Latvių dalykinė kalba kalbos kultūros aspektu

LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI, XXXI (1994) KALBOS NORMALIZACIJOS KLAUSIMAI REGINA KVAŠYTĖ LATVIAN BUSINESS LANGUAGE FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF LANGUAGE CULTURE The language situation that took shape in Latvia in the postwar years was characterized by the simultaneous functioning of Latvian and Russian. The interaction between these languages is reflected in all spheres of human activity. Until recently, and often still today, Russian has dominated many spheres of activity and has been particularly widespread in office work. The granting of state-language status to Latvian in October 1988 and the adoption of the “Law on Languages of the Latvian SSR” in May 1989 sparked interest in Latvian business language. The aforementioned law clearly states that “in institutions, enterprises and organizations located in the Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic, the language of office work is the state language,”1 that is, Latvian. Business language performs very important social functions: it is used to maintain communication between governing bodies and the public, and to ensure cooperation among institutions, enterprises and organizations. Office-work documents can be divided into several groups, for example, diplomatic, legal, administrative, and other documents, with each group performing characteristic functions. Certain linguistic means are necessary to perform these functions. From the perspective of the culture of the standard language, a particularly important issue is the influence of Russian on the language of Latvian office work, since Latvian currently has its closest contact with Russian. As a consequence of language contact, the structure of one language, or elements of its structure, may change under the influence of another (contact) language; in other words, interference may occur. This phenomenon cannot be evaluated uniformly: interference may be positive or negative. Its extent is related to language styles and communicative functions. “Our understanding of style exists as an understanding of a defined system of norms, which, like any (language) norms, can be dispensed with once they are known”2. Every instance of interference observed in Latvian must be evaluated. “In colloquial speech and in the speech of less educated people, there are more incidental cases of interference, and they generally remain outside the bounds of the literary language. However, some instances of interference reflect deliberate and purposeful uses of words and grammatical assumptions. Since a number of useful instances of interference become the norm, it is very important not only to record and describe all influences, but also to assess their functional appropriateness and adapt them in relation to the norm 1 Latvijos PSR Valodu likums. Rīga, 1989, 6. lpp. 2 Шмелев Д. Н. Русский язык в его функциональных разновидностях. М., 1977. С. 46. 73 as positive; in other words, to recognize them as the norm3. Functional awareness, and structural and semantic conformity with Latvian-language models, should form the basis of normative evaluation. Attention should be paid to the conformity of neologisms with the Latvian language system. “The language of documents must conform to the traditions of the official business style of the literary language, above all those that help express a thought as accurately, consistently, fully and concisely as possible”4. When assessing the influence of a contact language, one should also bear in mind that “the best results can be achieved if, when assessing facts from the languages in contact and preparing recommendations for language practice, each specific issue is addressed not individually and in isolation, but comprehensively and systematically... or when the decision is based on extensive theoretical research...”5 Negative interference occurs not only in the speech of non-specialists, but also in that of specialists. In this area, the expression of interference is encouraged by the primary purpose of the spoken form of business language—to exchange information. Consequently, less attention is paid in this case to the choice of means of linguistic expression. Self-monitoring is much greater in the written form of business language, but even here violations of the norms of Latvian literary language are not avoided. All the aforementioned facts arise from a careless attitude toward one’s spoken and written language, and from a lack of information about the existence of standardized terminology in the fields served by office work, such as economics, statistics, finance, jurisprudence, and the like. In office-work documents—one of the written forms of business language—the use of standardized linguistic means is permitted. The means of expression used here do not conflict with the norms of Latvian literary language: “The language of documents must strictly conform to the norms of the general language, in other words, to those norms of the contemporary literary language that are not directly related to the characteristics of one or another language style, or to any particular circumstances of communication”6. Standardized syntactic constructions and lexical or phraseological formulae used in official communication have emerged through the language’s internal selection and its structural possibilities for synonymy, which ensure this language function. The language of office-work documents is characterized by precision, concision and specificity. Office-work documents use clear, carefully considered formulations. Lexical and syntactic features also depend on the nature of the business-language document and on when it was written. The general requirement that office-work documents should meet is that of economy in the use of linguistic means— 3 Blinkena A. Interference un norma // Latviešu valodas kultūras jautājumi. Rīga, 1978. 29. lpp. 4 Рахманин Л. В. Стилистика деловой речи и редактирование служебных документов. М., 1973. С. 19. 5 Скуйня В. Роль языковых контактов в развитии латышского литературного языка и научной терминологии // Контакты русского языка с языками народов Прибалтики. Рига, 1984. С. 16. 6 Рахманин Л. В. Стилистика деловой речи и редактирование служебных документов. С. 18. 74 The principle is that these documents use words best suited to the particular case, and verbosity should be avoided. In addition to general requirements, each group of documents has its own distinctive features. Since Russian had a tremendous influence in all spheres of human activity during the period under discussion, it is useful to analyze the commonalities and differences between the terminology and constructions of Latvian and Russian administrative documents. The aim of such an analysis is to avoid using constructions uncharacteristic of Latvian in language practice. The negative influence of Russian on Latvian is especially noticeable in the use of prepositions. Violations of Latvian language norms in this respect take various forms. These include both the literal translation of Russian prepositions and the use of a preposition in constructions that occur without one in Latvian: “... Latvian has traditionally established different constructions—either without a preposition (the relationship is expressed through the semantics of an independent word form), or with a different preposition (in other words, in the Latvian language system this relationship is associated with the micro-system of meanings of another preposition)”7. In administrative documents, Russian constructions with prepositions often correspond to Latvian constructions without prepositions: заказ на товары — preču pasūtījums, отчет о выполнении плана — plāna izpildes pārskats, надбавка за стаж — stāža piemaksa, предложения к плану — plāna priekšlikumi, перевести на второй курс — pārcelt otrajā kursā, назначить на должность — iecelt amatā, переводить на русский язык — tulkot krievu valodā. Prepositions different from those used in Russian occur in the following constructions: продавать по талонам — pārdot pret taloniem, продавать по визитным карточкам — pārdot uz vizītkartēm, печатать на машинке — rakstīt ar rakstāmmašīnu, выдать под расписку — izsniegt pret parakstu, обработать данные на ЭВМ — apstrādāt datus ar ESM. Interference can also be observed in word combinations when one of their components—for example, a verb or its form—has been chosen incorrectly: включить в список (“įslegt sarakstā”) — iekļaut/ietvert sarakstā, идет речь (“iet runa”) — ir runa, допустить ошибку (“pielaist kļūdu”) — pieļaut kļūdu, kļūdīties; привести пример (“pievest piemēru”) — minēt piemēru; входящая корреспонденция (“ienākošā korespondence”) — saņemtā korespondence, исходящая корреспонденция (“izejošā korespondence”) — nosūtītā korespondence, and so on. In Latvian, Russian hyphenated word combinations are most often rendered by constructions without a hyphen; frequently these are compound words with the components in reverse order, for example, формуляр-образец — paraugformulars, счет-фактура — faktūrrēķins, рынок к заказу-наряду — norīkojumpasūtījuma birka. The components may also appear in the same order in both languages, for example, инженерно-технический персонал — inženiertehniskais personāls, журнал-ордер — žurnālorderis; человеко-день — cilvēkdiena. In the language of Latvian administrative documents, as in the literary language generally, the use of Russian-style clipped compound words is undesirable, 7 Нитинь Д. К вопросу о влиянии русского языка на латышские предложные конструкции // Контакты латышского языка. Рига, 1977. С. 131. 75 for example, профком, завком, Госснаб, Латбытхим, and so on. “... it is not easy to justify this tendency by the principle of language economy, since a linguistic sign must be adequately comprehensible; however, the addressee’s difficulty in understanding cancels out the addresser’s ‘economy’⁸. In language practice, we often encounter such forms, especially in the names of institutions. In their place, constructions that conform to Latvian language norms should be used. For example, instead of the Russian name ‘Госснаб’, the short Latvian name ‘Valstsapgāds’ is preferable; instead of ‘Латбытхим’, use ‘Sadzīves ķīmija’. The names of design institutes could serve as examples here; in Latvian they now form a consistent, coherent system: Латземпроект — ‘Rūpnīcprojekts’, Латтепрогортстрой — ‘Pilsētprojekts’, Латгеопроводхоз — ‘Meliorprojekts’, Латкоммунпроект — ‘Komunālprojekts’, and so on. Abbreviations are also frequently used in administrative documents, for example: ОКУД — Общесоюзный классификатор управленческой документации; ЕГСД — Единая государственная система делопроизводства; ЕСКД — Единая система конструкторской документации; ТУ — технические условия, and so on. It is inadvisable to transfer such abbreviations into Latvian verbatim (and all the more so to write them in Slavic letters). The name or concept is expanded and translated, and the corresponding Latvian abbreviations are then formed: VPDK — Vissavienības pārvaldes dokumentu klasifikators; VVLS — Vienotā valsts lietvedības sistēma; VKDS — Vienotā konstruktoru dokumentācijas sistēma; TN — tehniskie noteikumi. To successfully resolve the complex problem of the republic’s linguistic situation—preventing Latvian from being contaminated by uncharacteristic lexemes, constructions, and the like—information about standardized terminology must be disseminated more widely and promoted among the public. The penetration of foreign-language elements into Latvian, when these elements displace Latvian words and constructions, impoverishes rather than enriches the language. Unfortunately, such instances of interference tend to pass from spoken language into written form. At present, the transition to using Latvian in administrative documentation is underway in practice, so these issues must receive considerable attention. LATVIAN BUSINESS LANGUAGE FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF LANGUAGE CULTURE Abstract The linguistic situation in Latvia is characterized by the simultaneous functioning of Latvian and Russian, which interact closely in all spheres of activity. Written communication is no exception: Latvian has been completely displaced by Russian in this sphere. Growing interest in Latvian business language was stimulated by Latvian’s designation as the state language and the adoption of the Language Law. Business language performs a particularly important social function—it enables relations between the administration and the population and ensures cooperation among enterprises, institutions, and organizations. Among the various groups of documents 8 Blinkena A. Latviešu valoda un valodniecība: ceļi un problēmas. ZAV. 1989. Nr. 9. 10. lpp. 76 (diplomatic, legal, and administrative-office documents), special attention is devoted to the latter. Each type of business document has its own linguistic means of expression, which serve the function assigned to it. From the perspective of general speech culture, the influence of Russian, with which Latvian currently has the closest contacts, poses a serious danger. All interference phenomena occurring in Latvian need to be assessed. Only functionally appropriate deviations from existing norms can be considered justified. The correspondence of new formations to the system of Latvian must also be taken into account. “The language used in documents should conform to the traditions of the official-business style of the literary language, and above all to those that help express thoughts as clearly and logically as possible, and as briefly as possible.” Positive results are achieved when, in assessing contact-induced facts and preparing recommendations for language practice, each specific question is resolved not in isolation but comprehensively. In business documentation—a form of written business language—the use of standardized linguistic means is permissible; only those means of expression that do not conflict with the norms of the Latvian literary language should be used. The characteristic features of business language are precision, concision, and concreteness. Business documents require precision and carefully considered wording. Lexical and syntactic features depend chiefly on the genre of the business document and the time of its issuance. A common requirement for all types of business documents is the principle of linguistic economy. In addition to the requirements common to business language, each individual type of document has its own characteristic features. To avoid using constructions uncharacteristic of Latvian in business documentation, one should become familiar with the similarities and differences between constructions in Latvian and Russian. 578