Kazys Ulvydas – kalbos kultūros puoselėtojas

ON THE 110TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE EMINENT LINGUIST KAZYS ULVYDAS RASUOLĖ VLADARSKIENĖ Institute of the Lithuanian Language KAZYS ULVYDAS – A CHAMPION OF LANGUAGE CULTURE Kazys Ulvydas was a well-known Lithuanian linguist of the second half of the 20th century, a corresponding member of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences, who devoted his life to the Lithuanian language: its teaching, study, and cultivation. He was a broad-minded scholar who worked tirelessly in various fields of linguistics and had an excellent command of every level of the Lithuanian language: pronunciation, accentuation, vocabulary, morphology, syntax, onomastics, punctuation, and spelling. In addition, he was an active organizer and leader of scholarly work and, in today’s terms, an opinion-maker and influencer. Possessed of exceptional charisma, he combined the subtleties of rhetoric and didactics superbly BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 Rasuolė Vladarskienė. Kazys Ulvydas – kalbos kultūros puoselėtojas | 2 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.16 and was able to capture the attention of many people and remain in their memory as an unparalleled host of language sessions. Kazys Ulvydas was born on August 27, 1910, at the Bagotėlė estate farmstead in Kėdainiai District. He attended primary schools in Apytalaukis and Kėdainiai, then the Jesuit gymnasiums in Kėdainiai and Kaunas. From 1930 to 1937, he studied Lithuanian studies and classical philology at Vytautas Magnus University; he later continued his studies and completed them at Vilnius University in 1940. From 1942 to 1949, he taught at Kaunas University, and from 1949 to 1956 at Vilnius University. In 1951, he began working at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language1 and worked there until his death. He died on March 16, 1996. K. Ulvydas accomplished his most significant work while employed at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature. He headed no fewer than three departments: the Department of Language History and Dialectology, the Dictionary Department, and the Department of Contemporary Lithuanian Language. To him, the Lithuanian language was the nation’s greatest treasure, and he regarded it as his duty to preserve and enrich that treasure and pass it on to future generations; he urged all readers of his works to do the same. He undertook the work he considered most necessary to safeguard and cultivate the Lithuanian language. An excellent organizer, K. Ulvydas led the preparation of the largest collective works of Lithuanian linguistics, Lietuvių kalbos žodyno and the three-volume Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos. He brought together teams of authors, trained them, and directed their work. The work of this scholar, who made such a significant contribution to Lithuanian linguistics, has been discussed in numerous publications. Vytautas Ambrazas and Elena Valiulytė provided a comprehensive account of K. Ulvydas’s life and work in their article “Linguist Kazys Ulvydas,” in the introductory section of the monograph Lietuvių kalbos prieveiksmiai, published after his death. In this article, K. Ulvydas is described as the last representative of the classical school of linguistics and a steadfast continuator of the traditions of Jonas Jablonskis, Antanas Salys, and Pranas Skardžius 1 From 1952 to 1990, at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature, and from 1991 onward, again at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language. BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351–7204 Rasuolė Vladarskienė. Kazys Ulvydas – kalbos kultūros puoselėtojas | 3 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.16 successors; it discusses the linguist’s main areas of activity: lexicography and grammar, the promotion of language culture, and, in a separate overview, adverb research, since this was the subject the scholar studied most extensively. On the 110th anniversary of Kazys Ulvydas’s birth, let us recall once again one of the academician’s fields of work—language planning and standardization. When discussing K. Ulvydas’s work on language standardization, it should first be noted that, in a broad sense, its reflection can also be found in works not directly related to language planning: both in Lietuvių kalbos žodyne and in Lietuvių kalbos gramatikoje. The most notable works in this area are the publication Kalbos kultūra, founded by K. Ulvydas, and the radio program Taisyklingai kalbėkime ir rašykime., which had a huge impact on society. The academician’s work on language culture has been examined in depth in publications in the journal Kalbos kultūra, which he himself founded: Pranas Kniūkšta, “Kazys Ulvydas on Language Culture and Society” (issue 78, 2005); Jonas Palionis, “The Outstanding Promoter of Standard Lithuanian, Kazys Ulvydas (on the 100th anniversary of the academician’s birth)” (issue 83, 2010). The journal Kalbos kultūra was founded in 1961 as a publication on practical language matters. Kazys Ulvydas organized the publication and served as its long-standing executive editor (1961–1991, issues 1–61); he wrote 45 articles for it (five of them with co-authors)2. K. Ulvydas formulated the objective of the publication Kalbos kultūros, and thus of his own work on language standardization, as follows: “not only to raise the standard of spoken and written language by offering the public 2 It is also important to note that the publication continues to this day, although its nature and title have changed—it is now the scholarly journal Bendrinė kalba. After the monthly journal Gimtoji kalba, devoted to practical language questions, was revived in 1990, Kalbos kultūra turned toward the theory of language culture, contemporary usage, and sociolinguistic research, becoming a peer-reviewed scholarly journal (Pranas Kniūkšta was executive editor from 1994 to 2003). As the understanding of the concept of kalbos kultūra changed (it has increasingly come to mean cultured speech and is no longer associated with theoretical research on language standardization), in 2014 (starting with issue 87) the publication’s title was changed to Bendrinė kalba. BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 Rasuolė Vladarskienė. Kazys Ulvydas – kalbos kultūros puoselėtojas | 4 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.16 well-founded, reasoned advice, but also to disseminate linguistic ideas in an accessible way, broaden readers’ linguistic horizons, awaken their interest in their native language, make them conscious participants in the process of shaping their native language, <...> cultivate readers’ feel for language, <...> instill in readers love and respect for their native language” (“On One of the Most Important Objectives of ‘Kalbos kultūra,’” issue 11, 1966). K. Ulvydas’s radio program “Taisyklingai kalbėkime ir rašykime” (1957–1984) can be said to have had a similar purpose. These broadcasts were very popular and eagerly listened to throughout Lithuania. As recalled by Associate Professor Dr. Angelė Kaulakienė, a former scholar at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and a colleague of Kazys Ulvydas, when potatoes were being dug in autumn at her husband’s family home in Kupiškis District, a radio was set up beside the potato field so that the diggers would not miss K. Ulvydas’s program. People not only enjoyed listening to the radio language programs, but also sent letters with questions, which K. Ulvydas endeavored to answer. Listeners were captivated by his persuasive voice, its distinctive timbre, and the passion with which the linguist explained the subtleties of language; they would even try to imitate his vocal intonations and make up jokes parodying the programs. Several decades later, it would be interesting to learn what exactly was discussed in those programs and why they so enthralled people of the time that their echoes can still be heard today. Articles based on several radio programs were published in the weekly Kalba Vilnius (1967, 1969, 1973, 1976, 1977, and 1980). It is unfortunate that few audio recordings have survived; however, Kazys Ulvydas’s daughter, Eglė Bugenienė, preserved the manuscripts of the radio programs and kindly allowed two folders of them to be BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 Rasuolė Vladarskienė. Kazys Ulvydas – kalbos kultūros puoselėtojas | 5 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.16 to become acquainted3. These are the manuscripts (see Fig. 1) and typescripts of radio programmes broadcast in 1962–1964 (35 programmes) and 1978 (38 programmes). The programmes were broadcast once a week, on Saturdays (some manuscripts also note the time: a few at 11 a.m., most at 2:05 p.m.). FIG. 1. Manuscript of a radio programme by Kazys Ulvydas Looking through a bundle of manuscripts for language programmes, one can see that Ulvydas very often answered listeners’ questions during the radio programmes. Perhaps this was one of the secrets behind their popularity: those who had sent in questions awaited the answers, while others were curious about who was asking (the questioner was always clearly identified by surname, often also by first name, and sometimes by position) and 3 My heartfelt thanks to Eglė Bugenienė for her kind cooperation and for the opportunity to become more closely acquainted with Kazys Ulvydas’s manuscripts. BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 Rasuolė Vladarskienė. Kazys Ulvydas – kalbos kultūros puoselėtojas | 6 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.16 where they lived) and what they asked about. This direct communication with specific people created the impression that it was very easy to talk with a respected scholar and learn his views on matters of interest (cf. Fig. 2). FIG. 2. A listener’s New Year’s greeting to K. Ulvydas4 There were also thematic programmes that ran for several broadcasts, for example: Language deficiencies in certain scholarly works5 (5 programmes), Lexical inaccuracies in the language of the press (12 programmes), Let us eliminate the deficiencies of medical language (2 programmes). These titles show that shortcomings in language use across various fields (among representatives of various professions) were examined. Another noteworthy aspect is the content of the questions: what people of that time asked and what concerned them. The questions were highly varied. People wanted to establish the correct stress, for example, in verbs of onomatopoeic origin with the suffix –ėti (e.g., kvarksėti, niurnėti), compound words (e.g., pusiasalis), passive pronominal participles (e.g., rašomasis, –oji), and international words (e.g., atmosfera, 4 I thank Eglė Bugenienė for permission to publish. 5 Programme titles are underlined in the manuscripts. BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 Rasuolė Vladarskienė. Kazys Ulvydas – kalbos kultūros puoselėtojas | 7 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.16 era), place names (e.g.: Praha, Roma). Questions of pronunciation also arose, for example, whether to pronounce a hard or soft l in the words kelkis, gulkis, vilkis, vilkikas; they sought clarification about long and short vowels and the pronunciation of e in international words. Questions were also asked about the meanings of Lithuanian words (e.g.: tymas, teisena) and international words (e.g.: kolosas, štormas), their usage (e.g., vėliumas), and origin (e.g., perkūnas). Questions were also asked about colloquial borrowings (e.g.: mažų, davai). Another group of questions concerned word formation, such as how to name residents according to where they live, and whether words had been formed correctly (e.g.: fotokinoprekės, savivartis). The many questions about the use of non-Lithuanian proper names and titles show that this issue had already been relevant to language users earlier, while the wording of the questions suggests that clearly conflicting opinions existed even then. People asked about appropriate forms of non-Lithuanian proper names, their adaptation and grammatical integration, and the transcription of proper nouns between Lithuanian and Russian; they objected to the Lithuanianization of foreign names. They also wondered why Belarusian proper names were transcribed from Russian rather than from Belarusian. A considerable number of questions concerned personal names. People asked about the formation of women’s surnames (e.g.: Senkienė or Senkuvienė); about correct surname forms in standard language (e.g.: Narmantas or Narmontas); about plural forms of surnames (e.g.: Mažeikiai, Daukšai, if the singular forms are Mažeika, Daukša); and about shortening colloquial names (e.g.: Lionka, Gedma, Jurka, Milka). They sought to find out which diminutive form—Petrukas or Petriukas—was better, and were interested in the origin of place names (e.g.: Balsupiai, Skardupiai, Balsė, Pabradė). Listeners were concerned with spelling issues: the spelling of place names (e.g.: Biliakiemis, Nevėžis), the spelling of the sound j in international words (e.g.: paviljonas, milijonas, legionas), and whether the use of nasal letters ought to be abandoned. BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 Rasuolė Vladarskienė. Kazys Ulvydas – kalbos kultūros puoselėtojas | 8 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.16 People were interested in the correct use of cases and prepositions, for example: became a teacher (masculine instrumental) or a teacher (nominative), I ask her or I ask him, breathe through the nose or through the nose. Reading the manuscripts of the radio broadcasts also begins to clarify the reasoning behind K. Ulvydas’s language recommendations. The linguist would generally explain the language phenomenon under discussion at considerable length, drawing on similar examples and, where appropriate, providing examples from other languages as well. When proposing corrections, he would offer more than one correct equivalent. For example, he suggested replacing the unnecessary borrowing biškį (biški) with a whole array of beautiful Lithuanian words: truputis, trupulėlis, truputytis, trupuč(i)ukas, mažumėlė, kruopelė, kruopelytė, kruopeliūtė (1963 04 17). K. Ulvydas often acknowledged variant forms, for example: įsirpti and išsirpti, and the genitive plural endings ašų and ašių. In his view, it was impossible to say which form should be considered the norm, since this was an unsettled “transitional” phenomenon; therefore, both forms should be tolerated (1963 04 17). However, regarding dictionary variants, he said that absolute synonymy is unwelcome in language because it creates certain difficulties; particular efforts are made to eliminate competing terms denoting various concepts in scientific fields. The linguist not only examined the correctness of linguistic expression in detail himself, but also encouraged listeners to take an interest in language matters and to try to investigate problems in dictionaries or other publications: “When questions arise about the meaning of an international word, one must be sure to reach for a dictionary of international words.” (1963 12 06). Sometimes he simply indicated books and chapters where listeners could read about the questions that concerned them. He disapproved of unnecessary corrections, believing that language should be corrected or changed only where correction is genuinely warranted, and that unjustified corrections merely confuse readers and undermine the authority of language editors. Therefore, in more than one broadcast, he patiently and with reasoned arguments explained to listeners their BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 Rasuolė Vladarskienė. Kazys Ulvydas – kalbos kultūros puoselėtojas | 9 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.16 to make unjustified proposals for correction. For example, relying on the criterion of the stability of the norm, he argued that “if we were to replace familiar, universally established expressions skambinti (paskambinti) telefonu with the word telefonuoti, we would do nothing to serve the language, but would only unsettle a norm that has already taken root and become universally widespread” (1978 04 15). He urged listeners, as far as they were able, to contribute to collecting the wealth of words in their native language Lietuvių kalbos žodynui—he called this a patriotic duty: “if society were to appreciate the importance of collecting the treasure of words for the nation’s culture, and the importance of that collected treasure for future generations, it could in a short time accomplish a veritable feat in the history of Lithuanian culture—it could save thousands of the most beautiful words and expressions from perishing and falling into oblivion every year” (1978 09 09). It is also worth noting that the linguist understood language culture not only as speaking correctly, but also as speaking courteously and with refinement. He therefore taught listeners that “[I]n writing and speech, we should not stint on politeness or a certain gentleness, since these improve relations between people. Lithuanian has no excess of formulas of politeness and gentleness, so let us not hesitate to learn sometimes from other languages, for example Polish, Russian, English, and especially French” (1978 06 24). A glance through the manuscripts of the radio talks Kazys Ulvydas hosted several decades ago shows that readers were concerned by, and had doubts about, questions much like those actively debated today (spelling, stress, the spelling of foreign proper names, and so on). The linguist’s answers to the questions raised offer a clearer picture of his sincere and responsible work on language standardization and of the criteria he used in making recommendations. The moderation and caution of his corrections stand out most clearly: “For corrections to be more convincing and useful, one must correct very cautiously and only what is truly wrong and needs correction” (More Caution in Language Corrections. Kalba Vilnius, 1977, 21). The corrections were based on the characteristics of the language system, BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 Rasuolė Vladarskienė. Kazys Ulvydas – kalbos kultūros puoselėtojas | 10 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.16 analogous cases, sometimes supported by examples from other languages as well. The radio talks not only corrected language errors and shortcomings, but also discussed the diversity of expressive resources in the language and explained not only the meanings of words but also their origins. Listeners were encouraged to take an active interest in language themselves (by seeking answers in linguistic publications) and to collect words for Lietuvių kalbos žodynui. In this way, love and respect for the Lithuanian language were fostered. Pranas Kniūkšta assessed K. Ulvydas’s contribution to language standardization very precisely. He wrote that the academician’s “ideas and conclusions formed a coherent system that can be called the Ulvydas school. Its most important features would be reliance on linguistic facts, theoretically sound linguistic principles, broad and persuasive argumentation, regard for society’s needs and moderation, and the enrichment of the resources and expressive means of the standard language” (Kalbos kultūra, vol. 68, 1995). The direction of language standardization established by Kazys Ulvydas continues to resonate in the work of today’s researchers and language planners. Received 2020 12 02 RASUOLĖ VLADARSKIENĖ Institute of the Lithuanian Language 5 Petro Vileišio St., LT-10308 Vilnius [email protected] BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204