Filosofai R. Bytautas bei S. Šalkauskis ir lietuvių kalbos normalizacija

LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI, XXXI (1994) KALBOS NORMALIZACIJOS KLAUSIMAI ALBINA AUKSORĖTĖ PHILOSOPHERS R. BYTAUTAS AND S. ŠALKAUSKIS AND THE NORMALIZATION OF THE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE This article will attempt to review the theoretical and philosophical prerequisites for the development of the Lithuanian language; more precisely, how a philosophical approach to the normalization of the Lithuanian language, especially its terminology, began to take shape in Lithuania. It draws on the works of Lithuanian philosophers R. Bytautas and S. Šalkauskis, who were among the first to take an interest in questions concerning the Lithuanian language. The aim is to reveal these philosophers’ views on the Lithuanian language and its development, and to show their contribution, as philosophers, to its normalization and cultivation. A. Sverdiolas, A. Šliogeris, R. Plečkaitis, V. Bagdonavičius, B. Genzelis, and others have written about R. Bytautas’s and S. Šalkauskis’s philosophical views. The works of these philosophers dealing with questions of the Lithuanian language have also been discussed; K. Gaivenis wrote about them1. At the end of the nineteenth century, the Lithuanian national liberation movement developed, education began to flourish, and a national intelligentsia of rural origin grew stronger. Although, after the 1863 uprising, the tsarist authorities banned the Lithuanian press, by the end of the century illegal Lithuanian periodicals were being published and distributed in large numbers. From 1883 to 1886, the Lithuanian revival newspaper “Aušra” was published in East Prussia and secretly brought into Lithuania. “Aušra” awakened national consciousness, raised the goals of the national movement, and gave this movement a certain degree of organization. After “Aušra,” other newspapers continued this work, first and foremost “Varpas,” as well as “Šviesa,” “Tėvynės sargas,” and others. In 1904, the ban on the Lithuanian press was lifted. The school network began to expand, instruction in the mother tongue was introduced in Lithuanian schools, and periodical and non-periodical publications increased. As Lithuania’s cultural life became more vibrant, attention turned to the Lithuanian language, and its study intensified. Conditions for the development of the Lithuanian language became especially favorable after the establishment of an independent Lithuanian state, since Lithuanian then became the state language and began to be used in government institutions, the military, and other areas from which it had been entirely excluded under tsarism. At the beginning of the twentieth century, not only linguists but also other representatives of the intelligentsia became concerned with cultivating the Lithuanian language. Philosophers, too, took an interest in questions concerning the Lithuanian language. One of the first Lithuanian philosophers to turn his attention to the language was Romanas Bytautas (1886—1915). 1 Gaivenis K. Ramūnas Bytautas ir kalbos kultūra // Kalbos kultūra. 1987. Sąs. 53. P. 77—79; taip pat jo. Šalkauskio terminologijos teorija // Lietuvių kalbos specialioji leksika: Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai. V., 1983. T. 22. P. 128—136. 96 R. Bytautas was born in Drobūkščiai, Telšiai District. He completed primary school in Kražiai, studied in Perm, and, from 1897, at the First Vilnius Gymnasium. In 1905, R. Bytautas entered the Faculty of Physics and Mathematics at Moscow University, but after a couple of months transferred to Law, and in 1907 to the Faculty of History and Philosophy, which he graduated from in 1912 with a gold medal. He received it for his 1911 work “A Critique of V. Vunt’s [W. Wundt’s] Doctrine of the Concept of the Substance of the Soul.” R. Bytautas was retained at the chair of philosophy to prepare for a doctorate. In 1912—1913, he worked at a Moscow gymnasium, where he taught logic, psychology, Latin, and Russian, but when his health deteriorated, he left the gymnasium and went to Italy for treatment, then moved to Switzerland, to Lausanne, where he died. R. Bytautas helped establish the journal “Aušrinė” and contributed to the journal “Draugija.” His philosophical views were influenced by Russian and German idealist philosophers of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. R. Bytautas proposed supplementing materialism with teleologism and pantheism, and sought to reconcile materialism and idealism while adhering to the principle of psychophysical parallelism. According to R. Bytautas, the primary elements of the universe are both material and spiritual, while the essence of being is spiritual. The subject can know it through inner experience, because the essence of being lies in the monad of the soul. The philosopher addressed questions concerning the essence of the nation, the formation of a nation, and language. The most important aim of a nation’s existence and unity is spiritual creativity, whose subject is the individual striving for active self-expression. The individual’s relation to the nation softens the estrangement in relations between the individual and society, and among people. In his work “The Nation and National Consciousness,” R. Bytautas, discussing the nation and its distinctive character, devotes considerable attention to language as the foundation of that character. Defining the nation, he writes: “A nation is a group of people united by interests in spiritual creation, which arise on the basis of a common language, as the organ of collective [collective — A.A.] (selective) spiritual activity”2. According to R. Bytautas, language is the foundation of humanity’s spiritual activity, on which the organization of society grows; people’s spiritual cooperation takes place through language. Language is the foundation of the culture of the entire nation. The philosopher believed that the historical development of language is connected with the development of a nation’s culture and reflects the features of that culture. In language we see a nation’s relationship with the world and its way of thinking, because “in words and the meanings of their combinations are reflected the nation’s views of things, their properties and relations [relations — A.A.]”3. According to R. Bytautas, a nation’s historical memory is accumulated in its language; each nation has its own distinctive historical experience and embodies it in its language. It should be said that R. Bytautas did not consider language the sole foundation of national identity. He believed that a nation’s distinctiveness is determined by science, philosophy, art, and all areas of culture. However, the philosopher emphasized that language is particularly important to Lithuanian culture. R. Bytautas also understood the importance of attention to language in the national movement, because “people’s turning to their mother tongue signifies liberation [freedom — A.A.] from spiritual bondage, a desire to be oneself and to create in one’s own way”4. He valued 2 Bytautas R. Tauta ir tautiška sąmonė // Aušrinė. 1912. Nr. 17. P. 112. 3Ibid. P. 114. 4Ibid. 1912. No. 20. P. 239. 7. Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai, XXXI 97 that Lithuanian intellectuals see in the Lithuanian language not merely an instrument of education, but regard it as an independent spiritual value, to be developed for its own sake in its distinctiveness. R. Bytautas understood how important and difficult it was to raise a dialect to the heights of a written language. He himself also sought to contribute to accomplishing this task—in some of his works, the philosopher examines pressing questions concerning the formation of the standard language. In his work “A Few Things on the Philosophy of the Lithuanian Language,” he attempts to approach language from his own perspective as a philosopher. In his view, language is a special world of thought; hence language is inseparable from thinking, and through it—from all practical human activity. R. Bytautas’s philosophical approach to language was important and thought-provoking. The philosopher begins his reflections on the Lithuanian language by comparing the historical situation of Lithuanians with that of other nations. In R. Bytautas’s view, cultured nations fashioned their written languages over many centuries. Science developed, and with it writing; new concepts arose, and new words were coined to name them. According to him, the culture of these nations developed gradually, and language developed gradually along with it. In this way, the linguistic riches of cultured nations accumulated slowly. The situation among us had been different. Human culture had advanced, but Lithuanians had not taken part in its development. The nobility had merged into Polish culture; therefore, as R. Bytautas believed, there had been no social class in which the spiritual culture of the nation could have become concentrated. Lithuania’s intelligentsia had studied and written in foreign languages, while the Lithuanian people, from ancient times until the previous century, “had the same intellectual framework. Therefore, the language developed little. It may have changed considerably dialectally, but philosophically, in terms of the quantity and meaning of words, it remained almost in the same place, because people’s minds dealt always with the same concepts”5. In describing the situation this way, R. Bytautas did not understand everything correctly. He was mistaken in denying the Lithuanians’ participation in the development of human culture and in claiming that no spiritual culture of the nation had taken shape. R. Bytautas was also mistaken in denying the development of the language. In this regard, it should be emphasized that only the language of science developed little. Having established why the Lithuanian language had not changed philosophically, R. Bytautas assesses the situation at the time, the changed circumstances, and the national movement that had begun, which, in his view, was ultimately a cultural movement. Describing the national movement, he notes that the Lithuanian nation had resolved to catch up with other nations and to take possession of all the material and spiritual wealth that humanity had accumulated over thousands of years. This, in turn, presented a tremendous task for the language, which had to be developed to the point of reaching the level of other cultured nations. For this “process of linguistic evolution” to be completed quickly, it was not enough to study only the grammatical system of the language. According to R. Bytautas, “we [we—A.A.] must first and foremost examine the Lithuanian language not only from the outside—grammatically—but also from the inside—philosophically—in terms of the meaning of various words and modes of expression”6. R. Bytautas maintains that the necessary level of language cannot be attained until human language has been understood philosophically. And the philosopher identifies the most important task of the time—“of all 5 Bytautas R. Šis tas iš lietuvių kalbos filosofijos. K., 1908. P. 4. 6 Ibid. P. 4–5. 98 the most important concern of our written language today is to examine human language in terms of its inner content; and the most indispensable book for us [book—A.A.] is the philosophy of the Lithuanian language7. His sole aim is to draw linguists’ attention to the philosophical content of the Lithuanian language. In the Lithuanian language, inexhaustible riches of expression are hidden, lying there unknown. R. Bytautas urged that attention be paid to the philosophical content of language not only when naming new concepts, but also when developing and standardizing the language. He believed that, in developing the language, it was especially important to strive for the unity of language and thought. R. Bytautas sought to provide a philosophical foundation for the necessity and importance of developing and standardizing the standard Lithuanian language. He not only considered theoretically the need to standardize Lithuanian, but also tried to do so in practice in the works and articles already mentioned, “The Needs of the Lithuanian Written Language” (1908) and “How to Pronounce and Write Foreign Words” (1912). R. Bytautas died young and thus did not have time to accomplish much, but his work was continued by his fellow philosopher S. Šalkauskis, whom R. Bytautas had encouraged to take an interest in the Lithuanian language, especially terminology. As S. Šalkauskis himself wrote, R. Bytautas inspired him with “his ardent love of the question of terminology”8 and he called R. Bytautas his direct inspiration. S. Šalkauskis (1886–1941) was a prominent public figure, philosopher, and educator in independent Lithuania. He was born in Ariogala, in the Raseiniai district. In 1905, S. Šalkauskis graduated from the Šiauliai Gymnasium and went to study law at Moscow University. After completing his law studies, he went to Turkestan and settled in Samarkand, where he worked as legal counsel at a bank. He was dissatisfied with legal work and devoted himself increasingly to philosophy. In 1915, S. Šalkauskis left for Switzerland and began studying philosophy at the University of Fribourg. He received his doctorate in philosophy from the University of Fribourg in 1920. Returning to Lithuania that same year, he entered academic life: he taught at the Higher Courses and was an associate professor in the Department of Philosophy of the Faculty of Theology and Philosophy at Vytautas Magnus University. In 1922, S. Šalkauskis was awarded the title of professor and became head of the Department of Pedagogy and its History. In 1939, S. Šalkauskis was elected rector of VDU. After the Soviet army occupied Lithuania, the professor was dismissed from his post as rector and, following the closure of the Faculty of Theology and Philosophy, removed from the professorship. S. Šalkauskis moved to Vilnius. In 1941, the Provisional Government of Lithuania appointed him professor at Vilnius University, but he never took up the post. As his health declined, S. Šalkauskis went to Šiauliai, where he died in the winter of 1941. S. Šalkauskis, the most prominent representative of neo-scholastic philosophy in Lithuania, was influenced by V. Solovyov’s theories and later became a Thomist. In his works on general philosophical questions, he maintained that philosophy was the “queen of the sciences,” independent of the specialized sciences, and advocated the principle of harmony between faith and knowledge. S. Šalkauskis regarded spiritual culture and people’s outlook as decisive factors in social life. He linked the distinctiveness of Lithuanian national culture with the peoples of the East and West 7 Ibid. P. 5. 8 Šalkauskis S. Theory of Terminology and Lithuanian Philosophical Terminology // Logos. 1927. No. 1. P. 1. 7a 99 through a synthesis of cultures. S. Šalkauskis himself expressed his vocation as a determination to carry out “national education through philosophy.” He faithfully served this vocation throughout his life. Svarbesnieji S. Šalkauskio darbai yra „Kultūros filosofijos metmens“ (1926), „Filosofijos įvadas“ (1928), „Visuomeninis auklėjimas“ (1932), „Ateitininkų ideologija“ (1933), „Lietuvių tauta ir jos ugdymas“ (1933), „Bendrieji pedagogikos pagrindai“ (1936) ir kt. Kaip jau buvo minėta, S. Šalkauskis buvo ir vienas lietuvių filosofijos terminijos kūrėjų. At that time, the problem of creating Lithuanian terminology existed not only as a linguistic and logical problem, but also as a problem of social progress. “At the beginning of the 20th century, the Lithuanian nation, having risen again to pursue science and education after 40 years of harsh national oppression under tsarism (the prohibition of Lithuanian writing and cultural life), encountered a multitude of new things and concepts from various fields of science, economics, culture, and politics; on the other hand, it faced a poorly developed Lithuanian terminology, which until then had mainly been used to express concepts relating to art and everyday life. Lithuanian was faced with the difficult task of terminologically assimilating humanity’s diverse historical experience9. Representatives of various scientific disciplines began creating terms. At first, however, term creation was individual, without a clearer system or theoretical foundations established in advance. The creation of Lithuanian terminology took on a more systematic and organized character only after the independent Lithuanian state was established. At that point, efforts were made to provide a theoretical foundation for terminology creation.” In 1921, the Terminology Commission of the then Ministry of Education was established. J. Jablonskis was appointed its chair. K. Būga, A. Dambrauskas, P. Mašiotas, J. Tumas, A. Varnas, and A. Vireliūnas worked on the commission, followed later by J. Balčikonis, A. Salys, P. Skardžius, S. Šalkauskis, and others. The Terminology Commission worked for five years. The commission’s work officially marked the beginning of organized Lithuanian terminology creation. Two of the finest linguists of the time, K. Būga and J. Jablonskis, made substantial contributions to terminology. K. Būga contributed greatly to the creation of linguistic terms, proposed many terms himself, participated in the work of the Terminology Commission from 1921 to 1924, and examined various terminological questions in his articles. J. Jablonskis created Lithuanian grammatical terminology, coined terms himself, and actively participated in creating Lithuanian terms for other sciences that were needed in schools. He headed the Terminology Commission and worked to organize terminology work more effectively. J. Jablonskis’s views on terminology laid the theoretical foundations for the creation of Lithuanian terminology. Following the deaths of K. Būga and J. Jablonskis, the journal “Gimtoji kalba” (1933–1941) helped establish theoretical principles for the work, consolidate the requirements for terminology, and organize terminology in practice. In this journal, S. Šalkauskis published his theoretical work “Basic Principles of Term Formation,” in which he sought to formulate rules for terminological work. A Terminology Section was established within the Lithuanian Language Society to address terminological matters. Thus, it can be said “that 9 Vaišvila A. Logikos mokslas Lietuvoje. V., 1980. P. 11—12. 100 in the first decades of the 20th century, a national school of terminology had emerged, drawing both on the foundations of creating and standardizing Lithuanian literary language itself and on the terminological experience of Lithuanian and other languages”10. Alongside terminology in other scientific fields, special attention was devoted to philosophical terminology. According to S. Šalkauskis, the “importance [of philosophical terminology] is further increased by the fact that it encompasses nearly all abstract terms of general content, which are of great significance to intellectual life as a whole and, among other things, to specialized sciences”11. S. Šalkauskis’s terminological legacy consists of two parts: 1) a study of terminological theory, “Terminological Theory and Lithuanian Philosophical Terminology,” published in the journal “Logos”; and 2) a philosophical glossary, “General Philosophical Terminology” (1938). The glossary contained about 1,600 Lithuanian philosophical terms, with equivalents in French, German, and Russian, as well as explanations of their usage. S. Šalkauskis became interested in theoretical questions of terminology before he began standardizing Lithuanian philosophical terminology. In his work “Terminological Theory and Lithuanian Philosophical Terminology,” he set out a theory of term creation and standardization. In introducing his theory, S. Šalkauskis emphasizes that linguistics and philosophy are closely intertwined in terminology, and therefore neither philosophers alone nor linguists alone are fully qualified in this field. Scientific terminology can be created only through the joint efforts of linguists, philosophers, or other interested scholars12. S. Šalkauskis explains the importance of this connection by describing the term itself. As a word, a term belongs to grammar; as a concept, it belongs to logic; and as a concept with specific specialized content, it belongs to the relevant science whose subject matter includes that concept. Thus, the general question of terminology concerns both logic and grammar, and therefore falls within the domains of linguistics and philosophy. S. Šalkauskis believes that terminology requires a particular discipline that would bring together findings from linguistics and philosophy13. S. Šalkauskis questions whether the philosophy of language proposed by R. Bytautas can be recognized as a separate philosophical discipline, since not every subject that intersects with philosophy also belongs to the science of philosophy. In his view, insofar as the object of the philosophy of language falls within the domain of philosophy, it can be studied from particular perspectives in logic, psychology, and the philosophy of culture. Emphasizing that terminology is not a separate, autonomous scientific discipline, S. Šalkauskis regards it as a specialized branch of semantics. Understanding terminology in this way, he concluded that a term is inseparable from the concept of the sign and from the notion of a concept. The philosopher stresses that “the theory of terminology must also take into account what logic, psychology, and the philosophy of culture say about the general facts and manifestations of language 10 Keinys S. Mokslo ir technikos revoliucija ir lietuvių terminologijos raida // Mokslo kalbos kultūros ir terminologijos raida: Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai. V., 1985. T. 24. P. 182. 11 Šalkauskis S. Min. veik. 1925. Nr. 1. P. 4. 12 Žr. Ten pat. P. 2. 13 Ten pat. 101 foundations”14. This is said to be especially important when discussing philosophical terminology. S. Šalkauskis emphasizes that, in creating Lithuanian philosophical terminology, it is necessary to take into account the requirements he set out, and he himself devotes considerable attention to this. S. Šalkauskis begins his discussion of the essence and characteristics of a term with the origin and original meaning of the word terminas. He notes that it is a Latin word, terminus, meaning the final boundary, where something ends. Transferring the word terminas into the field of philosophy and applying its original meaning to it by analogy yielded a new meaning of the term: it came to be understood as the final element or principle reached in analyzing something. By transferring the original meaning of the term from analogy into the fields of logic, grammar, and writing, S. Šalkauskis characterizes the term in three ways—as something conceived, spoken, and written. The philosopher sets out very systematically the evolution of the understanding of the term itself. Suppose we have to understand some object. Understanding the essence of an object culminates in the formation of a concept; the concept residing in the mind is expressed by a spoken or written word, and the word is already “a true term, that is, an end or boundary reached by cognition expressed outwardly”15. Thus, S. Šalkauskis first discusses the term from the perspective of its relation to philosophy, characterizing it as a term of conception. S. Šalkauskis argues that in modern times, with the considerable development of specialized sciences, the understanding of the term has narrowed; a term is a narrower concept than a word in general. The philosopher stresses that a term is a word expressing a concept, but not just any concept: rather, one that has a special meaning in a particular field of science. In explaining signs, S. Šalkauskis distinguishes several groups: natural and conventional signs, formal and instrumental signs, and revelatory and representative signs. A word is most often a conventional sign because, according to S. Šalkauskis, the relation between a word as a sign and the thing it signifies is not natural, but established arbitrarily or by convention. The philosopher also characterizes a word as an instrumental sign, since a word is a tool, an instrument for expressing a thing and the concept associated with it. In his view, a deeper understanding of the meaning of a word is reached by saying that words are “revelatory signs for concepts and representative signs for things”16. Having set out the characteristics of signs, words, and concepts, S. Šalkauskis returns to the definition of a term: “a term is always a verbal sign that represents a thing and reveals a concept”17. However, not all such words are terms. For such a verbal sign to become a term, it must enter a field of science and undergo scientific treatment. The philosopher demonstrates the difference between the meaning and sense of a word, and incorporates the relationship between a word’s sense and meaning into his characterization of a term. According to him, a word’s meaning depends on the thing it signifies, while its sense depends on the concept corresponding to the thing signified. To bring out the sense of a word is simply to indicate precisely what concept lies at its root. Thus, to define a scientific term is to establish the relation between its meaning and sense and the concept on which it is based. S. Šalkausk- 14 Ten pat. P. 5. 15 Ten pat. 16 Ten pat. P. 9. 17 Ten pat. 1927. Nr. 1. P. 9. 102 kis emphasizes that discussion of a term must always go hand in hand with discussion of the concept it denotes18. Therefore, a well-developed terminology cannot exist where the subject matter of a science is not well developed; on the other hand, the development of a scientific subject can take place only alongside the improvement of the corresponding terminology. S. Šalkauskis was the first to undertake an examination of the categories of terminology and the ways in which they are expressed. He notes that he had to discuss ways of expressing terms from the perspectives of logic and ontology, which are unfamiliar to linguists. This approach of his presented considerable difficulties, since the categories of ontology set very broad limits and can themselves be understood and interpreted in various ways. The philosopher discusses two main ontological categories—substance and accident—and offers the following definition: “substance is a being existing in itself, i.e., that which must be in itself, whereas an accident is that which must be in something else, namely, in a substance”19. The philosopher explains that terminology examines facts of thought in relation to language, i.e., to the means of expression that correspond to them. On the one hand, ways of perceiving, or categories of thought, arise according to modes or states of being; on the other, ways of expression, or categories of terminology, take shape according to modes of perception. According to him, a term category is a group of terms, typified by its form, most often by its suffix, and corresponding to a group of concepts that share a certain commonality. Following Aristotle and medieval logicians, S. Šalkauskis distinguishes substance-subject from substance-object. Substance-subject is a living being, and above all a human being; accordingly, it acts, undergoes processes, assumes states, consciously enters into relations, and actively manifests qualities. On this basis, S. Šalkauskis further distinguishes four types within this category: the subject of an action, the subject of a process or state, the subject of a quality, and the subject of a relation. Substance-object is usually an inanimate thing, less often a living being, and least often a human being. Substance-object is acted upon and used as secondary material or as a tool or instrument, and, finally, as an object that contains something. The philosopher also presents four types within this category: the object of an action, secondary material, a tool or instrument, and a container-object. S. Šalkauskis described in great detail the inventory of word-formation devices used in these terminology categories and provided tables indicating which suffixes or endings are characteristic of each category. In his theory of terminology, S. Šalkauskis presents the sources from which terms are created and describes their use. He distinguishes and discusses three main sources of terms. Some terms, he suggests, are taken from the living language of the people and adapted specifically for the language of science; others are newly formed according to the rules of the language and by analogy with its typical manifestations; and a third group of terms is simply borrowed from other languages. The sources of terminology discussed by S. Šalkauskis are also important for the development of terminology today; however, he did not mention the standard language, which is one of the main sources for creating modern terminology. 18 See ibid. P. 10. 19 Ibid. 1934. No. 1. P. 7. 103 In S. Šalkauskis’s view, there are four main ways in which dialect words are introduced into scientific terminology: clarifying the sense and meaning of words, broadening meaning, narrowing meaning, and shifting meaning by analogy. Discussing the second source of terminology, the philosopher notes that neologisms can be formed in two ways—by deriving new words and by compounding words. The latter method produces compound words, while he uses the term deriving new words to mean forming neologisms with prefixes, suffixes, and endings. S. Šalkauskis emphasizes that a neologism must be typical in form; therefore, neologisms must be formed according to distinct categories of concepts. Important are the requirements S. Šalkauskis put forward for borrowing terms from other languages. In his view, borrowing foreign words is justified only when “the required term cannot be obtained either by adapting a word from ordinary speech or by creating a new term through compounding or derivation”20. S. Šalkauskis was the first to try to formulate the fundamental principles of term formation. As early as 1927, he set them out in the second issue of the journal „Logos“, and in 1935 he also published them in „Gimtoji kalba“ in an article entitled „Pagrindiniai terminų darybos principai“. The author hoped that more people interested in matters of terminology read „Gimtoji kalba“ and that they would find it important to become acquainted with his ideas. S. Šalkauskis attempted to formulate general principles for creating terms across all branches of science, dividing them into three groups—the principles of antiquity, the principles of innovation, and the principles of evolution. The principles of antiquity include the principle of maximum use (“one should neither borrow a foreign term nor coin a new native one if a word from ordinary speech can be adapted satisfactorily to scientific needs”21) and the principle of established tradition (no word that has become established in the language may be removed from scientific usage without clearly justifiable reasons). These principles remain relevant to terminology today. His principles of innovation are also important—the principles of typicality, maximum usefulness, and aesthetic quality—since contemporary terminology likewise requires that a newly created term be typical and morphologically suitable for forming new derivatives. S. Šalkauskis presented only two principles of evolution: categorical use of endings (“the use of typical endings to form terms according to the relevant categories of concepts must be kept alive in language usage and consistently developed to the limits of its rightful scope”22) and the alteration of the sense and meaning of words (when necessary, the sense and meaning of words should be changed in ways that could be validated by the laws of linguistics and logic). The principles for creating terms formulated by S. Šalkauskis were significant at the time, since most new Lithuanian terms were created with them in mind. S. Šalkauskis applied his theory of terminology in practice by standardizing philosophical terminology. The previously mentioned dictionary of philosophical terms prepared by S. Šalkauskis 20 Ibid. 1927. No. 1. P. 24. 21 Šalkauskis S. Pagrindiniai terminų darybos principai // Gimtoji kalba. 1935. Nr. 4. P. 49—50. 22 Ibid. P. 51. 104 It was printed in the second issue of „Logos“ in 1937, and published as a separate booklet in 1938. In addition, a German version of the dictionary was published in the 1938 volume of the journal „Logos“. The dictionary of philosophical terms was considered by the Terminology Section of the Lithuanian Language Society. The dictionary consists of two parts. The first part presents Lithuanian terms and their equivalents in French, German, and Russian, along with brief explanations in Lithuanian; the second discusses terms and provides examples. The terms in the first part are marked for stress. S. Šalkauskis includes as terms in the dictionary not only nouns but also verbs. S. Šalkauskis’s practical work did not always accord with his theoretical principles of terminology. In the dictionary, he discusses terms grouped into separate sets of related terms, which he calls semantic groups, rather than according to terminology categories, as he had set out in his theory. The dictionary of philosophical terms published by S. Šalkauskis systematized almost everything positive that had been achieved up to that point in creating Lithuanian philosophical terminology. Although the dictionary does not cover all the philosophical terms of the period, S. Šalkauskis’s dictionary and terminology research contributed greatly to the subsequent standardization, systematization, and development of philosophical terminology and of Lithuanian scientific terminology more generally, and played a role in the development of philosophy as a discipline. STANDARDIZATION OF THE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE, AND LITHUANIAN PHILOSOPHERS ROMANAS BYTAUTAS AND STASYS ŠALKAUSKIS Summary At the beginning of the 20th century, the development of the Lithuanian language interested not merely linguists but philosophers as well. Romanas Bytautas was the first among the Lithuanian philosophers to focus his attention on the Lithuanian language and its philosophical content. He made an attempt to look at the problems of standardization of the general language from the philosophical point of view. The Lithuanian philosopher Stasys Šalkauskis successfully studied the problems of terminology. He suggested rules for the description of terminological work published under the title The Theory of Terminology and Lithuanian Philosophical Terminology. Šalkauskis’ dictionary of philosophical terms, and studies in the field of terminology have played an important role in the further standardization and systematization of philosophical terms and scientific terminology in general.