A. Baranausko bendrinės kalbos teorija

LITHUANIAN LANGUAGES SANDAROS INVESTIGATIONS LITHUANIAN KALBOTYROS QUESTIONS, XXVI (1987) REGINA VENCKUTĖ A. BARANAUSKO GENERAL LANGUAGES THEORY At the 1985 beginning of the year, significant anniversaries for Lithuanian du linguistics and national culture in ir general coincided: “the origins of science stood A. Baranausko 150th ir Lietuvos Awarded the title of Meritorious Scientific Worker of the USSR. J. Balchik 100th anniversary of his birth, honored his jų merits in Lithuanian studies. It is not ar necessary to look for direct connections between these linguists of different epochs of unequal education. ir — -dos connecti- — on, but some Baranausko ir Balčikonis’s parallels į with the common language could undoubtedly expand the overall picture of the history of Lithuanian linguistics. Į Baranauskas is based only on the ne formation of our professional linguistics (per K.. Jaunių ir K. The language ir is a combination of standardized and non-standardized languages. (per K. Jaunių ir J. Jablonskj)*. Thinking about Balčikonis’ place in Lithuanian linguistics, ir with connections jo in mind su Buga and Jablonski, as well as the difficult situation of the first post-war years, we must admit that he was then the authority of our linguistics, on which the į ir jo cultivated, branched and expanded the same lines2. A. Baranauskas’ i contribution to specific areas of Lithuanian linguistics (mainly į dialectology, accentology, history of general written language, etc.) ir already thoroughly examined in the context of the ir properly evaluated*, but almost jo uninterpreted linguistic perspectives on the development of linguistic thought!. Meanwhile, the general theoretical position, which this talented self-taught linguist held, is still worth noting today with regard to the history of Lithuanian ir linguistics and its present day. Baranauskas’ linguistic views were formed under the influence of three 19th century a. naturalism, neogrammatical — ir Kazan school, so he had experienced a great deal of German comparativists in Russian linguistics ir (maximum per J. Bodueną de The Influence. Perhaps the greatest initial influence Baranauskas' linguistic talent for methodologir ical principles had a pioneer of the naturalism direction A. Sleicher's views, because still In Varniai seminary, the future researcher of the native language 1 Zinkevičius Z. A. Linguistics, Kn. : — Literatūra ir kalba, V., 1986, t. 19. * Pupkis A., Mažiulis V., Balčikonis Juozas. - Kn. : Balčikonis J., 1978, p. 23-35. * Sabaliauskas A. History of Lithuanian language research. —V., 1979, p, 166—171; Salys A. A. Baranauskas. - Kn. : Encyclopedia Britannica. 1934. pp. 34. "Zinkevičius Z. Min. veik. + Venckutė R. Antano The origins of Baranausko's linguistic views. — Kn. : Sign meaning. ir V., 1986. 183 impressed by ide. The theory of the “genealogical tree” explaining the formation of o the language — family, later „Lietuvių kalbos gramatika“ ir other of this most famous 19th Century a. Indo-European Studies. Important here were (albeit ir short) personal Barnum ko contactsu ed Schleicher. Iš Schleicher's works Baranauskas studied the alphabet of the comparative-historical method, applying t. y. the laws of sound change to reconstruct archetypes of language elements. Iš From Schleicher he had taken the ir idea of language as the organ of the human spirit ir ja theoretically based his views on the reasons for dialectal į division of the language and reasoning about the general (inherited) ir partial (t. y. specific, subsequently formed) language element. In his most important printed study “Notes on the Lithuanian language dictionary” ir Baranauskas wrote: “The common element appears in language together su with the tribe, remains in the first stage of the tribe’s ir existence as a subtext of historically formed dialectal differences. Such in the language are roots, stems, forms, primary flexions in all dialects ir and speeches equally used word combinations system; the differences in the pronunciation of certain ir dialects constitute a specific element of the languageg“®. Following this approach, Baranauskas generally correctly described the significance of each of iš these layers for the study of language. ir „Words on the people’s lips over time smooth like pebbles, the ends of words are erased ar by the <...>, waves of the current, the ir beginning and the ir middle shrink evenly, syllables become shorter <...>. Since the full <...> forms of words are shortened from long use, which wears off the etymological elements, the general element of the language becomes colloquiality, therefore the full, shortened tų forms are more valuable for detailed comparison of dialects. 0 ne < ...>“*. Affected by Schleicherį 's view of the word root as the primary ir most important “language organism” cell, Baranauskas, explaining the differences in Lithuanian dialects, paid much attention to the root sounds (especially vowels) emphasized that at ir the end of the word the same sounds change faster or can disappear altogether. iš That is why, when classifying Lithuanian dialects, he oriented himself on the complex of į vowel mo characteristics, often not even indicating a specific distinguishing feature", creating o Lithuanian spelling based on the principle of harmonizing dialects, establishing normative t. y. genders for the common written language, consistently adhered to the view that ‘full-length fleece’ (t. y. limb. — R. V.) is better than shortened’”. Later, this Baranauskas’s theoretical position was confirmed by a detailed study of our dialects: it turned out that the most archaic phonetic system is preserved by those dialects whose roots (resp. middle) endings ir (resp. The vowels are consonant. In the meantime Baranauskas (dialects were almost unexplored during his lifetime) In “Notes on the Lithuanian language ir dictionary” he makes a far-sighted conclusion: ‘R, ir Ry Schnecks (t. y. R, — ‘Mū5 Į extracts of the study translated into Lithuanian were published "In our language". The ir following is quoted from: Venckutė R. Iš Antano The Linguistics of Baranauskas. — Our Languag1975, e, No. 1, p. 41. ¢ Min. ill., p. 42. t Girdenis A., Zinkevičius Z. On the classification of Lithuanian dialects. — Linguistics, 1966, t. 14, p. 139. 8 The Letter of Baranauskas H. Weber. Quoted from: Baranauskas A. Writings. — V., 1970, t. 2, p. 186. 184 šos upynas", eastern part Ry — of Panevėžys, "pure pointists" — R. V.), with many reduced sound syllables at the endings, are already uZuomazgos of <...> the future ir phase of Lithuanian phonetics?. Lithuanian language dialects Baranauskas investigated the practical matter of translation, but apparently ne be the influence of neogrammatical so meticulously recorded the slightest dialectal differences in their own way confessed the ir fact and the living language 'kultg “1%, An exceptionally honest i attitude to the facts of language, a firm belief that good be research jy cannotmake scientificalma ly reliable conclusions, led ir "Personalities of the Barents Sea". However, the ability to systematically summarize his observations protected the insightful linguist from the petty description of šį facts characteristic of the neogrammaticians and allowed him to approach the language of a modern structural approach, in which ir he had far outpaced his epoch of universal domination of the neogrammaticians (often called į atomists). — — The to undoubtedly will contribute ir to the innovative Bodueno de Kurtenė views (they are quite closely connected). Iš Bodueno de Kurtenė Baranauskas adopted the principle of clearly distinguishing the fact ir of written spoken language. Figuratively formulated, šį the principle is found in Baranauslaikis ko To Weber: “What is a book, what is a mouth: in the book the language is half-dead, in the mouth it is gi alive”!%. This belief apparently led to a rather skeptical Baranauskas's ko view not į established, not supported by clear rules of codification Lithuania. an written language of the middle of the 19th century (it becomes more prominent iš Letters of the author of „Anykščių šilelis“ to J. S. Dovydaitis, J. Jablonskis, H. Véberis and others). The distinction between written and spoken language, as two forms of existence of the national language, apparently also determined Baranauskas’s conviction that only a written common language is necessary for Lithuania to exist, otherwise all dialects are suitable for communication (as a spoken language). At first glance, this statement may seem paradoxical, but it is not fundamentally wrong either theoretically or practically: modern theory of language culture is far from denying the native dialect, considering it an important traditional means of everyday communication (in the family and other neutral, informal situations); only the use of dialects in public life and mass communication (fiction, press, school, radio, etc.) is strictly restricted. From all of this, it seems possible to draw a measured conclusion that the relationship between common language and dialects was perceived by Baranauskas in a fairly sober and modern way. Having “translated” his reasoning into modern linguistic terms, we clearly see that for Baranauskas both common language and dialects, which usually function only in spoken form, are conditionally independent communication systems and clearly differ in the sphere of use and in phonetic, lexical, morphological and syntactic features formed by specific laws of their internal development. * Venckutė R. From the linguistic legacy of Antanas Baranauskas, p. 10 The living language of Baranauskas was understood primarily as the spoken language of the villagers, i.e., the “society language- ”. 11 Venckutė R. Antanas Baranauskas Linguistic Correspondence. - Kn. : Literature and language. V., 1986, t. 12 Baranauskas A. Min, veik., p. 248. 185- Teaching After studying Lithuanian at the Kaunas seminary, Baranauskas felt the necessity of tė a practical (normative) grammar and began to ir write one himself, hoping to use the example of the scientific, diachronically oriented grammar of į Schleicher’s Lithuanian language, but soon realized that he had to "mark the edges not ir iš jų to leave" (mentioned several times in his letters to Weber). “To mark the borders” means only to describe the Lithuanian language as it is spoken by the ne people who use it, not to reconstruct distant history, but to find a way to harmonize the differences of ją numerous dialects, to create a common written language į needed by all Lithuanians. ir t. y. Having in mind these specific, clearly perceived tasks, Baranauskas chooses the principle of harmonization of dialects, based on the theoretical jį statement about the common partial ir element, he creates a ir kind of theory of the common language. Most Important ‘language course’ (yes Baranauskas called his grammar) is to find the foundation by — comparing different dialectal genders, in other words, jų to restore the original form from which they have emerged. The etymological iš basis of different dialectal genders Baranauskas calls "word-old" ir according to Schleicher's "genealogical tree" theory, states: „The word is a trunk, from which the iš branches of dialects have grown“**; „in order to learn all Lithuanian language well, you need to learn all its dialects well, of which a good equalization truly makes a word-speaker stand out“!*. In iš reconstructing “word-like” genders, Baranauskas did not go far back in time: he considered the least changed forms of words fixed in dialects as normative, e.g. dirba, galvomis, sėdi, į o ne work, think, sit; in ancient writings, but no longer in dialects Baranauskas į does not include his written common language, thus he does not consider it normative (he explains to Weber that he does not want to “disconnect spelling from living language”!*). According to this theory, Baranauskas’ texts were in fact a transformation of the Eastern Highlander genders into Western ones. į This he himself has unequivocally admitted: "Today in my language it is a dialect R, (Eastern Highlanders from Anykščiai, "rotininkai". — R. V.) sulyginimais su kitomis tarmėmis pataisyta dapildyta ir pagal ir ne ištarmės, bet pagal žodžūgio rašyta“"*. The common written language created by Baranauskas on the basis of the harmonization of dialects was close to the Prussian Lithuanian (Western Highlander) dialects fixed in Schleicher's grammar. It remains only to add that he came to such a generalized closeness of his written language to the dialect of the western Highlands purely theoretically, based on the regularity of the laws of dialectal mutation. sų Knowing most of the laws well enough, tų consistently following, as we would now say, the methodology of internal reconstruction, Baranauskas brought the phonetic differences of the dialects together in the most archaic phonetic system, such as is best į preserved in the southern western Highland o dialect. ir (in Kaunas). In a message Weber is written about this: I cannot admit „<...> that I have invented a new language, nowhere so spoken, but understandable to all Lithuanians<.- ..>. I didn’t think of language, but I thought of spelling for Lithuanian; or sense spelling did not think of a new, but already existing nė ir Of course I corrected it!” "; "My language 12 Baranauskas A. Min. ill., p. 185. 14 Cited by iš Kn. : Archivum Philologicum, 1937, t. 6, p. 50. 15 Baranauskas A. Min. ill., p. 186. 16 Min, verb., has a p. 185. 17 Min. ill., p. 187. 186 foundation word-length so it is ir written, but, pronounced according to dialects, can not be called dead language, but alive”*, si That is why the combined written language Baranauskas usually refers to it simply as spelling: when reading, everyone can pronounce the sounds as they are pronounced in the native dialect, because the letters are symbols of jo sounds that have changed differently in the dialects. For example, the hand, given the į regular an ir ą variation in dialects, can be read [raijka, rafjkū, ruiki, ronk“) in ir another way. Phonetic spelling, according to Baranausko, would be inconvenient, because „it would be necessary ir to incorporate both spelling and linguistics, as there are dialects. We need one gi linguistics, one spelling, and a demonstratiir on of how Lithuanians of each dialect must spell these letters.”* It turned out to be quite easy to formulate specific rules by which genders of written common language could be easily transformed into dialects: Baranauskas- ’s “linguistics” does not provide clear instructions on how to ne read “common” genders dialectically, especially those that differ in dialects only in the pronunciation of sounds. ne In the practice of creating a common ši language, Baranauskas' rather complex theory has not been adopted, but the researchers of the history of the common language recognize it. that had a ji significance in the emergence of the western Highland dialect, which from The 19th a. century saw the emergence of the ir modern written language. When determining the "general" (normative) genders of written language, Baranauskas faced the problem of language purity. He was a cautious norm-setter: he did not acknowledge "pure purism" (which he criticized in his letters), but avoided explicit jį alienations. The latter attitude so explained in the letter "There is no doubt that I am a wealthy man," he said, "but I am a poor man, and I am looking for a way to make my money." Without ir finding a clearer word of ta composition of what kind, do I not despise and doubtlessly my own"*? ?. ar For your contemporaries Baranauskas was an undisputed authority of the Lithuanian language, šį earned recognition ir as a Anykščių šilelio language, with excellent knowledge of his own ir native dialects of other Lithuanian languages. Su various questions about the meaning of Lithuanian words, the use of word forms, etc. ir į jį famous Russian and Western European Indo-Europeanists, as well as most Lithuanian national cultural figures. We already know so much about Baranauskas’s ne specific corrections (his information was mostly practical but theoretical), but the notes found in ne linguistic correspondence suggest that this linguist was not only an excellent teacher of the iš native language, but also a dedicated jo promoter of it. A valuable testimony in this regard is such one letter ne ir jo Weber's place: "I don't really like mentioning ir "Lithuanian Letters Friendship" <...>. Beg good ne to be called ją "Friendship of Lithuanian Letters Lovers", or “Dr. of Lithuanian writings”, or how else, because the friends are not writings, but writings””**?. 18 Min, veik., p. 185. 19 Archivum Philologicum, 1930, vol. 1, p. 76. 40 Jonikas P. The idea of a common Lithuanian written language at dawn. — Kn. : Archivum Philologicum, 1937, vol. 6, p. 52; Palionis J. History of Lithuanian Literary Language. —V., 1979, p. 197. 31 Baranauskas A. Min. veik., p. 186. Min. veik., p. 207. 187 Baranauskas, similar to later Jablonskis ir Balčikonis highly valued a good command of the native dialect, and when collecting dialect į facts he oriented himself to the language of ordinary country people. That's ką what he wrote about Boduenui de Kurtenė: “Teachers of Lithuanian, speaking Polish themselves, not well learned Lithuanian, <...> in a remote place damaged the Lithuanian language, po most written, in gi the living po language ir towns manors. It's now a darker ką course A corner of ką Lithuania, farther from the town ir from the manor or from the highway, the purer tą and more ir beautiful Lithuanian language.”** In the context of the formation of professional Lithuanian linguistics, Baranauskas’ theory of the common language, in addition to the above-mentioned be issues, is significant for the following reasons: ir 1. Being directly concerned with the need su to have a practical grammar, she showed a ji clear perspective of creating a normative grammar, putting the į the importance of (spoken) language facts ir stimulated more intensive study of ir dialect vocabulary (plg. Jauniaus — Boogs — "Jablonski Line". 2. In Lithuanian dialectology, she established the principle of comparison of dialectal features, brought Lithuanian language researchers closer to a structural approach to language, į formed the basis for vo internal reconstruction. It became clear that there was no (and should not be) a gap between historical descriptive (normative) grammar, ir because stronger norms cannot be established by elementary knowledge of the history of be language facts (scientifically based standards of the general Lithuanian language subsequently presented Jablonskii "Lithuanian Grammar". 1922 3. He contributed to the formation of certain criteria for the codification of the common Lithuanian language, of which the most iš important are systematicity, geography of facts, purity and perhaps purposefulness. ir iš These criteria are relevant today in the ir practice be of language standardization, in addition to the clear Baranauskas ne į orientation of writing, į but the spoken language was determined by the bright lively the dominance of the (‘society’) language in our first normative works (plg. Jablonski, Balčikonis position). In assessing Baranauskas’ views in the context of contemporary tu Lithuanian jo linguistics, it is useful to examine the principles of dialect division, the theory of three-length vowels (so-called “theory of morals”), specific reasonings about the history of some Lithuanian language phenomena (they were often ir very insightful, ir clearly wrong), but due to the limited scope of the article this time only the theory of general language is discussed. They are perfectly sufficient to connect Baranauskas' theoretical views su The aim of a. this article is to show how through this talented self-taught linguist the most advanced linguistic ideas of the time were brought into the forming Lithuanian linguistics. ir to TEOPHS1 JIUTEPATYPHOTO SI3bIKA A. BAPAHAYCKACA Pe310Me IporpeccHBHtie MEH HATYpaJIMCTH4eCcKOTO HartpaBJieHHusi H. Ka3anckoli JIMHTBHCTH4eCKONH TOKOJIbI, TUIOJIOTBODHO TIOBJIHABINMKE Ha pa3BHTHe HALUKHOHAJILHOTO JIHTOBCKOTO S135IKO3HAHHA, HDpOHHKAJIH IIpexkJIE BCEro Yepe3 IrocpejiCTBO cBOe0Gpas3Hoilt Teopux OGureHarMOKHAJIBHOTO (JIHTepaTypHOro) s3sIKA, TItocTpoeHHoHt A. Bapanayckacom BO BTOpO# rrojiOBMHe XIX sera. 28 Min. ill., p. 133. 188