„Standartinė kalba?“

BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 ALDONAS PUPKIS A STANDARD LANGUAGE? In 2016, Irena Smetonienė, Antanas Smetona and Audrius Valotka published an article entitled “On the standard language term” (hereinafter: Smetonienė et al. 2016) in the online scientific journal Lietuvių kalba (www.lietuviukalba.lt). It raises the question, “would it not be appropriate to use the term standard language instead of common language?” (p. 1). Since the conclusions of the article summarize that “we must use the term of the standard language” (emphasis my own – A. P.), it is worthwhile to delve into why, on what arguments based on Lithuanian linguistic terminology is proposed to make a rather revolutionary decision. The introduction of the article explains why this question is raised. For the authors, the most important reasons are external ones, arising from communication with foreign scholars: we have started to disagree with them about terms not discussed in our linguistics science (because of their concept and synonymy of terms). Specific examples of terms that, in the authors’ opinion, have not been discussed (and about which there is probably no agreement) are also given: how do we understand the terms of borrowed and foreign, newword, newword and neologism, how do we 1 interpret the relationship between language policy and language planning, whether it is better to use pointer or marker terms when speaking about morphological subjects, what to do with the competing terms of office, subject and administrative style in the field of stylistics. The direction of desired usage is also mentioned: “[t]he people are more inclined to choose an international term rather than a Lithuanian one, because it is easier to communicate with scientists from other countries” (Smetonienė et al.: 2016: 1). This is also the case with the terms common and standard language. According to the authors, “the term standard language better reflects the normative nature of a certain language variant, its state status, officiality, consistent and regular knowledge of the language system and the application of the results of this knowledge in the processes of language standardization and language policy” (Smetonienė et al. 2016: 1). Regarding the latter – common and standard language – terms, there is a common understanding as follows: “Of course, without changing the content, it is not difficult to replace any term with another (it is just a matter of agreement and purposefulness). 1 It is difficult to understand the logic behind the inclusion of the relationship between language policy and language planning in the group of undiscussed example terms: one of the co-authors of the article in question recently published a detailed article (see Valotka 2015) on the content relationship between these concepts. ALDONAS PUPKIS. A standard language? | 2 BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 question), <...>, [and] international practice shows that a local term remains local, leading to a problemų verčiant jį į kitas kalbas“ (Smetonienė ir kt. 2016: 1). Autoriai stengiasi įžvelgti ir abiejų “difference in content, manifested in the naming of different stages of language development”. An important argument for them is that common language, according to the authors, is translated as common language in scientific papers and documents, but reflects “the early phase of the development of the standard language, which has not yet reached the stage of modern language” (Smetonienė et al. 2016: 2), so this would be the pre-codification stage. However, at least with regard to the terms used in scientific papers, such a statement is completely unfounded (see table). TABLE. Use (translation) data of terms common language, standard language in the keyword sections of the online database of Lithuanian Studies 2 English translation of the meaningful word Number of cases 1. common language standard language 1503 2. common language common language 64 3. common language literary language 45 4. standard language standard language 56 On the other hand, if we translate common language as standard language, the relationship of the latter with common language remains unclear. Thus, without much consideration, but manipulating the statements of another paper (Cizikaitė 2002), the authors write on p. 2 that bendrinė kalba / common language denotes the pre-codification phase of language, although Dalia Cizikaitė claims that it is precisely common language, i.e. common language, that denotes that pre-codification phase. This can be seen from the quotes from both articles below. 2 Retrieved 1 June 2017. 3 This figure does not include nearly 20 cases where only the common language is mentioned, and the English term is not mentioned either in the key words or in the annotations (here and elsewhere a minor error may have occurred). 4 This term occurs unsystematically, it is not always clear who has entered it into the database (e.g., the keywords of articles published in Jonas Klimavičius’ Terminologija (2000), Arnoldas Piročkinas’ Gimtajame žodyje (2004) are not indicated at all, other articles are published in Poland or in little known publications in the Lithuanian scientific world). 5 The terms are used randomly, not systematically (see footnote 4). 6 Among them are the key words common (standard) language mentioned in Giedrius Subačius' article published in the 2002 collection Res Balticae <...>. The Lithuanian Studies database does not include another Subačius’ work, chronology” (vol. 2004 m. paskelbtas Metmenų žurnale, – to straipsnio antraštėje rašoma panašiai: „Standartinių (bendrinių) kalbų istorijos 84, pp. 97–115). ALDONAS PUPKIS. A standard language? | 3 BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 (1) Smetonienė et al. 2016: 2: However, if we translate the common language into the Standard language, the problem of the relationship with the common language also remains. Common language / common language marking “the language phase could be called pre-codific. This is one of the early stages of the development of the common language, when there are not yet universally accepted works (grammar, dictionaries) fixing the same language codes (normes) (Cizikaitė 2002: 274; should have been p. 275. – A. P.). (2) Cizikaitė 2002: 274–275: The term common language, unlike literary and national language, is rather rare. <...> common language reflected the early phase of common language, which had not yet reached the stage of modern language development, but which was already clearly distinct from dialect <...>. Such a language phase could be called pre-coding. This is one of the early stages of the development of a common language, when there are still no universally accepted works (grammar, dictionaries) fixing the same language codes (normes). In this way, inaccurately interpreting the statements of others, presenting falsified data to the authors, the idea arises to conclude that “by presenting ourselves to the world in this way, we look strange (in fact, backward)” (Smetonienė et al. 2016: 2). It is not easy to analyze the equilibristics of these statements, and it is not easy to get a grip on the clutter of thoughts, which are summarized in the last word of the paragraph – we are lagging behind. So we need to clarify why we are lagging behind – because of lack of skills in translating, because of confusion of terms or for some other reason? In the first chapter of the article (somehow it is called part, although later it is referred to as chapters) “Terminų vartojimas kitose šalyse” (The Use of Terms in Other Countries) an article published almost a decade and a half ago in a scientific journal by a literary scholar (not a linguist) Cizikaitė on the history of the English common language term and its equivalents in Lithuanian (Cizikaitė 2002: 273–284) is recounted. One might wonder why the authors of the peer-reviewed article look primarily not directly, but through the sole intermediary to other English-speaking countries, rather than to their own linguistic heritage. Antra vertus, galėjo patys pasidomėti kalbamų terminų turiniu ir jų apibrėžtimis ne tik Cizikaitės minimų, bet ir kitų šalių kalbose (ypač trūksta vokiečių kalbos termino raidos analizės, nes jis galėjo turėti (ir turėjo!) nemažą, gal net suomių, norvegų, vengrų ir kt. kalbų terminų apžvalgos). Cizikaitės straipsnis nėra kuo nors lemiamą poveikį ir lietuvių kalbos šios srities terminijai, taip pat estų, ypatingas, bet trumpai apžvelgtinas, nes juo kaip vieninteliu šaltiniu ir remiasi minėti autoriai. ALDONAS PUPKIS. A standard language? 4 One cannot disagree with the author’s assertion that the BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 term standard language has outcompeted earlier terms in English (Cizikaitė 2002: 280), it is increasingly adopted in the practice of other European languages and in many places becomes the main term. Here we can add the statements of another author that “the term standard language represents a ‘specific Western concept spread by cultural tradition’” (Birštonaitė 2002: 266), that “the concepts of [n]ational or common language <...> do not correspond at all to the linguistic situation of the former British Empire” (Birštonaitė 2002: 265). The conclusions of Dalia Cizikaite’s article are formulated quite contradictorily. Speaking about the Lithuanian term in this field, the author states that “the common language, unlike the English common language, is a full-fledged term” (Cizikaitė 2002: 280), its “definitions contain almost all the most important and the same semantics as the standard English: national, normalized, standard, common, having written and spoken forms, exemplary, used in many spheres. Thus, what is called standard English in English linguistics, in Lithuanian linguistics is described as the term of general language. It was best suited to describe the new stage of the Lithuanian language and the new concept of language, formed at the beginning of the 19th century” (Cizikaitė 2002: 281). But in the final conclusion it is already stated that “the terms written language, common language and literary language are too narrow to describe the codified and normative Lithuanian language. The term common language is particularly inconvenient to use when comparing the history of several languages” (Cyril 2002: 281–282). The second chapter of the reviewed article reviews the change of spoken terms in Lithuania. Jacket that review, incomplete, selective. Sometimes it gives the impression that sophistical tricks have been used: only cases that are useful to the authors are referred to, and the overview of the change is completed in 1980 (or more precisely in 1972). First of all, it is surprising that one of the most extensively described articles on the development of written language by Prof. Arnoldas Piročkinas (1970) has not been reviewed at all. In this article it is stated that the term written language was probably first used by Friedrich Kuršaitis (in turn, I will also add the term Schriftsprache, which appears in the Lithuanianist writings of August Schleicher. – A. P.), and not by Jonas Jablonskis, as may appear from the article under review. In addition, when mentioning Jablonski in the scientific work, it would have been appropriate to indicate where he has established this choice and conscious separation from spoken language. On the other hand, “forgetting” Pirochkin’s article does not provide much information about the origin of the term, its change of form, other terms, and finally we do not know Pirochkin’s position as the author of the article. ALDONAS PUPKIS. A standard language? | 5 After briefly mentioning the term written language, but BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 without developing its content, the article writes quite extensively about the term common language created by Pranas Skardzis in 1927 and introduced into usage. This time, an attempt is made to rely on a methodology of distinctive features. In both quoting and retelling Skardžių, pabrėžiama tos kalbos atmainos b e n d r u m o ypatybė (požymis): „termino kūrėjui buvo svarbu emphasis is placed on the commonality of the language – as a uniting aspect of the state <...>. In fact, at that time it was the best choice, it corresponded to the political and historical spirit of Lithuania at the time” (Smetonienė et al. 2016: 6; emphasis added. – A. P.). In 1950, the term common language was replaced by the term Russian (= translated from Russian – A. P.) literary language. It is stated that it was no better (perhaps than the common language, but it is not said why), it had no tradition in Lithuania (although the use of it and its analogues reached as much as 100 years; see Piročkinas 1970: 31). Neither Lithuanian nor foreign linguists were satisfied with such a meaningless change: Pranas Skardžius and Petras Jonikas had written about it on several occasions, and Lithuanian linguists had also actively discussed it (the latter statement is not known to me from the literature – the discussion began only almost 20 years later). The term common language began to be revived in 1969, indicating where it was first used. Not all of the articles were published, but some were published. Among them, the opinion of Jonas Palionis (1975) is particularly noteworthy, that, in addition to the establishment of the term, it is extremely important that “when translating the Lithuanian common language term into other languages, especially those of the Soviet nations, one should either use the equivalents of the literary language term of those nations, or in each case interpret the concept marked by that common language term” (Palionis 1975: 32). The authors of the article in question admit that these Palionis’s words have become the leitmotif of their article: “it is impossible to use the common language term honestly in other languages, although now it is West" (Smetonienė et al. 2016: 7). But despite the debates (= ideological and bureaucratic opposition. – A. P.) the term common language took hold and it was “a great ideological victory, showing the strong backbone of Lithuanian linguists” (Smetonienė et al. 2016: 7; emphasis added. – A. P.). The returned term later acquired “other meanings” (mentioned Jonikos (1972: 1) statement that common language “can be called a kind of cultural and civilized language allocated to the whole nation”), but this term, in Jonikos’s opinion, has also shortcomings: it is difficult to define more precisely the concept of “commonness”, because both individual families, villages and parishes have a common language. Aleksas Girdenis (1973: 45) defined the common language as the language of the nation’s public life, and the “viešumo sema” was transferred to the Lithuanian Language Encyclopedia (1999, 2008). However, here it is concluded that such filling of the term content (as if it were some kind of ALDONAS PUPKIS. Standartinė kalba? | 6 BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 The term ‘standard language’, which has spread throughout the world, “is not a good thing, because in other countries standard language is seen as an advanced (? – A. P.) stage, so we should also consider this question bearing in mind that the Lithuanian language is not standing still, that the common language was also a certain period of its development, but that, like in other countries, it has ended” (Smetonienė et al. 2016: 8). The third chapter is entitled “Why should the term standard language be used in Lithuania today?” In it we should find a clear and logical explanation of why the common language of the established, traditional term cannot be supplemented with new sems, why the development of all or at least many (so it may seem from the context of the article) languages has already reached (or moved into) a new period of development and how it should be described, why the old stage of development of the common language has ended or is ending in English, and in the languages of post-Soviet and other post-colonial countries, and developing countries, what does this mean? Thus, a breakthrough in the development of languages will have occurred all over the world (just a revolution), which the authors of the article in question were probably not the first to notice in Lithuania (or they borrowed this idea from Cizikaite (2002), or perhaps from Giedrius Subačius’ 2002 article, although the latter was not included in the list of literature) and decided that we, too, should not lag behind these processes, and therefore we should keep pace with the English language (the tradition of the British Empire) and adopt the term that has become widely established in it. Moreover, the new term would also reflect “a consistent and regular knowledge of the language system and the application of this knowledge in the processes of language standardization and language policy” (Smetonienė et al. 2016: 1). It is a truly innovative idea that a change in the term could substantially stimulate the research of the entire field of linguistics, because, understand, the term of general language cannot do this. Unfortunately, no more detailed explanations on this or any other issues are found in the article. It is only full of difficult to understand reasonings, expressed mainly by quotations from various sources or authors, so here it remains to say a few remarks arising from those considerations and try to evaluate the proposal made by the authors of the article. It seemed more than strange when I read in the reviewed article that it was I who in 1980, in my Fundamentals of Language Culture, had brought the concept of the term common language closer to the term of standard language already used in Europe at that time (maybe I had already perceived that new stage of the development of the Lithuanian common language that had begun?). Moreover, in that book the authors also discover my proposal for the standard usage of the language term in Lithuania (Smetonienė et al. 2016: 8; cf. my. – A. P.). Having read about such discoveries, it is necessary to recall my own formulation of this idea in the Fundamentals of Language Culture: “The common language from other žargonų, sociolektų) pirmiausia skiriasi tuo, kad ji yra sunorminta, daugiau ar mažiau apdorota ALDONAS PUPKIS. A standard language? | 7 BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 language variants (dialects, system. This distinctive feature is expressed by codification, that is, by the presence of fixed rules. the general features of language, referred to by various authors, may not be absolute, characteristic of not all languages or not all epochs” (Pupkis 1980: 7). Of the several terms used to describe this language variety, which have some or other shortcomings, “the term standard language (standard is explained in the “International Dictionary of Words” as ‘norm, example’; this word can also mean ‘template, stencil’ – common language is not a template, stencil language) would best show the specificity of common language, but it has no tradition in Lithuanian linguistics” (Pupkis 1980: 8). So neither “approximation” nor “proposal” I can see here. Speaking about the terms and characteristics of the common language I have mentioned, the authors put it all together in a free narrative and claim that at that time I distinguished four features of the common language: 1) a standardized, more or less processed linguistic system; (2) ‘codification’ means fixed rules; 3) written form and monologue; 4) the most important function – communication. But in the book these traits (features) are arranged in a slightly different order and it is not quite as the authors modeled it. It has already been mentioned that the peculiar interpretation of the thoughts of other authors is one of the peculiarities of this article, which makes many other statements and conclusions doubtful. For example, reading further, it may appear that I have spoken about the general language and its term only once and that this is my final opinion. But my views, like those of many other linguists, are not some kind of solid concrete that cannot change with time. Why, for example, is not even a word mentioned about my description of common language (concept and term) in Language Culture Studies (2005)? It seems to me that they have moved forward in a certain sense, not very far from the concept of 1980, and write that the common language is not only a consciously processed, but also a historically established variant of the national language, used to satisfy the needs of the whole nation in communication, thinking, political, economic and cultural life, and to express national identity and representation (Pupkis 2005: 30). Here, I would dare to say, the general functions of the language are highlighted, among which the functions of national identity and representation are particularly important. The authors obviously did not find it necessary to study other Lithuanian linguists’ books and articles on common language – the term, characteristics, definitions, formation, history, etc. The article does not even mention the books of the most famous historians of Lithuanian language, Jon Palionis and Zigmas Zinkevičius, the terms used in them, periodization, etc., as well as older articles by Pranas Kniūkštas, Alberto Rosinas, works of the beginning of this century by Jon Klimavičius, Rita Miliūnaitė, etc., which in one way or another deal with many issues related to the article in question. ALDONAS PUPKIS. A standard language? | 8 Returning to the authors’ constant emphasis that they do not BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 quite understand the characteristics of common language b e n d r u m o (it is worth recalling that Cizikaitė 2002: 280 considers commonness to be social rather than of older times (remember the already lingvistiniu bendrinės kalbos požymiu) galima prisiminti, kad ja abejojančių jie tariasi radę ir iš mentioned doubts of Jonikis, but he (1972: 1) has without hesitation called common language “a kind of cultural and civilized language allocated to the whole nation”. This “commonness”, its cultural and civilizational character directly correlates with the “publicity” of the common language according to Girdenis (2000: 316) (“The common (literary) language is the language of the public life of the nation (writing, school, literature, mass communications). The same is emphasized in my Studies of Language Culture (2005). And here, albeit indirectly, apart from the aforementioned quotations, the authors state what they are actually seeking: “In fact, we create traditions ourselves, and today there is no longer any need or sense to emphasize only commonality or to list the spheres in which normative language must be used” (Smetonienė et al. 2016: 8), and they propose to emphasize the characteristics I mentioned in 1980, where the b e n d r u ma s of common language is not raised as its most important characteristic. But if we consider common language to be a linguistic rather than a social phenomenon, we must admit that the very essence of common language, as writes Giedrius Subačius (2003: 63), is based on the idea of integration of language forms, i.e., the expression of uniformity, uniformity, which is necessary for the consolidation of the society or community that uses that language. Thus, the characteristic of community is not a defect or a construct without content, but an idea that unites society, which nowadays is not compatible with the widely spread disintegration provisions of neoliberalism. There are a number of fundamental issues that need to be discussed in order to continue along the generalisation path. Firstly, as I mentioned, the most important thing for the authors is that we are lagging behind Western Europe with the term common language, which is far ahead in the development of languages. This seems to be an attempt to address the internal needs of terminology change, but it is completely confusing. It is said that different terms refer to different stages of language development, indicating the level of quality of those languages. Such a reasoning would be logically possible, but the article does not explain two essential elements of the topic: 1) what stages of the development of the Lithuanian language are discussed here, what their chronological boundaries are, 2) how the quality of the Lithuanian language is measured (or has already been measured) (about the latter case nothing is said at all, not even explained what was meant, what the content of that statement is). ALDONAS PUPKIS. A standard language? | 9 BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 If the term common language reflects a phase of standard language that has not yet reached the stage of modern language, then when should the boundary of that modern language be drawn? Since when, when the lietuvių kalbą galima pradėti laikyti modernia – nuo Aušros laikų, nuo Varpo? Bet gali būti, kad ir language became the state language and functional language styles began to develop rapidly? But then there was not even a term for a common language. Maybe since 1927, when the term common language appeared? Or is it meant to be the epoch of Yakov Bonsky or even older (where the common language term with the light is not found)? On the other hand, historical dates are confused: it would have been necessary 7 to specify precisely the time when the new stage of the standard language began (in Western Europe and Lithuania), if as early as 1980 I had, as the authors write, already brought the concept of the term common language closer to “the term standard language already used in Europe at that time” (Smetonienė et al. 2016: 8). So if the choice of a term should be determined by the “level of language quality”, who will explain to us what level is being discussed here and convince us that the terms discussed by the authors and the 8 equals spoken do not contradict each other? I am convinced that this confusion would not have occurred if the authors had approached Lithuanian linguistic terms from Lithuanian linguistic sources, rather than relying primarily on foreign practice. In our linguistics, the terms of this field have long been established and it was enough to look at Palionis’ works to put everything into place. For example, in the book Rašomosios kalbos istorija Palionis (1995) refers to the written language of the so-called pre-national period as the written language, talks extensively about the formation of the Lithuanian common written language in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and continues to use only the latter term throughout the book (Palionis 1995: 3–5). Incidentally, he emphasizes that here “following the previous tradition and due to the current usage tendencies, the term literary language was abandoned (although, in his opinion, it is not very bad), and in its place the terms written language and common language were returned. However, the latter term is used only in the meaning of the written and spoken (‘standard’) language common to the whole Lithuanian nation, which has been developed since the times of Dawn” (Palionis 1995: 7). If Cizikaite’s article had been read carefully, it would have been easy to understand that the term common language she mentions, translated in parentheses as “common language”, and further explained that it is simply ʹany language that is common to all people in the world.ʹ 7 Earlier Smetona (2014) had said more clearly: the most important year of the standard language (the beginning) is 1922, when Lithuanian was declared the state language in the Constitution, the Ministry of Education recognized Jablonski’s grammar as the standard, and a university was founded in Kaunas. The question about this statement should be formulated differently here: does the periodization of the history of language depend on external political, social or cultural circumstances, even if they are very important in the life of society, or on qualitative and / or quantitative changes in the structure (system) and use of the language itself? 8 It was possible to refer to the scheme of the development of the current codified Lithuanian language presented in my book Kalbos kultūros studijos or to discuss it (see Pupkis 2005: 45–46). ALDONAS PUPKIS. A standard language? | 16 BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 LITERATŪRA B i r š t o n a i tė R . 2002: Kai kurie anglų, slovakų ir lietuvių šnekamųjų standartinių kalbų formavimosi bruožai. – Archivum Lithuanicum 4, 265–272. C i z i k a i t ė D . 2002: Anglų kalbos terminai common language, national language, literaly language, Kingˊs language, standard language ir jų lietuviški atitikmenys. – Archivum Lithuanicum 4, 273–282. G i r de n is A . 1973: Bendrinė kalba. – Mūsų kalba 3, p. 45–47. – Tas pats: Aleksas Girdenis. Kalbotyros darbai 1, 2000, 316–318. J o n i k a s P . 1972: Lietuvių bendrinės rašomosios kalbos kūrimasis antrojoje XIX a. pusėje. Čikaga: Pedagoginis lituanistikos institutas. K a l ė di en ė L . 2013: Urnėžiūtė R., Valskys V. Dvidešimtoji Jono Jablonskio konferencija. – Gimtoji kalba 10, 21–24. P a l i o n i s J . 1975: Literatūrinė kalba, bendrinė kalba ar kaip kitaip? – Kalbos kultūra 29, 28–32. P a l i o n i s J . 1995: Lietuvių rašomosios kalbos istorija. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. P i r o č k i n a s A . 1970: Literatūrinės kalbos terminas ir jo analogai. – Kalbos kultūra 19, 25–32. P u p k i s A . 1980: Kalbos kultūros pagrindai. Vilnius: Mokslas. P u p k i s A . 2005: Kalbos kultūros studijos. Vilnius: Gimtasis žodis. S k a r d ži us P. 1997: Rinktiniai raštai 2. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. S m e t on i e nė I . 2014: Kalbos vieta valstybių politikoje: standartinių kalbų susikūrimas. – Parlamento studijos 16. Prieiga internete: http://www.parlamentostudijos.lt/Nr16/16_kalba_2.htm. S m e t on i e nė I ., S m e t o n a A ., V a l o t k a A. 2016: Dėl standartinės kalbos termino. – Lietuvių kalba 10. Prieiga internete: www.lietuviukalba.lt. S u b a či u s G . 2003: Standartinė kalba – valdžios nuosavybė. – Kultūros barai 12, 63–64. V a l o t k a A . 2015: Kalbos planavimo ir kalbos politikos terminai. – Parlamento studijos 18, 84– 101. Prieiga internete: www.parlamentostudijos.lt/Nr18/files/5. Received 20 June 2017 ALDONAS PUPKIS [email protected]