Традиция и новаторство в нормализации языка

MOKSLO KALBOS KULTŪROS IR TERMINOLOGIJOS PROBLEMOS LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI, XXIV(1985) Aina Blinkena TRADITION AND INNOVATION IN LANGUAGE STANDARDIZATION When considering the problem of language standardization, the need to observe a strict system and achieve complete logic and precision in language is usually emphasized. However, as the evidence of language shows, not everything in language conforms to systematicity, and not everything is “logical” here in the literal sense of the word; it is no coincidence that grammars of all languages include a whole range of lists of various exceptions, that is, words that are not incorporated into a systematic paradigm and have their own grammatical peculiarities. For example, Latvian Class III verbs mācīt, mīcīt, mocīt, locīt, slodzīt, tūcīt are conjugated in different ways: there is no consonant alternation in the verbs mācīt, mīcīt, tūcīt (es mācu, mīcu, tūcu, tu māci, mīci, tūci, viņš māca, mīca, tūca, etc.), whereas the verbs mocīt, locīt, slodzīt have forms with consonant alternation (es moku, loku, slogu; tu moki, loki, slogi; viņš moka, loka, sloga…) as well as forms without alternation (es mocu, locu, slodzu, tu moci, loci, slodzi; viņš moca, loca, slodza…), although only the forms with consonant alternation are recognized as the literary norm. A well-known irregularity occurs not only in morphology but also in syntax, particularly in the government of different words. It is not only the logic of grammar that determines what we say: to travel by plane, by tram, but to travel by train; to arrive from Moscow, from Leningrad, but to arrive from the Urals. Phraseological expressions, which have “their own logic,” do not conform at all to a formal logical system; for example, Latvian saule lec literally the sun jumps means “the sun rises,” and so on. F. P. Filin wrote: “Language is a system of a special kind, in which systematicity is dialectically combined with anti-systematicity, and rules with exceptions. Were there no contradictions in the language system, it would be a dead, static scheme, incapable of development and progress. The structure of this contradictory system can be understood and explained only from the standpoint of dialectical and historical materialism. The synchronous study of language, which has always existed in linguistics and is necessary for many purposes, merely describes its state, whereas historical study has explanatory power, since it shows what preceded what, why certain changes took place or are taking place, and why language became what we know it to be”1. 1 Филин Ф. П. Об актуальных задачах советского языкознания.— ВЯ, 1981, № 1, с. 5. 22 As early as 1937, the Lithuanian linguist Petras Jonikas2 emphasized the need to reconcile social and individual factors in order to achieve a literary norm that would be optimal for a particular community. He acknowledged the stabilization of the norm, but only to the extent that stabilization would not degenerate into stagnation, which could lead to the language becoming numb. According to P. Jonikas, mathematical regularity does not exist in language; other criteria also operate in defining the norm, such as purpose and functionality, which in the modern literary language tend to take precedence in the process of standardization, and these criteria already extend beyond the boundaries of a single language. Thus, P. Jonikas already recognized the possibility of variant and parallel forms of language, agreeing with the words of Vilém Mathesius, a representative of the Prague Linguistic Circle: “One may debate the principles of the approach, but one cannot create a system of language control that functions precisely and faultlessly like an automatic electric switch”3. The Czech linguist V. Mathesius, an advocate of the theory of the autonomy of the literary language, devotes considerable attention to the principles of language standardization and rejects the principle of straightforward regularity in standardization: “The principle of historical purity and the demand for straightforward regularity cannot, therefore, either separately or together, provide a reliable basis for establishing stability in the literary Czech language. If one relies on them too heavily, the stability already achieved is ultimately disrupted, thereby undermining one of the main conditions for linguistic refinement”4. There is no need to subject all linguistic phenomena to a strict system if they are already well established in language use. For example, in Latvian, deverbal adjectives in -igs are usually formed on the basis of the past tense of a verb (dot, dodu, devu — devīgs; smiet smeju, smēju — (iz)smējīgs; ņemt, ņemu, ņēmu — pieņēmīgs), but the language also contains cases in which tradition has entrenched similar derivatives formed on the basis of the present tense (mirt, mirstu, miru — mirstīgs; šķirt, šķiru, šķīru — atšķirīgs). Consequently, attempts by linguists to classify the adjectives jūtīgs, lidzjūtīgs as nonliterary failed, since they are formed on the basis of the present tense of the verb. Similarly, it proved impossible to eradicate from the language the verbs rīpot and slēpot, which tradition had entrenched in place of the more “correct” forms rīpēt, slēpēt, and the like. Although linguists have been waging a campaign against the word patreiz (instead of the correct pašreiz) for 50 years now, this campaign 2 Jonikas P. Mūsų bendrinės rašomosios kalbos kultūros problema. Kalbos normalizacija, funkcinė struktūra ir kalbininkai.— Židinys, 1937, Nr. 12, p. 529—544. 3 Mathesius V. On the need for stability in the literary language.— In: The Prague Linguistic Circle. Moscow, 1967, p. 392. 4 Ibid., p. 385. 23 remains fruitless. It is obvious that the language system permits the variants pat- and paš- even in formations in which it is difficult to establish semantic or word-formational differences. Latvian has words with the component paš- (<paša, pašu): pašlaik, pašlabums, pašsavaldība, pašlepnums, pašdarbība, pašgājējs, and others, in which this component appears in its “legitimate” form. But there are also words with the first component pat- (from the nominative stem pats): patlabāk, patmīlība, patvaļība, patvarīgs, patvaļīgs, patsautene and the like, including the linguistic term patskanis “vowel,” used by all linguists without objection. Therefore, both variants should be recognized as literary: pašreiz and patreiz. Other similar examples could also be cited. The tradition of adapting foreign words, particularly proper names, is highly significant in a language. In Latvian, in principle, the rules and methods for rendering foreign proper names that were developed by Juris Alunāns some 120 years ago still apply: to adapt them in a form that corresponds, as far as possible, to their pronunciation in the original language5. But in some cases tradition has established inaccurate forms of rendering, such as Maskava, Parīze, Pērnava, Florence, Brails, Meterlinks, Lāgerlefa, and others. It seems that these words should be retained in the form established by long-standing tradition, and there is no need to reshape them in accordance with modern principles as Moskva, Parī, Peru, Firenze, Bratijs, Māterlinks, Lāgerlēva. Otherwise, historical continuity may be lost—the word will lose its connection with a specific object. This does not mean that the problem of rendering foreign proper names should not be studied—indeed, it must be—but when codifying rules for rendering them, the importance of tradition must not be forgotten. A distinctly individual approach to words that have become established is entirely justified. Names that have entered the language in recent times, however, should be subject to the influence of the language system as far as possible. Tradition of usage is very important in lexical normalization, particularly in the normalization of terminology. Two types of examples may be cited in this regard. The first type consists of words used as terms that have become established in the language with a particular meaning and are retained even when the development of science reveals new properties of the concept. Thus, the term atom, Latin atoms, from Greek atomos, “indivisible,” continues to function in all languages even after it became known that the atom can be divided. Similar changes in meaning occurred with the concept that for a long time was denoted by the term ves (Latvian svars, Lithuanian svoris, Estonian 5 Alunāns J. Kāds vārds par latviešu valodu.— In: Izlase. Rīgā, 1956, 45.—52. lpp. 24 kaal, English weight, German Gewicht). When scientists determined that the terms mentioned did not fully reflect the concept they expressed, which must take into account not only mass but also acceleration dependent on the gravitational pull of the Earth, in 1961 the International Committee on Nomenclature and Symbols decided to abandon the term weight (and the corresponding equivalents in different languages) and use the term mass instead. In accordance with this resolution, all countries are shifting to the term mass—not only in science but also in general language use (for example, in the USSR, candy boxes bore the words: mass 500 g). This creates difficulties in language practice. Thus, the word of Indo-European origin svars is deeply rooted in Latvian and forms the basis of many derivatives and phrases, such as svarīgs, piesvars, tīrsvars, līdzsvars, svarcelšana, svara kategorijas, svara vienības, nepilns svars and others, in which it is difficult, even impossible, to use the term masa (bezsvara stāvoklis). That the decision to replace this term raises doubts even among specialists is shown by an article by N. I. Holden, chair of the International Commission on Atomic Weights and Isotopic Abundances6, in which he notes that the commission takes a conservative position on this matter—it always tries to avoid changes unless they are clearly necessary and seeks to ensure that any innovation significantly improves the present situation; so far, these two conditions have not been met. Along with N. I. Holden, one may question whether breaking with tradition will succeed. On the other hand, those who normalize language must not forget that the norm is a historical category, that it develops and changes as the language develops. What is considered non-literary today may acquire literary status tomorrow. In the works of the Prague linguists, conservatism is already being rejected as a defining feature of the literary language, and the historical legitimacy of a form is no longer considered an exhaustive source of the norm. R. A. Budagov, discussing the concept of “literary language,” draws attention to the historical variability of the concept of “cultivated form of language” and to the well-known dynamism in ideas about the stability of literary-language norms. He stresses that, however important the norm may be, it is historically mobile7. If we compare, for example, the recommendations on correct literary speech made by V. Rūķe and J. Endzelīns in 19408, we will see that many of these recommendations no longer correspond to the actual process of development 6 Холден Н. И. Атомный вес: быть или не быть? — Химия и жизнь, 1982, № 6, с. 30—31. 7 Budagov, R. A. On the question of the place of Soviet linguistics in contemporary linguistics. — VYa, 1981, No. 3, p. 16. 8 Valodas un rakstības jautājumi / Rediģējis J. Endzelīns, sakārtojusi V. Rūķe. — Rīga, 1940, 64. lpp. 25 of the Latvian literary language. In this brochure, the words celtnis, ēdnīca, izdevniecība, izlietne, lozungs, rēķins, rivmaize, among others, are criticized as incorrectly formed, although today they have undoubtedly become established in the literary language. In B. Havránek’s view, “Habitual use sanctions the existence of special words, especially in practical language. Words that have become established, regardless of how they were formed (whether incorrectly formed or corrupted, as in baulna, cf. Baumwolle), have a right to exist in the language”9. The same can be said of certain words and expressions that V. Ruke and J. Endzelīns objected to in the 1940s because of their semantic incongruity, for example: aizdomīgs ‘suspicious’ with reference to the object of an action; izpildīt ‘to fulfil’ (pienākumu, solījumu, priekšnesumu); the authors reject krist acīs and recommend durties acīs, but both expressions are permissible in the language, and both are idiomatic. In Latvian linguistics, one can sometimes observe a certain tendency to take an excessively strict view of forms and expressions that were once deemed unacceptable but are now frequently used by speakers of the literary language. This so-called hypernormalization is harmful because unrealistic recommendations diminish the prestige and effectiveness of those that genuinely contribute to improving standards of speech. Among such hypernormal restrictions one may cite the prohibition against using comparative and superlative forms of certain participles, such as ievērojamāks, apdāvinātāks, vispieredzējušākais and the like, and the recommendation to use only the nominative case in comparative constructions, for example, tādu gārīšu kā kobra un pitons audzēšana, rather than tādu gārīšu kā kobru un pitonu audzēšana. As M. M. Makovsky observes, “in the process of language use and development, general, collective patterns are continuously transformed and modified through individual use; in particular, former prohibitions imposed by the national norm may in time become the norm, while normative phenomena often lose their significance for the language as a whole”10. To some extent, a negative attitude toward borrowing words is sometimes observed, especially for realities that did not exist here and were previously unfamiliar to us—for example, names of fashionable goods such as bluzons, šorti, and of objects and phenomena such as kruizs, voljers, stress, among others. In B. Mathesius’s view, “from the standpoint of language culture, 9 Гавранек Б. Задачи литературного языка и его культура.— В кн.: Пражский лингвистический кружок. М., 1967, с. 370. 10 Маковский М. М. Системность и антисистемность в языке.— М., 1980, с. 149. 26 a borrowed foreign word that enriches the range of nuances of the Czech literary language through its expressiveness is, compared with purists’ neologisms built on the basis of the native language, the lesser evil—if it is an evil at all”11. In the process of normalizing Latvian, as with all other languages, greater attention should be paid to language variants, and a freer choice of linguistic means should be allowed. Latvian linguistics has done little in this regard, although in other languages the problem of variation has become one of the central issues over the past decade. Linguists L. K. Graudina, K. S. Gorbachevich, and others devote particular attention to variants of the Russian literary language. In the methodology of Marxist linguistics, the dialectical principle of constant movement, change, and development plays a crucial role; in language, the law of unity and opposites operates as an internal source of development. Observing this law and applying this principle constitute an important and complex task for those who establish language norms. “The presence of infinitely varied forms of variation is the wealth of a developed language, enabling it to express a multitude of semantic and stylistic shades and nuances that matter in communication” 12. By allowing variant forms, we can foster the development of language to an optimal level, preserve traditions, and open the way to new positive tendencies. The optimal combination of tradition and innovation is the goal toward which our linguists should strive. 11 Матезиус В. Указ. соч., с. 387. 12 Филин Ф. П. Противоречия и развитие языка.— ВЯ, 1980, № 2, с. 18.