Jonas Jablonskis – Juozo Damijonaičio vadovėlių recenzentas

84 Languages and Culture | 83 Vaida BuiVydienė Lithuanian Language Institute Jonas Jablonskis – Although the work of Jon Jablonskis has been discussed and examined in various aspects (balčikonis 1956; Girdenis, Piročkinas 1977, 1978; vidžiūnas 1997 and others), there is still a lack of works in which he would be presented more broadly as a reviewer of school textbooks. This article1 discusses five reviews by Jonas Jablonskis of two textbooks of Juozas Damijonaitis’ Lithuanian language grammar. Short textbook for schools (beginning of science) editions (Damijonaitis 1920, 1923), examines the influence of the linguist on the language and structure of subsequent editions. analytical descriptive (descriptive), comparative and statistical methods are applied to the analysis. In the Lithuanian pedagogical press, the activities of Juozas Damijonaitis (1871–1926) have been studied relatively little, although the significance of this pedagogue and social figure’s works was understood and appreciated by his contemporaries (ruseckas 1926: 93–94; vokietaitis 1927: 3–9; Poderys 1931: 95–100). J. Damijonaitis was later remembered only in the second half of the 20th century, on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of his death (malėnas 1970: 123–124; Juozapavičius 1971a: 3, 1971b: 3). At the beginning of this century he was mentioned again on the occasion of his 130th birthday (ažubalis 2001a: 11–14, 2001b: 1–3)2. It should be emphasized that J. Damijonaitis is not only the author of Lithuanian language textbooks, but also of mathematics and history textbooks3. his mathematics textbooks (ažubalis 1997, 2001a, 2001b). Article 1 is based on the presentation read at the international conference on Janas Jablonskis and the centennial of the common Lithuanian language on 7 October 2010. 2 memories about J. Damijonaitis have been shared in the press by his sister’s granddaughter birutė bytautienė (2006: 2). The name of the famous pedagogue and author of textbooks was given to a school in Kaunas in 1937. A street in Kaunas is named after him, a private apartment-museum was established in 1996, and a memorial plaque was unveiled next to his house. 3 textbooks for teaching Lithuanian in elementary school: ABC. 1906, 3rd edition 1922), Short grammar of Lithuanian language v. buivyDienė. 85 As mentioned, the first edition of J. Damijonaičio textbook Lithuanian Language Grammar was printed in Kaunas in 1920. It was not a new original textbook – the footnotes indicate that the author borrowed the terms, many examples and sayings from the Lithuanian language grammar of Peter Kriaušaitis and John of Riga (Damijonaitis 1920: 3). It was an updated, corrected and supplemented version of J. Damijonaičio earlier textbook Short Lithuanian Grammar (first edition 1909). The textbook covers the entire elementary school grammar course (Part 1: 1. Parts of the word; 2. Object, property of the object and action. Part 2: 3. Parts of the language. Part 3: 4. Syntax). Grammar rules or definitions in each chapter or subsection are illustrated with examples and supplemented with exercises. For example, the beginning of the second chapter (Object, the characteristics of the object and the action) explains what is an object. examples of visible and invisible things are given: visible – stone, cow, dagger, invisible – God, mind, love. The task is to write and underline “the names of visible objects with one dash, invisible ones – with two” (Damijonaitis 1920: 15). The noun, as a term, is introduced in the Parts of Speech section of the second part (ibid., 19). at the end of the textbook is a list of recommended books to read (11 books)4 and bug fixes. When the first edition of J. Damijonaičio grammar appeared, three reviews by J. Jablonskis were published – in 1920 in the publications Lietuva (Jablonskis 1920a) and Švietimo darbas (Jablonskis 1920b), and in 1921 in the Lithuanian school5 (Jablonskis 1921). In his reviews, based on the textbook content, J. Jablonskis briefly and clearly discussed the main points of the textbook structure, important terms and definitions for the teaching material. the reviewer states that the student must learn clear, standardized terms and definitions, and therefore gives methodological advice (Jablonskis 1920a: 3 [1933: 163]; 1920b: 50 [1933: 176]). refers to numerous proofreading errors in the textbook. (vilnius, 1909; 9th edition 1923), Lithuanian Grammar. Short textbook for schools (for the beginning of science) (Kaunas, 1920; 8th edition 1939), Kindergarten (numbers for the 2nd class, marijampolė, 1922). J. Damijonaitis also wrote a book on methodology – in 1923 his booklet Pavyzdžiai ortografijos ir sintaksės reikalui (Dictionary) was published. Other textbooks by J. Damijonas: Arit metikos vadovėlis (Warsaw, 1–2, 1909–1910), Aritmetikos uždavinynas (Marijampolė, 1–3, 1922–1923; 12 editions), Krašto mokslo skaitymų rinkinys (1926–1928, 2 editions). 4 are listed P. Kriaušaitis and the grammar of the Lithuanian language of John of Riga, the syntax of the Lithuanian language of John of Riga and Our dictionary, the writings of Žemaitė, Andersen's tales, the theory of arithmetic, the Vargo school i and ii parts, the handbook and the pinch – reading books. 5 In 1921, the Lithuanian school repeats the same review by J. Jablonski, which had been published in Lithuania a year earlier. 86 Kalbos Kultūra | 83 a particularly detailed review published in Lithuania in two issues – J. Jablonskis here (1920a: 3 [1933: 160–169]) first discusses the structure of the textbook, emphasizing that “[g]rammatic text is only, it seems, the content of those textbooks[6] properly laid out for the ‘beginning of science’”. The reviewer groups the issues in J. Damijonaičio textbook that need to be corrected into six groups and discusses each group by providing examples. 1) methodological advice and corrections – it is suggested to go from examples to a rule or definition (Jablonskis 1920a: 2 [1933: 161]); 2) shortcomings in the methodology of presentation of textbook material – some syntax issues are proposed to be described at the beginning of the textbook (Jablonskis, ibid.); 3) rules and definitions – inaccurate descriptions of the vowel, adjective genus, adverb (Jablonskis 1920a: 3 [1933: 163]); 4) the structure of the textbook – in the opinion of J. Jablonskis, there should not be a section on grammar about verb types, narrative language, connective and conjunctive sentences, etc., but there should be a section on pronunciation and spelling (Jablonskis 1920a: 3 [1933: 167]); 5) inappropriate examples and tasks – some examples are not very understandable7, and the tasks are too difficult for elementary school pupils8 (Jablonskis 1920a: 3 [1933: 167–168]); 6) correction of textbook proofreading errors, e.g.: papraukite – underline, apie kelius – apie kelius, etc. (Jablonskis, ibid.). The evaluation of the textbook is generally positive – there is no better grammar for primary school yet, although the textbook needs to be improved (Jablonskis 1920a: 3 [1933: 169]). the second short favourable review, printed in Švietimo darbas (Jablonskis 1920b), is anonymous9, mentioning not only the textbook, but also the first review: it is written that J. Jablonskis, who reviewed the textbook and mentioned many errors, that the author, when writing the grammar, relied on the grammar of Peter Kriaušaitis and John of Ryga and John of Ryga Syntax10. thus [6] are meant P. Kriaušaitis and the grammar of John of Riga. 7 Ex.: “A good mother shows her husband the way”; “Love of the heart is the best teacher” (Jablonskis 1920a: 3 [1933: 167]). 8 E.g.: “Example: “for evil+ it is necessary to punish, for good+ to praise” (36) – the children have to write the ending instead of the crosses; It is doubtful whether they (the students of the first year) will be able to invent and write an adjective gender for an adjective in place of a (not ą).” (Jablonskis 1920a: 3 [1933: 167–168]). 9 The authorship of Jablonski is indicated in the Jablonski writings compiled by Juozas Balčikonis (Jablonskis 1933). 10 In the footnote of the first edition there is an explanation: “I took the terms, many examples and otherwise the sayings from P. Kriaušaitis and John of Riga’s ‘Lithuanian language grammar’ (Damijonaitis 1920: 3). J. Jablonskis writes in his review: “Those who are not yet accustomed to using grammar terms for scientific purposes, we can advise them to use in the meantime just Dam-čio [Damijonaičio] gr-ka [grammar]” (Jablonskis 1920a: 50 [1933: 176]). v. buivyDienė. Jonas Jablonskis – reviewer of Juozas Damijonas textbooks 87 J. Jablonskis was uncomfortable signing himself. At the end of the review, several errors mentioned in the first review are also mentioned (due to the use of the consonant conjugation and the transformation of the sound t into č when the endings change). the third publication about J. Damijonaičio textbook, as mentioned, appeared in Lithuanian school in 1921 (this is again a review reprinted from Lithuania) (Jablonskis 1920a). After three reviews by J. Jablonskis, another edition of J. Damijonaičio grammar appeared in 1921 (Damijonaitis 1921), and in 1922 – another edition, but without new corrections. In the 1921 edition only some proofreading errors were corrected, according to one of J. Jablonski’s remarks the methodology of teaching adjectives was changed (see table 1). Other comments were not taken into account. Table 1. Differences between the first three editions of J. Damijonaičio grammar 1920 Notes authorizby J. ation Jablonski after 1921 1922 first authorization authorization authorization "some letters are uppercase, some lowercase." (Damijonaitis 1920: 3) „this is already like a stupid term (types of letters). P. Kr. and rg. In John’s grammar, at a certain point (5), this is said differently: “[l]etters are used in both great and small letters.” (Jablonski 1920a: 3 [1933: 165]) unchanged (Damijonait1921: 3) unchanged is (Damijonaitis 1922: 3) “adjectives are words that indicate the special characteristics of objects. adjectives indicate what or what kind of thing is. Examples: A good man. A good wife.” (Damijonaitis 1920: 33) ‘J. Damijonaitis almost everywhere in his textbook gives language rules or explanations, followed by examples of language. In language science, especially at the beginning, it seems that it should be exactly the opposite.” (Jablonski 1920a: 2 [1933: 161]) “A good man. A good wife. (...). With the words: geras, geras, gražus, graži, medinis, medinė we mean what kind of spoken objects are, and we indicate the particularity, the way of spoken objects.” (Damijonaitis 1921: 33) also (Damijonaitis 1922: 33) These editions differ not only in the corrected errors. The structure of the textbook has changed, i.e. grammar is divided into two degrees (the new 88 Language Culture | 83 so after the first reviews J. Damijonaičio textbook changed very little. This did not go unnoticed by J. Jablonski, so in 1922 his fourth review appeared in Lithuania with many remarks from the first reviews, regretting that the author did not take advantage of previous advice11. The reviewer lists as many as ten things to be corrected that were discussed in the first reviews – for example, he reminds that it is necessary to talk about pronunciation, about spelling, to avoid some overly complicated things, etc., and adds some of the previous comments12. the review ends with a spiteful remark that the author “inaudibly ignores the advice given to him” (Jablonskis 1922: 4 [1933: 275]). The edition of J. Damijonaičio grammar (1923)13, which appeared after the review discussed above, already took into account many of J. Jablonski’s remarks and changed the structure of the textbook. the author has corrected many things: corrected definitions, terms, methodology of presentation of the teaching material. new definitions, spelling rules, spelling initials, corrections and proofreading errors were added to the textbook (see Table 2 for some examples of corrections). term is given instead of part). The author himself explains in the footnotes that in the second degree "some grammar rules are repeated, which were already solved in the first degree" (Damijonaitis 1923: 75). so the textbook became more coherent and systematic. The main feature of the structure of the updated edition of the grammar is the teaching by concentrations: developing the same topics, deepening the students’ knowledge and 11 E.g.: “Two years ago I already wrote a review of this textbook in “Lietuvoje” and later in “Lietuvos mokykloje”, noting what needs to be corrected in it for future editions. that textbook did not take advantage of many of my instructions for further publication. of the textbook this was done, it seems to me, unnecessarily: some-not-some more corrections are really necessary.” (Jablonskis 1922: 4 [1933: 273]). 12 E.g.: “in one place (89) it is said that ‘adjectives formed from verbs are called participles’. In my first review I said that in this way we should also call the words intelligible, unseen, guilty participants (?). Why does the author not correct his definition, put in the section of adverbs, so far? children need to be spoken to clearly and accurately.” (Jablonskis 1922: 4 [1933: 274]). The title page 13 states that this is the second edition, although after the 1920 edition (the first) there were also the 1921 and 1922 editions, in which proofreading errors were corrected and several comments from J. Jablonski’s reviews were taken into account. The later (1925) edition of the grammar, although called the revised edition in the title, differs almost nothing from the 1923 edition, only the list of 20 recommended books is supplemented by four more, and proofreading errors are corrected. v. buivyDienė. 1989 – John J. McLaughlin, 89, American writer of science fiction. the second part of the textbook repeats the parts of the language, but it is more complex and detailed, it provides more theoretical knowledge. Improving the structure of the textbook, completely new chapters were also written (e.g., Etymology14), but14 In the first review J. Jablonskis writes: “the author uses the word “grammar” for the title of his essay, the word “etymology”, it seems, is not in the textbook at all, the meaning of these two words is not explained in the textbook at all; the word ‘syntax’ is mentioned only at the end of the textbook for the chapter title, but its meaning is not explained anywhere.” (Jablonskis 1920a: 3 [1933: 167]). Table 2. Notes by Jonas Jablonskis and corrections to the grammar by Juozas Damijonaitis First release-J. mas (1920) after Jablonski's notes the first edition second edition (1923) „one letters „here is large, ki-(types of used in lowercase.’ In (Damijonaitis in place 1920: 3) lui differently: already as if the term letters). P. Kr. and rg. John's grammar, in a of (5) said this „[l]etters are used in uppercase and lowercase.” (Jablonskis 1920a: 3 [1933: 165]) „Large and small are letters. the letters are certain sense, major and minor." reika-(Damijonaitis 1923: 3) „syllable, ku-„in one place include in the meaning says only a vowel, we call a shout, shoutletter, and that the answering the question (?) the little word “o!” in the (Damijonaitis is out of place 1920: 23) here, in the third (23) the author that „syllable, which is we call shoutletter: „in our vowel, if and other vowels. –me: „shut up, frog!“ the deltoid frog indicates the in the text (we do not line). P. Kr. and sim, we only grammar (17) toji that gender of the caller is ću formulated." (Jablonskis 1920a: 2 [1933: Šauksmininkas does not bound to the line of vowels, language is a name "A.K.A.: Oh! I’m not mistaken, word vaik-e! Vaik-ai!" o! (…) gender of the caller, answer the question below, refer to kiryg. In John's person or thing. and the simply the caller put in the line of jokes." (Damijo165]) naitis 1923: 22) „Diphthong ie “in the word initial vowel „ie“ written without „j“ “j”, in the same case: ieškosur is written “they work, for them they, for those words naitis 1920: 10) (jų, juos, jais..).” (1923: 12) A review of J. know for which school classes this grammar is intended, because the even more relevant when discussing the new – two “degrees” (i.e. parts) – textbook says that at the beginning of the je is written without them, jiedvi, we write ti, iešmas, ieduonos reikia” (with “j”)”. (The same j Damijonaitis' revised textbook was published in Educational Work author has not written about it anywhere. This question was already two-„Diphthong ie word in the spelling is working without „j“. but in the textbook vi-(...). just that in words that we write va." (Damijolonskis 1922: 4 [1933: 274]) and in other forms of (Jablonskis 1926). The review is detailed and long, the reviewer still does not relevant when reviewing the first editions of the grammar, and it became structure of the textbook. Having evaluated the textbook tasks, J. Jablonskis assumes that grammar is intended for elementary classes, but 90 Language Culture | 83 Completed parts and chapters were added (e.g., First Degree15, Syntax Chapter16), new definitions were given (e.g., etymology, grammar and syntax) (Damijonaitis 1923: 166). J. Jablonski’s remarks that it is necessary to “mention the accent of the word, teach the children a few things about our spelling [...], explain to them how words are moved from one end of a line to the next” (Jablonskis 1921: 108) were taken into account. Thus, in the new editions17, the subjects of pronunciation are presented in the chapter of Etymology18 (Second degree) (Damijonaitis 1923: 74), and the order of word elevation is discussed in the chapter of Sounds and Letters (Damijonaitis 1923: 14). some tasks (as well as recommended books to read) would be more suitable for students of higher classes. The mentioned review suggests a lot of corrections and improvements, reminds what was not taken into account in previous reviews, for example, the lack of textbook content. It also proposes to amend the definitions of communicative, verb and adjective. Attention was drawn to the newly presented subjects in the textbook, for example, about the pitch J. Jablonskis suggests to begin explaining earlier: "in the first degree the author does not say anything about the pitch. In the second degree, it is briefly indicated what is the interjection and explained, it seems to me, hastily, the matter of all interjections (left, right and stern). about the strike had to be given an understanding, seemingly, and in the first degree.“ (Jablonskis 1926: 419 [1933: 374]). 15 Chapters 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 of the First Degree (see Part One of the first edition), which deal with all parts of speech, provide a definition of the sentence and introduce the main and secondary parts of the sentence. 16 Added subsections: coincident sentences; Connective sentences; connective sentences; Inserted sentences (Damijonaitis 1923: 155-162). 17 refers to the second and third editions, because the third edition, although it is written in the heading that it is a revised edition, differs from the second (1923) very little – some tasks have been corrected (Damijonaitis 1922: 8), the list of recommended books has been supplemented, etc. 18 J. Damijonaitis gives a somewhat different definition of etymology than is now usual: “that part of grammar that studies the sounds and words of language is called etymology.” (Damijonaitis v. buivyDienė. 1923: 166). Jonas Jablonskis – reviewer of the textbooks of Juozas Damijonas 91 which, in his opinion, are too complicated for the beginning of science (Jablonskis 1926: 421 [1933: 376])19. Unfortunately, in the same year that J. Jablonskis’s last review was published, J. Damijonaitis died unexpectedly. the detailed remarks of this review remained unheard. subsequent seven editions of J. Damijonaičio grammar were corrected by publishers. analysis shows that they corrected only proofreading errors. Therefore, five editions of his grammar were published during Damijonaičio lifetime and five reviews of J. Jablonskis were written, in which the reviewer discussed the first and third (corrected) editions. After analysing all J. Jablonskis’ reviews, it can be said that the linguist generally appreciated J. Damijonaitis’ grammar, especially the revised edition, but sought to further improve the quality of future editions of the grammar. The reviewer was concerned not only about the correctness of language, clarity, accuracy of linguistic terms and definitions, but also about pedagogical issues. In the reviews of Jonas Jablonskis analyzed by aPibenDrinamosios Notes, the following issues of Juozas Damijonaitis’ textbook Lithuanian Grammar are discussed and corrected: 1) the correctness, accuracy and clarity of definitions taking into account the age of the students (this amounts to 28%), e.g.: “the author’s definition of verbs for grammar, it seems to me, is not suitable. If “words that denote the action of an object” are verbs, then the words driving, lying, writing will also be verbs. We need to be more precise in defining this part of speech.” (Jablonskis 1926: 418 [1933: 373]); 2) methodology (12%) – topics related to the teaching of material, understanding and consolidation of new knowledge according to the age of the pupils (see 1 and 2) Table 2 examples); 3) the structure of the textbook (remarks are given, what is missing, what is too much (8 per cent) – most often, as well as methodological remarks, it is related to the age of the students, it is discussed whether it is appropriate to teach some subjects, for example: “to give in the first degree of education all kinds of circumstances did not need” (Jablonskis 1926: 419 [1933: 373]); 4) deadlines (3%) – irregular deadlines are identified and corrected (cf. examples in Tables 1 and 2); 19 “that part (of grammar) that explains how and when individual words of language are grouped into sentences is called syntax.” (Damijonaitis 1923: 166). 92 Languages and Culture | 83 5) other shortcomings are mentioned (3%) – some tasks and examples are criticized20, although most of the grammar examples were considered by J. Jablonskis as sufficiently correct and suitable for linguistics (Jablonskis 1921: 108); 6) most corrected proofreading errors (46%) – these corrections are made at the end of each review (28 in the first review, 15 in the last review). J. Jablonskis briefly explains the language issues discussed in the reviews, commenting more extensively only on those corrections that are new and not mentioned in previous reviews. the longest and most comprehensive are the first and last (updated edition) reviews. Some things are mentioned as if eagerly, if he had written about it himself or presented it newly in his language science books. in general, the linguist acknowledges that the language of J. Damijonaičio grammar is clear, simple and understandable (Jablonskis 1922: 4). J. Damijonaitis has not published his linguistic preferences anywhere, he responded to reviews only when correcting his textbooks, so it is not always clear why he took into account one reviewer’s comments and not the other. Perhaps only partly this can be explained by the commentary written in 1909 to Trumpa’s corrections of the Lithuanian grammar, that when writing this booklet he was concerned “more with the requirements of pedagogy than with the deductions of philology” (Damijonaitis 1909: 302). Comparison of J. Jablonskio reviews and J. Damijonaičio grammar reprints showed how J. Damijonaičio textbooks improved. The numerous proposals of J. Jablonski to correct the textbook’s terms, definitions, methodology and structure show that at the time when the textbook was written and its re-editions were published, the terminology of Lithuanian linguistics and the tradition of language teaching were still forming, but J. Jablonski already made very clear requirements for the correctness, clarity, accuracy and purposefulness of language in mother tongue textbooks. Sources Damijonaitis J. 1909: Short grammar of Lithuanian language, Juozapo Zavadskio press in Vilnius. 1920: Grammar of the Lithuanian language. Short textbook for schools (for the beginning of science), Kaunas: Lietuvos valstybės spaustuvė. 20, discussing the task, i.e. to write the tale “Sheep and Lamb” in narrative language, J. Jablonskis says that “such a task will be difficult to solve not only for a child, a weak pupil, but also for his teacher” (Jablonskis 1921: 108).