäuberung: Mörlin z.B. sah keine Möglichkeit eines Kompromisses hinsichtlich der Verwendung von Wörtern nichtlitauischer Herkunft, Perkuhn warf ihm die umschreibende Übersetzung vor (Aleknavičienė, Schiller 2003: 36–47). Mörlins Ideen hinsichtlich der Entlehnung wurden hauptsächlich von Johannes Schulze, Philipp Ruhig, Ludwig Rhesa fortgesetzt. In den Schriften herrschte jedoch Unsicherheit bei der Verwendung von Entlehnungen. Die Textverfasser verwendeten für denselben Begriff an einer Stelle das Lehnwort, an einer anderen schon die litauische Entsprechung (Palionis 1995: 84–88), nicht alle hatten ausreichende linguistische Kenntnisse: So schlug Rhesa vor, manche deutsche Entlehnungen durch Wörter slawischer Herkunft zu ersetzen (Jonikas 1987: 402). Deutsche Entlehnungen waren bei manchen Autoren schon Bestandteil der Sprache und wurden in Wörterbüchern nicht speziell markiert, Philipp Ruhig z.B. betrachtete sie als einheimische Wörter und gab keine Randbemerkungen dazu (Girčienė 2003: 398). Als die litauische Schriftsprache in Ostpreußen seit Mitte des 19. Jhs. wegen der äußerst restriktiven sprachpolitischen Gesetze einem starken Assimilationsdruck seitens des Deutschen ausgesetzt war und stufenweise zurückzog, vermieden nur bestimmte Einzelgänger in ihren Schriften die deutschen Entlehnungen. So empfahl Ludwig Rhesa cuktūžė ‚Zuchthaus‘, jegerė ‚Jäger‘, bekeris ‚Bäcker‘, gruntas ‚Grundlage‘, skūnė ‚Scheune‘ durch apkalimas, medėjas, kepėjas, tvirtumas, kluonas zu ersetzen (Palionis 1995: 174). The grammars and dictionaries in East Prussia cannot serve as a support either, because they were not intended for ordinary speakers but pursued scholarly interests. The only advantage is the fact that the use of the written language in East Prussia had been standardized by grammars and dictionaries in the 18th century (Palionis 1995: 169). Lexicographic work in East Prussia intensified only in the second half of the 19th century11, but it did not reach as broad a scope as in Lithuania Major. narrow dialectisms may be used. The purpose of the written language is to ensure successful communication (Jonikas 1986: 391-395). 11 Kurschat’s dictionary (Wörterbuch der littauischen Sprache: Deutsch-littauisches Wörterbuch I. Teil 1870, II. Teil 1874, Littauisch-deutsches Wörterbuch 1883) contains much Lithuanian vocabulary collected in the environs of Tilsit and Ragnit 36 Deutsche Entlehnungen im Naujasis Tilžės keleivis 2.2. Borrowed material from the German written language and its mediation into Prussian Lithuanian The extent of borrowings in Prussian Lithuanian writings of the 18th–19th centuries was caused both by changes in natural and social realities and by the development of the German written language. In the 17th–18th centuries, the spheres of use of Low German became restricted to household communication; at the beginning of the 17th century, the Low German written language had also been displaced. Throughout the Early New High German period, efforts were made to standardize the language, but uniformity was achieved only around 1900. In the 18th–19th centuries, Prussian Lithuanian had to define and describe new social, administrative, and political realities. In the 18th century, the foreign specialized vocabulary of officialese entered the Prussian Lithuanian written language as borrowings, owing to the more frequent reprinting of laws. The Naujasis Tilžės keleivis contains many economic and legal terms as word borrowings, which, according to Palionis (1995:152–154), had already appeared in Prūsų valdžios gromatos, pagraudenimai ir pasakymai lietuvių valstiečiams, e.g. landrotas ‘Landrat’ and urlaubs ‘leave’. The newspaper uses loan translations that had developed as new religious and social terms in the East Prussian press of the 19th century, e.g. ligonbutis ‘hospital’, coined by F. Kurschat; draugbro lis ‘brother’, geležkeltrūkis ‘train’, and geležkelis ‘railway’, coined by the newspaper’s editor Kelkis. It should also be noted that the number of internationalisms mediated through the German written language increased in Prussian Lithuanian. This reflects the fact that in the 17th–18th centuries German itself was subject to massive influence from other languages. After the Low German Hanseatic League lost its dominant position in trade, borrowings of Dutch origin were adopted (šleužė was. Unclear words are placed in parentheses; authentic words are crossed out, a practice that also acquired practical significance through their use in newspapers intended for Lithuania Major, Aušra and Varpas. However, the German-Lithuanian part of this dictionary in particular contains many lexical Germanisms (bukštavas, ėdelmonas, steliuoti, stundas) (Palionis 1995: 195–198). 37 INDRĖ BROKARTAITĖ-PLADIENĖ ‘sluice’, apfelsynė ‘orange’); during the absolutist period, French influence became apparent (kostymas ‘costume’, tortė ‘cake’, hotelė ‘hotel’, gardynai ‘curtains’). In the 19th–20th centuries, English influence grew; direct contacts through politics, science, and trade increased lexical borrowings (sztreikis ‘strike’, lokomotyvė ‘locomotive’). In addition, the Naujasis Tilžės keleivis used the necessary borrowed technical vocabulary, much of which was formed from Latin and Greek roots (e.g. Automobylas ‘standard form: Automobil’) or innovative internationalisms from other East Prussian periodicals (e.g. deputiertas ‘deputies’, profeseris ‘professor’, teateris ‘theater’), with German mediation clearly evident in many details (Palionis 1995: 218–220). Thus, the increase in the proportion of foreign words in the Naujasis Tilžės keleivis (and in Prussian Lithuanian generally) was due not only to the political situation at the time but also to the broad civilizational development of industrialized countries. After World War I, a technological evolution began worldwide, resulting in a considerable expansion of specialized vocabularies; specialized vocabulary in the form of borrowed internationalisms (of German origin or mediated through German) also entered the texts of the aforementioned newspaper. At the end of the 19th century, no unequivocal answer could be found to questions concerning the use of borrowings. The editors of Aušra (1883–1886) could neither theoretically justify banning foreign words nor practically avoid them. Their inadequate linguistic training and romantic attitudes toward the Lithuanian language were especially obstructive. The newspaper Varpas played a much greater role, particularly when Jablonskis had his language articles and reviews reprinted there. Kudirka also contributed to the purification of the written language. Varpas contained many lexical variants, as efforts were made to replace non-Lithuanian words or coin new terms: ligonbutis / ligongulis / ligongulta / ligongnamis ‘hospital’ (Palionis 1995: 233–234). The editors of the newspapers Varpas and Ūkininkas were more cautious in coining new words than the editors of Aušra. The variation in new terms across different East Prussian newspapers can partly be explained by the effort to ensure general comprehensibility, 38 Deutsche Entlehnungen im Naujasis Tilžės keleivis explain. Thus, in the telegrafas ‘telegraph’ was called, for example, Keleivis vielu pustas, vielinis pustas, žaibinis pustas, whereas in the newspaper Aušra it was tolrašiš ‘teletypewriter’. It was customary to give the loanword in parentheses alongside the Lithuanian equivalent (Girčienė 2003: 403). This tradition is also continued in the Naujasis Tilžės keleivis: alongside the loanword fallčirmas ‘parachute’, Lithuanian equivalents are found in the form of loan formations (Iššigelbėjimo Prietaisas, Nufileidimo Įtaisymas, Nufileidimo Skėtis, Oro Skėtis) or loan translations (Kritimo Skėtis). 2.3. Loans from Standard German and the indirect influence of the Lithuanian standard language Of particular interest for the borrowing process in the written language of East Prussia in the late 19th and early 20th centuries is the emergence of Standard German. After the founding of the German Empire in 1871, the elevation of the German language took on aggressive features: German had become a world language and was expected to receive due recognition. In the 20th century, Prussia had embarked on an overt policy of cultural assimilation of minorities (Palionis 1995: 256, Polenz 1998: 9), which naturally affected the loanword stock of Prussian Lithuanian. The spread of a standard-language norm and renewed interest in purism led to the development of a national Standard German (for example, by the late 19th century, railway and postal terminology was already being systematically Germanized at an early stage (Bahnsteig for Perron, Fahrkarte for Billet, Briefumschlag for Kuvert); the Allgemeiner Deutscher Sprachverein, founded in 1885, worked in the name of language cultivation, language purification, and national consciousness (Stedje 1989: 148–151). Following these ideas, new terms and Germanized forms were devised in the field of gymnastics, and these were also used as loanwords in the Naujasis Tilžės keleivis: maršuoti ‘to march’, turnuoti ‘to do gymnastics’. National Socialism continued this aggressive language policy in East Prussia with increased intensity. Nazi specialist vocabulary consisted predominantly of familiar, long-established words, some of which acquired changed or reinterpreted meanings; there was a marked preference for slogans and abbreviations (cf. Wolf 1991, Müller 1994: 57, 39 INDRĖ BROKARTAITE-PLADIENĖ Doerr 2002: 32). Zwei Gruppen von Neubildungen der sog. Reichssprache lassen sich im Naujasis Tilžės keleivis erkennen: (a) als Funktionswörter dienende Neuprägungen, die häufig durch Halbaffixe gekennzeichnet sind, z.B. Reich- (reichskanc leris ‚Reichskanzler‘), -karte (lebensmittelkartė ‚Lebensmittelkarte‘). (b) die Neubildungen mit propagandistischen Qualitäten, die als Tarnwörter und Euphemismen funktionieren, z.B. Winterhilfe ‚Winterhilfswerk‘ (s. dazu auch Doerr 2002: 38). Im Naujasis Tilžės keleivis neigt man dazu, daraus Lehnübersetzungen (Žiemos pagalba) zu machen, der richtige Inhalt bleibt jedoch versteckt12. Viele dieser Begriffe besitzen in der o.e. Zeitung nicht selten zwei Formen: Wortentlehnung (mit geringer linguistischer Eingliederung) und Lehnübersetzung (Beispiel für die literarische Entlehnungsform). Even in the German Reich, around the time of the First World War, language cultivation was increasingly placed in the service of nationalism, and the use of foreign words was described as intellectual treason (Stedje 1989: 164, Müller 1994: 95–96). Hitler, by contrast, viewed foreign words positively: their use was meant to impress the majority of the people, who did not understand foreign expressions or understood them only imprecisely (Müller 1994: 54). For many of these borrowings, the Naujasis Tilžės keleivis proves to be the primary source of use: the writers endeavor to take in the flood of new political loan material and present it to readers in their texts, although hardly any discussion takes place of which form—loanword or loan formation—is appropriate. Identifying a Lithuanian intermediary variety is particularly difficult. As early as the 18th century, the Lithuanian written language developed and functioned differently in East Prussia and Lithuania Minor (Palionis 1995: 163). The relationship between these two varieties seems paradoxical: although the Prussian branch of the Lithuanian written language underwent significant restrictions in use in the mid- and late 19th century and, for sociopolitical reasons, never attained the level of a high language for the Prussian Lithuanian speech community— 12Winter Relief Organization (abbreviated Winter Relief) was ostensibly interpreted as a functional word, but is a cover term for taxation and war financing. 40 Deutsche Entlehnungen im Naujasis Tilžės keleivis it served as the basis for the development of the present-day Lithuanian standard language13. And, on the other hand, although Lithuanian became the state language during the years of independence (1918–1940), it could have only an indirect influence on borrowing in Prussian Lithuanian, because these languages represented two different realities of life (social, political, etc.). Although one gets the impression that the authors of the texts in the Naujasis Tilžės keleivis were largely left to their own devices when adopting and reproducing new borrowings, closer analysis shows that some language-planning ideas were nevertheless adopted from Lithuania. In Lithuania, the fundamental principles for standardizing borrowings were formulated in 1918–1940 (based on Būga’s theoretical works, Skardžius’s research on Slavicisms, and Alminauskis’s research on Germanisms). The cleansing and enrichment of the lexicon of the Lithuanian standard language in the interwar period was based on data from the vernacular (dialects) (Palionis 1995: 252–256). Unfortunately, this principle could no longer be applied in practice in East Prussia during the interwar period, since the Lithuanian minority there was already highly bilingual. In the Naujasis Tilžės keleivis, newly coined words from the Lithuanian standard language are cited as equivalents; it is pointed out that some of them could serve as replacements for German loanwords14, and Lithuanian equivalents are also given for German borrowings that had become established in Prussian Lithuanian15, often appealing not to linguistic reasoning but to people’s feelings: 13 On the basis of the dialect spoken by Lithuanians living in southern East Prussia, the High Lithuanian written language emerged in the mid-17th century. 14 For example, sąjunga, paskaita, uždavinys (1936-16-3), menas, įvykis, gamta (1936-18-3), padermė, tauta (1940-13-3), among others. 15 “Medžiaga—in German it would be Material or Stoff; therefore, one should not use the non-Lithuanian word ‘Ceikis’, but the fact is that ‘Medžiaga’ for clothes, a sack, is the same as ‘žakas’, but the word ‘žakas’ (German Sack) is not used in Lithuanian written language” (1936-71-2). “Krofnis is the Lithuanian name in place of the words ‘Kakalis’ or ‘Peczius’; Kakalis comes from German ‘Kachel-Ofen’ (1936-23-4, Youth Corner).” 41 Indre Brokartaite-Pladiene We can no longer say “Szpygelis” or “Zerkolas,” because one word is German and the other Polish, but we should properly say “Weidrodis,” that is, the thing that shows the face. For “chair” one should say “Kėdė” instead of the ugly word “Sztülė,” which was borrowed from German. It is also inappropriate to use the word “Krafe,” because it is a word from the Slavic language. “Laikrodis” is a more beautiful word than the name “Zėgorius,” which arose from the German word “Zeiger” or the Low German “Zėger, Sėger” (1936-23-4, Youth Corner). Such language-cultivation columns appeared in the Naujasis Tilžės keleivis mainly in 1936–1938; the emerging Lithuanian high language served as a model for standardization only in certain spheres and not without the publisher’s intent16. 3. CONCLUDING REMARKS Generally speaking, it can be said that the German loan vocabulary present in the newspaper Naujasis Tilžės keleivis arose from close German-Lithuanian language contacts in East Prussia, with German language varieties ranging from German settler dialects to Standard German, all of which may be considered sources of borrowing to varying degrees. The mediating role of Prussian Lithuanian language varieties (dialects, written language) must not be underestimated either. This complex configuration is illustrated in greatly simplified form in Fig. 1. The vernacular lexical borrowings (general vocabulary) in Naujasis Tilžės keleivis may, of course, not have been borrowed directly from German settler dialects, but may have been mediated by spoken Prussian Lithuanian and especially by the Prussian Lithuanian written language, where they had already undergone linguistic adaptation earlier. Many of these lexical borrowings were discussed as early as the 17th–18th centuries and had apt Lithuanian equivalents; nevertheless, they became established in Prussian Lithuanian. Literary borrowing took shape in the Prussian Lithuanian written language (Bible translations, newspapers), that is, many individual loan formations were coined and later found their way into the texts of Naujasis Tilžės keleivis. 16 According to D. Kaunas, the publication of this newspaper was also co-funded by the Lithuanian government. 42 Deutsche Entlehnungen im Naujasıs Tilžės keleivis In the borrowed specialist vocabulary, the strong influence of the German written language and Standard German should be emphasized above all; the borrowings fall into specific technical languages (including borrowed internationalisms) and the language of the Reich. In borrowing, the text authors selected various loan forms that competed with one another. In many cases, the newspaper served as the primary source in which German borrowings appeared; the standard language of independent Lithuania exerted only an indirect influence, offering tendencies toward purifying Prussian Lithuanian and equivalents for some of the older lexical borrowings. Fig. 1. Routes of German borrowings in Naujasıs Tilžės keleivis 43 Indrė Brokartaitė-Pladiene REFERENCES Aleknavičienė, O., Schiller, Ch. 2002: Rastas antras Michaelio Mörlino Principium primarium in lingua Lithuanica (1706) egzempliorius. Archivum Lithuanicum 4, 79–98. Aleknavičienė, O., Schiller, Ch. 2003: Jacobas Perkuhnas prieš Michaelį Mörliną, Johanna Schultzą ir Philippą Ruhigą traktate Wohlgegruendetes Bedenken Uber die Ins Litthauſche Uberſetzte Zehen Fabeln Æſopi, Und derſelben paſſionirte Zuſchrifft (1706). Archivum Lithuanicum 5, 15–50. Alminauskis, K. 1935: Die Germanismen des Litauischen. Teil 1: Die deutschen Lehnwörter im Litauischen. Kaunas: Šv. Kazimiero D-jos Knygynas. Bechert, J., Wildgen, W. 1991: Einführung in die Sprachkontaktforschung. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Berning, C. 1960: Vom „Abstammungsnachweis“ zum „Zuchtwart“. Vokabular des Nationalsozialismus. Berlin–New York: Walter de Gruyter. Clyne, M. 1996: Sprache, Sprachbenutzer, Sprachbereich. In: H. Goebl, P.H. Nelde, Z. Starý, W. Wolck, Hrsg., 1996, 12–22. Coseriu, E. 1975: Synchronie, Diachronie und Typologie. In: D. Cherubim, Hrsg., Sprachwandel. Reader zur diachronischen Sprachwissenschaft. Berlin–New York: Walter de Gruyter. Čepiene, N. 1993: Germanizmai XVII a. Mažosios Lietuvos vakarų aukštaičių tarmėje (remiantis „Lexicon Lithuanicum“). Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 30, 37–46. Čepiene, N. 1995: Lietuvių kalbos germanizmai ir jų fonetinė adaptacija. Daktaro disertacijos santrauka. Vilnius. Čepiene, N. 1998a: Mikalojaus Daukšos raštų germanizmai. Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 34, 31–38. Čepiene, N. 1998b: Jono Bretkūno Biblijos germanizmai. Baltistica. V priedas, 91–96. Čepiene, N. 2000a: Germanizmai Mažosios Lietuvos raštuose. In: Mažosios Lietuvos enciklopedija 1. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 463–464. 44 Deutsche Entlehnungen im Naujasīs Tilžės keleivis Čepienė, N. 2000b: Vokiškos kilmės namų apyvokos daiktų pavadinimai F. W. Haacko, P. Ruigio ir K. G. Milkaus žodynuose. Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 43, 34–38. Doerr, K. 2002: Nazi-Deutsch: An Ideological Language of Exclusion, Domination and Annihilation. In: R. Michael, K. Doerr, Nazi-Deutsch / Nazi-German: An English Lexicon of the Language of the Third Reich. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group, 27–46. Drotvinas, V. 1987: Lexicon Lithuanicum. Rankraštinis XVII a. vokiečių-lietuvių kalbų žodynas. Vilnius: Mokslas. Fraenkel, E. 1962: Litauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Bd.1, 2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Girčienė, J. 2003: Leksikos gryninimo polinkiai bendrinės lietuvių kalbos istorijoje. Archivum Lithuanicum 5, 391–410. Goebl, H., Nelde, P.H., Starý, Z., Wölck, W., Hrsg., 1996/1997: Kontaktlinguistik. Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung. Halbbd. 1, 2. Berlin–New York: Walter de Gruyter. Grosse, S. 2002: Zur deutschen Sprache zwischen 1918 und 1933. In: D. Cherubim, J. Karlheinz, A. Linke, Hrsg., Neue deutsche Sprachgeschichte: mentalitäts-, kultur- und sozialgeschichtliche Zusammenhänge. Berlin–New York: Walter de Gruyter, 253–268. Hinderling, R., Hasselblatt, C., 2004: Baltisch / Deutsch. In: W. Besch, A. Betten, O. Reichmann, S. Sonderegger, Hrsg., Sprachgeschichte. Ein Handbuch zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und ihrer Erforschung. 3. Teilbd. Berlin–New York: Walter de Gruyter, 3269–3282. Jonikas, P. 1987: Lietuvių kalba ir tauta amžių būvyje. Visuomeniniai lietuvių kalbos istorijos bruožai. Čikaga: Lituanistikos instituto leidykla. Kaukienė, A. 1997: Klaipėdos krašto vakarų aukštaičių tarmė. Brolių Vil­iaus ir Makso Gaigalaičių raštų kalbos pagrindu. Klaipėda: KU leidykla. Kaunas, D. 1996: Mažosios Lietuvos knyga. Lietuviškos knygos raida 1547–1940. Vilnius: Baltos lankos. 45 Indre Brokartaitė-Pladienė Kurschat, F. 1883: Wörterbuch der littauischen Sprache. 2. Littauisch-deutsches Wörterbuch. Halle a. S.: Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses. Müller, S. 1994: Sprachwörterbücher im Nationalsozialismus: die ideologische Beeinflussung von Duden, Sprachbrockhaus und anderen Nachschlagewerken während des „Dritten Reichs“. Stuttgart: M&P, Verlag für Wissenschaft und Forschung. Naujasis Tilžės Keleivis. Tilžė, 1924–1940. Oksaar, E. 2004: Terminologie und Gegenstand der Sprachkontaktforschung. In: W. Besch, A. Betten, O. Reichmann, S. Sonderegger, ed., Sprachgeschichte. Ein Handbuch zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und ihrer Erforschung. 3. Teilbd. Berlin–New York: Walter de Gruyter, 3160–3170. Palionis, J. 1995: Lietuvių rašomosios kalbos istorija. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Polenz, P. von 1998: Vom Sprachimperialismus zum gebremsten Sprachstolz. Das 20. Jahrhundert in der sprachenpolitischen Geschichte der deutschsprachigen Länder. In: H. Kämper, H. Schmidt, Hrsg., Das 20. Jahrhundert. Sprachgeschichte –Zeitgeschichte. Berlin–New York: Walter de Gruyter, 9–26. Range, J. 1994: Zur Erforschung des Lehngutes in den baltischen Sprachen. Linguistica Baltica 3, 211–231. Rimša, V. 1972: Rytų Prūsijos lietuvių kalbos elementai dabartinėje bendrinėje lietuvių kalboje. Kalbotyra 24 (1), 75–81. Schiller, Ch. 1999: [Rec.] Audronė Kaukienė, Klaipėdos krašto vakarų aukštaičių tarmė. Brolių Viliaus ir Makso Gaigalaičių raštų kalbos pagrindu. Archivum Lithuanicum 1, 222–228. Stedje, A. 1989: Deutsche Sprache gestern und heute: Einführung in die Sprachgeschichte und Sprachkunde. München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag. Tesch, G. 1978: Linguale Interferenz. Theoretische, terminologische und methodische Grundfragen zu ihrer Erforschung. Tübingen: TBL–Verlag Narr. Vaicekauskiene, L. 2004: Naujųjų lietuvių kalbos svetimžodžių norminimo teorija ir praktika. Daktaro disertacija. Vilnius. 46 Deutsche Entlehnungen im Naujasis Tilžės keleivis Weinreich, U. 1976: Sprachen in Kontakt: Ergebnisse und Probleme der Zweisprachigkeitsforschung. Hrsg. und Nachwort von A. de Vincenz. München: Beck. Wiktorowicz, J. 2002: Die deutsch-polnische Nachbarschaft und ihre Widerspiegelung in der polnischen Sprache. In: D. Cherubim, Hrsg., Neue deutsche Sprachgeschichte. Berlin–New York: Walter de Gruyter, 337-348. Wolf, A. 1991: Wandel im Jargon des Nationalsozialismus. Freiburg im Breisgau: Padagogische Hochschule. Wolff, G. 2004: Deutsche Sprachgeschichte von den Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart. Ein Studienbuch. Tübingen, Basel: A. Francke Verlag. Zinkevičius, Z. 2002a: Mintys pasirodžius lietuvių kalbos atlaso I tomui. In: Ders., Rinktiniai straipsniai 1. Vilnius: Lietuvių Katalikų Mokslo Akademija, 404–410. Zinkevičius, Z. 2002b: Zum Einfluss des Deutschen auf das Ostpreußisch-Litauische am Anfang des 20. Jahrhunderts. In: Ders., Rinktiniai straipsniai 2. Vilnius: Lietuvių Katalikų Mokslo Akademija, 393–398. Indrė Brokartaitė-Pladienė Šiauliai University Faculty of Humanities P. Višinskio g. 38, LT-76352 Šiauliai [email protected] 47