Nieostrość określenia „język prosty” na pograniczu bałtycko-słowiańskim z perspektywy języka litewskiego

BENDRINĖ KALBA 94 (2021) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 WHAT YOU NEED Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, Japan KEY WORDS: Baltic-Slavic border, multilingualism, NIEOSTROŚĆ OKREŚLENIA JĘZYK PROSTY NA POGRANICZU multiculturalism, plain language, plain speech, Grand Duchy of Lithuania. ANNOTATION This article deals with the so-called simple language, which has been used for centuries by different national groups on the Baltic-Slavic border. This familiar and unofficial language functions among the lower social strata only as a tool of verbal communication in multilingual communities. The author also mentions that in the past there was a language with a similar name. From the 16th century to the middle of the 17th century, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania had a written language called plain language. It was then the official literary language, alongside the Old Church Slavonic language. It also served as a communication tool for the upper social strata in this multilingual state. The main aim of this article is to highlight the vagueness of the definition of simple language on the Baltic-Slavic border, paying more attention to the interpretation of this meaning from the perspective of the Lithuanian language. ABSTRACT This article deals with the so-called język prosty which has been used for ages by various national groups living in the Balto-Slavic border region. This homely and unofficial language functions among the lower social classes only as a vehicle for verbal communication within multilingual communities. The author also mentions the fact that in the past there existed a language called by a similar name. From the 16th century to the middle of the 17th century, in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania there were 100,000 KOJI MORITA. Nieostrość określenia język prosty na pograniczu bałtycko-słowiańskim Lithuanians | 2 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2021.94.09 BENDRINĖ KALBA 94 (2021) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 functioned a written language referred to as prosta mova. It was then the official literary language, apart from Old Church Slavonic. It also served as a communication tool for the upper social classes in the multilingual country. The main goal of this paper is to highlight the ambiguity of expression simple language in the Balto-Slavic border region, paying more attention to the interpretation of the meaning from the perspective of the Lithuanian language. INTRODUCTION W świetle dotychczasowych badań terenowych wiadomo, że wśród Polaków oraz of other nations living on the Baltic-Slavic border is widespread the term simple language (simple speech or other terms used interchangeably). The local people use this term for their home language, the unofficial language of the lower social strata. It is only used for everyday conversation and performs communication functions in the environments of the multilingual population of this area. At this point, however, it is worth recalling that in this area there was also a language that bore a similar name. From the 16th century to the middle of the 17th century, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania had a written language, called the plain language. At that time, it was the official literary language alongside Church Slavonic, and at the same time a means of communication for the higher social strata of the multilingual population. The main aim of this article is to highlight the vagueness of the definition of simple language on the Baltic-Slavic border. I have already addressed this topic in my previous research papers (Morita 2002, 2004, 2006) and similar issues have already been analyzed by many researchers, but in this work I will take it up again to achieve the main goal, paying more attention to the interpretation of this meaning from the perspective of the Lithuanian language. KOJI MORITA. Nieostrość określenia język prosty na pograniczu bałtycko-słowiańskim from the perspective of Lithuanian language | 3 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2021.94.09 BENDRINĖ KALBA 94 (2021) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 Linguists and ethnologists believe that Poles on the Baltic-Slavic border in their everyday life use the local Belarusian dialect, i.e. simple language, more often than Polish. This language from the Baltic-Slavic border is not yet clearly identified by linguists, and many researchers give only general explanations. For example, at the beginning of the book prepared by Irena of the former North-Eastern Borders the following definition is given: “by plain language or speaking we simply refer to the local Belarusian dialect, which is used by the North-Western Belarusian dialect Maryniakową, Irydę Grek-Pabisową i Annę Zielińską pt. Polskie teksty gwarowe z obszaru saturated with Polonisms and Lithuanianisms” (Bednarczuk 1999: 6), while Alojzy Adam Zdaniukiewicz in his book entitled “The Polish-Belarusian Language” (Bednarczuk 1999: 6) refers to Polacy“ (Maryniakowa et al. 1996: 8). Leszek Bednarczuk pisze, że „tzw. prosta mowa, “the Polish-Belarusian dialect of the north-western Belarusian dialect” (Bednarczuk 1999: 6), while Alojzy Adam Zdaniukiewicz in his book entitled “The Polish-Belarusian Language” (Bednarczuk 1999: 6) refers to “the Polish-Belarusian dialect of the north-western Belarusian dialect” (Bednarczuk 1999: 6). Gwara Łopatowszczyzny says that “the so-called simple language is a relative of the Belarusian language” (Zdaniukiewicz 1972: 5). Mikołaj Sawicz claims that “simple language is a dialect of Belarusian языка“ (Савич 1990: 47) 1 . For the inhabitants of the villages on the Baltic-Slavic border, plain language is the language of uneducated people from lower social strata. As Ryszard Radzik also states: “Belarusian was treated by the people as a ‘simple’, peasant language, not suitable for expressing noble feelings, for being used in the company of cultured people, unworthy of printing” (Radzik 2000: 178). According to Iwona Kabzińska, “the functioning of plain language takes place exclusively in verbal communication. It is a spoken language, without writing, literature” (Kabzińska 1999: 66). Lithuanian linguist Pranas Kniūkšta emphasizes the convenience of plain language as follows: 1 The author adds: “For this dialect are characteristic akanie-yakanie, cekanie-gwakanie; морфология, синтаксис и лексический состав типичны для северо-западных белорусских говоров.“ KOJI MORITA. Nieostrość określenia język prosty na pograniczu bałtycko-słowiańskim его from the perspective of Lithuanian language | 4 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2021.94.09 BENDRINĖ KALBA 94 (2021) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 This language was comfortable, because it allowed to communicate with both Polish and Russian speakers, it allowed to lavish between these two languages. No one would listen to someone speaking Lithuanian, neither the lord nor the parish priest, and everyone understood Belarusian (Kniūkšta 1990: 12). Belarusian literary language, on the other hand, is considered by the peasant population as the language of educated people. This is evidenced by the following statement of my informant (born in 1935), which I noted during fieldwork in the village of Naliboki in Belarus: “Some people only speak Belarusian (the literary language of Belarus – K. M.), so it is necessary for a person to be very learned” (Morita 2001: 250). Anna Engelking także – na podstawie własnych badań etnograficznych na Grodzień region – says: The common language for the whole rural population is the Belarusian dialect, The zwana przez jej użytkowników językiem prostym lub miestnym (‘miejscowym’). term means as much as ‘the speech of simple, uneducated people; gara’ and is opposed to pure languages: Russian, Polish and Belarusian literary, which are used by learned, intelligent and noble people (Engelking 1996: 178). It can therefore be concluded that plain language is the language of people belonging to the lower social strata, which is opposed to literary languages (Belarusian, Polish and Russian) of educated people. Simple language has a lower social status in comparison with the language of the inhabitants of cities, elites, intelligentsia (Radzik 2000: 74). It should also be noted that among the less educated population in Belarus there is more often a mixed language, consisting of various Belarusian and Russian elements, the so-called trasianka (Smułkowa 2000: 91), and in Ukraine the so-called surzhik, combining Ukrainian and Russian elements (Masalska 1999: 224). They are anormatic, arise and function naturally, from the perspective of Lithuanian language | 5 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2021.94.09 KOJI MORITA. Nieostrość określenia język prosty na pograniczu bałtycko-słowiańskim BENDRINĖ KALBA 94 (2021) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 are realized exclusively in verbal communication, mainly in urban social situations (TDM 1999: 9). It seems that both mixed languages occupy an intermediate position in the linguistic hierarchy, between literary languages (Belarusian, Ukrainian and Russian) and folk dialects. 2. SIMPLE LANGUAGE IN THE LITHUANIAN GRAND DUCHTY In the past, there were two literary languages in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania: next to the Church Slavonic language, there was the so-called plain language (Успенский 1994: 65; ГЛЗ 2000: 4) (this was the common name used by the users of that time; similar names were used, for example, for the official language of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Old Belarusian, Old Ukrainian, Kryvitsky, West Russian, Office Slavonic, etc. ), clearly distinguished by both its grammatical system and vocabulary from the Church Slavonic language. However, there is no unequivocal opinion among linguists as to what simple speech actually was, since it is an ambiguous concept (Getka 2012: 20). Simple speech (проста мова), which arose as an alternative to the Church Slavonic language, in the beginning (in the second half of the 16th century) served primarily to bring religious and polemical works closer to the faithful, so it functioned as a kind of written language in the religious sphere in contrast to the so-called Russian speech (руська мова). It is known for numerous monuments dating from the second half of the 16th century to the end of the 17th century. It had different dialectal characteristics мова), która już od XIV wieku odgrywała rolę języka kancelaryjnego na ziemiach Wielkiego w zależności od regionu i użytkownika. It seems to me that the term simple, found on the title page of the Catechism of Simon Buddy from 1562: для простыхъ людей языка руского was the first 2 2 Kobe City University of Foreign Studies has published two volumes of the Catechism of Simon Budoni from 1562 with commentary: Shimon Budoni, Kyōri-mondō (1562-nen), dai-ichibu. KOJI MORITA. Nieostrość określenia język prosty na pograniczu bałtycko-słowiańskim from the perspective of Lithuanian language | 6 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2021.94.09 BENDRINĖ KALBA 94 (2021) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 a sign of the creation of the term simple speech. This Catechism is the only preserved work of Budny written in the Old Belarusian language, in which only biblical quotations were quoted in the Church Slavonic language. Thus, it can be said that the Catechism of Simon the Vigil is one of the most important sources of plain speech in the 16th century. Although in the 16th century other languages were also used in the literature of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (e.g. Latin and Polish), plain speech remained the official state language (Lazutka 1997: 33). It had the status of the official language until 1696, when Polish and partly Latin were introduced by a decision of the Warsaw Sejm (GrekPabisowa 1997: 146). From that moment on, Polish was given the status of the state language, and simple speech survived in the varied dialects of the Russian population Grand Duchy of Lithuania. In the 16th and 17th centuries, in order to establish the grammatical norms of the Church Slavonic language, its grammar was developed by two scholars (ГЛЗ 2000) – Wawrzyniec Zyzani (1596) (Зизанiй 1980) and Melecjusz Smotrycki (1619) (Смотрицький 1979), while there is actually no exact description of the grammatical norms of plain speech (i.e. literary Old Belarusian in the 16th and 17th centuries used in state offices and courts on the territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania). An attempt to show the independent linguistic system of seventeenth-century plain speech as a separate language is presented by two variants of the manuscript Slavonic Grammar by Ivan Uzhevich (Paris 1643; Arras 1645) (ГС 1970). Użewicz developed the grammar of Old Belarusian, the state language of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (Яскевiч 2001: 51). It is generally accepted that this language was spoken in the time when these lands were part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (Bardach 1988: 20), Tekisuto oyobi kaisetsu [Simon the Awake, Catechism (Year 1562), Part One, Text and Commentary], Kobe: Institute 56); Shimon Budoni, Kyōri-mondō (1562-nen), dai-nibu, dai-sanbu, uformował się na podstawie języka staroruskiego, wspólnego dla ludności Białorusi i Ukrainy dai-yonbu. Tekisuto oyobi kaisetsu [Simon the Awake, Catechism (Year 1562), Part Two, Part Three, Part Four, Text and Commentary], Kobe: Institute for for Foreign Studies, Kobe City University of Foreign Studies, 2002, ii + 148 pp. (Annals of Foreign Studies Vol. Foreign Studies, Kobe City University of Foreign Studies, 2008, viii + 131 pp. (Annals of Foreign Studies Vol. 71). KOJI MORITA. Nieostrość określenia język prosty na pograniczu bałtycko-słowiańskim from the perspective of Lithuanian language | 7 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2021.94.09 BENDRINĖ KALBA 94 (2021) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 that is, in this view, plain speech is a transregional creation, common to Belarusians and Ukrainians (Getka 2012: 21). Separately developed in the Moscow state the East Russian language, from which the Russian language evolved. Boris Uspienski briefly outlines the general characteristics of simple speech: Проста мова противопоставляется как церковнославянскому языку, так и диалектной украинской или белорусской речи. Однако, в отличие от церковнославянского языка этот язык обнаруживает несомненный разговорный субстрат, который подвергается искусственному окнижнению за счет, во-первых, славянизации и, во-вторых, полонизации. Соотвественно могут быть выделены два варианта простой мовы – украинский и белорусский: украинский вариант более славянизирован, белорусский в большей степени полонизирован (Успенский 1994: 68). I think it is difficult to agree with Boris Uspienski’s thesis, and the only thing that is certain is that plain speech was very different regionally. The social sphere of plain speech was much larger than that of Church Slavonic, which was primarily used for religious purposes and to a lesser extent for literary purposes. The language of broad social circles, especially for the lower strata cerkiewnosłowiański, bardzo odległy od realiów ówczesnego życia, był już niezrozumiały dla (Успенский 1994: 252). Simple speech, despite the lack of abstract vocabulary that functioned in the secular language (e.g. chronicles, state documents, collections of laws, Sejm resolutions, cerkiewnosłowiańskim, stanowiła zarówno użyteczne narzędzie twórczości religijnej, jak i private correspondence) (Witkowski 1969: 8). This language was used primarily for the Lithuanian Metrics (acts of the Grand Ducal Chancellery since the 15th century) and the famous Lithuanian Statutes (I: 1529, II: 1566, III: 1588). It is not known, however, whether at that time the language system of simple speech (type of Użewicz Grammar) was widely distributed throughout the territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania or only in its limited area. Main from the perspective of Lithuanian language | 8 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2021.94.09 KOJI MORITA. Nieostrość określenia język prosty na pograniczu bałtycko-słowiańskim BENDRINĖ KALBA 94 (2021) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 users of this language were the higher, better educated strata of Russian society, not the lower strata of society. It can therefore be concluded that simple speech in the linguistic hierarchy was lower than Church Slavonic, but higher than folk dialects. For people of Russian culture, the Church Slavic language was pure, and the emergence of plain speech meant for them, as Teresa Chynczewska-Hennel emphasizes, “a certain kind of Russian-Polish amalgam as a consequence of the Polish-Latin culture’s friction with the Byzantine-Slavic tradition” (Chynczewska-Hennel 1985: 57). Hence it can be concluded that plain speech was a mixed language in contrast to the pure Church Slavonic language. 3. DEFINITION OF SIMPLE FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE Nowadays, in plain language used only for everyday conversation, the term prosty is used according to the dictionary meaning of modern Polish. However, it is worth noting here that the simple adjective attested in the Polish language since the 14th century had an ambiguous 3 character from the beginning of its existence, occurring in both concrete and figurative meanings. Zigmas Zinkevičius gives several variants of the Lithuanian term simple language, 4 Зинкявичюс 1996: 304), while simple language in Lithuanian is more often referred to as gudų np. (pa)prastà kalbà, prãstas liežiùvis oraz po prostu, np. paprastaĩ (Zinkevičius 1993: 246; 3 Słownik języka polskiego PWN z włączonym suplementem pod redakcją Mieczysława Szymczaka, t. II, Warszawa: PWN, 1998, 898-899. The "simple" password: 1. «not leaning in any direction, not turning to the side; straight, not crooked, not twisted, not bent, not bent», 2. «about people: standing on a low level of intellectual development, culture, education, housing, etc. ; standing low in some hierarchy», 3. «about objects: not distinguished by anything, modest, unexquisite, ordinary, common, unornamed, unrefined», 4. «uncomplicated, reliable, uncomplicated, obvious, understandable», 5. «ordinary, natural». 4 Etymological Dictionary of the Polish Language, edited by Andrzej Bańkowski, vol. II, Warsaw: PWN, 2000, 788. The author emphasizes that this word is ambiguous from the beginning and requires further studies on semantic development. KOJI MORITA. Nieostrość określenia język prosty na pograniczu bałtycko-słowiańskim from the perspective of Lithuanian language | 9 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2021.94.09 BENDRINĖ KALBA 94 (2021) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 language, Gudish (Zinkevičius 1996: 306–307). In modern Lithuanian, gudas is synonymous with baltarusis, but it should be noted that gudas has an additional meaning that baltarusis does not have. The name gudas is a traditional term for Belarusians, widely used in pre-war Lithuanian (Čekmonienė, Čekmonas 1993: 352). It is now the official name of Belarus. In the etymological dictionary of the Lithuanian language there is the following definition: 1. ‘Belarusian’, 2. ‘Polish, Russian’ (Smoczyński 2007: 207). According to the 20-volume Lithuanian language dictionary, gudas is primarily baltarusis (kartais lenkas ar rusas), meaning ‘Belarusian (sometimes Polish or Russian)’. However, it should be explained why sometimes a Pole or a Russian? 5 Gudas – once a resident of Lithuania of non-Lithuanian origin – is primarily an Eastern Slav – a Ruthenian (Belarusian); less often said so about Poles and Russians. “conventionally”, it is Najczęściej oznacza: ‘człowieka niemówiącego po litewsku’. Obecnie, jeśli się używa tego słowa basically treated with contempt, and gudas can be called not only a Belarusian, but also a Pole and a Russian. Podsumowując, gudų kalba ma nieostre znaczenie: ‘język używany na terenie Litwy mainly by the Belarusian, Polish and Russian population, who do not speak Lithuanian’. In Lithuanian dialects, the name gudas is appealed and may mean: ‘a person speaking another (Lithuanian) dialect’ (Smoczyński 2007: 208). 6 The ancient plain speech, however, differs significantly from the modern one, because it belongs to the category of literary language, and its users are people from higher social strata. Boris Uspienski believes that: "The name "prosta" itself cannot be understood literally in any case, since the expression "prosta мова" dates back to Latin. “lingua rustica” (Spanish) 1994: 66). Uspienski treats the ancient plain language as lingua rustica. Referring to Grammar 5 Dictionary of the English Language, vol. III: G–H, London: Oxford University Press, 1956, p. 6 In addition, the Etymological Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language (Smoczyński 2007: 208) gives several derivatives from the name gudas: gudijá ‘place where many Belarusians live’, gùdiškas ‘Belarusian’, gùdiškai ‘in Belarusian’, etc. KOJI MORITA. Nieostrość określenia język prosty na pograniczu bałtycko-słowiańskim from the perspective of Lithuanian language | 16 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2021.94.09 BENDRINĖ KALBA 94 (2021) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 THE AMBIGUITY OF EXPRESSION SIMPLE LANGUAGE IN THE BALTO-SLAVIC BORDER REGION FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE Summary This article deals with the so-called język prosty which has been used for ages by various national groups living in the Balto-Slavic border region. This homely and unofficial language functions among the lower social classes only as a vehicle for verbal communication within multilingual communities. The author also mentions the fact that in the past there existed a language called by a similar name. From the 16th century to the middle of the 17th century, in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania there functioned a written language referred to as prosta mova. It was then the official literary language, apart from Old Church Slavonic. It also served as a communication tool for the upper social classes in the multilingual country. The main goal of this paper is to highlight the ambiguity of expression simple language in the Balto-Slavic border region, paying more attention to the interpretation of the meaning from the perspective of the Lithuanian language. There are actually two different languages, while the circumstances of their creation are similar. The author enumerates the similarities between język prosty and prosta mova: 1. They can be contrasted with languages of higher status in the linguistic hierarchy: in the past it was Old Church Slavonic, whereas nowadays these are the Polish, the Russian, the Belarusian and the Lithuanian literary languages. At the same time, they indicate the position in the social hierarchy of their users; 2. They are hybrids created so as to enable communication within multilingual communities, in the past as a written language, and today as a spoken language; 3. Without being directly related to any nationality, they allow for the maintenance of the ambiguity of linguistic and identity boundaries in disputes between different nationalities. The communicative group using numerous languages which developed out of the KOJI MORITA. Nieostrość określenia język prosty na pograniczu bałtycko-słowiańskim from the perspective of Lithuanian language | 17 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2021.94.09 BENDRINĖ KALBA 94 (2021) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 Grand Duchy of Lithuania exists till today and is continued in the Balto-Slavic border region by the still used expression prosty. In the conditions of the multilingualism and multiculturalism, the ambiguity of language and identity boundaries plays an extremely important role. KEYWORDS: Balto-Slavic border region, multilingualism, multiculturalism, prosta mova, Grand Duchy of Lithuania. WHAT YOU NEED Tokyo University of Foreign Studies 3-11-1 Asahi-cho, Fuchu-shi, Tokyo 183-8534, Japan [email protected]