Jonas Jablonskis – Juozo Damijonaičio vadovėlių recenzentas

VAIDA BUIVYDIENĖ Institute of the Lithuanian Language JONAS JABLONSKIS – JUOZAS DAMIJONAITIS’S TEXTBOOK REVIEWER Although Jonas Jablonskis’s work has been discussed and examined from various perspectives (Balčikonis 1956; Girdenis, Piročkinas 1977, 1978; Vidžiūnas 1997, etc.), studies presenting him more extensively as a reviewer of school textbooks are still lacking. This article1 discusses five of Jonas Jablonskis’s reviews of two editions of Juozas Damijonaitis’s textbook Grammar of the Lithuanian Language. A Short Textbook for Schools (for Beginners) (Damijonaitis 1920, 1923), and examines the influence the linguist had on the language and structure of later editions. The analysis employs analytical-descriptive, comparative, and statistical methods. Pedagoginėje Lietuvos spaudoje Juozo Damijonaičio (1871–1926) veikla palyginti nedaug nagrinėta, nors šio pedagogo ir visuomenės veikėjo darbų reikšmę amžininkai suprato ir vertino (Ruseckas 1926: 93–94; Vokietaitis 1927: 3–9; Poderys 1931: 95–100). Vėliau J. Damijonaitis prisimintas tik antroje XX a. pusėje, minint 100-ąsias mirties metines (Malėnas 1970: 123–124; Juozapavičius 1971a: 3, 1971b: 3). Šio amžiaus pradžioje jis vėl paminėtas per 130-ąsias gimimo metines (Ažubalis 2001a: 11–14, 2001b: 1–3)2. Pabrėžtina, kad J. Damijonaitis – ne tik lietuvių kalbos, bet ir matematikos, istorijos vadovėlių autorius3. Iki šiol plačiau aptarti jo matematikos vadovėliai (Ažubalis 1997, 2001a, 2001b). 1 The article is based on a paper delivered on October 7, 2010, at the international Jonas Jablonskis conference Jonas Jablonskis and the Centenary of Standard Lithuanian. 2 Memories of J. Damijonaitis were shared in the press by his sister’s granddaughter, Birutė Bytautienė (2006: 2). The name of the esteemed educator and textbook author was given to a school in Kaunas as early as 1937. A street in Kaunas is now named after him; a private apartment-museum established in 1996 operates there, and a memorial plaque has been unveiled on the house. 3 The following textbooks were intended for teaching Lithuanian in primary school: ABC. Primer for Learning to Write and Read (Warsaw, 1906; third edition, 1922), A Short Grammar of the Lithuanian Language 84 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 83 As mentioned, the first edition of J. Damijonaitis’s textbook Lithuanian Grammar was printed in Kaunas in 1920. It was not a new, original textbook—the footnotes indicate that the author took the terms, many examples, and expressions from Petro Kriaušaitis and Rygiškių Jonas’s Lithuanian Grammar (Damijonaitis 1920: 3). It was an updated, revised, and supplemented version of J. Damijonaitis’s earlier textbook, A Short Lithuanian Grammar (first edition 1909). The textbook covers the entire primary-school grammar course (Part One: 1. Parts of the Word; 2. Object, Its Attribute, and Action. Part Two: 3. Parts of Speech. Part Three: 4. Syntax). Grammatical rules or definitions in each chapter or section are illustrated with examples and supplemented by exercises. For instance, at the beginning of the second chapter (Object, Its Attribute, and Action), the concept of an object is explained. Examples of visible and invisible objects are given: visible—akmuo, karvė, dalgis; invisible—Dievas, protas, meilė. An exercise instructs pupils to write out and underline “the names of visible objects with one line, and those of invisible objects with two” (Damijonaitis 1920: 15). The term noun is introduced in the chapter on Parts of Speech in Part Two (ibid., 19). At the end of the textbook is a list of books recommended for reading (11 books)4, along with corrections of errors. When the first edition of J. Damijonaitis’s grammar appeared, three reviews by J. Jablonskis were published: in 1920 in Lietuva (Jablonskis 1920a) and Švietimo darbas (Jablonskis 1920b), and in 1921 in Lietuvos mokykloje5 (Jablonskis 1921). In the reviews, drawing on the textbook’s contents, J. Jablonskis concisely and clearly discussed the main aspects of its structure, as well as terminology and definitions important to the material being taught. The reviewer argues that pupils must learn clear, standardized terms and definitions, and therefore offers methodological advice (Jablonskis 1920a: 3 [1933: 163]; 1920b: 50 [1933: 176]). Numerous proofreading errors in the textbook are noted. (Vilnius, 1909; 9th edition, 1923), Grammar of the Lithuanian Language. A Short Textbook for Schools (for Beginners) (Kaunas, 1920; 8th edition, 1939), Vaikų darželis (reading selections for Section II, Marijampolė, 1922). J. Damijonaitis also wrote a book on teaching methods: in 1923 his booklet Examples for Orthography and Syntax Practice (Dictation) was published. Other textbooks by J. Damijonaitis include: Arithmetic Textbook (Warsaw, parts 1–2, 1909–1910), Arithmetic Exercises (Marijampolė, parts 1–3, 1922–1923; 12 editions), Collection of Readings on the Homeland (1926–1928, 2 editions). 4 Cited are P. Kriaušaitis and Rygiškių Jonas’s Lithuanian Grammar, Rygiškių Jonas’s Lithuanian Syntax and Our Glossary, Žemaitė’s writings, Andersen’s fairy tales, Theory of Arithmetic, For the School of Hardship Parts I and II, Reference Book and Morsel—books for reading. 5 In 1921, Lietuvos mokykloje reprinted the same review by J. Jablonskis that had appeared the previous year in Lietuvoje. V. BUIVYDIENĖ. Jonas Jablonskis – Juozo Damijonaičio vadovėlių recenzentas 85 A particularly detailed review was published in Lithuania over two issues. J. Jablonskis (1920a: 3 [1933: 160–169]) first discusses the textbook’s structure, noting that “[t]he text of the grammar is, it seems, merely a particular presentation of the content of those textbooks for ‘the beginnings of learning’[6].” The reviewer groups the aspects of J. Damijonaitis’s textbook that need correction into six categories and discusses each with examples. These are: 1) methodological advice and corrections—the proposal is to proceed from examples to a rule or definition (Jablonskis 1920a: 2 [1933: 161]); 2) shortcomings in the methodology for presenting the textbook material—it is proposed that some matters of syntax be described at the beginning of the textbook (Jablonskis, ibid.); 3) rules and definitions—inaccurate descriptions of the vocative, the gender of adjectives, and adverbs (Jablonskis 1920a: 3 [1933: 163]); 4) textbook structure—in J. Jablonskis’s view, the grammar section on verb voice, reported speech, subordinate and coordinate clauses, etc., should be omitted, while the basics of accentuation and spelling should be included (Jablonskis 1920a: 3 [1933: 167]); 5) unsuitable examples and exercises—some examples are not very comprehensible7, and the exercises are too difficult for primary-school pupils8 (Jablonskis 1920a: 3 [1933: 167–168]); 6) corrections of the textbook’s typographical errors, e.g.: papraukite – pabraukite, apie kelius – apie kelius, etc. (Jablonskis, ibid.). Overall, the textbook is evaluated positively: there is as yet no better grammar for primary school, although the textbook needs improvement (Jablonskis 1920a: 3 [1933: 169]). Antras trumpas palankus atsiliepimas, išspausdintas Švietimo darbe (Jablonskis 1920b), yra anoniminis9, čia paminėtas ne tik vadovėlis, bet ir pirmoji recenzija: rašoma, kad vadovėlį recenzavęs ir daugelį klaidų suminėjęs J. Jablonskis, kad autorius, rašydamas gramatiką, rėmėsi Petro Kriaušaičio ir Rygiškių Jono gramatika ir Rygiškių Jono Sintakse10. Taigi [6] The grammars of P. Kriaušaitis and Rygiškių Jonas are meant. 7 Cf.: “A good wife shows her husband the way”; “Love of the heart is the best teacher” (Jablonskis 1920a: 3 [1933: 167]). 8 Cf.: “The example ‘For the wicked+ one should be punished, the good+ one praised’ (36)—the children have to write the ending in place of the plus signs; it is doubtful whether they (primary-school pupils) will know how to form the neuter gender of adjectives here and write a (not ą) in place of the plus signs.” (Jablonskis 1920a: 3 [1933: 167–168]). 9 Jablonskis’s authorship is indicated in the writings of Jablonskis, compiled by Juozas Balčikonis (Jablonskis 1933). 10 A note in the first edition explains: “Here I took the terms, many of the examples, and generally the expressions from P. Kriaušaitis and Rygiškių Jonas’s ‘Grammar of the Lithuanian Language’ (Damijonaitis 1920: 3). In his review, J. Jablonskis writes: ‘For those who are not yet accustomed to using grammatical terms for scholarly purposes, we can advise them for now to use Dam-čio [Damijonaičio] gr-ka [gramatika]’ (Jablonskis 1920a: 50 [1933: 176]). 86 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 83 J. Jablonskis felt it would be immodest to sign his own name. At the end of the review, several errors mentioned in the first review are also noted (concerning the use of the preposition sulig and the change of the sound t into č when endings change). The third publication about J. Damijonaitis’s textbook, as mentioned, appeared in 1921 in Lietuvos mokykloje (this was another review reprinted from Lietuvos) (Jablonskis 1920a). After J. Jablonskis’s three reviews, another edition of J. Damijonaitis’s grammar appeared in 1921 (Damijonaitis 1921), and yet another in 1922, but without any new corrections. In the 1921 edition, only some typographical errors were corrected, and the method for teaching adjectives was changed in accordance with one of J. Jablonskis’s comments (see Table 1). The other comments were not taken into account. TABLE 1. Differences among the first three editions of J. Damijonaitis’s grammar 1920 edition J. Jablonskis’s comments after the first edition 1921 edition 1922 edition “Some letters are large, others small.” (Damijonaitis 1920: 3) “Here the term (for the type of letters) seems to have been skimped. In the grammar of P. Kr. and Ryg. Jonas, at the relevant place (5), this is expressed differently: ‘[l]etters are used in uppercase and lowercase.’” (Jablonskis 1920a: 3 [1933: 165]) Nepakeista (Damijonaitis 1921: 3) Nepakeista (Damijonaitis 1922: 3) “We call words that denote the qualities of things adjectives. Adjectives indicate what or in what way a thing is. Examples: A good man. A good wife.” (Damijonaitis 1920: 33) “In his textbook, J. Damijonaitis gives language rules, or simply explanations, almost everywhere, followed by language examples. In language science, especially at the beginning, it should, it seems, be precisely the other way around.” (Jablonskis 1920a: 2 [1933: 161]) “A good man. A good wife. (...). With the words: geras, gera, gražus, graži, medinis, medinė we express what the things being discussed are like, and indicate the quality, manner of the things being discussed.” (Damijonaitis 1921: 33) Taip pat (Damijonaitis 1922: 33) V. BUIVYDIENĖ. Jonas Jablonskis – Juozo Damijonaičio vadovėlių recenzentas 87 Thus, after the first reviews, J. Damijonaitis’s textbook changed very little. This did not go unnoticed by J. Jablonskis, so in 1922 Lietuvoje published his fourth review, containing many comments from the earlier reviews and expressing regret that the author had not taken the previous advice11. The reviewer lists as many as ten matters requiring correction that had been discussed in the first reviews—for example, he reminds readers that stress and spelling should be discussed, that certain overly complex matters should be avoided, and so on, and he supplements some of his earlier comments12. The review ends with the rather cross remark that the author “turns a deaf ear to the advice given to him” (Jablonskis 1922: 4 [1933: 275]). Po aptartosios recenzijos pasirodžiusiame J. Damijonaičio gramatikos leidime (1923)13 jau atsižvelgta į daugelį J. Jablonskio pastabų, pakeista vadovėlio sandara. Autorius taisė daugelį dalykų: ištaisyti apibrėžimai, terminai, mokomosios medžiagos pateikimo metodika. Vadovėlis papildytas naujais apibrėžimais, rašybos taisyklėmis, kirčiavimo pradmenimis, ištaisytos ir korektūros klaidos (2 lentelėje pateikiama keletas taisymo pavyzdžių). These editions differ not only in the errors corrected. The structure of the textbook has changed: that is, the grammar is divided into two levels (the new term is used instead of part). In the footnotes, the author himself explains that in the second level “some grammar rules covered already in the first level are repeated” (Damijonaitis 1923: 75). Thus, the textbook became more coherent and systematic. The main structural feature of the revised edition of the grammar is instruction in concentric stages: developing the same topics, deepening students’ knowledge and 11 Cf.: “Two years ago I had already written a review of this textbook in ‘Lietuvoje’ and then in ‘Lietuvos Mokykloje’, pointing out what should be corrected in subsequent editions. Yet the textbook did not make use of many of my recommendations in the next edition. It seems to me that the textbook acted thus needlessly: some further corrections are truly necessary.” (Jablonskis 1922: 4 [1933: 273]). 12 Cf.: “In one place (89) it is stated that ‘adverbs formed from verbs are called padalyviai’. In my first review, I said that the words suprantamai, neregėtai, gulomis should also be called padalyviai in this way (?). Why has the author still not corrected this definition of his, included in the section on adverbs? Children must be spoken to clearly and precisely.” (Jablonskis 1922: 4 [1933: 274]). 13 The title page says that this is the second edition, although after the 1920 edition (the first) there were also editions in 1921 and 1922, in which typographical errors were corrected and several comments from J. Jablonskis’s reviews were taken into account. The later (1925) edition of the grammar, although called a revised edition in the title, differs almost not at all from the 1923 edition; only the list of 20 recommended books for reading is supplemented by four more, and typographical errors are corrected. 88 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 83 TABLE 2. Jonas Jablonskis’s comments and corrections to Juozas Damijonaitis’s grammar First edition (1920) J. Jablonskis’s comments after the first edition Second edition (1923) “Some letters are uppercase, others lowercase.” (Damijonaitis 1920: 3) “Here the term (for the kinds of letters) seems rather sparingly supplied. In Jono’s grammar by P. Kr. and Ryg., this matter is phrased differently in a certain place (5): ‘[l]etters are used in uppercase and lowercase.’ (Jablonskis 1920a: 3 [1933: 165]) “Uppercase and lowercase letters. Letters are used in uppercase and lowercase.” (Damijonaitis 1923: 3) “The case with which we express a call is called the vocative, e.g.: o! vaik-e! vaik-ai!” (Damijonaitis 1920: 23) “In one place (23), the author says that ‘the case with which we express a call is called the vocative, and that this case, if I am not mistaken, is the answer to the question (?) – o! (...) nevertheless, the little word “o!” is not in its proper place in the text (at the bottom, on the third line). In Jono’s grammar by P. Kr. and Ryg. (17), the form of the vocative is formulated more simply.’ (Jablonskis 1920a: 2 [1933: 165]) The vocative is not included in the list of cases; it is only stated: “In our language there are other cases too. We say: ‘Be quiet, frog!’ The word frog is the vocative form, which does not answer a question but is used only to address another person or thing. And we include the vocative in the list of cases.” (Damijonaitis 1923: 22) “The diphthong ie at the beginning of a word is written without ‘j’, e.g.: ieškoti, iešmas, ieva.” (Damijonaitis 1920: 10) “The textbook states that the diphthong ‘ie’ is written without ‘j’ at the beginning of a word. But throughout the textbook it says ‘jie dirba, jiems duonos reikia’ (with ‘j’): (Jablonskis 1922: 4 [1933: 274]) “The diphthong ie at the beginning of a word is written without ‘j’ (...). Only in the words jie, jiems, jiedvi do we write the same j that we also write in other forms of those words (jų, juos, jais..).” (Damijonaitis 1923: 12) skills. In the second part of the textbook, parts of speech are reviewed, but in a more complex and detailed way, with more theoretical information presented. As the structure of the textbook was improved, entirely new chapters were also written (e.g., Etymology14), bu- 14 In the first review, J. Jablonskis writes: “The author uses the word ‘grammar’ in the title of his work; the word ‘etymology’ seems to be entirely absent from the textbook, and the meaning of these two words is not explained at all; only the word ‘syntax’ is mentioned as a chapter title at the end of the textbook, but its meaning, too, is nowhere explained.” (Jablonskis 1920a: 3 [1933: 167]). V. BUIVYDIENĖ. Jonas Jablonskis – Juozo Damijonaičio vadovėlių recenzentas 89 The existing parts and chapters were supplemented (e.g., First Degree15, the Syntax chapter16), and new definitions were provided (e.g., of etymology, grammar, and syntax) (Damijonaitis 1923: 166). J. Jablonskis’s remarks were taken into account: “the word’s stress (accent) should be mentioned, children should be taught a few things about our spelling [...], and they should be shown how, when writing, words are carried over from the end of one line to the next” (Jablonskis 1921: 108). Thus, in the new editions17, matters of stress are presented in the Etymology18 chapter (Second Degree) (Damijonaitis 1923: 74), while the rules for hyphenating words are discussed in the Sounds and Letters chapter (Damijonaitis 1923: 14). A review of J. Damijonaitis’s revised textbook was also published in Švietimo darbas (Jablonskis 1926). The review is detailed and lengthy; it is still unclear to the reviewer which school grades the grammar is intended for, since the author has nowhere written about this. This question had already been relevant when reviewing the first editions of the grammar, and became even more important when discussing the structure of the new textbook, in two “degrees” (i.e., parts). Having assessed the textbook’s exercises, J. Jablonskis surmises that the grammar is intended for primary grades, although some exercises (as well as the books recommended for reading) would be more suitable for students in higher grades. The review in question proposes many further corrections and improvements, recalling what had not been taken into account in earlier reviews; for example, the textbook lacks a table of contents. It also proposes revising the definitions of the infinitive, verb, and adjective. Attention was drawn to material newly included in the textbook: for instance, J. Jablonskis suggests that stress be explained earlier: “In the first degree, the author says nothing about stress. In the second degree, stress is briefly defined, and, it seems to me, the whole matter of stress (grave, acute, and circumflex) is explained hastily. It seems that an understanding of stress should also have been given in the first degree.” (Jablonskis 1926: 419 [1933: 374]). It is also proposed that the definition of syntax given in the final chapter be changed, 15 First Degree (cf. the first edition’s Part One), chapters 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, cover all parts of speech, provide a definition of the sentence, and introduce the main and secondary parts of the sentence. 16 The following subsections were added: Compound Sentences; Subordinate Sentences; Coordinated Sentences; Parenthetical Sentences (Damijonaitis 1923: 155–162). 17 The second and third editions are meant here, since the third, although its title page says it is a revised edition, differs very little from the second (1923): some exercises were revised (Damijonaitis 1922: 8), the list of recommended books for reading was expanded, and so on. 18 J. Damijonaitis gives a somewhat different definition of etymology from the one customary today: “That part of grammar which studies the sounds and words of a language is called etymology.” (Damijonaitis 1923: 166). 90 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 83 kuris, jo manymu, per sudėtingas mokslo pradžiai (Jablonskis 1926: 421 [1933: 376])19. Unfortunately, in the same year that J. Jablonskis’s last review was printed, J. Damijonaitis died unexpectedly. The detailed comments in this review went unheeded. The subsequent seven editions of J. Damijonaitis’s grammar were revised through the efforts of the publishers. Analysis shows that only typographical errors were corrected. Thus, while Damijonaitis was alive, five editions of his grammar were published and five reviews by J. Jablonskis were written; in them, the reviewer discussed the first and third (revised) editions. An analysis of all J. Jablonskis’s reviews suggests that, in essence, the linguist evaluated J. Damijonaitis’s grammar, especially the revised edition, while seeking to further improve the quality of future editions. The reviewer was concerned not only with linguistic correctness and clarity, and the precision of linguistic terms and definitions, but also with pedagogical matters. GENERAL REMARKS The following aspects of Juozas Damijonaitis’s textbook Lietuvių kalbos gramatika are discussed and corrected in the reviews by Jonas Jablonskis analyzed here: 1) the correctness, precision, and clarity of definitions, taking pupils’ age into account (28 percent), e.g.: “The author’s definition of verbs does not seem suitable for a grammar to me. If ‘words that denote the action of a thing’ are verbs, then the words važiavimas, gulėjimas, rašymas [driving, lying, writing] will also be verbs. When defining this part of speech, we must be more precise.” (Jablonskis 1926: 418 [1933: 373]); 2) methodology (12 percent) – matters related to the presentation of material and the comprehension and consolidation of new knowledge, taking pupils’ age into account, are discussed (cf. the examples in Tables 1 and 2); 3) textbook structure (remarks indicate what is lacking and what is excessive (8 percent)) – as with methodological remarks, this is most often related to pupils’ age; the appropriateness of teaching certain topics is considered, e.g.: “there was no need to give all the types of adverbial modifiers in the first grade of study” (Jablonskis 1926: 419 [1933: 373]); 4) terminology (3 percent) – incorrect terms are identified and corrected (cf. the examples in Tables 1 and 2); 19 “That part (of grammar) which explains how separate words of speech are arranged in sentences is called syntax.” (Damijonaitis 1923: 166). V. BUIVYDIENĖ. Jonas Jablonskis – Juozo Damijonaičio vadovėlių recenzentas 91 5) other shortcomings are also mentioned (3 percent) – certain exercises and the examples provided are criticized20, although J. Jablonskis considered most of the grammar examples sufficiently correct and suitable for the study of language (Jablonskis 1921: 108); 6) most corrections concern proofreading errors (46 percent) – these corrections conclude each review (28 are noted in the first review, and 15 in the last). J. Jablonskis explains the linguistic matters discussed in the reviews concisely, commenting at greater length only on corrections that are new and have not been mentioned in earlier reviews. The longest and most detailed are the first and last (of the revised edition) reviews. He mentions some matters almost impatiently if he had written about them himself or newly presented them in his books on linguistics. In general, the linguist acknowledges that the language of J. Damijonaitis’s grammar is clear, simple, and understandable (Jablonskis 1922: 4). J. Damijonaitis never published his linguistic principles; he responded to the reviews only by revising his textbooks, so it is not always clear why he took some of the reviewer’s remarks into account but not others. This may be explained in part by a comment written in 1909 in the corrections to Trumpos lietuvių kalbos gramatikos, where he said that, in writing this booklet, he had been concerned “more with pedagogical requirements than with philological reasoning” (Damijonaitis 1909: 302). A comparison of J. Jablonskis’s reviews with successive editions of J. Damijonaitis’s grammar showed how J. Damijonaitis’s textbooks evolved. J. Jablonskis’s many proposals for revising the textbook’s terminology, definitions, methodology, and structure show that, when the textbook was written and its subsequent editions were published, Lithuanian linguistic terminology and the tradition of language teaching were still taking shape; nevertheless, J. Jablonskis already set very clear requirements for native-language textbooks concerning linguistic correctness, clarity, precision, and accuracy. ŠALTINIAI Damijonaitis J. 1909: Trumpa lietuvių kalbos gramatika, Juozapo Zავადskio spaustuvė Vilniuje. Damijonaitis J. 1920: Lietuvių kalbos gramatika. Trumpas vadovėlis mokykloms (mokslo pradžiai), Kaunas: Lietuvos Valstybės Spaustuvė. 20 Aptardamas užduotį, t. y. pasaką „Avis ir avinėlis“ parašyti pasakojamąja kalba, J. Jablonskis sako, kad „toks uždavinys išspręsti sunku bus ne tiktai vaikui, silpnam dar mokinėliui, bet ir jo mokytojui“ (Jablonskis 1921: 108). 92 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 83 Damijonaitis J. 1921: Lietuvių kalbos gramatika. Trumpas vadovėlis mokykloms (mokslo pradžiai), Kaunas: Lietuvos Valstybės Spaustuvė. Damijonaitis J. 1922: Lietuvių kalbos gramatika. Trumpas vadovėlis mokykloms (mokslo pradžiai). Spausdinta „Dirvos“ B-vės spaustuvėje Marijampolėje. Damijonaitis J. 1923: Lietuvių kalbos gramatika. Trumpas vadovėlis mokykloms (mokslo pradžiai). Antrasis leidimas. Spausdinta „Dirvos“ B-vės spaustuvėje Marijampolėje. Damijonaitis J. 1925: Lietuvių kalbos gramatika. Trumpas vadovėlis mokykloms (mokslo pradžiai). Trečiasis leidimas (pataisytas). Spausdinta „Dirvos“ B-vės spaustuvėje Marijampolėje. Jablonskis J. 1920a: J. Damijonaičio „Lietuvių kalbos gramatika“. – Lietuva 164, 2–3; 165, 2. Jablonskis J.1920b: J. Damijonaičio „Lietuvių kalbos gramatika“. – Švietimo darbas 10, 49–51. Jablonskis J. 1921: J. Damijonaičio „Lietuvių kalbos gramatika“. – Lietuvos mokykla 2–3, 103–109. Jablonskis J.1922: J. Damijonaičio „Lietuvių kalbos gramatika“. – Lietuva 257, 4. Jablonskis J.1926: J. Damijonaičio „Lietuvių kalbos gramatika“. – Švietimo darbas 4, 415–421. Jablonskis J.1933: Jablonskio raštai 2. Švietimo reikalai. Red. J. Balčikonis, Kaunas: Švietimo ministerijos leidinys. LITERATŪRA Ąžubalis A. 1997: Iš Lietuvos matematinio švietimo praeities, Kaunas: Šviesa. Ąžubalis A. 2001a: J. Damijonaičio 130-osioms gimimo metinėms. – Dialogas 29, 11–14. Ąžubalis A. 2001b: Juozui Damijonaičiui – 130 metų. – Matematika ir mokykla 3, 1–3. Balčikonis J. 1956: Keletas atsiminimų apie J. Jablonskį. – Literatūra ir kalba 1, 27–30. Bytautienė B. 2006: Įprasmimo save darbuose. – Nemunas 43, 2. Girdenis A., Piročkinas A. 1977–1978: Jonas Jablonskis – dialektologas. – Kalbotyra 28 (1), 29–39; 29(1), 19–28. Juozapavičius P. 1971a: Gyvenimą paskyręs liaudies švietimui: J. Damijonaičio gimimo 100-osioms metinėms. – Gimtasis kraštas 32, 3. Juozapavičius P. 1971b: J. Damijonaičio šimtosioms. – Kauno tiesa 191, 3. Kelmutis A. 1930: Atsiminus a. a. Juozą Damijonaitį. – Sėjos baras 1, 4–7. Malėnas I. 1970: Kaip gimė skiemenų metodas. – Aidai 3, 123–126. Piročkinas A. 1980: Jonas Jablonskis, Kaunas: Šviesa. V. BUIVYDIENĖ. Jonas Jablonskis – Juozo Damijonaičio vadovėlių recenzentas 93 Poderys J. 1931: Atsiminimai apie a.a. Juozą Damijonaitį jo mirties 5-rių metų sukaktuvių proga. – Sėjos baras 5–6, 95–100. Ruseckas J. 1926: Juozas Damijonaitis – 35 metų pedagoginio bei literatūros darbo sukaktuvėms paminėti. – Lietuvos mokykla 2, 93–94. Skučaitė V. 2006: Butas, kuriame sustojęs laikas. – Kauno diena 224, 12. Vidžiūnas A. 1997: Jono Jablonskio akcentologija, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Vokietaitis J. 1927: A. a. Juozui Damijonaičiui atminti. – Švietimo darbas 1, 3–9. Gauta 2010 10 29 JONAS JABLONSKIS AS A REVIEWER OF TEXTBOOKS BY JUOZAS DAMIJONAITIS S u m m a r y The article discusses five reviews by Jonas Jablonskis written in 1920(2), 1921, 1922 and 1926 for the two editions of the Lithuanian grammar by Juozas Damijonaitis, namely, Lietuvių kalbos gramatika. Trumpas vadovėlis mokykloms (mokslo pradžiai) (The Lithuanian Grammar. A short textbook for schools (introduction) (1920, 1923; the second edition was revised according to J. Jablonskis’ recommendations). The comparative analytical and statistical methods have been used to establish J. Jablonskis’ impact on the revision of the grammar. In his reviews, J. Jablonskis considered the following aspects: 1) the accuracy and clarity of definitions with respect to the pupils’ age (28%); 2) the methods of presentation, explanation and drilling of the material (12%); 3) the structure of the textbook and methodological remarks related to the age of the pupils (8%); 4) incorrectly used terms (3%); 5) other shortcomings (3%). Many corrections of the textbook proposed by J. Jablonskis regarding the terminology, definitions, teaching approaches and structure of the material show that at the time of writing and editing the tradition of terminology in the Lithuanian grammar was only starting to appear. It is thus remarkable that J. Jablonskis introduced a very clear standard for the correctness, clarity and rationality of the requirements for the textbooks of Lithuanian. VAIDA BUIVYDIENĖ Lietuvių kalbos institutas P. Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius [email protected] 94 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 83