Ideologizacijos raiška pokario lietuvių kalbotyroje

DANGUOLĖ MIKULĖNIENĖ Institute of the Lithuanian Language ORCID id: orcid.org/0000-0001-7781-7236 RESEARCH AREAS: geolinguistics, Baltic dialectology, synchronic and diachronic dialectology, morphonology, the history of the Lithuanian language and linguistics. DOI: doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2023.96.02 MANIFESTATIONS OF IDEOLOGIZATION IN POSTWAR LITHUANIAN LINGUISTICS KEYWORDS: Lithuanian linguistics, lexicography, dialectology, language history, ideologization, simplification. ANNOTATION Drawing on early postwar publications by prominent linguists at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language—Juozas Balčikonis, Jonas Kruopas, and Kazys Ulvydas—this article seeks to examine the methods of ideologization used in scholarly linguistic literature and to determine how the content of Lithuanian linguistics was shaped in the postwar period. Taking into account the particularities and structure of linguistic works, it attempts to identify the variety of ways in which ideologization manifested itself. ABSTRACT This article aims to analyse the methods of ideologization applied in Lithuanian linguistic academic literature during the post-World War II period. Based on a series of publications by the prominent academic linguists Juozas Balčikonis, Jonas Kruopas and Kazys Ulvydas, the study investigates the shaping of Lithuanian linguistics in the 1950s with a view of identifying the diversity of forms of ideologization reflected in the nature and structure of post-war linguistic activities. INTRODUCTION The early postwar period, marked by the repression of Lithuania’s population and the end of armed resistance, came to a close in the 1950s. In the history of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences, 1945–1953 is referred to as a period of strengthening applied research (Krikštopaitis 2013: 242). For Lithuanian studies, this DANGUOLĖ MIKULĖNIENĖ. Ideologizacijos raiška pokario lietuvių kalbotyroje 39 is not applicable: at the end of 1952, the Institute of the Lithuanian Language of the Lithuanian SSR Academy of Sciences ceased to be independent; with its then composition, it was incorporated into the Institute of Lithuanian Literature and became a combined institution—the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature, directed by Kostas Korsakas. To date, discussions of postwar Lithuanian studies have focused more extensively on the history of compiling the great Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language and on the political and ideological context of the scholarly work of linguist Juozas Balčikonis—what aims and tasks the authorities of the time set for him as chief editor of the great dictionary. Less attention has been paid to systemic aspects that would reveal how, from the beginning of the 1950s, postwar Lithuanian studies were steered into the channel of Soviet ideology. The aim of this article is, on the basis of primary sources—that is, articles written by linguists in the early postwar period—to analyze selected linguistic publications and, on that basis, develop an algorithm suitable for more detailed studies of linguistic works from the Soviet period. Accordingly, the following objectives were set: 1) to examine, on the basis of publications from that time, the methods of ideologization used in linguistic scholarly literature and how they were manifested; 2) to determine how the content of Lithuanian linguistics was shaped in the postwar period; 3) to summarize the results of this study. The beginnings of ideological “innovation” are perhaps best revealed by analyzing the work of linguists at the reorganized Institute of the Lithuanian Language. Regardless of the field—lexicography, dialectology, or the history of the Lithuanian language—their work presents a vivid but impoverished picture of postwar linguistics. Accordingly, the material selected for analysis consists of articles by the most prominent linguists of the time—Kazys Ulvydas (1953), Jonas Kruopas (1953), and Juozas Balčikonis (1953)—published in the same collection (LKKK 1953)1. In analyzing them, the abbreviations KU, JK, and JB, respectively, will be used in this paper. This publication was selected as the first (or one of the first) known attempts to introduce elements of a Stalinist worldview into the discourse of Lithuanian linguistics2. Although published in the year of Stalin’s death, the collection is associated with Stalin not only through its title—Questions of the Lithuanian Language and Culture in the Light of J. V. Stalin’s Works on Questions of Linguistics. According to the long-serving 1 The collection must have been prepared with great care and held in very high regard. This is indicated by the names of the collection’s chief editor, J[uozo] Žiugžda, and the members of its editorial board—the academicians J[uozo] Matulis, K[azimiero] Bielukas, Vl[ado] Lašas, and Dz[ido] Budrys; the editorial board’s executive secretary was I[rmia] Zaksas (LKKK 1953: 2). 2 A year earlier, a publication of similar content, prepared on the basis of a conference in Joniškis, had also been sponsored by the Institute of Lithuanian Literature of the time (KTLTL 1952). 40 BENDRINĖ KALBA | 96 With the support of Juozas Matulis, president of the Academy of Sciences of the Lithuanian SSR, the publication drew on Stalin’s “brilliant works On Marxism in Linguistics, On Certain Questions of Linguistic Science, and Reply to Comrades, which had become the most important event in the life of Soviet science” (Matulis 1953: 3). It should be emphasized that, in the struggle against the consequences of Stalin’s cult, this collection of articles was abandoned: the institute’s bibliographies of the 1970s list neither the publication itself nor the articles published in it (LKLI 1973: 53–78; Seselskytė 1981: 73–91). K. Ulvydas’s article was, however, later included in the bibliography of his works (Ulvydo 1995: 10). Because of its strong ideological bias, it was decided not to include Jono Kruopas’s publication in Selected Works (Keinys et al. 1998: 9), while Juozas Balčikonis’s article was reprinted in a considerably abridged form (Balčikonis 1982: 193–200). Thus, these sources appropriately illustrate the chosen subject—the manifestations of ideological bias in Lithuanian linguistics in the early postwar Soviet period. An attempt is made to identify the variety of forms this ideological bias took, taking into account the specific nature and structure of linguistic sources. 1. MACROSTRUCTURAL FEATURES OF POSTWAR ARTICLES Although it is argued that there is no single model common to all humanities articles, and that an entire text may be “presented as a continuous argument,” at least five (or even six) constituent macrostructural parts can be distinguished in Lithuanian-language linguistics articles published in 2007–2012: Introduction, Literature Review, Research Materials and Methods, Results, Conclusions (the wording of their headings may vary), as well as Acknowledgements as a component of the scholarly article (for more, see Šinkūnienė 2014: 28–30). This division of a scholarly article’s macrostructure seems suitable not only for contemporary publications but also for those from the early postwar Soviet period, since it makes it possible to identify more precisely the parts of an article most affected by ideological bias and to reveal the extent of its impact. In the present case, however, the boundaries of each macrostructural element have to be determined by the researcher (see table). It should be noted that the sources selected for analysis differ in length (K. Ulvydas’s publication is three times longer than J. Balčikonis’s article, and J. Kruopas’s is nearly five times longer), but they all retain a fairly similar macrostructure (see table). Thus, it may be assumed that the authors of the articles strictly adhered to the general requirements. DANGUOLĖ MIKULĖNIENĖ. Ideologizacijos raiška pokario lietuvių kalbotyroje 41 TABLE. Macrostructure of the sources Structural sections; Sources (length) Introduction (otherwise / untitled) Literature review (background information / otherwise) Materials and methods (otherwise / not distinguished) Results (not distinguished / otherwise) Conclusions (otherwise / not distinguished) Acknowledgments (as part of the article / otherwise) Juozo Balčikonio str. (7.25 pp.) otherwise background information not distinguished, none not distinguished otherwise otherwise Jono Kruopo str. (33 pp.) otherwise phonetic knowledge not distinguished, absent otherwise otherwise absent Kazio Ulvydo str. (24.5 p.) otherwise otherwise not distinguished, absent otherwise otherwise not distinguished Note. For purposes of comparing postwar and contemporary publications, the same section headings and evaluation formulations have been retained in the table (for more details, see Šinkūnienė 2014: 27–35). For example, the first and last paragraphs of the articles are characterized by exceptionally strong ideological content. The first (introductory) sentences of the articles introduce readers to the significance of Stalin’s works; cf.: Comrade Stalin’s works on issues of linguistics are of great significance to Soviet linguistics. These brilliant works of Comrade Stalin laid the theoretical foundations for Marxist linguistics, opened a new era in this branch of science, and set tasks for Soviet scholars to further expand the study of language problems. And broad prospects opened up for the linguists of Soviet Lithuania to develop and advance the science of the Lithuanian language] JB 59. Two years have passed since the publication of J. V. Stalin’s brilliant work “Marxism and Problems of Linguistics.” This work of epochal significance established principles for the development of Soviet linguistics and other sciences, stimulated creative thought and initiative, and inspired the creation of works worthy of the great Stalinist era. Under the sun of Stalin’s Constitution, in the light of Stalinist linguistics, the most favorable conditions arose and the broadest prospects opened up for the study and development of the Lithuanian language as well]JK 133. In his work “Marxism and Problems of Linguistics,” Comrade Stalin laid firm foundations for Soviet linguistics and outlined a clear path for the further development of Soviet linguistics 42 BENDRINĖ KALBA | 96 ; he clarified the nature of language as a social phenomenon, its specific features, social functions, structure, and connection with thought; and he revealed the fundamental laws and paths of language development. Of particular importance for practical life and all sciences, including linguistics, is the fact that in his works on questions of linguistics Comrade Stalin further developed one of the most important laws of Marxist dialectics—the law of transition from an old quality to a new quality KU 67. The conclusions of the publications are similar in ideology and style; compare: Making use of the excellent conditions provided by Soviet power and relying on Comrade Stalin’s brilliant works on questions of linguistics, the linguists of Soviet Lithuania must redouble their efforts to continue studying their native language and to develop Soviet linguistics, whose firm foundations were laid by the great luminary of science, Comrade Stalin JB 66. Our literary language is becoming ever richer and more diverse. It has become a powerful instrument of struggle and development, which we must use skillfully and effectively in the struggle for peace against the instigators of a new war, the bloodthirsty Anglo-American imperialists, and in the struggle to build communism in our Great Motherland JK 165. Comrade Stalin’s brilliant works on questions of linguistics opened a new chapter in Soviet linguistics, showed how to apply Marxism-Leninism to questions of language, and mobilized linguists for great work. The linguists of Soviet Lithuania will devote all their strength and knowledge to creating works in the field of linguistics that Soviet society needs on its grand march toward communism KU 91. These concluding paragraphs cannot be called conclusions, but it is clear that, although they are not directly related to the linguistic content of the articles, they nevertheless perform a certain summarizing function. Analysis of the macrostructure shows that the introductory sections of the publications could have contained more such “uniform” commonalities of content. For example, in addition to extolling Stalin’s works, J. Balčikonis (1953: 59) and K. Ulvydas (1953: 67) also mention criticism of Marr’s (Marro’s)3 works. Such nearly unisonous sentences from an ideological standpoint, obligatorily included in the introduction (see the examples cited), were clearly merely a formal element intended to affirm the authors’ loyalty and devotion to the Soviet system. This is illustrated, for example, by the multilevel structure of the introduction to J. Kruopas’s publication: having separated the sections with asterisks, the author presents several introductory parts: the first—the obligatory one about Stalin and his works (Kruopas 1953: 133); the second— 3 The spelling and punctuation of the sources under examination are retained in the article; the original or currently used form is given in parentheses. DANGUOLĖ MIKULĖNIENĖ. Ideologizacijos raiška pokario lietuvių kalbotyroje 43 apskritai apie literatūrinės kalbos sampratą (Kruopas 1953: 133–137), o trečiąją įžangą pradedama pasakoti jau lietuvių literatūrinės kalbos istorija (Kruopas 1953: 137). Although all three publications are historical in nature, they show that no one wrote reviews of theoretical, historical (methodological), or other literature. The sources and/or linguists’ surnames mentioned in the publications can be regarded as background information. For example, J. Balčikonis names Filipp Fortunatov and his followers—Shakhmatov, Ulyanov, Shchepkin, Porzezhinsky, Ushakov, Potebnya, Baudouin de Courtenay—as those who contributed most to Lithuanian studies, along with Būga and Jablonskis (Balčikonis 1953: 60–65). J. Kruopas lists numerous names and sources from various periods in the history of the Lithuanian language: from Mažvydas, Bretkūnas, Daukša, Širvydas (Sirvydas) to J. Rėza and Donelaitis; from Daukantas, Nezabitauskis, Poška, Uvainis, Sutkevičius, Stanevyčius (Stanevičius), Tatarė, Akelaitis, Marcinskis, and others to Žemaitė, Biliūnas, Janonis, Venclova, Cvirka, Salomėja Nėris, J. Šimkus, and Korsakas himself... (Kruopas 1953: 139–149). Because of the diversity of the subject he chose to study—the lexicon of the Lithuanian language—K. Ulvydas did not cite any sources at all. In the publications, sources are mentioned without bibliographic references, while scholars’ surnames are often given without first names (some even without initials before the surname). The footnotes most often contain citations of Stalin’s, Lenin’s, Gorky’s, and others’ publications (of ideological content). A distinctive exception (from the perspective of the article’s macrostructure—perhaps even an acknowledgment) might be J. Balčikonis’s tribute to Viktor Vinogradov and the entire Linguistics Institute of the USSR Academy of Sciences; cf.: Following the publication of Comrade Stalin’s brilliant works on questions of the science of language, the eminent Soviet Russian linguists, headed by Academician Vinogradov, were called upon to lead the science of language. The Linguistics Institute of the USSR Academy of Sciences was established; encompassing all branches of the science of language, it leads and coordinates linguistic research, maintains close ties and cooperates with the linguistic institutions of all the republics, and provides every kind of assistance in resolving linguistic problems]B 65–66. J. Kruopas (1953: 134–136) also mentions Academician Vinogradov’s surname alongside those of Gorky and Lenin. Understandably, the ideological mission of the publications determined not only the choice of research material, but also the descriptive philological method of exposition, which is nowhere stated in the articles. 44 BENDRINĖ KALBA | 96 2. ELEMENTS OF THE MANIFESTATION OF IDEOLOGIZATION The degree of ideologization in the publications can be judged not only from their macrostructural elements, but also from the specific expression of ideas characteristic of the postwar Soviet period. All articles of that time are marked by the use of certain journalistic clichés; cf.: – about Stalin: the great luminary of science JB 66; the great geniuses of humanity, V. I. Lenin and J. V. Stalin <...> KU 74, Comrade Stalin proved with remarkable clarity KU 68, Comrade Stalin provided irrefutable proof KU 68; – about Stalin’s works: the brilliant works of Comrade Stalin JB 59, 65; ushered in a new era JB XX, the brilliant work of J. V. Stalin JK 133; the brilliant linguistic works of Comrade Stalin JK 133; the light of Stalinist linguistic science KU 73; in the light of Comrade Stalin’s works on questions of the science of language KU 74; the brilliant works of Comrade Stalin KU 85, 91; – about the Russian people and its members: the eminent Soviet Russian linguists JB 65; the scholars of the great Russian people JB 59; – about the Russian language: the progressive influence of the Russian language JK 144; the language of the great Russian people JK 144; the progressive role of the Russian language KU 90; – reflections of the historical class struggle: ecclesiastical-feudal jargon JK 156; feudal-ecclesiastical jargon poisoned the consciousness of the people JK 157; measures of the reactionary tsarist regime JB 64; [language] as an instrument of struggle and development, as a powerful means of communist education and of building communism in our country JK 137; [language] became a powerful instrument of struggle and development JK 165; fought against bourgeois purism JK 143; the struggle for peace against the warmongers <...>, the struggle to build communism JK 165; – about the “benefits” provided by Soviet rule: immense assistance and cooperation JB 65; the best conditions for the fraternal cooperation of peoples JB 65; every kind of assistance JB 65; excellent conditions JB 66; a firm foundation JB 66; the most favorable conditions JK 133; the broadest prospects JK 133; an unprecedented flourishing of Lithuanian national culture KU 71; – about the country in which people live: our socialist Fatherland JB 65; under the sun of Stalin’s Constitution JK 133; our Great Fatherland JK 165; in the country where socialism has triumphed KU 70, 79, in our Fatherland, where socialism has been achieved KU 75. Thus, in linguistics publications, ideologization was realized through certain linguistic clichés—metonymies, metaphors, and the like; cf.: workers on the philological front JK 133; [Stalin’s works] mobilize linguists DANGUOLĖ MIKULĖNIENĖ. Ideologizacijos raiška pokario lietuvių kalbotyroje 45 for major works KU 91; The Lithuanian literary language is advancing toward even greater achievements JK 144, and so on (see also the citations provided). In the late Soviet period, when people were already living under the conditions of “developed socialism,” these rather primitive elements of ideologization were easily recognizable in scholarly publications, and people began to avoid them. Even when some early postwar works were acknowledged as important and as retaining their scholarly value, their reprints were not spared abridgment, shortening, or other alterations. This happened, for example, to J. Balčikonis’s article, printed in this collection and later included in Selected Writings (see Balčikonis 1982: 193–200). In this way, the truth of Lithuanian studies was not, as it were, betrayed, but the objective conditions of the early postwar Soviet period in which Lithuanian studies existed were, one might say, embellished. 3. SIMPLIFICATION AS A FORM OF THE EXPRESSION OF IDEOLOGIZATION The varying degree of ideologization is often discussed, particularly in light of the recognition that it can be expressed both in form and in content. However, it is clear that in the early postwar period form and content cannot be separated from one another—there was so much Soviet expression. There were also distortions of scholarly content that led to a simplified representation of linguistic phenomena, or simplification (on simplification, see Mikulėnienė 2022: 137–139). First, simplification of ideologized content is expressed through omission—the authors chose it in order to publish not the whole truth, but only part of it. For example, J. Kruopas’s publication omits the professions of Antanas Baranauskas and Kazimieras Jaunius (JK 150), and inaccurately identifies A. Baranauskas’s place of work as Kaunas Seminary (JK 150). Algirdas Sabaliauskas has also written about distortions of linguistic content in J. Kruopas’s publications (1998: 16). Nevertheless, the most readily recognizable form of simplification is that associated with various doctrines of Marxism-Leninism applied to linguistic content. In addition to the aforementioned criticism of Marr’s theory, attempts were made to ideologize content through various Stalin(ist) ideas, for example, by showing the characteristics of how language functions through the relationship between base and superstructure; cf.: N. J. Marr and some other linguists, viewing language as a superstructure, believed that in the Soviet epoch, following a grandiose social upheaval and the formation of Soviet culture, a fundamental revolutionary upheaval would have to take place—or be brought about by artificial means—in language itself as well. 46 BENDRINĖ KALBA | 96 Comrade Stalin proved with remarkable clarity that language is generated not by this or that base, but by the entire course of society’s history and the history of bases through the ages; it was created not through the efforts of any one class or any one generation, but through the efforts of all society, all classes, and hundreds of generations. It is therefore pointless and wrong to seek, after every upheaval, to destroy the existing structure of language, its grammatical structure and its basic lexical fund, and replace them with new ones. It is equally absurd to look for explosions in the development of language, such as occur in the development of social phenomena of a base and superstructure nature KU 68. A vivid image of class struggle, of the West and the East—as enemies and friends—distorts Lithuania’s history; cf.: The entrenchment of the Russian language in our written culture is understandable in the conditions of that time, when the lands inhabited by Russians, Belarusians, and Ukrainians formed part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania; when political and cultural cooperation among the peoples took place there; when Christianity from the West was brought to the Lithuanian people by sword and sabre, while the influence of a higher culture from the East came as an expression of free cooperation; when Lithuanians and Russians joined forces to crush their common enemy—the German plunderers; and when the influence of Russian culture and language was strongly felt at the Grand Duke’s court and among the nobility. This language played a major role in Lithuania’s political and cultural life JK 137–138. Class-struggle theory was also applied to dialectology: not only territorial dialects but also social dialects were distinguished, with the latter immediately given a negative connotation and directly called ecclesiastical-feudal jargon (JK 156, 157). In general, Stalinist teaching could have affected (and did affect) the complex fate of Lithuanian dialectology and dialectologists of that period (Juozas Senkus and Juozas Aleksandravičius); cf.: Today it can be said that Lithuanian dialects no longer exist as separate linguistic systems, that they are rapidly assimilating the lexicon and forms of the standard language, and that their old, unnecessary elements are important only to the history of the language <...>. Therefore, any attempt artificially to restore and revive dialects would be a reactionary phenomenon, contrary to the development of the nation and the national language JK 161. Or, in promoting atheism, the negative influence of the church is continually emphasized; cf.: The most notable monuments of early writing, notwithstanding their reactionary content and purpose, played a certain positive role in the formation and development of the Lithuanian written language JK 140. The privileges, aristocratic customs, and language of the Polish lords enticed the ruling social strata, and, having renounced their own language and become denationalized, they became entirely alien and hostile to Lithuanian culture and the interests of their homeland. Their concern was to keep the Lithuanian common people shackled DANGUOLĖ MIKULĖNIENĖ. Ideologizacijos raiška pokario lietuvių kalbotyroje 47 with the chains of serfdom and religious superstitions, in material and spiritual bondage, so that they might derive the greatest possible benefit from obedient serfs devoted to the “will of God” ĮK 140. Nevertheless, it must be acknowledged that not all areas of linguistics were affected equally: first and foremost, reflections of Soviet life were expected to appear (and did appear) in lexicographers’ works. Having compared the language of the earliest Lithuanian written monuments with contemporary language, K. Ulvydas (1953: 79) identified the most important phenomena of lexical change (namely, the disappearance of what had become obsolete and outdated; new uses of old linguistic elements; and the emergence of new words in the language). The linguist’s attention was focused on the latter: according to K. Ulvydas, even words used in the past (such as party, communism, class, family, tribe, nationality, nation, democracy, people, socialism, etc.) had been filled with new semantic (as we would say today, ideological) content. For example, there was an attempt to simplify the very meaning of a word by giving it political content; compare: <...> the word leidykla ‘publishing house’ had been very aptly coined and was already known earlier, but it entered the active vocabulary and acquired a specific meaning only during the Soviet era, when profiteers were removed from book publishing and the previously existing commercial private publishing companies were replaced by the Lithuanian SSR State Publishing House KU 71. A separate subtype of new words should also be mentioned here: speckursas, specfondas, partorgas, komjaunimas, agitpunktas, etc., which began to take shape in the Lithuanian communist press even before 1940 (Ulvydas 1953: 83). It is therefore understandable why lexicographers were repeatedly criticized; in particular, the authors of the great dictionary of the Lithuanian language, led by J. Balčikonis, failed to give the required attention to the new vocabulary. Compare: <...> in compiling the Great Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language, the principles for selecting vocabulary and phraseology were not adhered to, and the words included were not characterized with sufficient scholarly rigor. Vocabulary and phraseology collected in earlier years were represented too extensively, while new vocabulary was represented too sparingly. At times, even the vocabulary that ignorant clerics had forcibly introduced into the language of Lithuanian texts from their feudal-ecclesiastical jargon—and which had been rejected in the course of the development of the literary language—overshadowed that part of the vocabulary which showed a tendency to survive, become established, and give rise to new formations KU 73–74. Lithuanian terminology, too, was expected to turn in the same direction of ideologization. Compare: In this respect, the Russian language is a source from which the latest scientific terms spread and radiate not only into all the languages of the fraternal peoples of the Soviet Union, but also into the languages of the entire world KU 90. 48 BENDRINĖ KALBA | 96 Thus, the quotations alone make it abundantly clear that it would be difficult to speak of research findings published in 1953. If the entire content of a publication is subordinated to ideology, then, naturally, its findings will be as well. CONCLUSIONS 1. The content of linguistics articles published in the postwar period was not, and is not, of uniform scientific and/or historical value. It may differ in its degree of ideologization, and accordingly, in the composition of the publication. 2. Ideologically mandatory linguistic clichés could be used throughout the text of a publication or only in its introductory and concluding sections. In the first case, the entire scientific content is ideologized; in the second, although ideologically “framed,” an article may retain its scientific value. 3. The analysis shows that the ideologization of publications of that period can be recognized by certain elements characteristic of linguistics at the time: methodological principles expressed in the stated aim and objectives of the article; the choice of the “correct” object, research material, and method; the scholarly apparatus, that is, the literature cited and referred to; the article’s structure—the clichés at its beginning and end; and the links between its scientific content and the ideology of the period. 4. Postwar linguistics articles abound in cases of simplification of ideologized content, expressed through omission and/or distortion of linguistic content. The form of simplification most readily recognized by contemporary readers is that associated with various Marxist-Leninist dogmas applied to the content of linguistics articles. 5. The author’s distinctive style is leveled through the means of expressing scholarly thought—ideologized and/or simplified stylistic figures. Therefore, when assessing linguistics works of the 1950s, we should not rush to erase from the creative works and lives of famous linguists the authentic clichés of that period that were mandatory at the time. In seeking to express genuine respect for our teachers, who endured the mimetic adaptations of the early Soviet era, we should not erase the contextual historical layer, which may be entirely unfamiliar to contemporary readers. DANGUOLĖ MIKULĖNIENĖ. Ideologizacijos raiška pokario lietuvių kalbotyroje 49 ŠALTINIAI JB – Balčikonis Juozas. Rusų mokslininkų įnašas į lietuvių kalbos mokslą. – Lietuvių kalbos ir kultūros klausimai J. V. Stalino veikalų kalbos mokslo klausimais šviesoje: straipsnių rinkinys, vyr. red. J. Žiugžda, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla, 1953, 59–66. JK – Kruopas Jonas. Lietuvių literatūrinė kalba ir dialektai J. V. Stalino veikalų kalbos mokslo klausimais šviesoje. – Lietuvių kalbos ir kultūros klausimai J. V. Stalino veikalų kalbos mokslo klausimais šviesoj: straipsnių rinkinys, vyr. red. J. Žiugžda, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla, 1953, 133–165. KU – Ulvydas Kazys. Lietuvių literatūrinės kalbos vystymasis tarybinės santvarkos metais. – Lietuvių kalbos ir kultūros klausimai J. V. Stalino veikalų kalbos mokslo klausimais šviesoje: straipsnių rinkinys, vyr. red. J. Žiugžda, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla, 1953, 67–91. LITERATŪRA Balčikonis Juozas 1982: Rusų mokslininkų įnašas į lietuvių kalbos mokslą. – J. Balčikonis. Rinktiniai raštai 2, sud. A. Pupkis, Vilnius: Mokslas, 193–200. Keinys Stasys, Morkūnas Kazys, Sabaliauskas Algirdas 1998: Jono Kruopo „Rinktiniai raštai“. – J. Kruopas. Rinktiniai raštai, sud. S. Keinys, K. Morkūnas, A. Sabaliauskas, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų institutas, 9–10. Krikštopaitis Juozas A. 2013: Išmintis, atsiverianti pažinimo kelyje, Vilnius: Mintis. KTLTL 1952: Kolūkinė tematika lietuvių tarybinėje literatūroje: konferencijos medžiaga, Lietuvos TSR mokslų akademija, Lietuvių literatūros institutas (atspaudas iš „Pergalės“ 1952 m. Nr. 1), Vilnius. LKKK 1953: Lietuvių kalbos ir kultūros klausimai J. V. Stalino veikalų kalbos mokslo klausimais šviesoje: straipsnių rinkinys, vyr. red. J. Žiugžda, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla. LKLI 1973: Lietuvių kalbos ir literatūros institutas. Lietuvos TSR mokslų akademija, Lietuvių kalbos ir literatūros institutas, par. A. Seselskytė, red. A. Jonynas, Vilnius: Mintis. Matulis Juozas 1953: Draugo Stalino veikalų kalbos mokslo klausimais reikšmė tarybinio mokslo vystymesi. – Lietuvių kalbos ir kultūros klausimai J. V. Stalino veikalų kalbos mokslo klausimais šviesoje: straipsnių rinkinys, vyr. red. J. Žiugžda, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla, 3–25. 50 BENDRINĖ KALBA | 96 Mikulėnienė Danguolė 2022: Lietuvių kalbos instituto istorija 2: kalbotyros aneksija, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Sabaliauskas Algirdas 1998: Kalbininkas Jonas Kruopas. – J. Kruopas. Rinktiniai raštai, sud. S. Keinys, K. Morkūnas, A. Sabaliauskas, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų institutas, 11–23. Seselskytė Angelė 1981: Lietuvių kalbos ir literatūros institutas. Lietuvos TSR mokslų akademija, Lietuvių kalbos ir literatūros institutas, red. kolegija: K. Doveika, A. Jonynas (red.), K. Morkūnas, Vilnius: Mokslas. Šinkūnienė Jolanta 2014: Lietuviškojo humanitarinių ir socialinių mokslų diskurso ypatybės: mokslo studija, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. Prieiga internete: https://etalpykla.lituanistika.lt/object/LT-LDB-0001:B.03~2014~1477229314358/B.03~2014~1477229314358.pdf (žiūrėta 2023 02 12). Ulvydas Kazys 1995: Kazys Ulvydas. Bibliografija, sud. I. Andriukaitienė, red. K. Morkūnas, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Gauta 2023 07 27 Priimta 2023 08 18 DANGUOLĖ MIKULĖNIENĖ EXPRESSION OF IDEOLOGIZATION IN POST-WAR LITHUANIAN LINGUISTICS Summary This article aims to analyse the methods of ideologization applied in Lithuanian linguistic academic literature during the post-World War II period. Based on a series of publications by the prominent academic linguists Juozas Balčikonis, Jonas Kruopas and Kazys Ulvydas, the study investigates the shaping of Lithuanian linguistics in the 1950s with a view of identifying the diversity of forms of ideologization reflected in the nature and structure of post-war linguistic activities. The aim of this article is to analyse, with referring to primary sources (articles written during the early post-war period by linguists Juozas Balčikonis, Jonas Kruopas and Kazys Ulvydas), a selection of linguistic publications in order to develop an algorithm for conducting more in-depth studies of the soviet-period linguistic activities. The tasks of the study were to (1) analyse the methods of ideologization and their expression in Lithuanian linguistic academic literature based on the publications on the time; (2) identify the ways in which the content of Lithuanian linguistics was being shaped during the post-war period; (3) summarise the results of the study. DANGUOLĖ MIKULĖNIENĖ. Ideologizacijos raiška pokario lietuvių kalbotyroje 51 The analysis conducted shows that the publications of the early post-war period are all characterised by a near-identical macrostructure. Ideologically mandatory linguistic cliches were used either throughout the entire text or just in the foreword and conclusion of the article. In the first case, the entire academic content was ideologized, while in the second example, publications – although ideologically “framed” – could still retain their academic value. The analysis shows that early post-war ideologization displayed certain characteristic elements used in linguistic publications: methodological provisions expressed through the aim of the article and the tasks set; the “correct” choice of object, material and method of research; the academic apparatus, i.e. referencing the literature listed and quoted; the structure of the article – the cliches in beginning and the ending; the correlation between the academic content and the ideology of the time. Post-war linguistic articles display frequent simplification of ideologized content which is often expressed through ellipsis or distortion of linguistic content. The most recognisable form of simplification is related to various Marxist-Leninist dogmas adapted to linguistic content. The unique style of the author is often steamrolled through the use of specific (and simplified) figures of speech as a means of expressing academic thought. This is why, when assessing the linguistic work conducted by prominent Lithuanian academics in the 1950s, it is helpful not to discard the authentic cliches appearing in their works and biographies. KEYWORDS: Lithuanian linguistics, lexicography, dialectology, language history, ideologization, simplification. DANGUOLĖ MIKULĖNIENĖ Lietuvių kalbos institutas Petro Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius [email protected] DANGUOLĖ MIKULĖNIENĖ IDEOLOGIZACIJOS RAIŠKA POKARIO LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROJE Santrauka Šiame straipsnyje, remiantis ankstyvojo pokario publikacijomis, kurių autoriai – žymūs Lietuvių kalbos instituto mokslininkai kalbininkai Juozas Balčikonis, Jonas Kruopas ir Kazys Ulvydas, – siekiama išnagrinėti kalbinėje mokslinėje literatūro 52 BENDRINĖ KALBA | 96 je taikytus ideologizacijos būdus ir išsiaiškinti, kaip pokariu buvo formuojamas lietuvių kalbotyros turinys. Atsižvelgiant į kalbotyros darbų specifiką ir struktūrą, bandoma identifikuoti ideologizacijos raiškos įvairovę. Šio straipsnio tikslas – remiantis pirminiais šaltiniais – ankstyvuoju pokariu kalbininkų Juozo Balčikonio, Jono Kruopo, Kazio Ulvydo parašytais straipsniais, – atlikti pasirinktų kalbinių publikacijų analizę ir jos pagrindu sudaryti algoritmą tinkamą išsamesnėms sovietinio laikotarpio kalbotyros darbų studijoms. Todėl išsikelti ir atitinkami uždaviniai: 1) remiantis to meto publikacijomis, išnagrinėti kalbinėje mokslinėje literatūroje taikytus ideologizacijos būdus ir jų raišką; 2) išsiaiškinti, kaip pokariu buvo formuojamas lietuvių kalbotyros turinys; 3) apibendrinti šio tyrimo rezultatus. Atlikta analizė parodė, kad ankstyvojo pokario publikacijoms būdinga beveik vienoda makrostruktūra. Ideologiškai privalomos kalbinės klišės galėjo būti vartojamos visame publikacijos tekste arba tik įvadinėje ir baigiamojoje dalyse. Pirmuoju atveju ideologizuojamas visas mokslinis turinys, antruoju – nors ir ideologiškai „įrėmintas“, straipsnis gali išlikti nepraradęs savosios mokslinės vertės. Iš atliktos analizės matyti, kad to meto publikacijų ideologizacija gali būti atpažįstama iš tam tikrų to meto kalbotyrai būdingų elementų: metodologinių nuostatų, išreikštų nusakytu straipsnio tikslu ir uždaviniais; „teisingo“ objekto, tiriamosios medžiagos bei tyrimo metodo pasirinkimo; mokslinio aparato, t. y. atsižvelgiant į nurodytą ir cituojamą literatūrą; straipsnio struktūros – straipsnio pradžios ir pabaigos klišių; mokslinio turinio sąsajų su to meto ideologija. Pokario kalbotyros straipsniuose gausu ideologizuoto turinio simplifikacijos, išreikštos nutylėjimu ar lingvistinio turinio iškraipymu, atvejų. Lengviausiai atpažįstama simplifikacijos forma yra susijusi su įvairiomis marksizmo-leninizmo dogmomis, pritaikytomis kalbotyriniam turiniui. Mokslinės minties raiškos priemonėmis – specifinėmis (ir simplifikuotomis) stilistinėmis figūromis – dažnai suniveliuojamas paties autoriaus stilistikos savitumas. Todėl, vertinant kalbotyrinius šeštojo dešimtmečio darbus, iš garsiųjų kalbininkų kūrybos ir gyvenimo nereikėtų skubėti trinti autentiškų to laikotarpio klišių. ESMINIAI ŽODŽIAI: lietuvių kalbotyra, leksikografija, dialektologija, kalbos istorija, ideologizacija, simplifikacija. DANGUOLĖ MIKULĖNIENĖ Lietuvių kalbos institutas Petro Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius [email protected] DANGUOLĖ MIKULĖNIENĖ. Ideologizacijos raiška pokario lietuvių kalbotyroje 53