Lingvistinis ir socialinis kodifikacijos santykis su norma

PROBLEMS OF SOCIAL LINGUISTICS LITHUANIAN KALBOTYROS QUESTIONS, XIX (1979) Pranas KNIŪKŠTA LINGUISTICAL AND SOCIAL RELATIONSHIP OF CODIFICATION WITH NORM The language norm is one of the most important problems and components of language practice. The concept of norm has been formed and evolved together with the theory of literary language and language culture and is mutually related to it. From the theoretical concept of language culture arises the attitude to norm, and the understanding of norm in turn affects the whole theory of ir persuasion culture practice. The term is used in two meanings. In everyday language and in literature on language practice, norms refer to formulated, generally and in writing recorded rules, instructions and examples that must be followed, or specific linguistic facts that are allowed to be used. This is understood as the norm There is a deliberately processed ir regulated phenomenon of speech, having a subjective social nature. In the theoretical literature, the term norm is used in a broader sense, namely the real laws and phenomena — established in language, "regularly used grammatical and lexical means" [['aBpanek B., 1967, 339]. From Since the time of the Prague Linguistic Club, a distinction has been made between the actual usage of language, which we call the norm, and the fixation, approval and regulation of usage, which is called codification. Į the subjective social moments that we saw in the first case are not included in the norm understood in this way. They are left for codification. Czech linguists have studied language norms as a sociolinguistic ir phenomenon. This approach is widely accepted in ir Soviet linguistics. Linguistic social ir approach to the norm stems from the corresponding —structural and functional — approach to language: linguistic of that, į Prague Linguistic iš Club In the words of theses, “language is a system of means of expression”, structural that that system — “helps to achieve a certain goal” [Te3ncki, 1967, 17]. The social nature of the norm is directly demonstrated by the fact that it ji is a common language for ta the speaking collective, that it changes with ji social conditions, su and finally that it has elements that deviate from the ji language system. Another important principle of Czech linguists is to clearly distinguish usage from ir literary language. — Tą Applying the principle to Lithuanian, we distinguish the norms of literary language of the folk spoken ir language. Jų social ir linguistic foundations are somewhat different. The standard of the popular language is entirely based on usage. Use is the basis of the norms of ir literary language, but they are also influenced by language theory, linguistic and other social efforts. ir To belongs jų the codification, the efforts to realize the tą codification, which can be called normalization [HuxoBuu B. A., 1970, 13], ir various external causes that determine the fate of individual norms. The norms of literary language are more perceived by its users, more binding, more stable than the norms of spoken language, because only having stable norms literary language can fulfill its functions of being, firstly, a reliable and accurate means of communication for the whole society and, secondly, a reliable and — accurate means of communication. In order to successfully work on the language ir culture of literary language normalization, it is necessary to understand how ir ir iš ko the mechanism of literary language norms is 85 formed, which, for ir what reasons the usage comes here, can be determined iš by the ką linguistic ar efforts of a different society. ar A comprehensive theory of Lithuanian language culture has not yet been developed, but its general principles are already being formulated. They are taught P. Ionian (1937, 529—544), J. Palionio (1961, 5—21), K. Ulvydo (1965, 3—8; 1967, 36—67), A. Pupkio (1970, 65—67; 1972,5—11; 1977,23—29), A. Girdenis (1970, 65—67; 1977, 23 —29), A. Piro¢kinas (1970, 5—11), V. Labutis (1970, 12—18; 1972, 12-16), A. Paulauskienė (1972, 16 —26) and other linguists. These principles, and our theory of language culture in general, are based mainly on the ideas of the Prague Linguistic Club and the theoretical works of Soviet Russian linguists. There are two sources of contemporary Lithuanian literary language: the living folk language (dialects) and the literary language itself, although there are different opinions about the relationship between them. There is no doubt that the literary language usage, the thought of linguists, absoluted the meaning of written language. Our literary language is much more closely related to the folk language and still fills its wealth from it. Those norms that are taken and codified from usage for literary language come here with the social and linguistic causes that allowed them to arise and acquire. For language normalization, it is more important not the reasons for their emergence, but which phenomena and for what reasons become or can become the norm of literary language, and for whom the paths to it are blocked. Lithuanian linguists have raised various criteria by which existing or new language phenomena are assessed from the point of view of codification. The most common criteria are traditional criteria of purity, regularity and clarity. The following are also mentioned: accuracy, logic, aesthetics, frequency of use, typicality. Linguistic of these are regularity and typicality, social — frequency of use and aesthetics. Purity — clearly mixed, others are also difficult to classify. Recently, the criteria of purposefulness and systematicity have been increasingly mentioned and emphasized. The criterion of purposefulness refers to the evaluation of language phenomena according to how they perform their purposes and functions. According to him, if a language phenomenon performs its task, it is good, if it does not, it is bad. The criterion of purposefulness stems from the social nature of language and evaluates language norms only from the outside. It does not tell us anything about the internal characteristics of norms, we cannot use it to verify the linguistic value of existing, and even less of emerging linguistic phenomena, and therefore we cannot consider it to be “the only real basis for the codification of literary language” [[upasuuc A., Tlynkuc A., 1977, 23]. In addition, there are other criteria, such as linguistic criteria. One of the most linguistic is the criterion of systematicity. It is quite close to regularity, only regularity is more understood as agreement with individual laws of language or codified rules, and systematicity — as agreement with the system of language. The systematicity of language is so important and necessary that some consider it not a criterium at all, but a,,presumption of the existence of language and its norm, a conditio sine qua non” [Girdenis A., Pupkis A., 1970, 67]. However, systematicity cannot be excluded from the criteria. The same conditio sine gua non is purposefulness, but purposefulness is social, and systematicity is a linguistic prerequisite for the existence of language and its norms. The natural phenomena of language correspond to both, and therefore the norms of literary language can only be assessed by cross-evaluating them from the point of view of purposefulness and systematicity. All other criteria shall be combined with them or used when they are insufficient. Not even such an important criterion as purity can be applied fruitfully separately from both, and not from one purpose. Those phenomena of foreign origin that duplicate words or constructions of their own language are distinguished according to the criteria of purity and purposefulness. However, the most important measure of the value of strangeness is still systematicity (regularity). We must reject unconditionally those foreign phenomena that do not fit into our language system and disrupt it. These are usually syntactic and word-forming foreign words with the best Lithuanian equivalents, e.g.: jis grįžo pirmą birželio (=.birZelio pirmą); 86 remained on the ballot for three days (= had a ballot); spark arrester (= catcher); atremontoval (= suremontoval) the tractor. There is no justification for such system-breaking alienations, for which it is more difficult to find replacements. In such cases, more ingenuity is required. Having distanced ourselves from the valuable original, we successfully replaced the written press with the literary press, because the writers’ press was not suitable for this purpose. However, excusing ourselves that,,there is nothing to replace”, we tolerate the verb to oppose, which is incompatible with Lithuanian word formation. And after all, overcoming inertia, we could change either opposition or opposition. jį Tų We cannot ar condemn valuable borrowings, whose ar constructive structure fits the internal form of the Lithuanian language system and which are necessary from the point of view of purposefulness, simply because they are of foreign origin. Self-criticism, varstotas or blynas have all the rights of Lithuanian words. In the Lithuanian language, grater has finally become part of the norms. We are beginning to understand that we will have to admit the packet, but, despite the purposefulness, we still want to call the cup a basket, the chandelier a lamp, the meat a minced meat. And in general, a considerable number of borrowed words are rejected by the codificators not because they are unnecessary or because they do not believe in the Lithuanian language, but because of tradition, national self-respect and other subjective reasons. Such self-respect is, of course, necessary for a linguist, but it cannot be done on the basis of codification. Putting the criteria of purposefulness and systematicity in the first place; However, they do not allow the phenomena of language to be arranged in continuous sequences. For example, it seems unnecessary to have several ways of expressing the same reality, but synonymous, even parallel phenomena, except for terminology, are not a defect. It is pointless to consider which of the variants — hare or hare, bear or bear — to keep in literary language, which to drive out of it. Language tries to regulate excessive phenomena itself — either differentiating them, or choosing one of them, and it is not necessary to artificially overtake it. i'Variations of norms are a natural phenomenon of language, as well as of literature. Without them, we could not differentiate functional styles, which theoretically now everyone recognizes, but in practice not one avoids or even corrects the statements of informational and official style: exit into the city through a tunnel, opened a meeting, ensure participation. Variations do not destroy the norms of language, but only make them more fluid, allowing gradual transition from one to another. The variation of the norm through variants helps to maintain the fluctuating (dynamic) stability, eliminates the contradiction between the stability of the norm and its development [Mertesuye B., 1967, 381; Emnnuka A., 1967, 553; Cksopuos JI. H., 1970, 68]. Inflexible, non-variable codification often undermines stability. This is clearly shown by the -ic pronunciation of adjectives. In the three normative dictionaries of the Lithuanian language published over three decades, the rules of pronunciation of these adjectives have been amended and adjusted and, in accordance with them, the pronunciation of individual ar adjectives. For example, "kirčiavas breeding, gas, tea, RŽ DŽ ir DZ, —breed, gas, tea; RZ and DZ were pronounced all-personal, relative, DZ, social, relative; adjective, syntactic, — RZ — DZ — adjective, syntactic, DZ, again adjective, syntactic. DZ, has changed about 150 DZ the pronunciation of adjectives. What is considered the norm in one dictionary becomes an error in another. To would not happen if there was no fear of recognizing the real-life variants of the norm. The rate would only be ne more flexible, but stable. ir The stability of norms is undermined ir by the excessive desire to fit them into a į schematized system, to ‘the principle of continuing regularity’ [Maresuyc, 1967, 384]. Continuous rules are more productive in codifying new ar phenomena. For example, word formation requires specialized suffixes typical of ir 1 True, DZ, about ten variants of pronunciation of these adjectives have appeared, but many more have even more uniformly jų pronounced forms, for example, suffixes -ing adjectives. Be variants here are given even derivatives of double-pronounced nouns su -inis: commemorative (:please 1, proga 4), irklinis (:irklas 1, 3), Species (: Species 1, Species 4); Storm (:audra dudra 4, vapsvynis vapsva 1), word formation (: patterns, although 2, 4). 87 there are some differences. Here we need word roots taken from the periphery of usage, atypical suffixes and additional internal word formation tools. All the more so, it is possible to insert into schematic rules only cautiously words that have become used in the language and are not in principle contrary to the system. į For a long time we used the nouns workplace, agenda. But then someone came up with the idea of replacing the connective vowel o, which does not coincide with the stem of the first point, with a more “regular” a. Those who are dissatisfied with the vowel o, but understand the harm of word-form alternation, use the compounds work order, work place. By blocking the established variants with o, we violated not only stability, but also the principle of purposefulness: three variants appeared for the same concepts. Furthermore, two different concepts are confused: the place of work, ‘place of work’ and the place of work, ‘establishment of work’. All this would not be the case if we had left the connective vowel alone, because it does not necessarily have to coincide with the stem, cf.: for works — darbymetis, for legs —kojugalis, for borders — kraštotyra. In the case of adjectives, the ending of the compound word must be -is, because, as you hear, the ending of the compound word has to be -is. They do not want to introduce noun numerals into literary language, because there is no word numerals in it. There was even a "corrected" version of the word figures. But is it not possible to make a term necessary for literary language from a dialect word? After all, we do not condemn the influx because the verb of literary language is not to flood, but to overflow. Finally, is it not possible to take the words composed and used there from the dialect and understand them as non-derived? In all these and many other cases, correcting alleged irregularities ignores the purpose and actual usage. It is particularly worrying that dialect words that do not fit into the rules created by grammar are mistakenly pronounced. A. Jonaitytė has expressed this concern in the following way: “Reading the articles of some linguists or listening to their speeches, one sometimes gets the impression that dialects are almost the biggest problem of our language and that all the problems of the language are mainly due to them” (1969, 2). The use of the noun year with numerals can also be attributed to this problem. In literary language, years, like other plural nouns, are required to be used only with plurals. In the press this is now done, but in unedited writings, colloquial non-dialectal language and dialects, the ordinary nouns are mostly used with this word. The Lithuanian Language Dictionary (1970, 90—100) presents eleven sentences with numerals from one to nine in the year: one with the numerals vieni, trys with treji, the other seven with the ordinary numerals frys (2x), šeši (2x), septyni. Eight, nine. In „Lietuvių kalbos dialektų chrestomatijoje“ (1970) it was possible to find 110 times with quantitative numerals from one to nine used word metai. Here, too, it usually goes with ordinary, not plural, nouns. The usage of the year in the chrestomaty is shown in the table at p. 89. ; Both the Dictionary and the Chrestomatia data show that throughout Lithuania the most common sayings are two, three years, although two, three years are also used. From four to nine with the noun years almost all of Lithuania uses ordinary quantitative numerals. (Plural nouns, with the suffix -eli, are consistently used with the year only in a small corner of north-eastern Lithuania — the Ignalina and Švenčionys districts.) The use of these nouns with the year deviates from the continuous regularity in two respects. First, ordinary quantitative numerals are used not only in those dialects that use the singular form time to name the astronomical period of time („rog“), and secondly — next to dvaji, triji often say four, five... nine years. There are sentences in the chrestomaty, even from the very east of Lithuania, where next to the plural there are two other numerals — the ordinary: Račiūkuose dvių mėtų vaikėlį traūkė, o penkiū mėtų pasku račiukūs eina (283) (Mančiušėnai, Širvintų rajonas); Four years she was a shepherdess, two years she was a mermaid (355) (Sutai, Švenčionių 88 Skaitvardis Žem. | Vacuum. | Vid. Morning. Dz. | Not lit. | Total to one —2 = = = = 2 alone —3 —3 1 i 9 of 6 || = || 2 = 10 | dvaji |--3 | 1 6 1 1 13 3 three 4 3 = gi, — —10 three =-= —2 2 —4 , | four TA ee 6 1 | 4 9 four —= = = | i = = | | ; | | | k five | 4 = pate | sand penkeri — —| —mia D | || | 6 | | 6 šeši || | —2 1 = | 4 šešeri == = L „2. -| -— | „| seven ad this 5 9 i Reg (E seven = -——2 =p 2 | 8 eight || —2 3 —| = 6 | eight ——= J || | || | 2 9 nine = 3 1 2 = -| 6 | "nine - | = TT = = EEL to || | cm = : | : paprastyju 21 10 9 | 30 6 —76 Total als multiplied 3 4 1 | 11 12 3 34 No, no, no. | raj. ). — Apparently, the length of the word and the ease of articulation are ir important: one thing is to pronounce two, three, another seven, nine, let alone ninety-nine years. — o That inconvenience actually only occurs in years. su Su other plural nouns, such as gloves, scissors, ceilings, doors, fur, shirts, the most commonly used numerals are one, two, three, the number of years we often mention the most diverse. The frequent need for numerals in long o form forces years to use more convenient ir variants. The use of language is influenced by tų a variety of other factors, ir which, jų intertwining and complementing su each other, create a living language. ir ir Do we not, by ignoring usage for reasons of systematism, destroy trust in living language, cut off the roots of natural ar language? 89 It is possible to answer these questions in one way or another, but it is certainly a misunderstanding to add the suffix -eri to the plural of a number. Ones is a plural anyway. The singular plural form is only necessary with plural nouns, because there are other numerals for more than one thing: two, three, four… Between one and one there is the same relation as between two and two, cf.: jedna rukavice —one gloves (one pair) and dvě rukavice — two gloves (two pairs). The word oneri is not used in any dialect, neither with years nor with other plural nouns. It is said: Five barns, one door; One window was removed, the other remained. Only after we started to confuse seven and seven years, we came up with the idea of replacing one year with one. And then there was one house, one machine, even every year. To complete “regularity” it is only necessary to replace two, three with twos, threes. Even one after another of those linguists whose theoretical articles contain rather moderate ideas deviate to excessive purity and continuous regularity. Theory and practice do not quite coincide, apparently because practical recommendations, corrections and their principles are based on a long tradition, and theoretical ideas are mostly taken from the works of linguists of other nations. We do not always manage to reconcile these two things. They are not always sufficiently relevant to our current situation. After all, not everything that is suitable for other languages is adapted to Lithuanian, and not everything that has been introduced into Lithuanian language practice is adapted and suitable for our days. We should not have any illusions that all the wishes of the current linguists will be satisfied and all their proposals will be accepted. The work of linguists on language culture and standardization will be the more effective the better it meets the linguistic needs of society and the more the language practice takes into account the linguistic and social conditions characteristic of the current Lithuanian literary language. Dictionary of Modern Lithuanian Language. V., 1954. Dictionary of Modern English. V., 1972. Girdenis A., Pupkis A. Common language norms and their codification. —Cultural Bars, 1970, No. 1. Jonaitytė A. Literary language and dialects. —Language culture and dialects (Language section workbook No. 13). V., 1969. Jonikas P. Our common problems of written language culture. 1937, No. 12, p. Labutis V. On the attitude to language errors and corrections. —Theory and Practice of Language Culture (Notebook of the Lithuanian Language Section No. 18). V., 1970. Labutis V. Principles of lexical and word formation standardization. —Our Language, 1972, No. 8. Lithuanian language dialects. Chrestomatija. V., 1970. Dictionary of the English Language. V., 1970, t. Palionis J. On the basis and criteria of literary language standardization. - Kn. : Current English language. V., 1961. Paulauskienė A. Problems of norming grammatical phenomena. —Our Language, 1978, No. 8. Pirochkin A. J. Jablonsky's basics and principles of language standardization. —Theory and Practice of Language Culture (Notebook of the Lithuanian Language Section No. 18). V., 1970. Pupkis A. Principles of compilation of the "Language Practice Guide". —Our Language, 1972, No. 8. Dictionary of the English Language. K., 1948. LUlvydas K. On the concept of language culture. —The culture of language. 1965, pp. 9. Ulvydas K. Problems of the normalization of the lexicon of contemporary Lithuanian literary language. - Kn. : Lithuanian language in the Soviet years. V., 1967. T'aspanek B. 3ajnaun sureparypuoro s13biKa H ero KyjIbTypa. - B Ku. : TpaxcekHit JIHHTBHCTHyeckHH KpyxoK. M., 1967. Fupasuuc A., NMynkuc A. Bonpochl Kojudįdukaunu JHTOBCKOTO si3bika. —Our Language, 1977, No. 5. Enpanuka A. O npaxckoii Teopus JinTepaTypHOro si3bika. - B ku. : [Ipamckuii HH BHCTHYECKHMIT Kpymok. M., 1967. B. A. Hopma n ee Kojudėduranusi. - B Ku. : Akryanbubie MpočieMbi KyJbTYpPbl PeuH. 3:211970; 90 \ \IMHTBHCTHYE CK OF MU COUMAJIbHOE COOTHOWEHHS KOJH®HKALMH H HOPMbI | 7 Maresnyc B. The newly-founded crater JuTepaTypHoro. - B ku. : Ilpaxckuit JIHHTBHCTHUECKHH KpyxoK. M., 1967. Cksopuos JI. H. Hopwva. He's been repairing the s3bik. Kyabrypa is afraid. - B ku. : AkryaJibubie npo6JeMbI KYJIbTYDpkI fear. M., 1970. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. - B Ki. : Tlpamckuit JUHTBHCTHUECKHH KpYKOK. M., 1967. Institute of Lithuanian Language and Literature r ’ / ra Pe31o Me / Hopmsa —“Q/iHa 13 OCHOBHBIX TIPOG. IEM H COCTABHBIX uacTeli KyJIbTYpBI fear. Tepmun „HopMa““ yrnorpeb.asercs BYX 3HAUYEHHSIX: BO-TIEPBBIX, HOpMAa —COPMY. IHPOBaHHBIE H 3aQUKCHPOBaHHble NpaBHJia H YKa3aHHs JHTEPATYPHOTO A3bIKA, BO-BTOPBIX, —ITO peasibHOe OOIIeNPHHATOE ynoTpedOjieHHe S3bIKOBRIX CPeACTB (BTOpOe 3HaueHHe HOPMbl CBOHCTBEHHO JIHTEPATYPHOMY S3BIKY H pasroBopHOil peur). COBETCKOE, B TOM UHCJIE H JHTOBCKOE, 53bIKO3HAHHe MDHAEPIKHBACTCS mueHns [1pakcKOro JiHHTBHCTHUeCKOTO KPYIKKaA: HOPMA SIBJISIETCSI JIHHTBHCTHUECKHM H COUHAJIbHIM siBjenneM. HMeioTCS OTOpHIE pa3j1HUHs5 MEXKAY JIHHTBHCTHUECKHMH H COLHAJbHBIMH OCHOBaMH HOPMBI JIMTEPATYPHOW H pasroBopHoil peur. [leppas mojisepraercsi BO3JEHCTBHIO HE TOKO OGBEKTHBHBIX, HO, B 3HAYHTEJbHOIl Mepe, H CyOBEeKTHBHBIX COIHAJbHBIX (AKTOPOB. O6uenpu3Hansl Ba HCTOYHHKA HOPM JHTOBCKOTO THTEPATYPHOrO $i3bIKa: HApOJHAast peub H ynorpebseHHe B CaMOM JHTepaTypHOM #A3bike. OnpeessioTcsi pa3Hbleé KPHTEPHH HOpMAJIH3auHH JIHTEpaTypHOTO SI3bIKA —TPaBHJIBHOCTb, UHCTOTA, TOYHOCTb, JIOTHYHOCTb H Ap. B mnocJejlHee BpeMsi Ha TMepBblil IJIaH BbIABHTAIOTCH KPHTEPHH 11€1€C000pa3HOCTH H CHCTEMHOCTH. IlepBbili H3 HEX SBJSETCA BHEIIHHM, CONHAJIBHLIM, BTOpOH —BHYTPEHHHM, A3BIKOBHIM. [TpiwveHAS Ba 3TH KPHUTEPHS COBMECTHO, MOXHO Ole HOPMY JIUTEpaTypHoro sisbika. Bee apyrue KPHTEPHH, B TOM YHCJE H KpHTepHH YHCTOTHI a, ABJSIOTCS BTOPOCTENEHHBIMH H BCIIOMOraTeabHBIMH. “HCTEMHOCTH MpPEJOCTaB IAT BO3MOXKHOCTH Oanako npn KoauuKauuu JuTepa KaK O/H, Tak H Apyroi i pi COOGpaKEHHAM 11€/18Co00Pa3HOCTH HeNONYCTHMO HCK. TIOyeHHe M3 JHTePaTypPHOTrO SI3blKa CHHOHHMHUYECKHX (opM BhipaXeHHs. BapHaHTHOCTb —HeH3OexKHOE CBOHCTBO Ji TEpaTypHOH HOpAibl. BapnaHThi crnoco6CTBYIOT CTHAHCTHYECKOH AuddepernuaIMM SI3BIKOBBIX CPEACTB H VCTPAASIOT NIPOTHBOPEYHS MEXKAY CTaOH. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Ha npumepe naMeKHeHHH aKHNeHTVAIIHH HMeH IpH. JIaraTeJIbHbIX ¢ CYOGOHKCOM -inis BHAHO, UTO HMEHHO OTCYTCTBHE BapHaHTOB/HapyllaeT CTAOH. IbHOCTb Hopmbi. N He csenyer a6cojudrH3HpoBaTb H NpHHOHTI NpsMOJiHHefiHON pery spHOCTH H HCNPaBIATH CJI0Ba, KOTOPBIE OTOLWIH OT KHHXKHOH CXeMbl, HanpuMep: workplace (ua darbovietė), square (na kvadratas), numbers (na skaičiai). Take care not to be overwhelmed by the 4acTo Hap YHIAKT CTaOHJIbHOCTb HOPMBI HJIH TIpHBAuT uesecoobpasHocTH. I've been with you for seven, nine years. Ho, nec ercst ohopMjieHHe UH CIN TE IbHOTO vieni (no npumepy ketv-eri, septyn-eri) ČUIOMONIBIO +year. Y Vepemuas paGota KyjibTYpbiI peuH H HOpMAjIH3aLHA JK TEpaTypHOTO SI3bIKA BO3MOMKHBI R I'm sorry. sa t “ “ Lietuvos TSR Scientific JHOJEHHH COBOKYTIHOCTH JIHHTBHCTHUECKHX H COHLHAIbHLIX-Y (r) TEDHLIX, AJA “X AN Ee ———