Rita Miliūnaitė. „Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos vartosenos variantai“

348 Languages and Culture | 83 RITA MILIŪNAITĖ Modern Lithuanian Languages VARIETIES OF USE Vilnius: Lietuvos kalbos institutas, 2009, 248 p. The reviewed book by Rita Miliūnaitė, the author’s second monograph, is, we might say, a purposeful development of the first one (Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos norminimo pagrindai, 2003). Already in that monograph the concept of a variant of grammar is discussed, classification of such variants, formal and functional variants are distinguished, distributional relations of variants and degrees of evaluation are described; already there variants are defined in terms of general language usage, rather than in terms of language system, i.e. very broadly (see Miliūnaitė 2003: 38, 17). The term is now used to refer to all types of variations. When deciding whether variants are a phenomenon of language or speech, the author finds acceptable the view that variantity is encoded in a system and, if necessary, realized in a structure (referring to Aldonas Pupkis’s nuoė stata), from which derives the concept of the investigated phenomenon: “Such an attitude allows to somewhat detach the variantity as a feature of language from the direct relationship with the system and norm, and to look at variants as specific manifestations of that feature in usage.” (p. 124; emphasis added). The subject of the study is extremely relevant, because variants (especially those that are widely understood) are abundant in all parts of living language, and new ones are always being found. Schools need the findings of the variants research, the data, and it is necessary to introduce pupils to those variants of usage that are most typical in their environment, to teach them to evaluate and choose: “A broader classification of variants is important not only for usage research, but also for the methodology of general language teaching, because so far schools talk more about language errors than about how to evaluate various manifestations of usage variants in general.” (p. 176). The nature and purpose of the studies described in the monograph are quite precisely defined by the following statements: “In this work variantity is mainly related to language norms and their functioning in usage – with changes, fluctuations and violations of norms. However, it should be emphasized that this does not mean language norms, but a broader understanding of variantity, which includes both normative and non-normative varr. Millionaire. Variants of the current Lithuanian language usage [rec.] 349 phenomena varied in the tosena” (p. 119–120); “the exploratory study of the usage and its variants is the basis for compiling a compendium of variants from the data available in this database” (p. 219). The archive referred to in the last sentence is the archive of current usage, which has been collected by the author’s family for several decades (nuosekė liau – since 1988) from the written media, Internet sources, and other areas of public usage (pp. 92–113, 156). The book is based on the data of this archive. Emphasizing that the functioning of variants in the usage and their relationships is not the direct object of this monograph, but is the subject of further research (p. 160, 220), the author nevertheless already presents in this work the common functional features of variants that emerge in the usage (she herself identifies them as hypothetical, p. 160), describes the variant nests formed in the usage (p. 197–199), and again brings up the problem of distributional relations of variants (p. The book consists of two parts: “Contemporary consumption and its phenomena” (pp. 15–113) and “Variants of consumption” (pp. 115–214). The first part (chapters 4) discusses the concept of usage, the features of contemporary Lithuanian language usage, the nature of the study of usage phenomena and their recording, the second part (chapters 3) presents the concept of variantity, its manifestations are discussed and the relationships of variants are reviewed. All chapters are concluded with summary notes, and the monograph with concluding notes. The book contains 17 pictures (mostly diagrams) and 9 tables. It is clear from them that the author strives not only for an unambiguous classification of language phenomena, but also for the obviousness of scientific conclusions and generalizations. When discussing various theoretical issues of variantity, the author has always in front of her eyes a compiled and prepared for publication compendium of variants of the current Lithuanian language usage, so the monograph can reasonably be considered as a solid theoretical basis for that compendium (the author herself says that theoretical issues of variantity of usage are essentially discussed in the second part), and the first part of the monograph Chapter 1.4 („Vartosenos reiškinių fiksavimas“, pp. 92–113) is the initial description of that compendium, a kind of introduction to the future compendium: here the index of the compendium of variants is discussed, an excerpt of the compendium is presented (pp. 108–109). the basis of the compilation is the form of the variants, the structural characteristics of the variants (p. 177). How is the main research object of the work understood as usage variants? “The monograph is based on the broadest concept of variantity, which allows to look at the varying phenomena of usage objectively, without the evaluation provision, which is necessary later, in the normative work, when the relationships of the variant phenomena in usage have already been established.” (p. 217). shit- 350 Languages Culture | 83 paradise and the broad concept of variantity are illustrated particularly well by the example of the variants of the verb skveruška: skveraitė. After showing how the other hybrid voveruška is evaluated in the editions of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language Dictionary (in the 1954 edition voveruška was still considered a synonymous norm, in 1972 the reference was linked to voveraite, and since 1993 the hybrid of the 1993 edition is already evaluated as not suitable for common language, with the mark ntk.), the author says: “In public usage voveraitė in this [mushroom] meaning is now also an obvious exemplary norm. so according to the narrow understanding of variant, squirrel and squirrel were variants at one time, and then their variability relationship disappeared. According to the broad concept of variant, voveruška and voveraitė are considered variants of the usage.” (p. 152). Many language units with the same meaning, traditionally regarded as synonyms (lexical or grammatical), are included in variations by the author, e.g.: percentage and decimals, publishing house „Versmė“ and „Versmės“ publishing house (p. 207; to morphological variants, for example, are assigned competing singular and plural combinations drawing: drawing [competition] (p. 172), to syntactic variants – the statements exploding bomb destroyed [warehouse]: exploding bomb and destroyed [warehouse] (p. 173). two variants are distinguished: form and meaning (p. 214). Form variants are cases where the form of the same language unit varies, but the meaning remains unchanged; these variants may differ in functional (stylistical) characteristics. this, we could say, is the narrow concept of language variants, having a certain tradition in our linguistics. In this way, the language is able to distinguish as clearly as possible between synonyms and variants. The term is used to refer to different language units that systematically have the same meaning or function (e.g., absolute synonyms), or to units of which one acquires the meaning of another in addition to its true meaning in usage. variants of the second type significantly expand the concept of variantity. We cannot ignore the fact that the author also speaks about variants of lexicon of similar meaning: “on the basis of the same or very similar meaning, lexical units – words or lexicalized, often consonant word combinations – vary.” (p. 164), and summarizes his positions as follows: “the vaį riants of contemporary Lithuanian language usage are to be considered as linguistic phenomena having the same or very similar meaning and regularly repeating, between which in usage there is a strong relationship of variantity – the ability to replace each other.” (p. 177; emphasis added). The chosen concept of variants allows the author to link the traditional normative work of language and sociolinguistic approach to variant phenomena of usage. Variants of the current Lithuanian usage [rec.] 351 (p. 151–153, 215). sociolinguistic nature of the research is based on more than one place in the book. For example, it is stated that “so far, the aspect evaluated in the normative work of the common Lithuanian language has lacked closer links with studies of actual usage” (p. 217); the relationship between sociolinguistics, language planning and language culture is shown (p. 121–122). The author is helped to search and find these connections not only by her acquaintance with contemporary sociolinguistic works from other countries, but also by her study of the Lithuanian common language norming tradition (the first monograph was essentially devoted to this), and by her attention to older and current works of Lithuanian linguistics. This is a particularly valuable quality now, when many Lithuanian linguists of the younger generation (more often – Lithuanian linguists) are able to look at their mother tongue only through foreign eyes. A noteworthy feature of the monograph is the effort to organize the varied linguistic terms, and to provide new ones if necessary. Slightly adjusts the terminology of functional styles. stėlis, which in Lithuanian linguistics is called differently – everyday household style, spoken language style, simply household or spoken language – is named as everyday in the monograph (p. 42); it can be recalled that this term seemed more convenient to Bronius Savkynas than everyday domestic (see savkynas 1977: 19, 2 ed.). the proposed term for the members of the variant nest: “All other members of the variant nest, except the main one, could be called corresponding variants”; in this case, the term secondary options is inappropriate, as it will be necessary in the subsequent stage of the examination of options, “determining the inequivalence of options in terms of standards” (p. 198). the aim is to create a consistent system of terms, especially those that are used in our linguistics with a similar meaning, often confused. In the subsection “Expressions of variantity” are discussed terms denoting similar things (variants, duplicates, synonyms, competitors, equivalents and substitutes), different concepts named by them (pp. 140–196). the most comprehensive, understandable, discussed concept of variants: the narrowest and the widest, structural and functional characteristics of variants, classification of variants (pp. 140–177; see also pp. 201–211 about the types of variations). The realization of a single invariant – the nest of variants and the relationships of variants formed in it – is called a variation (p. 163, 98 exp.; 201). The author describes variantity as “the most remarkable feature of language phenomena in the same context that they have identical or very similar meaning or perform identical or similar functions – thus the ability to replace each other.” (p. 192; emphasis added). 352 Languages Culture | 83 Variants and synonyms are considered to be the most important manifestations of variantity; different views on the relationship of these concepts are shown (p. 132). The main characteristic of synonyms and widely understood variants is the semantic commonality of language units with different expressions (p. 181). The author thoroughly considers the question of the difference between synonyms and variants (p. 180–188), draws certain conclusions, but, having emphasized that this is a difficult question to unravel (p. 183), does not set herself the task of “unravelling” it completely. one thing is clear: the widely understood variants of usage cover a part of those linguistic phenomena that up to now have usually been classified as synonyms (p. 128); synonyms are “included in the horizon of variants essentially as far as they relate to normativity” (p. 194). Non-normative phenomena also belong to variants, but it would not be appropriate to consider the latter as systemic synonyms, because they are other, not general language, system manifestations. Instead, it is said: “Similar non-normative phenomena [referring to the construction put on the pan, used in the meaning ‘put in the pan’] raise the question of whether they can be considered as the object of the study of syntactic synonymy.” (p. 185). The author believes that the term synonyms would be justified in this case, “[j]if we understand synonyms broadly – as a phenomenon of general (not only general) use, then with regard to the norms of general language synonyms can relate as a norm and reasonably used not as a norm” (p. 193, 112 exp.). Of course, contextual, situational synonyms of uncoded language can be considered. the author as if develops the statement of Aldonas Pupkis that “variantness and synonymy are not strictly independent, completely separate phenomena; In certain places they intersect, they cross, in the development of language some of them can become others” (p. 132), and says: “Some variants eventually acquire certain shades, additional features and become no longer competing variants, but synonymous means of expression” (p. 90). When it comes to synonyms, one thing can be noted. Recalling that in Lithuanian linguistics it is customary to call groups of synonyms synonym lines or synonym lines, the monograph refers only to alvydas umbrasas (2004) (p. 197) among the linguists who use the latter term. I am well aware that this term has been proposed by stasys Keinys, who prefers it to the combination synonyms row (see also his article synonyms row, reference to this article at the term synonyms row KtŽ 1990: 183). Competition of means of language was only mentioned in the author’s first monograph (see Miliūnaitė 2003: 40; 57, 32 exp.; 167), and now it has become one of the central concepts of variantity (p. 188–190); the competition of variants, its degrees (p. 211–213). Lithuanian linguists terms con- r. Miliūnaitė. 353 curents, competition mainly uses when discussing language change, such cases when one means of expression pushes another out of usage, especially when in place of the version offered to the common language, unpresentable, uncodified versions are used. therefore, an obvious diachronic approach. Alex Girdenis has expressed this attitude: the term competition is “widely used in diachronic linguistics <...>. <...> usually some language phenomena compete for some time. say, there was some construct of a participle with a participle, a dative absolute, then it gave way to a participle construction. it is a genuine diachronically understood competition’; synchronously perceived competition phenomena “could be characterized as stylistic opposition. I imagine such cases: Parėjo žmonės dainuojant and Žmonės pardainavo“ (quoted from the transcript of the meeting of the language habilitation committee of Aleksas Girdenis at Vilnius University on February 8, 1996). rita Miliūnaitė is not so categorical, she believes that the same terms of competition in linguistic culture and stylistics can also mean slightly different concepts: “in stylistics, competition is transferred from the relations of linguistic phenomena that develop in usage over a longer period of time to the competition of means of expression at the moment of their selection” (p. 189); “unlike in stylistics, variants are considered competitors not at the moment of their selection for use, but when they are regularly used in a defined context, regardless of their relationship to codification” (p. 190). Here, at least briefly, on the basis of recent publications, it is worth recalling the concept of competition in Czech linguistics, since this concept was taken over by Lithuanian stylistics. Competition is also viewed by Czech linguists in two ways: either as a process where one or more means of expression are displaced by a synonymous means, or as a preference given to one means of expression over synonymous ones. Competition is therefore understood as a dynamic phenomenon, which can be studied as a change or as its consequences and manifestations in the “synchronous section of language”, which is why there is a distinction between competition and parallelism (paralelnost) of language means. Linguists following this approach do not speak of competition when they have in mind the obvious parallelism of duplicate means that convey a certain meaning or perform a certain function. In recent Czech linguistics, competition and parallelism are usually not distinguished, and competition is defined as the use of different means to express the same content, as a possibility from a systemic point of view, i.e. as the set of linguistic means that the linguistic system provides for the act of communication or for different types of communication (see Martincová 1997: 161; Jelínek 2002: 223). 354 Languages and Culture | 83 In developing the idea of expression competition, it is worth considering the working group of all terms of the verb compete. We can say that the terms competitors, competing (variants), competition, perhaps even competitive (expression) are already established and unquestionable. but here in the table of “Variant characteristics” (p. 161) we find the adjective competitive and the noun – competitiveness. Competitiveness? or competitive and competitiveness? Since the term competition is taken as a metaphor from economics or other social sciences, all terms of this group that appear in linguistics could be based on the codification established in those sciences1. The relationship of variants with other manifestations of variantity is summarized as follows: “synonyms reveal more diverse usage capabilities of variants, duplicates are a sign that variantity is excessive and may need to be eliminated, competitors show the relationship of variants’ usage.” (p. 193). Throughout the monograph, in many places, the author distinguishes and highlights the stylistic aspect of the study of variantity. One of the characteristics of usage according to the way of using the language is the determination by looking at the so-called styles of usage: on this basis, a distinction is made between free (informal) and official usage (pp. 34–47). “perhaps the most important criterion becomes formality-freedom. In this axis, the current usage of the Lithuanian language has acquired a certain balance: the means of language expression according to this criterion are increasingly differentiated both in written and verbal forms.” “the previously fairly reliable criteria of written-verbal language and public-private are no longer appropriate”; “the use of common language is increasingly determined by the purpose of use and the addressee” (pp. 216–217); “free speech is a distinct style of speech” (p. 47). stylistics is attributed to the motivated investigation of norm violations (p. 196). For example, in the context presented at pp. 194–195, the phrase “the combination to wash the main road <...> violates the norms of language” (p. 195) is used, but this metaphor appears to be stylistically motivated (cf. (Regarding the stylistic level of the language, see also pp. 50; 90; 112; 173, 105; 195.) In some places, the author corrects her previous assumptions and formulations. For example, it is said that “publicistic style, due to its heterogeneity, must be divided into at least two parts – the informative and the expressive. 1 For example, in Rūta Vainiene’s Dictionary of Economic Terms (Vilnius: tyto alba, 2005) there are competition, competitiveness and competitive advantage (p. 139–140). In the dictionary we read thanks to unnamed linguists, but unfortunately there is no record of approval by the State Lithuanian Language Commission, so nothing can be said about the level of codification of the terms presented in the dictionary. r. Miliūnaitė. Variants of the current Lithuanian language usage [rec.] 355 is not quite accurate, naming only the expressive part of it as a journalistic style and separating it from the informational part.” (p. 41, 22 exn.; the author of the monograph is the compiler and one of the authors of several Language Advice Booklets). Although I agree with this clarification, I must say that there was no mistake in distinguishing the informational style from the journalistic style, just a different approach to the division of styles was chosen. say, in the tradition of English stylistics, the newspaper (i.e., informational) style is distinguished from the journalistic (see. Galperin 1971: 306–318; the author of the subsection “newspaper style” is V. L. Nayer), and in Russian stylistics the newspaper style is understood as the center of the journalistic style, even using the double name newspaper-journalistic (газетно-публицистический) style (see Стили стиян ка 2007: 116). For a long time we were influenced by Russian stylistics, style and genres, having similar newspapers and similar publications, we also divided styles, so over several decades the same (as Russian) Lithuanian language styles and their variations (postils, genres) tradition of division developed. before the restoration of independence, such a linguistic-stylistic approach clearly corresponded to the stylistic reality of the language. It is possible that it is still too early to adopt the rules of English or any other Western stylistics. A more decisive change in the established style classification would be possible only after a thorough study of the current usage in terms of style (thus accumulating reliable data) and clearly formulating the criteria for the division of styles. A few words about the distinction between language (system) and speech (speech) units. In the works of our linguists the same names of units are understood differently. The author is consistent in this respect, but the reader would benefit from an explanation of why this particular approach was chosen. According to Jono Palionis’ Basics of Linguistics (1985), “phonemes and morpheme are language, and words, compounds and sentences are units of speech” (p. 153– 154). and in the works of other authors we find a slightly different treatment of the term sentence. For example, in the Dictionary of Speech Terms, there is a kind of transitional definition: "The sentence is the main unit of language of a particular type, expressing thought, and therefore it itself belongs to speech (speech). <...> but the types of sentence structure belong to a more abstract level – language.“ (1990: 175). Vitas labutis (1994: 57) has defined the conversational relationship in a slightly different way (it seems to me – most accurately): “the real fact of communication is the individual sentence of the text, closely linked to the context, to the situation of use. The term "statement" or "phrase" is currently applied to such a sentence in a text. <...> most importantly, 356 Language Culture | 83 that we make a distinction between the statement as a unit of communication and the sentence as a unit of the language system.“ (Emphasis in quotation everywhere). The public statements of one or another of our linguists about the current state of the Lithuanian language, about the place of various language variants, show that there is not only a different, but even an opposite attitude to the common language, to language change. regardless of the role of the mother tongue. we hear voices that the variants of the Võro language (including slang?) are equal, that the Lithuanian language changes naturally, because the most important thing is to satisfy the needs of communication, and some fading of the imagery, booking (on the one hand) and colloquial vialization (on the other hand) is normal. Rita Miliūnaitė sees the situation of our language differently, she does not think that everything will happen by itself; opposes attempts to adopt egalitarianism – the view of the equality of all variants and ways of language (p. 131). She states that the development of the common language has lost its uniformity, its areas of use are decreasing, uncodified means of expression are increasing, the written language has lost the status of a “homogeneous and well-organized linguistic structure” (p. 83), and summarizes: “so it is already clear that the intensification of marginal phenomena, as well as the direct penetration of foreign elements (various linguistic sub-domains) into the usage dissolves the distinctiveness of the Lithuanian language.” (p. 85). A measured opinion is said about the imitators of political correctness in Lithuania: since there is no need to accept the trends imposed by other languages of using or prohibiting the use of one or another word, one must look at the traditions of using those words in one's own language, the system of meanings. It is not only the opinion of a linguist who has accumulated valuable experience as a current language researcher, but also the position of a responsible native speaker who cares about its fate, its present and its future. When reading the new monograph by Rita Miliūnaitė, one cannot fail to pay attention to some peculiar or otherwise pleasing to the eye aspects of the language etiquette of a scientific work. Here we are used to reading the author’s thanks to reviewers, editors, publishers and other persons at the end of the preface of the book, and here the Thank you is a separate point of the book (as we sometimes see in the scientific works of Western authors). We do not have a single tradition of how to name the author in the text, which we mention, quote or refer to in those cases when we are not satisfied with the usual reference to the source (abbreviation name, year, page in brackets): either we write only the first letter of the name next to the surname, or, when mentioning for the first time, we indicate the full name, and then we use only the surname, as in everyday conversation that it is customary to name the third, absent, person – a neighbor, a co-worker, even some high-ranking person. Mo-