Pavydėtina profesoriaus Vito Labučio darbų ir veiklos įvairovė

PERSONALIJOS ALBINAS DRUKTEINIS Klaipėda University THE ENVIABLE DIVERSITY OF PROFESSOR VITAS LABUTIS’S WORK AND ACTIVITIES In a commemorative article, we usually expect a description of scholarly work and other activities, and a portrayal of the person. This, of course, should be included. On the other hand, however, anniversaries bring many spoken descriptions, which would be nothing new either to the person being celebrated or to others. A scholar may find various reflections on the subjects of his published research, even polemical ones, and on questions raised by other scholarly works, more worthwhile. Therefore, this commemorative article will focus chiefly on comments on the research, reviews, and individual observations published over the course of a long scholarly career, in an attempt to discern 232 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 85 the claims, descriptions, and positions in them that are most useful (from a necessarily subjective perspective) to the study of language. We know Professor Vitas Labutis first and foremost as a syntactician, and as a proponent of the studies and descriptions of Lithuanian syntax by Jonas Jablonskis and Jonas Balkevičius. The classifications of word combinations presented in the teaching book Žodžių junginių problemos (Labutis 1976), published as early as 1976, particularly the syntactic-semantic classification, provide a basis for describing word combinations and word relations both in accounts of the syntax of language and in university syntax courses. No matter how many different studies and descriptions of combinations one reads, it still seems more persuasive not to classify pairs of words linked by a coordinative relation as combinations, and to divide the relation between words functioning as the predicative center into a word-combination relation and a sentence predicative relation—that is, to interpret it as a relation at two distinct levels. This also provides grounds for abandoning the term predicative combination. Various approaches to syntactic description propose other interpretations of syntactic relations, but they do not seem as convincing as the conception of syntactic relations associated with syntactic connections arising from the apprehension of reality and conveyed by content words. Admittedly (and without avoiding controversy), the concept of a complex word combination has yet to be explained consistently. If a combination is understood as a connection between two words with independent lexical meanings, linked by a relation of subordination, it is difficult to imagine how a third word could fit in. A dependent constituent that takes another dependent constituent simply forms a new word combination. The relations among word combinations, however, are no longer a matter of the structure of a word combination. In evaluating syntactic phenomena, attention has always been paid to functional similarities and differences. Indeed, words functioning as the predicative center can be interpreted both as a combination and as the center of a sentence by distinguishing the role of that word pair in the communicative unit—the sentence (utterance)—from its role as a unit realizing syntagmatic relations. Because of their functional proximity, in Lietuvių kalbos sintaksėje (Labutis 1998 et al.), subordinate clauses are discussed alongside sentence constituents of the same type. In general, the Professor had been raising theoretical questions concerning the functional approach for a very long time. In his 1981 article Kalbotyroje, the author, while debating whether language phenomena should be described from form to meaning or from meaning to form, rejects the “either/or” position: both research directions are necessary and complement one another (Labutis 1981: 57). It is generally thought that in the initial stages of describing language phenomena or a level of language, description proceeds predominantly from forms to meanings, whereas at a later stage, once the necessary information about each language unit or A. DRUKTEINIS. Pavėdėtina profesoriaus Vito Labučio darbų ir veiklos įvairovė 233 group of units has been accumulated, the reverse is true. It would seem that the grammar of Lithuanian is now adequately described. Yet the study of metalinguistic comments—which are closely connected with the speaker’s intentions and characterize how language functions—in Kazimieras Župerka’s account of competition among linguistic devices (Župerka 1995) is nevertheless classifiable as research proceeding from form (expression) to meaning. Apparently, every new approach to a linguistic phenomenon and every new research perspective requires establishing the functions of language units in a chosen setting, in this case, in an act of communication. Thus, the need for both functional approaches posited in the aforementioned article was an important theoretical principle for functional research, relevant not only to that particular discussion in the article. A detailed description of one of the functional approaches is revisited much later, in an article published in the electronic journal Lietuvių kalba (Labutis 2007). The article’s title, “An Introduction to the Speaker’s Functional Grammar,” indicates that the previously mentioned approach, from meaning to form, is extended on the side of meaning to include the speaker’s intention and the act of communication. This is entirely understandable and acceptable: many linguistic facts, even regularities of the language system, can—and perhaps should—be explained by the speaker’s desire to convey information about the external or inner world in one way or another. The creator of language can be excluded from descriptions of linguistic phenomena only provisionally. The article surveys various models of functional description and concludes that the speaker’s functional grammar model, discussed with reference to the works of Simon Dik and Anna Siewierska, is the most interesting and promising. Lithuanian linguistics offers examples of functional grammatical description. Adelė Valeckienė’s functional account (Valeckienė 1998), based on the London (Hallidayan) functional school, is interesting, but oriented toward the characteristics and structure of the language system, which distances it from the features of communicative acts and the most important functions of language, even though its approach proceeds from meaning to its means of realization—that is, the account is both more systematic and close to contemporary theories. V. Labutis’s article, conceived as a programmatic work for functional research—and titled an introduction to functional grammar—is important for various Lithuanian-language studies, at least in this field. One feature of the article under discussion, characteristic also of the author’s other articles and, in general, of all his research, is its careful review of the history of research in the field being analyzed. For example, the concept of proposition, which may seem new in semantic descriptions, was already used, as the article notes, by the authors of the Port-Royal Grammar in the mid-seventeenth century. The signifié (ways of signification), too, derives from the speculative grammarians of the twelfth century, known as the Modists. 234 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 85 Or perhaps this is an entirely different case of attentiveness both to the past and to the details of the description. We know how important it is to use examples appropriately in research. One can select the examples best suited to illustrate a claim, or generalize from a sufficiently large number of examples. The way examples are selected determines the reliability of arguments and claims. A paper recently delivered by the Professor at a conference commemorating the centenary of Jonas Jablonskis’s Lietuvių kalbos sintaksės was precisely about the examples presented in this description of syntax, their diversity and importance*. Attention was drawn to the importance of natural examples common in spoken language, as well as examples from various sources, which sometimes reveal the subject being described no less effectively than generalizations do. At the same time, this is once again a look back at past works, at what is valuable in them and applicable to research today. Attention to the precision of what is being said, and the search for the most suitable word or phrase to convey an idea—these are things one can learn from the Professor’s published research and teaching materials, and things one learned while writing one’s own scholarly work from his comments as a supervisor or from his reviews of articles. Vitas Labutis’s scholarly interests are extraordinarily diverse. Consider the publication prepared by Kazys Pakalka, Senasis Konstantino Sirvydo žodynas (1997), followed soon afterward by the publication of the article “Why are the languages described not named in Konstantinas Sirvydas’s dictionary?” (Labutis 2001). It presents interesting reflections on the reasons that may have led to the Lithuanian language being left unmentioned in the dictionary, and, at the same time, to all the languages being named in the dictionary’s title. Translations from and into English become more numerous, and an article appears on the equivalents of impersonal sentences in Lithuanian and English and a comparison of their patterns (Labutis 2008). In 2002, a publication seemingly far removed from the concerns of a syntactician is prepared: Daukšių krašto žodynas—a tribute to his native dialect. It is also a tribute to the people of his native region: in 2011, a detailed article was published about Juozas Lazauskas, a prominent figure from the Daukšiai region (Labutis 2011). And this is by no means all that could attest to this diversity. Although a language researcher should be a scholar in one of the fields of science, a linguist probably finds it hardest to confine themselves to scholarly research alone. Language is a tool of thought and a means of conveying ideas for scholars in every field and for speakers engaged in any kind of activity; consequently, everyone considers themselves competent to discuss language. A linguist, however much they may wish to delve into the very depths of scholarship, cannot remain aloof from the various discussions about language and linguists, language use and its regulation. * An article by Professor Vitas Labutis, prepared on the basis of the paper delivered at the conference, is published in this volume of Kalbos kultūros, pp. 19–36. A. DRUKTEINIS. Pavydėtina profesoriaus Vito Labučio darbų ir veiklos įvairovė 235 In several articles, the Professor responds to the views of linguists and non-linguists on language planning and the ideology of language regulation. His responses to, for example, arguments voiced in a conversation among a group of intellectuals about unjustified language regulation, the dictatorship of linguists, the veneration of the Lithuanian language, and its alleged incapacity and unsuitability for certain fields of activity are highly consistent and well reasoned (Labutis 2011a). At times using a sharp word, yet with considerable restraint, the author reflects on claims that are far from restrained or scholarly. One can fully agree with the author that failing to understand language as part of a nation’s culture and history leads to a dead end, and be astonished at how ineptly the development of language and activities related to its analysis are interpreted. The reflections of so-called modern linguists that touch on language theory are also analyzed—notably, their views on prescriptive and descriptive accounts (Labutis 2011b). Using examples from specific studies, the author shows that these two modes of description cannot be separated, and that any proposal to regulate language use arises from an analysis of the language system, its regularities and its development. One might add that only a linguist who has never done similar work could imagine that those who establish norms do so by guesswork or pull them out of a hat. For a full decade now, debate has continued over the regulation of the use of non-Lithuanian surnames, including some written with non-Lithuanian characters; this has expanded into broader issues concerning the preservation of the Lithuanian language, the relationship between the language system and usage, and language use and its regulation. The Professor has published a whole series of articles on these matters and has otherwise responded to questions concerning surnames. He clearly defends the position that non-Lithuanian surnames should be written in adapted form, according to pronunciation, with the original forms also provided as needed. Commenting on the preamble to a bill submitted to the Seimas, the author sees in its content a position that conflicts with language theory and poses a danger to the language. In his view, also drawing on Evalda Jakaitienė’s research on the lexicon, personal names are part of the language system, like other nouns, though their semantics are different (Labutis 2010). And this is something one cannot disagree with. In at least certain fields and in texts belonging to those fields, adaptation (not merely grammaticalization) could be mandatory. On the other hand, the general wording of the aforementioned Resolution No. 60 of the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language (5.1) is imperative, that is, it should be understood as requiring adaptation; it is only the contradictory way in which the conditions for adaptation are stated that makes it ambiguous and optional in application. This position is also defended in another, discussion-oriented article (Labutis 2007b), which emphasizes the importance of precise arguments and of arguments that have not been accepted. 236 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 85 The Professor devoted much time and effort to language standardization. He is the author of some of the Kalbos praktikos patarimų (1976, 2nd ed. 1985), the author of Kalbos patarimų 2: Sintaksė (S1, S2, S3 – 2003), and the author of many articles on various issues of language use in Gimtoji kalba. Closely related to this work is his activity on the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language and in the working group it established to prepare parts of Kalbos patarimų, as well as his involvement in the Lithuanian Language Society during its restoration (from 1989) and subsequent development. Analyses of the Society’s work that captured the depth of its activities were always a good foundation for its future work at the Society’s congresses. Now that the Society has become distanced from current language issues, it would be worthwhile to recall V. Labutis’s reflections on the conceptual foundations of its work. Ne viename straipsnyje Profesorius atkreipia dėmesį į blogus vertimus (Labutis 2005a, 2005b) ir pateikia įvairių siūlymų, kaip išvengti vis blogėjančios vertimų padėties. Praktinis kalbos aspektas neišslysta iš akiračio net visiškai teoriniuose tyrimuose. Tarkim, gabenimo veiksmažodžių semantikos analizėje (Labutis 2007a) autorius nepraleidžia progos pakomentuoti veiksmažodžio gabenti skverbimąsi į konkretesniųjų jo sinonimų vietą vartosenoje ir pateikia kaip vieną iš tyrimo išvadų. Professor Vitas Labutis has such broad interests. Even after reaching a distinguished jubilee, he could still be seen at one conference or another devoted to language issues, his ideas could be read—for instance, in commentaries discussing the Lithuanian language curriculum for secondary education—and one could talk with him at the international Salos Summer School of Linguistics in Rokiškis District. I wonder whether we, being younger, have so much desire and determination to keep abreast of all the most important language matters. This overview was intended to celebrate the Professor’s work, to mention once again the work he has accomplished, and to seek out in that work its most important points of attraction, to try to discern the central thrust of his ideas, the key focus of his interests, encouraging those who look at this work not to think that enough has already been done and that it is time to simply rest. LITERATŪRA Labutis V. 1976: Žodžių junginių problemos. – Mokymo priemonė, Vilnius: Vilniaus valstybinis universitetas. Labutis V. 1981: Sintaksės aprašymo galimybės ir uždaviniai. – Kalbotyra 32(1), 54–61. A. DRUKTEINIS. Pavydėtina profesoriaus Vito Labučio darbų ir veiklos įvairovė 237 Labutis V. 1998: Lietuvių kalbos sintaksė. Antrasis pataisytas leidimas, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. Labutis V. 2001: Kodėl Konstantino Sirvydo žodyne neįvardytos aprašomosios kalbos? – Interneto svetainė-leidinys Postilei – 400. Prieiga per internetą: <http://postilla.mch.mii.lt/Informacija.htm> (žiūrėta 2012 m. gruodžio mėn.). Labutis V. 2005a: Išaugusi vertėjų paklausa – nauji pavojai lietuvių kalbai. – Kalbos kultūra 78, 205–209. Labutis V. 2005b: Recenzija: Bill Mc Farlan. Kalbėk paprastai ir suprantamai. Vertė Rasa Klikūnienė. – Gimtoji kalba 5, 19–24. Labutis V. 2007: Kalbėtojo funkcinės gramatikos įvadas. – Lietuvių kalba 1. Prieiga per internetą: <http://www.lietuviukalba.lt> (žiūrėta 2012 m. gruodžio mėn.). Labutis V. 2007a: Gabenimo veiksmažodžių semantika ir sinonimika. – Kalbos kultūra 80, 32–44. Labutis V. 2007b: Diskutuokime kalbos klausimais garbingai! – Bernardinai.lt; 2007 06 08. Prieiga per internetą: <http://www.bernardinai.lt> (žiūrėta 2012 m. gruodžio mėn.). Labutis V. 2008: Lietuvių kalbos beasmeniai sakiniai ir jų atitikmenys anglų kalboje. – Kalbų studijos 12, 5–10. Labutis V. 2010: Ar asmenvardžiai yra žodžiai? – Bernardinai.lt; 2010 03 09. Prieiga per internetą: <http://www.bernardinai.lt> (žiūrėta 2012 m. gruodžio mėn.). Labutis V. 2011: Juozas Lazauskas – pedagogas, vadovėlių autorius, lituanistas, filosofas, redaktorius... Mokslo Lietuva, Nr. 21 (465), gruodžio 21. Labutis V. 2011a: Modernieji intelektualai atsuka nugarą lietuvių kalbai ir tyčiojasi iš kalbininkų. – Lietuvos aidas, rugpjūčio 19. Prieiga per internetą: <http://www.aidas.lt> (žiūrėta 2012 m. gruodžio mėn.). Labutis V. 2011b: Kalbos kultūros šaknys ir kylantys modernizmo vėjai. – Kalbos kultūra 84, 9–16. Valeckienė A. 1998: Funkcinė lietuvių kalbos gramatika, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Župerka K. 1995: Kalbos priemonių konkurencija kaip lietuvių kalbos stilistikos objektas, Šiauliai: Šiaulių pedagoginis institutas. Gauta 2012 12 20 238 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 85