J. Jablonskio kalbos kultūros teorija

LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE SANDARS STUDIES QUESTIONS OF LITHUANIAN LINGUISTICS, X X|VI (1987)] ALDONAS PUPKIS THE THEORY OF J. JABLONSKIO LANGUAGE CULTURE The most prominent figure in the history of Lithuanian language culture and common language, as well as in the entire Lithuanian linguistics, is Jonas Jablonskis (1860—1930). “In the whole history of the development of literary language there was no linguist equal to Jablonski”. Historical circumstances destined him to become the greatest and most prominent creator and normifier of the present common language, the codifier and guardian of that language system and the promoter of its usage. Jablonskis perfectly understood the essence, purpose and specificity of the creation of the common language. In the preface to his epoch-making work, the Grammar of the Lithuanian Language (1901), he wrote: “The truths of the written language are always acquired by one dialect, whatever it may be; other dialects add to it only their best little things, those grains that have disappeared in the written dialect for whatever reason, are no longer used. If the written language lacks a word that is known only from other dialects, the writer must use that word in whatever context he finds it. (…) Thus, the language of this grammar will be the ‘simple Suvalkian dialect, only it will be strengthened and supported, where necessary, by other dialects’?, In addition to the living spoken language of the people, the sources of common language for Jablonski were folklore, the writings of prominent Lithuanian writers, works of linguistic science and dictionaries. However, in all these sources the great linguist also saw things that are in principle unacceptable, such as those that are based “on foreign languages” and “pollute the language of our People”*. In the words of the linguists of the “native language”, the source of common language in general is Lithuanian usage, based on “the laws of the language of people”. However, Jablonski’s Lithuanian usage was not copied eclectically, without any selection and stricter principles. Perhaps the greatest merit of Jablonski’s whole normative work will be that he skillfully harmonized the East Prussian common language variant with the West Kaunas dialect of the Highlands, that is, he approved the Lithuanian common language system and codified it in his 1901 grammar. In his works, Jablonski, it seems, nowhere uses the term operating system. But he felt it, that system, perfectly, understood it in the same way as the present science of language,—! Vosylytė B. The role of Jablonski in the history of Lithuanian literary language. - Kn. : Journal of the American Philosophical Society, 1956, t. * Jablonskis J. Selected Writings (hereinafter RR)/Sud. J. Palionis. —V., 1957, t. 1, p. 60. 3 Jablonskis J. RR, vol. 1, p. 60. 4 One can agree with A. Pirochkin (At the Origins of the Common Language. —V., 1977, p. 100), who states that Jablonski named the language system the term “spirit of language- ”. 128 this would show a number of examples. For example, phonetics deals with the distinguishing function of vo language elements. After the adoption of vak it is necessary to preserve long vowels from, y, o, ė, uo, quality ie regardless of position. After noting that the eastern ir skin tail, spot fan at ir the beginning of the word ,,hearing the same sounds very often”, continue Jablonski writes in: “In order to adapt to the laws of written language, they should know how the written syllable sounds when the accent falls on the word.” jų For this reason, he demanded different spelling of long and short vowels, respecting the Western consonant ir conjugation laws, etc. ir It is important to note that he was very ir well aware of the distinctive ir function of the general dialect preposition." The sense of the system is very strong especially spelling, words ir jų forms in the preparation of ir amendments. The temptation to pronounce without agreeing to provide a common language 2, Jablonski wrote: “The va k Aukštaičių alruos is just a temptation, -dos. If M. Daukšašitą prieSdéliuotinj 7odjreally screamed so[...], he was a little bit head over heels here: cf. pagdlba, -bos, -bą, paguoda, -dos, pakarpa, -pės, pašalpa, -pés, pašalpą, Palanga, -gas, Palangą...“ (rare) J. J.). Or, in condemning the form ne lietuvis, which appears in some writings, take the analogy: lietuvis lietuviškas, — liežūvis liežūviškas — vyturys ir vyturiškas, — gyvulys gyvuliškas. — ‘Beside d-džio „lietuvis“, the adjective should form in the language „lietuviškas!“ Without giving the common language the adverb vowel, the linguist reasons: “What does the author, truly speaking, teach the reader in this three-place [Kėdainiai, Surviliškio, Krekenavos districts] — A. P.] certificate ? Juk iš tų places at least, it seems, we take language examples for written language subject (dictionary, rules). [...] Without the adjective vowels, -si, I cannot use the adverb vowels in my language.” nė (ret. J. J.). There are many similar examples in Jablonski- 's writings (see in particular section 4.4). jo 1928 m. work "Stuffs of our language vocabulary"). The requirement to adhere to the principle of consistency’’, the constant operation with analogies of linguistic facts, that is, a systematic approach to the phenomena of general language, is visible in all Jablonski’s į considerations, it is characteristic of all recommendations. jo Understanding that the system of the common language is a living and independent phenomenon, increasingly moving away from its dialectic basis, Jablonskis already in 1914, when the present Lithuanian common language was in its infancy, was very unstable, fragmented and heterogeneous, said prophetic words about its creation and future: “the written language is the product of the nation itself and of writers who know its language, not linguists”** and: “The written language, as it grows, must only improve itself by itself”? (retinta A. P.). He repeats the same thing 14 years later, in 1928: “let it grow on its own, according to its own rules of the nation, in a very modern way he understood the Aryan system of phonetics, which was 5 Jablonskis J. RR, t. 1, p. 66. * Ibid., p. 190. 7 Jablonskio raštai/Sud. J. Balčikonis. — K., 1936, t. 5, p. 174. 8 Idem, p. 172. » . hig vy pn p. 17; vol. 4, 1935, p. 276, 278 et al. ; plg. : Piro¢kinas A. Jablonskis — creator of common language. — V., 1978, p. 201. 11 Jablonski- 's writings, t. 4, p. 189. 12 It is there that we put p. 188. 5. 1835 129 all kinds of new things into it without any need"* (red. J. J.). Thus, the work of linguists was to establish and codify the system of common language, and otherwise common language is the product of the creation of the whole nation, its most advanced people. The task of linguists is to ensure that the accepted system is observed: "As written language grows, the job of linguists is merely to bring to light the laws of human language and to guard that our writers, especially journalists [...] do not themselves sometimes break those laws of language." Operating on the basis of the data of the folk language, folklore, scripts and linguistics, Jablonskis saw the unevenness of the Lithuanian usage, numerous duplicates both in the vocabulary and in the word formation and grammar. We could say that Jablonski understood well the problem of the variantity of language phenomena and understood the limits of this variantity in common language. “It must always be mentioned that in the grammar of other nations, although their literacy is much more elaborated, there are also considerable fluctuations of all kinds,” he wrote in the preface to the grammar in 1901. —Then “what can we expect from our grammar?”1® The question arises, according to what principles did Jablonski select the norms for a common language from various sources? First of all, as we have seen, the decisive factor was the systematic nature of the language phenomenon. Everything that disagreed with the common language system, that contradicted the powers of that system, was uncompromisingly rejected and not submitted to the common language. Therefore, many dialectal variants of phonetics and accentuation, the type of word formation of certain words, which are not duplicates of some morphological forms, were abandoned. However, the phenomena are sometimes variants: how did Jablonski then act, what was his guiding principle, when he offered some language phenomena to the general language and rejected others? The same question arises when examining Jablonski’s views on alienation. Jablonskis was the great purifier of the Lithuanian language, and the criterion of language purity was very important to him. "In fact, this principle has always been applied whenever there has been an attempt to consciously regulate language"! *, But Jablonski differed from all previous language purifiers primarily in that he demanded not only vocabulary purity, but also syntax purity." On the other hand, his work is special in that he paid particular attention not only to the defamatory alienation, but also to its substitutes. He was particularly attentive to these substitutions and held the view that a loan word was better suited to the common language than a failed, in the language system not fitted newcomer: “not having his own word, it would be much better to say together with other peoples to edit, editor, rather than without reason and without any basis to introduce into the language unsuitable neologisms”*- *. But even in those cases, when there were seemingly quite good words of his own to replace foreignness in Lithuanian, Jablonskis sometimes did not touch them. For example, about polonism boti he wrote: "Wherever necessary, I myself will use the word (boti) as I have used it: having found it in some other person's text, it seems that I do not correct it with the words žiūrėti, paisyti." - 13 Ibid., vol. 5, p. 216. 14 Ibid., vol. 4, pp. 188-189. 15 Jablonskis, J. RR, vol. 1, p. 61. 16 Piročkinas A. At the origins of the common language, p. 101. 17 Jablonski- 's writings, t. 4, p. 101. 18 Idem, p. 15. 19 There is also the t. 5, p. 182. 130 That principle by which Jablonski was guided by following the facts of general language, will have been the purpose of language use ir iš jo consequent purposefulness of the use of specific language phenomena. Although the term purposefuljo ness appears not to be used anywhere in the writings, tą the principle can be seen in many jo considerations of specific language issues. Language Jablonski understood ne it not only as a physiologicir al psychological ir phenomenon, but as a social product. As a social phenomenon, language characterizes the speaking ja society itself (“In language, the nation expresses who they are, what they deserve”??), ko Its ability or inability to speak it shows the ar level of nationality of a person („prison of words unnecessary ir memorization, to the extent of “to commit a crime”, shows, yes, many of our writers, sheip teip, still ar nutauto“®!, ar languages “without paying we cannot be really nė useful to our people”**?. Common language is attributed toall peoples, is its unifying, sharing action. ji To write in common language — is to write to the whole people, to write in a clearly understair ndable way. Narrow to dialects should be avoided in general language (forms spoke, looked, had “are not a common language thing, they are not understood by others”**), unusual innovations they would only make language learning more difficult: — „We, at least most of our intelligents, cannot have the ir time to learn our language textbook nė properly, so how will we learn gi ir "science" next to „etiudo“, ir „tara, tyrą, tyravimą, matą“ ..., next to "theory, interrogation, investigation (interrogation- ), measurement- ”*? *, Strict word "Jablonski spoke against A. Vireliūno naujadarus?s, P. Vaičiūno distorted forms of regressive verbs®®. Jo opinion, understanding language makes it difficult ir „to change the sophisticatar ion of the language to the level of learnability- “?’, Jablonskis strived all his life for stability of the unity of ir general language norms. Jį oudine “the extraordinary diversity of the language of writers in other literatures: the simplest thought in the same notebook is expressed by some writers in one way, by others in another, the uniformity of the language of writers, as required by the simplest laws of each written jo language, is not seen at all”®, All this undermines the work of the school, finally [...] does not give "what real relief déstomam speaks to the ta matter of society"? He fought for this unity only in the cultural activities of the language, but by ne codifying the norms: he especially respected the consistency ir of the system, the production of novels, he took into account that the norms provided will be understood by the whole ar society. It is impossible not to agree with A. Pirochkin's opinion that, whether condemning or legitimizing adultery, Jablonski was guided by the principle of purposefulness. „All well-known, widely used non-Lithuanian 20 Idem, t. 4, p. 191. 21 Idem, p. 41; see. also p. 57. 22 Ibid., p. 191. 3 Ibid., p. 232. ? *4 Ibid., p. 308. ‘2% Idem, t. 5, p. 212 tt. 2€ Idem, p. 121 tt. 27 Idem, p. 75. 28 Idem, t. 4, p. 50—51; plg. but p. 133, 197, t. 5, p. 121. 29 In addition, més words, t. 5, p. 214. 3 131 for which there were usually no substitutes in the popular language or it was difficult to make a good new creation, Jablonski did not pursue literary language"*". iš The purposefulness of language be facts requires an extremely good sense of the linguistics of society. ne needs. Jablonski has once spoken about these needs. For example, disagreeing V. Kamantauskas's approach to give up the prefix -a lot of derivatives (in fact, in popular iš language there is only one known word važiuotė*!, advises to join with other close suffixes ją su (-otė, -autė) does not ir see any contradiction with the rules of human language. “If a suffix is now avoided, then it is, in the understanding of writers, unnecessary in the language”? ar (ret. A. P.). But the Germans distinguish the words das Decline the ir Declination; Kamantauskas seems to be advising us to be content with one word, joking. “Does the author really want students to avoid the preposition -uotė, would definitely avoid further ir all jų consumers (textbook) word suffix su -oot (personalization, joke, imagination, ride...)?"33 Plg. but: "And the appendix -he needs us, of course, always operate where it is really necessary ji in human speech”** (ret. 4. P.). "Žemaitija" is a novelization of the written language. To word ir The blacksmith is still alive. That word, if needed by writers, could, of tų course, live in the written language”ss ir (ret. A. P.). “We should use foreign, incomprehensible words in writing only where be jų we can't do without"®® (ret. A. P.). These include: There are more jo statements in ir Jablonski's writings; careful reading, we will notice šį the principle of ne applying one correction. Considers the į needs of common language while ir defending others V. Kamantauskas corrected words. Jablonski did not like certain words ir jų leveling of meanings, so he offered to allocate fine art to fine art, to have to ir create, youth, youth ir youth, advisor taréjas® ir etc., although it some ir iš jų ir would not meet the requirements of ar language purity or even systematicity. He understood perfectly that the needs of the language users are the highest criterion to which all others must obey, even if they follow the best theory of the sincerest codified iš efforts to “improve” ar the common language: “That our language be as the same as the [t. y. theoretically. — A. P.] we would like her words to be exactly the same as the ones she gives “language educators”, so that it, our language of today, would long ago no longer have any value for a cultured person, or at least part of it”“* (ret. Jo J) Jablonski will be well acquainted with the stylistic multi-expressionism of the language. He wrote that the drama hero of the narrative philosopher ar cannot speak the same language as the guard ta ordinary worker®®. People of lower ar education are written more simply, 80 Pirochkine A. Basic principles of Jablonskiir 's language standardization. — Theory and Practice of Language Culture/Lithuaniir an Language Section Notebook, No. 1970, 5(18), p. 9. 21 English Grammar, V., — 1965, t. 1, p. 298. 32 Jablonski- 's writings, t. 5, p. 206. 33 Idem. 3 Idem, p. 207. 35 Idem, t. 4, p. 122. 3¢ Idem, p. 144. 37 Idem, t. 5, p. 170, 178, 185, 193. 3 Idem, p. 216. * Idem, p. 62. 132 nio can be — ‘operated with complicated, more elaborate expressions’“*. Although the linguist has once ne emphasized that in matters of į style he does not like to interfere („I prefer to leave the matter of style to the writers themselves- “)), but on specific issues of style he has expressed one interesting thought. ne First of all, Jablonski did not like the various meets: " in word ir name forms ir ap Sums the use of various dialects of our language, į the artificial raising of ir dialects in the writings: the use of dialect elements in ų the same grammar should not be changed. “4, It is the result of a complex interaction of many ir factors. ir ir Not agreed ui, especially for less educated readers allocates- "I advise further translators (and language correctors) try not to try to write in dialects ti for school, try not to bring out — unusual features of writing. Dialect features in jų writings are not brought out into the open, to use ir their own writing language”43, Jablonski was concerned with other ir features of writing style. | ir He raised his voice against the sophistication of the written language, the supposed ir scholarship*, the artificiality of the jo sentence, the ir obscurity of thought, the vagueness**. “In order ką to write, we must first express ir our thoughts clearly and understandably”** (ret. 4. P.). The idea must be only clearly understood, ne unambiguous, easily ir expressed." The fact that there were no empty phrases, ir general non-specific requirements of good language, precisely o perceived stylistic characteristics of the writings, shows that Jablonski clearly distinguished the matters ir of language style („Writers themselves need to start to take care that our written language is easy, beautiful, clear, widely a) understood ir b) normal (it has to go by the rules of people, readers’ language)”, finally such Jablonski’s statement: “the sentences, taken separately, seem to be regular, but the regularity of the sentences somewhat damaged, it seems to me, the fluency of the language jo and its ease”*. Regularity has ir compromised smoothness for ease!.. ir Isn’t this the most subtle example of the social purpose of language functionality? ! ir just let's teach them * * # Iš The reviews of Jablonski’s views should not give the impression that they were unchanging, stagnant, and thus, in the end, with a long 40 m. language culture activities, in a sense dogmatic. Iš actual Jablonski strictly adhered to the cardinal requirements for the development of a common language ir throughout his life. These were, above all, the universally ma applicable principles of jo language systematics and functional purposefulness. All my life Jablonski strived for ir the purity of language, although the criterion of purity was subordinated to purposefulness, so he ir did not step out of his nė iš 'vaus alienation evaluation path. All the time being a proIbid., p. 37. ‘4 Ibid., p. 72. 12 Ibid., vol. 4, p. 49. 48 Idem, p. 243. 4 Ibid., vol. 5, p. 75. 4 Idem, p. 134. 4% Ibid., vol. 4, pp. 133, 143. 4 Ibid., p. 262, vol. 5, p. 92. Ibid., vol. 4, p. 144. 4 In the second half p. 262. 133 of his į career, he became more and more concerned with functional purposefulness. until finally 1921 m. declares that the regularity (t. y. system adherence) yet ne everything is — not enough for a common to language. Being convinced that from the From the beginning of the 1920s it was already possible to talk about a formed, real common language with a firmly codified system®, Jablonski devoted himself su mainly to the preservation of the norms of that language for the defense of stability, although the issues of codification were still extremely ir jų important to him ir (plg. jo 1928 m. V. Kamantauskas's dictionary review "Stuffs of our language vocabulary"). He insisted that the writers of be the translatioiš ns should ir compromise on grammar, and he stood firmly against the influx of unnecessary novelties. disagreed su The principle of phonetic morphological transliterair tion of international words, which Boge ir supported, defended tų the established use of word forms. More Jablonski's views changed about specific language norms, ir which is quite understandable. Į his work practice he included all, had discovered the ką language science of to the time (plg. jo public confession of mistakes on the suffix -ūnas vedic correctioką n®), himself iš experienced dialects (in this respect, He will have given Jablonski a lot Juška's dictionary editing in.), 1897—1906 took into account that, į į ką was prone to ar ką rejected language practice. For all reasons tų part of your corrections Jab-lonskis later refused, but almost every time in the articles there were new, untouched jo thingsy®, so how differently ir some language norms were assessed in grammar*?. ir jo But it did not hurt nė either Jablonski's stability of language norms, nor the general principles of the work of the whole language culture. In general, Jablonski’s contributions to the Lithuanian common ir language and its culture are beyond measure and can hardly be properly evaluated in ir any ar research article. ar Jo works are waiting for new research, because generations of generations iš jų will draw for herself the strength of the spirit, ir each will find there for herself ir invaluable values, which are be impossible to achieve by any progress of life, culture and ir the common language itself. I'm a killer! PEYH H. S5JIOHCKHCA Pe31roMe OCcHOBOINOJIOXHHK COBDEMEHHOTO JIKMTOBCKOTO JIATEPATYPHOrO s13bIKA Ūonmac SI6n0HCKHC HE OCTABHJI CIHCIKHAJIGLHLIX TEOPETHYeCKHX paboT IMO KYJIBTYpe JIMTOBCKOM a little. Oj HAKO MHOrOYHCJIGHHBIE ETO BLICKA3bIBAHHA IIO NMPAKTHYECKHM BONpocaM HOpMAJIH3aIlIHH JIMTOBCKOrO S3bIKa HaJOT BO3MOXHOCTb YTBEPXIATh, TO B CBOE paboTe pyKOBOJICTBOBAJICA OH TJIyGOKO IIPOAyMAHHOK TeopHeif, OCHOBY KOTOPOH COCTABJISIOT CIEAYIOIIHEe NoctyjiatbI. VICTOKH HOPM JIHTOBCKOIO JIHTepaTYypHOro S35LIKA — HAPOMHBLIA S3BIK H S3BIK (DOJILKJIOpa, XyHOKECTBEHHAs JIATEpaTypa Tex aBTOPOB, KOTODEbIE XOPOIIO 3HAJIH HAPOIHBIA S3BIK, H JIMHIBHCTHYECKHE TPYbl (IPaMMATHKH H' cnosapu). Ilpx or6ope Hopm Ū. SGHOHCKAC Yy4uKkTbIBaJi IIpexKJIE BCETO CHCTEMHOCTb H IHeJIeCO06pa3HOCTbL S3BIKOBBIX SBJICHHI, IIpH4eM B Hau€aJIe CBOelt paOOTbI Ha IIepBEIN IUIAH BbIN[BHTAJI CHC-- TEMHOCTb, a IO3x€e ECB GojIiee YYHTHIBAJ IeJIECOOOpa3HOCTb. 50 Pirochkinas A. Jablonskis —the creator of the common language, p. 191. 51 Jablonskio raštai, vol. 4, pp. 271–272. 52 This is shown in the works of A. Pirochkin (especially in: Jono Jablonskio leksiniai taisymai. —K., 1970; Jono Jablonskio gramatiniai taisymai. —K., 1976). 58 Pirochkinas A. Jablonskis —The Creator of the Common Language, p. 219—221. 134