Gramatikos norminimas „Gimtojoje kalboje“ (1958–1968 m.)

LITHUANIAN KALBOTYROS QUESTIONS, XXXI (1994) LANGUAGE OR MALIZIZATION ISSUES RITA MILIŪNAITĖ GRAMMATICS APPOINTMENTS ‘IN THE NATIVE COUNTRY LANGUAG- (1958—1968 E* m) The Lithuanian Language Society (hereinafter the Society) was founded in pre-war Lithuania — LKD) her ir newspaper "Naimtoji kalba" m., (1933—1941 continue — GK) significantly pushed į forward the normative work of the language, which po J. Jablonski- 's death (1930 m.) was somewhat weak. Over the course of almost a decade, the theoretical issues of language standardization were ir collectively discussed, a program was adopted, į and the implementation of norms was taken care of. However, 1941 m, the work was interrupted because a large part of the most active linguists, at the end of the war, were forced to leave their homeland. 1950 m. The US was restored again LKD, o from 1958 m. "The 100 ir Years of the "Native Language"- ". Iš the beginning most important collaborators, as ir In Lithuania, it was P. Skardžius, A. Salys, P. Ionian islands ir L. Dambriūnas (in Lithuania signed Dambrauskas- ). Almost three and a half years as an editor P. Ionic, assisted by other linguists, o from 1961 m. the publication was edited by one Dambriūnas; articles published S. Barzdukas, V. Rastenis, K. Grinda and ir several other Lithuanian expatriates — ne only linguists. Now we will look at how The GK Americans continued the successful work on the general language in Lithuania, particularly paying attention į to the standardization of grammar. For a long time, for understandable reasons, this newspaper could not get into the į sight of our current language norms, so it is all the more interesting to follow the direction in which the common language was managed abroad. One iš GK co-workers A. Dundulis in 1966 m. the newspaper himself critically assessed the then state of language normative work: on this issue, he allegedly “so far, almost nothing new has been said. In Lithuania everything, in places almost literally, is repeated, Jonikos articles were written almost a year ago" 20 [66 I 2. As it was In Lithuania, until 1961 m. started walking The "language culture", we know o more or GK ar less, America has not said ir anything new yet? GK They tried to maintain the structure, o content and themes of their predecessor, although they were vo also directed towards language practice, but they changed considerably because į they had to take into account the needs of Lithuanians who had come into foreign linguistic surroundings. Grammar for phenomena ! For more information on GK the subject ir of this release history, see Miliūnaitė R. American Lithuanian "Mother Tongue" (1958—1968) // Mother tongue, 1991. No. 4. P. 6—11. 4 Mother tongue. K., USA 1933—1941; — 1958—1968. The first ir digit indicates the year of publication, the second GK the number of the booklet, the — third the page. — 141 the publication was given a relatively large space — ir In the “Cloth of ir Questions”, in many articles. Especially concerned about this Dambriūnas, as a syntaxist himself. Iš 186 recommendations for the use of grammatical phenomena 119 (t. y. about 64 95) belongs to just him, about 10 % — S. Bearded, about 7 9% — P. For the ir po coffin a few percent — B. BabrauskaP. s, Jonikas ir to others. Before discussing the basis for the GK standardization of grammar, it is useful to clarify the general approach of the contributors of the į publication to language jų phenomena. Unlike Lietuvos GK, where it was worked collectively, prepared language standardization programs, American GK this work passed essentially iš one Human į — L. Dambriūno — hands, from ir the editor's own point of view, the nature of the whole publication sė was mainly influenced. Other collaborators wrote almost exclusively on practical issues and did not make ir broader theoretical arguments in this journal. Dar In Lithuania Dambriūnas, 1934—1937 m. very actively collaborating in editing), had GK (o 1936—1937 m. ir ją published theoretical thoughts on the normative work of language. He divided all linguistic facts in relation to the general language into three groups, į acknowledged only the t. y. existence ne of clear norms and errors, but intermediate phenomena ir [36 III 34]. Understanding that the common language was not yet too far from the dialects, he did not prevent the appearance of various innovations in it, but emphasized that ir "one mere argument that people do not say so, nowadays no longer convinces [...]“ [34 III-IV 38]. The statement that when norming a language, it is į important to take into account its developmental tendencies [36 He later 34], became one of the most iš influential jo figures. So In Lithuania Dambriūnas did not differ too much from his colleagues in his position, but in America, as the iš analysis of the GK theoretical o reasoning and the evaluation of grammar phenomena published in the jo journal shows, he began to tend to extremes. į In one of his articles, he said of himself: “The editor of this newspaper is a little more liberal than our other linguists on general language issues. Some things he justifies, others he considers to be mistakes- .” [67 II 21]. Dar Lithuanian GK criteria for standardizir ation of the common language were discussed [38 IX 143—144], but Dambriūnas 1961 m. was already far away. jų In this respect, perhaps the most important jo theoretical article GK — "What is correct" [61 III-IV 33—35]. The į answer to the title question is short: ga "rules are what is made by rules". O the principles underlying the establishment of common language rules are explained in more detail: “guided by, one could say, democratic principle”, The essence of this principle is to take into account the — widespread į purity of consumption: ir “in common language, correct is that which is in itself widely used”. ir Ir width of use, ir geynumg Dambriūnas considers them to be conditional concepts. Sąlyga “whatever” is not absolute, because there are exceptions. In addition, the fact of ir the language, if sufficiently widely used, if it is not narrowly known to one or another dialect speakers, is suitable to justify the rule of the ar general language, but, on the other hand, the wide use is understood by all equally. ne Nevertheless, according to The breadth of Dambriūno- ’s use can always be checked for accuracy: “If it turns out that some phrase is only used by e.g. 142 A quarter of the total ar number of Lithuanians is still smaller, it has to be regarded as not widely jį used and unrepresentable to the common language, if in its place there is a much more widely known and used phrase” [61 III—IV 34]. Today it is difficult to imagine how it would be practical to “always check” the usage width — simply there is not yet enough data (in this respect, the lexical situation is somewhat better), the usage is not so well studied that it is possible to operate with specific numbers. By the way, Dambriūnas’ own recommendations show where one can go wrong when applying the principle in linguistic practice, when šį relying on false assumptions and only approximate data (for example, justification of adverbs made from -inis adjectives). In addition, Dambriūnas does not mention that when studying language facts statistically, it is necessary to take into account the peculiarities of various language dialects: without too much risk of making mistakes, it is perhaps possible to process certain pronunciation variants statistically and accordingly determine or adjust the norm of the general language, but it is much more difficult to apply this, for example, to syntax phenomena. Understanding, however, where blind reliance on the prevalence of consumption could lead, Dambriūnas limits this criterion to another one — purity. In his view, if several language phenomena are distinct and equally widely used, they are both allowed in common language, thus recognizing the coexistence of variants (for example, long and short forms of verbs and persons). However, this is not a permanent state. Looking at language as a process, Dambriūnas sees two factors in it — static and dynamic. The first is the basis for norming language, and the second enables it to change. The most important thing is to determine in which direction the language is changing. Maybe somebody. the phenomenon is used less and less frequently, and there is no point in reviving it with special means (for example, a double number or a target); and if a phenomenon was used narrowly, but increased in frequency, it is not necessary to prohibit its establishment. Otherwise, it would go against the natural development of language. In the article “Progress in Lithuanian Language” [61 I 1—3; 62 II 20—22] Dambriūnas shows the processes taking place in various parts of the language and concludes that “language naturally strives for greater simplicity, lightness, clarity and beauty”. The means for this are the rejection of unnecessary forms, the shortening of the long ones, the equalization of parallels, the introduction of new formations, constructions or meanings” [62 II 22]. This is the basis for the definition of language, and is the basis for the evaluation of different types of language. A significant influence on Dambriūnas' views was the theory of language progress by the Danish linguist O. Jespersen, according to which all language changes are progressive because they make communication easier. Dambriūnas himself does not hide that he relies on Jespersenas and accepts the idea of language progress in his article “In which direction does language evolution take place?” [61 II 18—21]. By understanding the fact and direction of language development, it is possible to better orient oneself in solving practical questions of common language. The simplification of language forms, following Jespersenas, is considered by Dambriūnas as a sign of language improvement without reservation. As an example, he gives English and compares it with Lithuanian. English —analytical— in his opinion, accumulating less features of grammatical categories in words, therefore using more other means to express the relationships of words in a sentence, this gave it flexibility, ease: “instead of our twelve endings of the verb English translates with one preposition, one ending” 143 ir su t. y. su [61 II 21]. As an example where English is more flexible už than Lithuanian, Dambriūnas ir gives the sentence the of exploitation by man man. In Lithuanian (already in the Soviet years) was translated according to the Russian construction: exploitation of man by man, later corrected, o but uncomfortably: ir exploitation of man by another man. Here. Dambriūnas tries to show “how difficult it is sometimes to translate a preposition”, be but in today’s eyes it seems unnecessary to lament about the inflexibility of the Lithuanian language to follow the English Russian language; in this case, it is sufficient to say merely ir human exploitation. In ar general, today such views would be easily criticized just by remembering the chrestomatical statement that every language is perfect in its own way. So Dambriūno formula, showing what is regular, describes a static, ne changing O object; the purity of be the usage width, ir supplemenji ted by a dynamic element: „correct is that which is own, which is relatively widely used, which corresponds to the ir direction of language development“ [61 III-IV 34]. If we compare these criteria su adopted in 1938 m. Lithuania, we will see that Dambriūnas has taken a significant step back here. First of all, then the regularity, purity, character (Dambriūnas called the correspondance of language developmenir t), purposefulness aesthetics were indicated as independent o criteria, norming language it is necessary to take into account the į whole jų complex [38 IX 144—145]. Dambriūnas makes regularity a general principle, į which is linked to the criterion of purity, the ir spread of language development. In this way, one of the most important iš 1938 m. P. The criterion of purposefulness of — Jonikos no longer takes into account the stylistic fragmentation of į norms. Most importantly, there is no mention of the need to keep — rates as stable as possible. The principle of permanence established in Lithuania at the time required that “things that have become established in language should not be removed by it for clearly justified reasons” and encouraged to assess each phenomenon, especially newly arising, with careful iš consideration. In Dambriūno be scheme, the tendency of language [38 IX 144], ir development is not counterbalanced by the norming tradition, which was more or less emphasized and supported by our linguists. ir — ar ir Dambriūnas relates — language development, both improveme- — nt and decline, to su language users, to su jų the cultural level, which depends on the living environment [63 II 1—3]. Language progresses ne suddenly, “between the old and ir the new there is a fairly long competition, until the novelty finally wins”, the progress being promoted o not only by writers, ne linguists, but by all language users, the whole nation. ir The creator of the language considering the whole nation, the criterion of distribution “all Lithuanians”, Dambriūnas in this respect did not theoretically depart from Provisions on GK the criterion of general language usage formulated by Lithuania (in today's terms, the source of norms), but in — practice gave it more importance than former collaborators. At that time, it was collectively agreed to consider the GK current general Lithuanian usage etc. as the source of common language norms. ], but it seems that it has been completely clarified what that use is. [36 IV 50; 37 IX 120 ir ne 144 Dambriūnas, already in America, expresses the opinion that „only that which the majority approves® comes into ką force, therefore the ir criterion of common language (t. y. norms source) being the majority consumption [62 II 22]. The exceptions in language at first merely deny the rules, iš but when these exceptions are adopted by many, they become commonplace and legitimate, just as the facts are encompassed by the rules. ir ir 1966 m. Dambriūnas writes: „Language is created by all who use it, so ją writers, fiction ir writers, poets, philosophers, scientists in certain fields, linguists are mere ir ploughmen“ a couple of years later [66 I 12], o po he clarifies the šį statement: „But the consumer is not equal to the consumer. You cannot, for example, compare a great writer with su an ordinary language user.” [68 I-II 1]. However, such a ir clarification, which ne ką clarifies the notion of the use of the mų voluntary — majority, leaves the risk of ir unbalanced decisions. ; In several recommendations, Dambriūnas raises another important problem: how much of the current common language usage can be supported by examples of ancient writings? In general, the language of ancient writings is considered an important source of norms in norming theory, but Dambriūnas ne quite be rightly claims that “Examples ar of the language of authorities like Mažvydas only show that it was used in the past”, but by no means that it should be used today ir [65 III-IV 35], because “the criterion of the correctness of a common language is its current, o ne historical use” [60 II 36]. However, in the specific case, Dambriūnas ignores the tradition of consumption by directly following such a provision. For example, he supports the noble prefix used in the Potter phrase as in heaven, so on earth, which he believes is only a newer form of local. ir su jo ne už (in the earth), but ir widely used in current usage is not considered any glory. ir However, this time it was probably right P. Tin, written by po Dambriūno article (when he was not yet editor) the editorial note. It explains that the placeholder is certainly older, but today still quite widespread, ir “Here the tradition of some supports the usage ir of these iš times”, so the placeholder is more suitable to choose as the norm of common language, especially in church language [60 II 37]. In the context of ir the modern language, the term is used to refer to "any ir language that does not necessarily have a standardized form, but which has a variety of ar forms." ne ir ne A common language may have its own areas, sometimes corresponding to ne dialectal examples.” [64 III 9]. Tarmes are mentioned only a few times in the recommendations: the native of the saying walked in clothes while the servant was in clothes [65 III—IV 43—44], justifying the construction su that in the circumstantial sentence of the secondary object [66 III-IV 44—48] ir discussing the use of pronouns in abstract nouns [65 III—IV also 47—350], explain the tendency of shortening of morphological forms. *k tree The difference of Dambriūnas’ theoretical views from those of other linguists could not fail to affect language practice, especially when iš GK withdrawn P. Jonikas ir P. Coffins. GK the study of the recommendations shows that a considerable part of the grammar 10. Issues of Lithuanian Linguistics, XXXI 145 evaluation of phenomena, su compared to the previous, yet The situation in Lithuania has changed considerably. More important recommendations of morphologicir al syntax will be reviewed below, which iš demonstrate the rationale of non-traditional evaluation of ir jo language phenomena. Discussing the processes occurring in various parts of the language, the morphological thread as the most important Dambriūnas pointed to a decrease in the number of language forms. In common language no longer used siekiny binary, ir because they are obsolete only ir "complicate memory", but other forms that separate them, so excess is unnecessary. jų On the stylistic value of these forms, for example, for use in colloquial language in fiction ar (this was emphasized Lietuvos GK), Dambriūnas does not mention. Rarely used forms rfedirbie, tadarai, because the simpler form tedirba, tedaro replaces them (let it do). It is unclear what criteria Dambriūnas uses to distinguish which forms are more complex and which are simpler. It is also noted by decreasing the number of noun conjugations, when insignificant 4th ir The 5th and 6th rows are filled with the names of the winners. Another innovation in morphology is the appearance of unchangeable forms (again, it seems to be oriented į to the supposedly more advanced English model): they are more convenient to use (ten instead of tens, twenty instead of two dozens, etc.). ir Dambriūnas looks at the competition of long-short word forms in a slightly different į way than ir usual (go|/go; good people for || good people). Claiming that „language development takes place in the direction of shortening, o ne lengthening of forms“ [64 I 15], he tries to maintain short forms on all occasions indicates that such ir is the prevailing general tendency ir of popular language [62 I 3]. Be this main motive of — language progress, — there are several ir others. Short forms are more comfortable (especially to suitable in newspaper language) making the ir language more sounding, because the sound of Lithuanian language is too frequently reflected s [62 I 3]. On the other hand, Dambriūnas does not deny ir the regularity of long forms; in general the use of these forms being a matter of taste [67 III 36]. Most of the recommendations are dedicated to various syntax expressions. Dambriūnas considers the conjunction as a communicative in the secondary circumstantial clause of the object, the use su of the participle instead of the semi-participle, the possessive noun where sometimes a nominative is needed, several other errors as undeniable, elementary syntactic errors. ir [67 II 21]. O he attempts to revise many of the mistakes that have long been corrected, explaining this mainly by language developmental tendencies. Non-significant volume in the article “Some Uses of Lingers”, spanning several notebooks, detailing the competing forms me of lingers GK (For example, the adverb / of the participle is the noun, / the objective ir noun is the o suffix, etc.), the ne conclusions drawn su always coincide with the traditionally established į view of the use of this kind of grammar forms. What is important is that Dambriūnas tries to cover the whole system of phrases, to look for connections between the members of this system, o ne separately, isolatedly examine the use of each verb. He notes that in addition to the main meanings, the verbs have secondary meanings which are not ir sufficiently clear, defined, and therefore the fields of use of certain verbs are only colliding but intertwining. 146 ne ir Thus, a kind of competition of jokes is taking place, and, as language changes, the field of use of some jokes expands, tų — narrowed [64 I 1]. Iš guidelines, where intermediate cases of use of verbs are discussed, it is apparent that Dambriūnas often feels subtle nuances of meaning and tries to take ir them into į account when evaluating one phenomenon ar after another. For example, the difference in the use of the so-called postpositional participle is explained ir in detail. Dambriūnas does not agree su Jablonski's corrected noun in the sentence: He went on a few days' vacation. In similar cases, Jablonski provided the final form everywhere, connecting the prepositional verbs of slankas or conjugaison?. Dambriūnas claims that in jį su such sentences "today the universally established utilitarist" [...] [62 II 21], o the verb of the event in the same sentence ir "cut" [64 IV 11—12]. For the time infinitive, having two different meanings, t. y. marks the 1) time during which something happens, ar ir 2) the time that is allocated, intended to be spent. The second meaning is very similar to the time noun meaning, so we tend to use noun instead of this noun, so that there is no į ambiguity due to the unidentified nature of the noun. ir For clarification Tambriūnas gives Jablonski- 's theorem Važiuosim pas mamą valandėlę indicates that the ir final part can be understood here in two ways: as a party part or as the so-called long-to-long part, denoting the length of the duration of the action. In the first case, if you want to indicate the time to spend, to stay, the noun is used instead of the suffix. Sometimes an abstract grammar rule is appropriate for each specific case. Dambriūnas, discussing the use of the noun in negative verbs, indicates that this ne lawfulness is always realized in practice; sometimes a more appropriate ending, su depending on the construction of the sentence, the place of the ne verb in the sentence and other circumstances ir ir [64 I 7—8]. For example, there is no need “to use a noun in a conversation when another noun is already in a negative verb”: there is no need to declare war; we have no right to condemn etc. jį ir Dambriūnas concludes that the negation can use su both adjectives: kilmintojas, galininkas, choosing — ir one of ir them, one o must be guided by iš "individual sense of language". In today’s linguistic practice, it happens that subtle differences in meaning and nuances are sacrificed for the sake of a supposed defect in form, but a better look shows that grammar rules cannot be applied to specific cases blindly restricting the natural nature of language. ir Nevertheless, in searching for differences in meaning, Dambriūnas does not avoid the tradition su of standardising the criterion ir of language correctness. Discussing in detail the use of pronouns of abstract nouns, he corrected some of such pronouns, Jablonski, tends to justify. In Dambriūnas's opinion, Variants in weekly periods are ambiguous, because both are used in common language. The ir first means that the work will be done, not necessarily working a whole to week, o * Pirochkine A. Jono Jablonski language corrections. K., 1986. P. 175—178. 1)* 147 ki per week just "imply the work of the whole week" [65 III—IV 47—50]. Similarly, the locals in the course of the week are considered to be consumable, but today we only recognize the norm established by Jablonski. From the time of Jablonski, the construction that with the communicative circumstance in the secondary object sentence has also been consensually regarded as an error and is strictly corrected to this day. Initially, Dambriūnas also considered this construction to be incorrect (among other errors, he pointed out that having good priests, [...] [60 II 40], but in 1966 he stopped correcting it and tried to prove its acceptability. First of all, this construction is presented as a possible substitute for another error —the communication with that used in the secondary sentence of purpose, since it is not always possible to change the communication with the implied pronoun, especially in impersonal sentences, in the sentence But those measures are not enough to raise economic well-being Dambriūnas corrects the communication with the divisor (that by raising) and adds: “because of this latter expression (that with the divisor) some linguists are raging, but, in my opinion, unnecessarily” [66 I 6—7]. In the III—IV GK notebook of the same year, Dambriūnas discusses this construction in more detail and concludes that it is absolutely not reprehensible. Having examined all kinds of secondary sentences (additional, factor, mode, cause, and others), he concludes that it is customary to use the denominator everywhere here, so there is “neither grammatical nor logical basis” to make an exception for secondary sentences of purpose [66 III—IV 44—48]. It is therefore artificially attempted to create a scheme and to explain the phenomena in the way of logical reasoning. Interestingly, this view of Dambriūnas was adopted by other GK correspondents. In the same notebook, V. Rastenis, correcting the language of the US Lithuanian press, considers the construction in question, as well as the construction with the supposed subjunctive, to be correct, but stylistically flawed — “heavyweights”: in the sentence That after calming the Germans, Kennedy came up with [...] he instead of the secondary sentence proposes the purpose of the uudininka with communicatio (to calm the Germans [...]) [66 III—IV 55]. As a new feature of the syntax Dambriūnas points to the prevalence of daZnesnj verbs with prepositions instead of the ancient pure verbs [62 II 20] and considers this as a progress of the language: now we say iš pykčio, not pykčiu ruduo, ant arklio, not žirge sėdėjo, žengimas į dangų, not dangaus žengimas, and so on. P. Skardžius also acknowledges this process in the Lithuanian language, but notes that “the transformation of ancient vowels into prepositional groups of words is not yet a completed process” [60 V 50]. Even before Dambriūnas’s reasoning, at the beginning of GK’s publication, several authors had complained about the abundance of prepositions that had appeared in the language of Lithuanian expatriates due to the influence of English: ateik ant laiko [60 1126], tai nėra į šitą knygą (= in this book) [60 11 43]. However, Dambriūnas does not pay attention to this and, irrespectively rejecting the idea of language progress, looks much more favourably at the prepositional construction Žiūri than at the variant to it, the verbnj. For this reason, the common language gives to use the already mentioned statement on the earth, and not in the earth, and also to believe in what, and not one final [65 III--IV 33-38]. moko The examples presented show that Dambriūnas’ theoretical considerations and language recommendations are markedly opposed to the norming traditions and the logical approach to language phenomena. Considering logic as the basis of all sciences [68 I-II 30], he also tended to evaluate the processes taking place in language from these positions, often denying 148 the usual facts of language that had prevailed until then or justifying universally recognized facts. ir Known language errors. That's it. ir Dambriūno poZiiitis į adverbs made of adjectives iš with suffix -inis (external, internal). Based on his formula of correctness, he proves the acceptability of such adverbs doubts Jablonski, ir who, relying on the living folk language, avoided such adverbs; so the tradition of correction is broken. tu ir jų Here it is worth remembering our linguists A. Girdenium ir A. Rosino's statement that “general language norms are mathematicane lly proven scientific truths, values, they o can be firmly ir adhered to only when the linguistic community respects the traditions of the most famous language normers and the authority ir of normative works “4. One of the iš ways to log the language phenomena is the so-called language analogy. Ir norming language, ir introducing norms į of usage; they often help to relate linguistic facts, to see language as a system. In Dambriūno language recommendations, analogies are particularly popular. For example, in the sentence lived in the life of the most primitive people, replacing the noun with a suffix (lived a life), it is based on analogous sayings fight fight, sleep sleep, sing song, etc. [66 1 7]. Another thing is that the search for analogies is not always successful. A vivid example is the attempt to explain syntactic phenomena by the laws of lexis and phraseology. Dambriūnas points out that it is possible to use some foreign expressions on the same basis as foreign Words, and justifies the borrowed native: he has experience in education [65 IT1— IV 48]. It is not taken into account that the word is a kind of autonomous linguistic unit and, even being foreign, does not disrupt the linguistic system to the same extent as a phrase formed according to foreign laws of word union. As a result, a greater or lesser amount of foreign words (borrowings) is usually allowed to function in the language, and grammatical foreignness is usually assessed negatively. mock How to evaluate the contribution of American GK (essentially — its editor L. Dambriūnas) to the į theory of grammar standardizir ation practice ? Whereas: In Lithuania it was almost GK completely inaccessible, and Dambriūnas’s ideas did not seem to have any influence on the normative work of language. On the other hand, it would be reckless to say that this work in Lithuania and America went along parallel, non-intersecting lines. In America, Lithuanian linguistic life was followed as far as possible, new works of linguistic science were annoted and reviewed, and criticism was not avoided. But that connection was mostly one-way, answers the be iš Lithuania. So it remains to consider how we can use the language management GK experience now, what mistakes we should avoid looking into the future. As already mentioned, Dambriūnas tended to evaluate language phenomena based on strict logical laws, having in mind the goal of language development as being to be corrected, there was no place in the formula of regularity for — the norming ir jo tradition and the observation of norms. * Girdenis A., Rosinas A. A few more thoughts on the general language codification // Culture Bars, 1983, No. 4, P. 67. 149