„Kalbos kultūros“ šaknys ir kylantys modernizacijos vėjai

KALBOS KULTŪRAI – 50 METŲ VITAS LABUTIS LANGUAGE CULTURE: ROOTS AND THE RISING WINDS OF MODERNIZATION The 50th anniversary of the fine journal Kalbos kultūra is an apt occasion to discuss how, under what circumstances, and through whose efforts this publication came into being in the world of Lithuanian studies, and what shaped its direction, objectives, and character. At the same time, one feels moved to reflect a little on the publication’s present and future. HOW LANGUAGE CULTURE CAME INTO BEING The circumstances in which the idea of a regular publication devoted to language practice began to take shape before 1961 were not easy for those who created anything in Lithuanian, translated books, or wrote articles, and especially for those who had to edit texts written in Lithuanian. By the end of the 1950s, following Stalin’s brutal regime, a modest “thaw” had already begun. Sensing that the Communist Party’s grip had eased somewhat, the most energetic linguists of the younger generation (Vytautas Ambrazas, Jonas Palionis, Juozas Pikčilingis, Zigmas Zinkevičius, and others) began publishing their research in newly launched journals—Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimuose, Kalbotyroje, Literatūroje ir kalboje, and others. The reorganized Lietuvių kalbos žodynas was revived. Important works for language practice appeared: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas (1954), and Kazimieras Būga’s Rinktiniai raštai (vols. 1–3, 1958–1962), compiled from various hard-to-access works and carefully prepared by Z. Zinkevičius. V. LABUTIS. Kalbos kultūros šaknys ir kylantys modernizacijos vėjai 9 Readers finally gained access to the most important works of Jonas Jablonskis, whose two-volume Rinktiniai raštai (1957–1959) was prepared and published with an extensive introduction by J. Palionis. Textbooks issued for schools provided some support as well: Parts I and II of Juozas Žiugžda’s Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos, and Napalys Grigas and Antanas Lyberis’s Lietuvių kalbos rašybos žodynas mokykloms. Nevertheless, journalists, editors, translators, terminologists, and other workers lacking knowledge of language practice were constantly tormented by doubts about how to choose the right word and express an idea precisely; they also faced many difficulties with spelling, punctuation, pronunciation, and accentuation. Even if someone knew of the journal devoted to language practice that had been published in interwar Lithuania (1933–1940), Gimtoji kalba, and the consolidated publication that grew out of it, Kalbos patarėjas (1939), they were not allowed to rely on them. The five volumes of Jono Jablonskio raštų published by Juozas Balčikonis (1933–1936) were kept under lock and key. The cover of the first issue of Kalbos kultūra Thus, in the mid-1950s there was a great need for a regular publication on Lithuanian language practice that could offer advice on how to write or speak, and on which ways of expressing ideas were appropriate and which would strike everyone as language errors. People were waiting not only for prescriptions, but also for explanations and persuasion about where and how to use things. It is not very important who first voiced the idea that Lithuanian language practice needed some kind of regular publication. There is information that Valdas Petrauskas, editor of the Academy of Sciences’ proceedings, proposed this idea in 1957 (or 1958) to the deputy director (or perhaps the entire leadership?) of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature. When, around that time, the author of this article mentioned in an informal conversation to his immediate superior, Jonas Kruopas, that language practice needed a periodical, J. Kruopas replied that a similar request had already been received and was being considered at the Institute. 10 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 84 Unfortunately, it was not possible to gather sufficient archival data about the beginnings of the language-use publication under discussion, so we must largely make do with what was published in the programmatic articles by Kazys Ulvydas, editor of Kalbos kultūros, draw on fragments of archival evidence, add a few unreliable scraps from our own memories, and try to make a few conjectures. A long, winding, and bumpy road must have been traversed between the idea that a publication on language use was needed and the appearance of Kalbos kultūros. The idea of a publication on language use for the general public was probably developed through discussions among J. Kruopas, head of the Dictionary Department; K. Ulvydas, who headed the Department of Contemporary Literary Language (departments were then called sectors); and Kostas Korsakas, director of the Institute. The publication's purpose had to be understood, its objectives formulated, and preparations made to demonstrate, in deliberations at several levels, that it was greatly needed by the public. The matter of a publication on language use should not have encountered any obstacles at the Institute's Academic Council (the minutes could not be found). However, the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature was then a division of the Academy of Sciences, so no publication—especially a continuing one intended for the public—could appear without approval from the Presidium of the Academy of Sciences. Sooner or later, the decisive word had to come from the government and the all-powerful leadership of the Communist Party. It was therefore difficult for those proposing the idea to expect to achieve anything without drawing on diplomacy, sometimes a little cunning, and experience of how such things were done. On August 12, 1960, the Academy of Sciences' Department of Social Sciences decided, as part of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature's publications plan, to begin publishing in 1961 a special five-author's-sheet bulletin entitled Kalbos kultūros klausimai. It was noted that the people of the Republic, building communism, were increasingly interested in language-culture issues, and that Institute staff were continually providing consultations on a range of matters and had to address issues under discussion; all of this was therefore to be covered in a special bulletin, to be published twice a year. K. Korsakas headed the Department of Social Sciences. The Presidium of the Academy of Sciences approved the Institute's 1961 plan, and thus publication of the bulletin, on December 23, 1960. The new Institute publication is referred to here as a bulletin, and its title may have been modeled on the Moscow publication Вопросы культуры речи, which had been published since 1955. The abundance of language consultations indeed weighed heavily on the shoulders of the Institute's department staff; later, a dedicated consultation telephone line was even appointed and publicized, V. LABUTIS. Kalbos kultūros šaknys ir kylantys modernizacijos vėjai 11 which staff from the Dictionary Department and the Department of Contemporary Literary Language had to take turns manning. However, the consultations also served as a suitable pretext for requesting a publication intended for the public, whose aims extended far beyond providing consultations. ON THE TITLE AND STATUS OF KALBOS KULTŪROS No precise information could be found about why, or at whose initiative, the planned publication was entitled Kalbos kultūra. Perhaps the previously mentioned title Kalbos kultūros klausimai might have given the impression that this would be merely a Lithuanian translation of the Moscow publication, or perhaps the word “questions” was a problem, since it was already used in the title of Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai, which had begun publication earlier? We find the title Kalbos kultūra mentioned in the long-term work plans for 1961–1980 drawn up by the Academy of Sciences at the beginning of 1961 (the Russian equivalent, Культура речи, is also given there). We would not want to pass over in silence a fact probably little known: the plan provided for establishing a separate Institute of the Lithuanian Language from 1969, because the linguists' workload was very extensive and, moreover, such an institute had operated from 1941 to 1952. Unfortunately, a separate Institute of the Lithuanian Language was never re-established during the Soviet era. Later, Kalbos kultūra is nowhere called a bulletin, and its individual issues are called booklets. When they were 60–70 pages long, “booklets” may have been an apt name, but now, having grown well beyond 300 pages, they are, of course, full-fledged volumes. The publication's actual status is described in the “Preface” to issue 1 of Kalbos kultūros: it is a non-periodical publication of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature intended for the general public. At first there was not even an editorial board, only consultants for each booklet. Two Institute linguists—V. Ambrazas and J. Kruopas—a literary scholar (also then working at the Institute), Petronėlė Česnulevičiūtė, Vincentas Drotvinas from the Pedagogical Institute, and Juozas Pikčilingis from Vilnius University served as consultants while the first booklet was being prepared. Twenty-five years later, when the so-called restructuring had already begun, K. Ulvydas, assessing 50 issues of Kalbos kultūros, returned to the beginnings: “Work on language use needed to be concentrated; a periodical publication needed to be established.” The Academy and Institute leadership of the time, especially director K. Korsakas, supported this idea. In this way a new publication came into being—the first postwar periodical devoted to questions of language use—Kalbos 12 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 84 culture (issue 51, 31). What had been concealed for 25 years was revealed when circumstances changed. Even the consultants, from issue 36 onward, were called the “Editorial Board.” The fact that the status of Language Culture had to be concealed for a long time may also be illustrated by what we might call a “lyrical digression.” In 1966, I had to compile indexes for issues 1–10. It was quite a puzzle how to group by subject the articles printed over that period. Which article should be listed under which section, when the issues themselves did not classify them this way? It is true that this had been done in the contents of issue 1 of Language Culture, but the practice was later abandoned. To a young, passionate mind, it seemed that separate thematic sections ought to appear in every issue. And compiling an issue would be easier if a terminologist selected the articles on terminology, specialists in onomastics those in their field, and so on. When I presented these arguments to K. Ulvydas, he rejected the proposal without much comment: one compiler was enough, and there was no need to invent separate sections for each issue. Then I dared to present my proposal to the Institute’s director, K. Korsakas. I added that a short questions-and-answers section was very much needed. The director tersely declared that the current plan was perfectly good and that we should be glad to have a good publication. Having got nowhere, a few days later, in an informal conversation and with no one else listening, I confided in J. Kruopas about my failed “campaign.” He revealed the truth: a publication with separate sections, issued at set intervals, would be considered a periodical, for which special permission from Moscow would have to be obtained—and there was no hope of getting it. Of course, what matters most is the content of Language Culture. The publication’s executive editor, K. Ulvydas, is sometimes criticized for currying favor with the Soviet regime. For example, the programmatic article in issue 1 of Language Culture speaks of a qualitatively new stage in the Lithuanian literary language and of a cultural revolution that had taken place, while also reproaching the difficult conditions that had prevailed in bourgeois Lithuania (see issue 1, 3). These are nothing but propagandistic smokescreens. Yet this article, too, begins as befits a good Lithuanian linguist: “The present-day Lithuanian literary language is an immense national treasure, amassed for us by dozens of generations who lived before us. It is our sacred duty to preserve this treasure, enrich it, and pass it on to future generations. We have no right to lose or squander any of this wealth.” These words remain very important today. Let us quote one more thought of K. Ulvydas from his theoretical reflections on the concept of language culture: “Along with the expanding functions of the Lithuanian literary language 1 The first number indicates the issue number, the second the page. V. LABUTIS. Kalbos kultūros šaknys ir kylantys modernizacijos vėjai 13 the responsibility of its users for its purity, correctness, beauty, and expressiveness also grows” (issue 9, 7). In Language Culture, not dozens but hundreds of articles were published addressing various broad or highly specific individual matters. Their authors were almost all linguists who worked at the Institute, as well as many university lecturers, editors, journalists, translators, and even natural scientists. This is not the place to discuss all the topics considered in this publication or the long history of Language Culture. Much has been written about it both in this publication and in other, more comprehensive works. It can be emphasized that during the Soviet era Language Culture paved the way for other works on language practice—Our Language, Language Practice Advice, and works in this field by individual authors. After Lithuania regained its independence, many new tasks emerged. Under the leadership of three chief editors (Kazys Ulvydas, Pranas Kniūkšta, and Rasuolė Vladarskienė) over 50 years, the publication essentially maintained a relatively high scholarly standard and a responsible approach to matters of language. WINDS BUFFETING LANGUAGE CULTURE The grown Language Culture tree now branches out in every direction. This is natural, and we might even welcome it. Yet rising winds of novelty are beginning to buffet the branches of this tree. Loudly voiced opinions can be heard that the days of language standardization are now a thing of the past, and that Language Culture as a publication and such culture as a phenomenon are supposedly outdated. Such talk is beginning to spread from the lips of hyperglobalized and supermodernized linguists. Let us set aside journalistic metaphors and consider at least a couple of these postmodern concepts. We try to divide all work on language into two strictly opposed groups: prescriptive works, which tell us how it is and is not appropriate to speak, and descriptive works, which describe everything that is used in speech. To proponents of the latter view, all works with even some norm-setting features seem prescriptive and not at all scholarly. According to this view, J. Jablonskis’s works, all normative dictionaries and grammars would belong in this group. Without delving into the substance, almost all of Language Culture is regarded as an example of prescription. To avoid straying into theoretical discussion, let us look at Adelė Valeckienė’s article on the meanings of pronominal adjectives, published in issue 1 of Language Culture. Drawing on the collection she compiled for her dissertation 14 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 84 of pronominal adjectives (which may be called a specialized corpus), the author first describes in detail four semantic functions of pronominal adjectives, and then discusses several cases of their inaccurate use. Thus, A. Valeckienė begins as a descriptivist and ends as a prescriptivist. This approach has most often been taken in the works of Jonas Jablonskis and in all normative grammars and dictionaries of the Lithuanian language. Many articles in Language Culture also follow this model. And if language errors are described from the outset, the overall positive “picture” of usage is nevertheless kept in mind. Thus, prescription (in other words, standardization, the cultivation of language) is inseparable from the laws of language derived from a description of linguistic facts (description). Examples can be found among contemporary English-language authors whose grammars rely on more than the opposition between description and prescription. For instance, in a grammar of English published by Cambridge University, the authors acknowledge not only the opposition between descriptivism and prescriptivism discernible in grammatical descriptions2. This essentially descriptive grammar cannot do without special symbols to indicate what is ungrammatical, what constitutes semantic or pragmatic anomalies, what is of questionable grammaticality, and what is wholly nonstandard. The authors do not propose to reject what is well described in traditional grammars. Thus, it is simplistic to measure everything solely by the opposition between description and prescription; description often also takes prescription (standardization) as its guide. K. Ulvydas had published a programmatic article, “More Attention to Literary Spoken Language” (issue 2, 3–10). Our liberal individualists loudly proclaim that spoken language cannot be standardized, since, supposedly, everything I have heard is a fact of language that has a right to function. One summer morning, as a bus was leaving Vilnius for Kybartai, the driver, speaking with a Zanavykai accent, shouted at an elderly passenger: “Your age is up to the light bulb as far as I’m concerned!” So does that calque, up to the light bulb, now have to be considered equivalent in Lithuanian to the Lithuanian expressions I don’t care..., What’s it to me...? Let us look at one more grammar—The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written (“Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written Language”)3—which describes “The Grammar of Conversation” in a separate chapter. Here, too, special symbols are indispensable: “inappropriate,” “not very appropriate,” “undesir- 2 Huddleston R., Pullum G. K. 2002: The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 3 Biber, D., Johansson S., Leech G., Conrad S., Finegan E. 1999: The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English, London: Longman. V. LABUTIS. Kalbos kultūros šaknys ir kylantys modernizacijos vėjai 15 “...tina.” It is a genuine descriptive grammar, yet even in it spoken language is filtered in a particular way. Modern grammar seeks to justify much by arguing that language changes, but does not want to understand that linguistic change requires constant oversight. Thus, living language must continue to be regulated and must not become detached from established linguistic laws and tendencies. Kalbos kultūros, a publication that has grown both thicker and broader, inspires admiration, but also concern. Perhaps excessive weight, for a publication as for a person, is detrimental to health and popularity? A separate branch of sociolinguistics could perhaps emerge from it, although language culture is also a social phenomenon. A thinner issue of Kalbos kultūros could be made available at a lower price. One more wish. It may be good that this publication does not engage in minor debates; however, when a new version of the language law is being considered, and when the relationship between the Lithuanian language and the nation is discussed in periodicals and at conferences, silence in Kalbos kultūroje is not a good sign. We wish Kalbos kultūrai to continue along the path of language development, despite all manner of contrary winds and adversities. Received 2011 12 12 16 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 84