Latvių dalykinė kalba kalbos kultūros aspektu

LITHUANIAN LINGUISTICS QUESTIONS, XXXI (1994) QUESTIONS OF LANGUAGE NORMALIZATION REGINA KVAŠYTĖ LATVIAN FACULTY LANGUAGE IN THE LANGUAGE CULTURE ASPECT The language situation that arose in Latvia in the post-war years is characterized by the simultaneous functioning of Latvian and Russian languages. The interaction of these languages is reflected in all spheres of human activity. Until now, and often even now, Russian language dominates in many spheres of activity, especially it is widely used in writing. The accession of Latvian to the status of state language in October 1988 and the adoption of the Languages Act of the Latvian SSR in May 1989 stimulated interest in the Latvian business language. The aforementioned law clearly states that “in the institutions, enterprises and organizations of the Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic, the language of writing is the state language*,! that is, Latvian. Business language performs very important social functions — it maintains the communication between government bodies and citizens and guarantees cooperation between institutions, companies and organizations. Writing documents can be divided into several groups, such as diplomatic, legal, administrative, etc., and each of these groups performs distinct functions. Some language tools are required to perform these functions. A particularly important issue in terms of common language culture is the influence of Tuscan on the Latvian written language, since the Latvian language is currently in closest contact with Russian. As a consequence of language contacts, the structure or elements of structure of one language may change due to the influence of another (contact) language, in other words, interference may occur. This phenomenon cannot be evaluated equally — interference can be positive or negative. Its scope is related to language styles and language communication functions. “Our perception of style exists as an understanding of the norms of an established system, which, like any (language) norms, can be abandoned by knowing them”*. Each interference phenomenon that is observed in the Latvian language must be evaluated. “There are more random interferences in spoken language and in the language of less educated people, and they usually remain outside the scope of literary language. However, some of the interferences reflect deliberate and purposeful use of words and grammatical assumptions. Since several useful cases of interference become the norm, it is very important not only to establish and describe all influences, but also to assess their functional purposefulness and adapt 1 Latvijas PSR Valodu likums in relation to the norm. Riga, 1989, 6. Ipp. * Mimenen JĮ, H. Pycckuif 351K B ero GyHKUMOHANBHLIX pa3HOBAAHOCTEX. M., 1977. C. 46. 73 positive, in other words, to accept it as the norm.’ The basis of normative evaluation should be functional awareness, structural and semantic agreement with Latvian language models. Attention should be paid to the newcomers' acceptance of the Latvian language system. “The language of documents must comply with the traditions of the formal subjective style of literary language, especially those that help express the idea as accurately, consistently, perfectly and as briefly as possible.” When evaluating the influence of contact language, attention should also be drawn to the fact that “the best results can be achieved if, when evaluating the facts of contact language and preparing recommendations for language practice, each specific issue is not solved individually, isolatedly, but complexly, systematically... or when the solution is based on extensive theoretical research... “ ** Negative interference occurs not only in the language of non-specialists, but also in the language of specialists. In this area, the expression of interference is encouraged by the main purpose of the spoken form of the subject language — to exchange information. Therefore, in this case, the choice of means of language expression is less important. In the written form of professional language, self-control is much greater, but even here it is not possible to do without violating the norms of Latvian literary language. All the above facts arise from careless attitude to one’s spoken and written language, from lack of information about the existence of standardized terminology in the fields served by the clerkship, for example, in economics, statistics, finance, jurisprudence, etc. “ In the writing documents — one of the written forms of the professional language — the use of standardized language means is permissible. The means of expression used here do not contradict the norms of Latvian literary language: “The language of documents must strictly comply with the norms of general language, in other words, those norms of contemporary literary language that are not directly related to the peculiarities of one or another language style or to any special circumstances of communication”*. The standardized syntactic constructions and lexical or phraseological stamps used in official communication are the result of the internal selection of the language of use and the structural synonymic possibilities of the language, which guarantee this function of the language. The language of writing documents is characterized by accuracy, laconic, concrete mass. Writing documents use clear and well-thought-out language. The lexical and syntactical characteristics also depend on the nature of the technical document and on the time of writing. The general requirement that should be met by written documents is the principle of the economy of language means.3 Blinkena A. Interference un norma /| Latviešu valodas kultūras jūtūjumi. Riga, 1978. 29. Ipp. i * PaxMaHHH JL: B. Crumeraga Tenonolt peux H pejjaKTHpOBaHHe GiryxkeGHLIx, JOKYMEH= ros... M., 1973. C. 19. 5 Ckyuus B. Poib A3BIKOBBIX KOHTAKTOB B Pa3BUTHM JATHILICKOrO JHTEPATYPHOIO S3bIKA H Hay4HOH TepMmuHOsorum //KonrakThi PYCCKOro s35IKa C s3bIikaMH HaponoB ITpubantuku. Pure, 1984. C. 16. Paxmauuu JI. B. CraucTuka HenoBoll peud H pelakTHPOBAHAE CAYyKEOHBIX ToB. C. 18. 74 JOKYMCHcipas — these documents use the most appropriate words for the specific case, avoiding empty words. In addition to the general requirements, each group of documents has its own characteristics. Since the Russian language had a great influence in all spheres of human activity during the spoken period, it is appropriate to analyze the similarities and differences in terms and constructions of Latvian and Russian written documents. The aim of such analysis is to avoid the use of constructions not characteristic of Latvian in language practice. The negative influence of Russian on Latvian is particularly noticeable in the use of prepositions. The violations of Latvian language norms in this case are various. We can mention both the literal translation of Russian prepositions and the use of prepositions in constructions that are used in Latvian without a preposition: “... different constructions have traditionally been established in Latvian — either without a preposition (the relation is expressed by the semantics of the word form of independent meaning), or with another preposition (in other words, this relation in the Latvian language system is associated with the microsystem of meanings of another preposition)”*; In written documents, Russian constructions with prepositions often correspond to Latvian constructions without prepositions: 3axa3 na moeapor —preču pasūtijums, omuem o esmojnenuu naand —plana izpildes parskats, nad0dexa 3a cmaxc —staža piemaksa, npednoncenus k naany —plana priekšlikumi, nepesecmu na emopoii kypc —parcelt otraja kursa, nasnauumo na 0014cHocmy —iecelt amatd, nepeeodumo Ha pycckui azeik —tulkot rusevu valoda. Different than in Russian, prepositions are used in constructions: npodasams no maAonam —selling against a ticket, npodasams no eusUMHbIM Kapmoukam —selling against a business card, neuamamo na mawunke —writing or writing against a card, evidams noo pacnucky —giving out against a signature, o6pačGomame Oaunvie na IBM —selling data ar ESM. : Interference can also be observed in word combinations, when one of the components of the combination is incorrectly chosen, for example, the verb or its form: ex.awoyume 6 cnucox („iespūgt saraksta“) —ieklaut|ietvert sarakstd, udem peus („iet runa“) —ir runa, dOonycmumob owuOky („pielaust klūdu“) —pielaut klūdu, klūdities; npueecmu npumep („piemēru- ®“) —to give an example; exodawas Koppecnonoenyus („incoming correspondence®“) — incoming correspondence, ucxoosawas Koppecnondenyua („outgoing correspondence®“) — outgoing correspondence, etc. Russian words with a hyphen raSomus in Latvian usually correspond to constructions without a defix, often a compound word with the reverse sequence of components, for example, gopmyaap-obpasey —paraugformulars, ‘cuem-gpaxmypa —faktiirrékins, apabik K 3aKa3y-Kapady —norikojumpasitijuma birka. Components. "the sequence can also be the same in both languages, for example, unocenepHuo-- mexHnuuecKuiū nepconan —inZeniertehniskais personals, mcypnan-opdep —Zurnalorderis, yenosexo-dennb—cilvekdiena. in the Latvian language of written documents, as well as in literary language in general; undesirable use of Russian-specific compound words SH, —" Hutu JI. K Bonpocy 0 BIHSHUH PYCCKOTO fi3biKa Ha JIAaTHIUICKEE TpejlŪtOXHEIE KOHCTPpYKnunu //Konrakrsi Jiarbniuckoro si3eika. Pura, 1977, C. 131. 75 for example npogrom, sasxom, Toccna6, Jlam6oimxum ir etc. „... It is not easy to justify this tendency by the principle of linguistic economy, because the linguistic sign must be adequate for perception, but the addressee’s difficult perception cancels out this addressee’s ‘economy’”- *. In language practice, we su often encounter such forms, especially in the names of institutions. Jų instead it would be appropriate to use constructions that comply su with latviy language norms. For example, instead of the Russian name "I'"occwa6" it is preferable to use the short Latvian name “Valstsapgūds”, instead of ‘JIlam6oomxum’ — "Life Chemistry". An example here could be the names of design institutes, which currently form a coherent, harmonious system in Latvian: JTameunponpom — ‘Rūpnicprojekts’, JIlameunpozopempoii — „Pilsčtprojekts”, Jlameunpoeodxos — ,, Renovation project*, Jlamxomynnpoekm — ,Municipal ir Projects“ kt. Abbreviations are often used in marriage documents, ir for example: OKYJĮ — O6wecoiosnbiti Kaaccugdukamop ynpasiaenueckoii O0OKyMeHmMayuu; UCITS — Edunan 2ocyddpcmeennas cucmema desonpou3z6eodemea; ECLI — EduHAA cucmemd KOHCmpykmopckoti ookymenmayuu; Mix in the pan. TY — ir It is not recommended to translate į such abbreviations into (o Latvian, let alone to write them — in Slavic letters). The name or concept is decoded, translated and then the ir corresponding Latvian abbreviations are created: VPDK — All-Union document classificator; VVLS — Unified State Records System: VKDS — Unified system of design documentation; technical TN — regulations. . To successfully solve the complex problem of the language situation in — the republic avoid Latvian. pollution of language with uncharacteristic lexicons, constructions, ir etc. — the need to disseminate information on standardised terminology to the public. ir ją The penetration of foreign language į elements into the Latvian language, when these elements displace Latvian word constructions, ir depletes and enriches the o ne language. Unfortunately, such facts of interference are characterized by a tendency to pass into the iš written form of spoken language. į At the moment, there is a practical transition to the use of Latvian in the courts, so these issues must be given great į attention. LATVIAN SACHLICHE REDE IM ASPEKT DER LANGUAGE CULTURE Summary - Celebrate the linguistic Situation in Latvia is simultaneous Functioning of the Latvian and the Russian characteristic, which all in Titration spheres interact closely. None Exception also forms the Scripture celebration, in which the Latvian by the Russian was completely displaced. The increasing Interest in Latvian factual Speech was made by Awarding of the Status of State language dem Latvian as well as by Version of the Language law activated. The factual Speech iibt a particularly important social Function from it — enables Relationships between the Administration and the population as well as guarantees the Cooperation of Companies, authorities and Organisations. From various Groups of Documents * Blinkena A. Latvian language un linguistics: problems. un ZAV. 1989. No. 9. 10. Ipp. 76 i (diplomatic, legal, administrative-kanzleimaBige documents) is the latter particularly re Attention devoted. Everyone Type of objective Documents have specific means of linguistic expression, those of the language assigned to them Function geniigen. Im Aspect of the aligeneral Speech culture represents the Influence of Russian, with which the Latvian opposite narrowest has contacts, serious It poses a danger. All Interference phenomena that im Latvian appear, bedierfen one Assessment. As motivated one can only functionally purposeful Bige Deviations from the existing Recognize standards. Es is necessary, also the Correspondence of the neoplasms System of Latvian in Consider. zu ‘The Language in Documents should the Traditions of the official-factual Stils der literary language and above all those who help to make the Express thoughts as clearly, consistently and briefly as so possible®. Positive Results are achieved when the Evaluation of decontactiven Facts and at the Development of Recommendations for Language practice any concrete Question not individually, but complex giltst will. In the factual Documentation — of a Form of written substantive Speech is — the Use of standardized language means allowable; es are only such means of expression that Standards of Latvian Do not contradict literary language. Characteristic Features of the factual Rede sind Accuracy, laconism and concreteness te Condition. In case of objective Documents are Prizision and griinisch tiberlegte Formulations are necessary. Lexical and syntactic Special features were rather from the Genre of the factual Document and from the Time of his Exhibition off. A common Requirement for all Types of facts Documents is that Principle of linguistic Economy. AuBer the common Requirements an the factual Speech are each individual Type of Documents characteristic peculiarities own. Um the Use of the Latvian not characteristic Constructions in of the factual Avoid zu documentation, one should be with Ancestors and Differences in The construction im Latvian and Russian familiarization.