RASUOLĖ VLADARSKIENĖ

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

TRADITION AND INNOVATION

IN LANGUAGE CULTURE

In linguistic and reference literature, Kalbos kultūra is described as a continuing publication of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language, addressing both theoretical and practical questions of language culture and usage (LKE 2008: 253; Pupkis 2005: 364–365; VLE IX 172). Since 1961, 80 issues of Kalbos kultūros have been published. This article, written for the occasion, attempts to look back, take stock of the work accomplished, and reflect on prospects for the future.

The preface to the first issue stated the publication’s purpose and task—to improve and enrich the native language so that it could best meet society’s needs. Kalbos kultūra established and consolidated the postwar directions for standardizing Lithuanian and the nature of work on language culture. It was the first periodical devoted to language practice to be launched in postwar Lithuania. In recent decades, the work of standardizing and regulating the Lithuanian language has moved in the direction initiated and consistently pursued by this publication. From an issue devoted to language practice, Kalbos kultūra gradually became a substantial scholarly publication in which theory and practice go hand in hand.

The organizer and architect of the direction of Kalbos kultūros was Academician Kazys Ulvydas. He was the publication’s editor-in-chief for 30 years (1961–1991), and until 1996 he was a member of its editorial board. Kazys Ulvydas determined the publication’s direction and objectives, developed its theoretical principles, identified areas of work, and himself published 45 contributions in it. The other editor of the publication, Pranas Kniūkšta, also followed the direction he had set. He worked with the publication from 1971 as a consultant (a member of the editorial board), later as an editor, and from 1994 to 2003 served as editor-in-chief. He is currently a member of the publication’s editorial board.

Specific stages in the publication’s development are discussed in articles devoted especially to them: first, Kazys Ulvydas’s article reviewed the first 10 is-

R. VLADARSKIENĖ. Tradicija ir naujovės Kalbos kultūroje

9

of booklets (KK 10, 1966, 3–8)^*; in booklet 51, all 50 booklets were discussed in detail. A meeting was held to mark the publication’s 25th anniversary (two booklets had been published each year), and the participants’ thoughts were printed in booklet 52. The next 25 booklets were examined thoroughly by Pranas Kniūkšta in the article “Language Policy, Theory and Practice in „Kalbos kultūra“” (KK 75, 2002, 9–30).

Kalbos kultūros editorial board has always been, and remains, particularly demanding. Submitted articles are peer-reviewed and carefully edited, because the publication sets language norms, but it cannot publish articles written just anyhow or by just anyone. At first, the publication’s contributors were not even designated as an editorial board, but only as consultants. Long-serving members of the editorial board were Jonas Kruopas, Vytautas Ambrazas, Juozas Pikčilingis, Vitas Labutis, Vincentas Drotvinas, Pranas Kniūkšta, and Kazimieras Gaivenis. The current editorial board consists of Gintautas Akelaitis, Angelė Kaulakienė, Pranas Kniūkšta, Vitalija Maciejauskienė, Rita Miliūnaitė, Gertrūda Naktinienė, Rasuolė Vladarskienė (editor-in-chief), Marija Zavjalova, and Kazimieras Župerka. Kalbos kultūros booklets have been meticulously prepared for press since issue 67, and Albina Bataitytė has also compiled them since booklet 68.

The editors-in-chief and booklet compilers succeeded in bringing together a large group of authors; more than 300 authors have published articles, both major and minor, in this publication. Most contributions came from linguists at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature (since 1991, the Institute of the Lithuanian Language); representatives of other fields of science, including physicists, astronomers, mathematicians, and engineers, have also written on terminology. Over the publication’s nearly five decades of existence, an entire generation of linguists has changed.

Pranas Kniūkšta has published the most—90 contributions—in Kalbos kultūroje; Kazimieras Gaivenis, Jonas Klimavičius, and Nijolė Sližienė have published more than 50 each; and Antanė Kučinskaitė, Stasys Keinys, Marija Razmukaitė, Kazys Ulvydas, Elena Valiulytė, and Vytautas Vitkauskas have published over 30 articles each. The publication’s most faithful authors, who wrote for it from its first booklets and continue to do so, are Vincentas Drotvinas, Vitas Labutis, Vitalija Maciejauskienė, Marija Razmukaitė, Algirdas Sabaliauskas, Nijolė Sližienė, and Vytautas Vitkauskas.

Representatives of other institutions also publish articles in the journal; among the most prolific are Gintautas Akelaitis (Mykolas Romeris University), Regina Koženiauskienė (Vilnius University), Irena Smetonienė (Vilnius University), and Rūta

* When citing publications in Kalbos kultūros in parentheses, the publication’s abbreviation KK is given first, followed by the booklet number, year, and page numbers.

10

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 81

Marcinkevičienė (Vytautas Magnus University), Regina Kvašytė (Šiauliai University), Kazimieras Župerka (Šiauliai University), and a dozen or so young authors from Vytautas Magnus University, Vilnius University, Kaunas University of Technology, and Vilnius Pedagogical University. The editorial board sometimes managed to persuade one or another non-linguist to contribute: philosophers Arvydas Juozaitis (KK 77, 2004, 138–141) and Gintautas Mažeikis (KK 77, 2004, 195–200), literary scholar Paulius Subačius (KK 80, 2007, 135–142), documentary studies specialist Bronislavas Vonsavičius (KK 77, 2004, 10–19), and sociologist Laima Nevinskaitė (KK 81, 2008, 245–265). In the future, the editorial board plans to seek points of contact between linguistics and other related fields of science.

The publication’s main areas of work were identified by editor-in-chief Kazys Ulvydas: Kalbos kultūroje publishes articles on pronunciation, stress, spelling, punctuation, morphology, syntax, vocabulary, names, terminology, stylistics, the language of translations, and other issues concerning the practice and theory of contemporary standard Lithuanian (KK 6, 1964, 3).

During the first few decades, the publication was dominated by short articles offering specific recommendations: cases of incorrect word formation were considered, the meanings of words and their combinations were examined, differences between words of similar meaning were discussed, Lithuanian equivalents were proposed for Russian words and expressions, incorrect calques were corrected, and Lithuanian names were standardized. Terminology issues received particular attention. The nature of the articles was shaped by one of the most important tasks of Kalbos kultūros at the time: to provide language advice to the public in as popular, accessible, and understandable a form as possible (K. Ulvydas, KK 11, 1966, 3–11).

The most significant changes in the publication were brought about by external circumstances. In 1990, the journal Gimtoji kalba, published monthly, was re-established in Lithuania. It focuses on practical language issues, so Kalbos kultūra, founded as a practical publication, turned toward the theory of language culture, devoting more attention to general issues of language culture and to examining the relationship between language and society. Since 1994, one annual issue of Kalbos kultūros has been published, because terminology specialists began publishing their own separate journal, Terminologija. One broad area of work was lost, since until then Kalbos kultūroje had devoted considerable space to terminology issues. The most terminology-related publications were contributed by Kazimieras Gaivenis, Stasys Keinys, Jonas Klimavičius, and Angelė Kaulakienė. Still, an occasional terminology issue is discussed in Kalbos kultūroje even today.

R. VLADARSKIENĖ. Tradicija ir naujovės Kalbos kultūroje

11

Larger and more varied publications appeared, and efforts were made to harmonize linguistic theory with language practice: alongside broader theoretical articles, essays examining specific matters of language use were also published. In accordance with the requirements for scholarly publications, abstracts in English have been appended to articles since issue 70. To ensure that the journal’s articles reach readers not only in Lithuania but also abroad, Kalbos kultūra is indexed in the international scholarly information databases MLA International Bibliography and CEEOL.

As the nature of the publication changed, so did its audience. At first, when most attention was devoted to discussing specific language phenomena and making recommendations, the publication was intended for the general public—more precisely, the educated public—who cared about nurturing and purifying the Lithuanian language. Today, the scholarly publication Language Culture is intended primarily for scholars and university lecturers whose work is related to linguistics. Politicians, journalists, translators, editors, language advisers, and teachers will also find theoretical support here for their practical work; more specific suggestions on language usage can be found in the section “Topical Issues in Language Practice.” Language Culture

Reviewing issues 51–75, editor Pranas Kniūkšta noted that Kalbos kultūra “was founded to provide the public with recommendations on language. But it was never content with direct instruction and correcting errors; efforts were also made to examine and explain language phenomena themselves and to consider broader questions of language standardization and cultivation. Over time, simple corrections became less frequent, and ‘Kalbos kultūra’ turned toward discussion and generalization” (KK 75, 2002, 16). Aldonas Pupkis aptly characterized the nature of the journal’s publications, stating that Kalbos kultūra concerns itself with the investigative and deliberative aspect of language use (Pupkis 2005: 365). At first, questions of linguistic theory and language cultivation were explored mainly by Kazys Ulvydas, and later by Vytautas Ambrazas and Pranas Kniūkšta. In recent years, Rita Miliūnaitė has worked in this field. In a series of articles, she systematizes decades of work on language standardization, proposes innovations (for example, classifying variants in the use of language phenomena as standard and nonstandard), investigates the relationship between codification and usage in order to identify the prospects for codification, and considers the need to review codification (KK 72, 1999, 8–16; KK 73, 2000, 24–35; KK 74, 2001, 27–34; KK 75, 2002, 35–47; KK 76, 2003, 17–29; KK 79, 2006, 9–28; KK 80, 2007, 7–23).

The aims of fostering language culture are among the key concerns that continually occupy the journal’s editors, since they also determine the direction of Kalbos kultūros. How

12

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 81

to foster language culture was considered by Kazys Ulvydas in several articles (KK 1, 1961, 5–11; KK 14, 1968, 3–6; KK 15, 1968, 7–16; KK 32, 1977, 3–21). Over time, the conditions of social life changed, as did attitudes toward language and the status of language itself. Danguolė Mikulėnienė identified current language-education tasks: after Lithuanian became the state language, it had to take root in all spheres of state life, especially information technology (KK 75, 2002, 31–34). Rita Miliūnaitė believes that today “the true understanding of language culture—as cultured language—is becoming distorted in our society, as learning the standard language turns into learning language errors and, unfortunately, erodes the last remnants of linguistic intuition and undermines confidence in one’s own language” (KK 81, 2008, 152). Older methods of teaching and fostering language culture are no longer as effective, while no new effective approaches have yet been proposed. This topic merits further discussion, and contributions sharing the experience of language teachers are particularly welcome.

Some matters raised and discussed in Kalbos kultūroje during the journal’s first decades were rejected as unsuitable for the language, while others were accepted and became established as standard usage. Today, nobody nebebuvo vaikų (A. Kučinskaitė, KK 8, 1965, 34–35), no one uses rymiškų skaitmenų (D. Lukšys, KK 16, 1969, 67), and we have long been accustomed to bus stotelių (P. Kniūkšta, KK 22, 1972, 17–18), while the siekis defended by Antanas Lyberis (KK 38, 1980, 42–43) has become a common word, sometimes perhaps overused, especially in specialized language. There are many such recommendations that are no longer discussed, but others remain pressing to this day—for example, distinctions between the meanings of certain words: people still make mistakes in using teisingas, taisyklingas and tinkamas; vienodas and vieningas; ypač and ypatingai (A. Kučinskaitė, KK 2, 1962, 42–44; KK 10, 1966, 16–17; J. Paulauskas, KK 3, 1962, 31–32). Pranas Kniūkšta has discussed in detail the nature and impact of the corrections in Kalbos kultūros in his article “On the Principles, Methodology, and Impact of Recommendations in ‘Kalbos kultūra’” (KK 51, 1986, 12–37).

Some of the language phenomena discussed in the journal remain relevant today. As early as 1966, Kazys Ulvydas wrote: “With all branches of culture, science, technology, and the national economy developing at an extraordinary pace, language too is undoubtedly undergoing continuous change. Users of the Lithuanian literary language constantly encounter questions and uncertainties in vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation, accentuation, spelling, punctuation, and transcription. Since new words and terms are continually needed to name new objects, things, phenomena, and concepts, questions of vocabulary and terminology are especially relevant” (KK 10, 1966, 3). These thoughts can also serve as a basis for discussing current language problems.

R. VLADARSKIENĖ. Tradicija ir naujovės Kalbos kultūroje

13

The naming of new realities continues to be a cause for concern; only the direction in which they enter Lithuanian has changed. In the past, Kalbos kultūra worked to stem the spread of borrowings from Russian—Lithuanian equivalents were proposed for Russian words and phrases, and many short articles began in much the same way: Kaip išversti... From issue 66 (1994) onward, attention turned to the spread of foreign words from Western European languages in Lithuanian: the usage and standardization of new loanwords, the relationship between standard and nonstandard foreign words, the search for and selection of equivalents, and their grammatical adaptation were discussed (V. Rudaitienė, N. Liubinienė, KK 66, 1994, 59–73; J. Girčienė, KK 69, 1997, 64–68; KK 71, 1998, 54–58; KK 79, 2006, 74–90; KK 80, 2007, 110–122, 143–152; P. Kniūkšta, KK 31, 1976, 22–32; KK 67, 1995, 24–29; KK 80, 2007, 24–31; L. Vaicekauskienė, KK 81, 2008, 65–79).

Jonas Paulauskas raised current general problems of lexical standardization (KK 27, 1974, 40–49; KK 37, 1979, 77–80), which were later explored by Gertrūda Naktinienė (KK 73, 2000, 12–24; KK 75, 2002, 47–56; KK 78, 2005, 191–204). The journal contains numerous specific recommendations on word formation, meaning, and usage, particularly in its first 40 issues, when short articles about words, phrases, or forms were usually the rule. Later, individual phenomena began to be examined in greater depth. For example, Pranas Kniūkšta discusses the meaning of the word tvarka in detail (KK 77, 2004, 20–25), and points out differences in the meanings of the verbs rašyti, nurodyti, išdėstyti (KK 80, 2007, 107–109). Jonas Klimavičius investigates words particularly thoroughly; his articles from the past decade stand out for their wealth of lexicographic and usage data and the strength of their arguments (KK 71, 1998, 16–26; KK 72, 1999, 35–47; KK 73, 2000, 47–61; KK 75, 2002, 105–120; KK 78, 2005, 90–110).

Almost every issue contains articles devoted to the standardization of proper names. In issue 51, Vitalija Maciejauskienė reviewed the articles on this topic in detail (KK 51, 1986, 43–47); she herself has published more than 20 articles on Lithuanian proper names. Most of the writing has concerned place names: their forms have been standardized, stress patterns clarified, the grammatical adaptation of transcribed proper names discussed, and the development and usage patterns of personal names examined. Recommendations for contemporary Lithuanian names are also addressed (V. Maciejauskienė, KK 77, 2004, 84–95).

Various problems of morphology and syntax are regularly discussed in Kalbos kultūroje. The use of cases and prepositions is particularly relevant. Elena Valiulytė began writing about the use of prepositions and synonymy with issue 5, and has written more than 20 articles on this subject for Kalbos kultūrai. Questions concerning case usage were explored by Kazys Ulvydas (KK 26, 1974, 3–14), Nijolė Šližienė

14

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 81

(KK 14, 1968, 63–64; KK 45, 1983, 21–24; KK 54, 1988, 36–38; KK 71, 1998, 26–28; KK 77, 2004, 40–45), Jonas Šukys (KK 75, 2002, 78–84; KK 78, 2005, 133–143), Rita Miliūnaitė (KK 77, 2004, 26–39), and others. Gintautas Akelaitis’s articles on the use of spreading (fashionable), but not always correct, words and constructions are worth mentioning (KK 78, 2005, 67–78; KK 79, 2006, 51–61).

A few more specific issues that have been discussed before and are being revisited: the use of multiplicative numerals (K. Vosylýtė, KK 11, 1966, 37–40; S. Keinys, KK 32, 1977, 27–35; R. Miliūnaitė, KK 64, 1993, 28–34); the use of the conjunction and was discussed in both issue 5 and issue 77 (D. Lukšys, KK 5, 1963, 63; A. Bielinskienė, KK 77, 2004, 119–123); questions concerning the formation of names for inhabitants of states and countries, raised in issue 4 (K. Aleksynas, KK 4, 1963, 39–40), remain relevant today (D. Liutkevičienė, KK 74, 2001, 60–65; KK 81, 2008, 80–102). Questions of reflexive forms have also been discussed repeatedly (A. Valeckienė, KK 21, 1971, 51–52; S. Krinickaitė, KK 45, 1983, 53–57; J. Klimavičius KK 80, 2007, 97–106).

Word order is also a subject of constant examination. Although Lithuanian word order is partly free, the cases in which it matters have been discussed in Kalbos kultūroje repeatedly, both in the past and today (V. Grinaveckis, KK 1, 1961, 30–31; V. Ambrazas, KK 9, 1965, 24–27; V. Būda, KK 13, 1967, 37–47; L. Vaicekauskienė, KK 69, 1997, 61–63; R. Miliūnaitė, KK 79, 2006, 173–196).

Accentuation and pronunciation received more attention from linguists before the principal prescriptive works had been published (Antanas Lyberis, Jonas Klimavičius, Valerija Vaitkevičiūtė, and Vytautas Vitkauskas wrote actively on these issues); articles on the topic have become less frequent in the publication’s more recent issues. Although publications appear less often, they stand out for their ambition (D. Mikulėnienė, KK 63, 1992, 75–79; KK 65, 1993, 72–74; V. Kavaliauskas, KK 72, 1999, 88–92; KK 78, 2005, 111–127; A. Kazlauskienė, KK 75, 2002, 131–137; KK 76, 2003, 108–114; A. Malakauskas, KK 68, 1995, 81–86; KK 76, 2003, 102–108).

Nijolė Sližienė and Pranas Kniūkšta took particular care in standardizing Lithuanian spelling. Spelling issues were more pressing before the prescriptive publication Lietuvių kalbos rašyba ir skyryba (1989; 2nd photographic edition, 1992) appeared. Later, discussion focused mostly on adapting proper names from other languages and on the spelling of the names of companies, institutions, and organizations.

R. VLADARSKIENĖ. Tradicija ir naujovės Kalbos kultūroje

15

In 1963, Kazys Ulvydas examined the principles of punctuation in the standard language (semantic, grammatical, and intonational) and emphasized: “Since punctuation perhaps depends most of all on the meaning of language, both in teaching and in practical writing the greatest attention must be paid to quickly grasping the meaning of a sentence” (KK 5, 1963, 15). The ambiguities he identified in the punctuation of detached sentence parts, modal and parenthetical words, and comparative expressions were subsequently addressed; punctuation rules were revised and somewhat modified. Punctuation issues were discussed in several issues, which also provide a historical account of the reasons for changes to punctuation rules and, later, explanations of the revised rules (V. Ambrazas, KK 38, 1980, 7–14; G. Akelaitis, KK 45, 1983, 62–69; B. Dobrovolskis, KK 53, 1987, 15–21). The latest changes to punctuation rules in Kalbos kultūroje were discussed by Albinas Drukteinis (KK 79, 2006, 197–208).

In issue 9 (1965) of Kalbos kultūros, a collection of corrections to the language of meeting minutes was presented in a publication entitled “Let Us Improve Administrative Language.” This call to draw attention to an important area of language use received a substantial response. Questions concerning administrative language began to be examined consistently and comprehensively, shifting from the correction of individual errors to the consideration of broader problems. Previously, concern focused on the influence of Russian on the language of documents; now it is the effect of translating EU documents on Lithuanian administrative language. Because it influences other varieties of the standard language, administrative language has always been an important object of language standardization. Initially, a number of linguists wrote on specific issues of immediate relevance, for example: Jonas Palionis (KK 2, 1962, 46), Antanė Kučinskaitė (KK 7, 1964, 66–67), Albertas Rosinas (KK 9, 1965, 37–39), Vitas Labutis (KK 11, 1966, 28–32), Elena Grinaveckienė (KK 14, 1968, 29–30), Nijolė Sližienė (KK 16, 1969, 14–18; KK 17, 1969, 17–20; KK 35, 1978, 3–6), Elena Valiulytė (KK 16, 1969, 67; KK 19, 1970, 78), Vytautas Ambrazas (KK 19, 1970, 42–43), Adelė Valeckienė (KK 23, 1972, 60; KK 36, 1979, 53–56). Later, this variety of language began to be studied systematically. Today, Pranas Kniūkšta and Rasuolė Vladarskienė write most extensively on administrative language.

Kalbos kultūra has always been concerned not only with correct language, but also with stylistically effective and vivid expression. Over the past decade, Regina Koženiauskienė (KK 71, 1998, 68–74; KK 74, 2001, 74–81; KK 77, 2004, 103–108) and Kazimieras Župerka (KK 71, 1998, 59–65; KK 78, 2005, 56–66; KK 79, 2006, 62–73) have explored questions of stylistics and eloquence. Klementina Vosylytė wrote about the vividness of phraseological expressions (KK 75, 2002, 121–124), while Jolanta Zabarskaitė examined the particular features and curiosities of the use of ideophones (KK 74, 2001, 65–69; KK 79, 2006, 249–255).

16

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 81

After Lithuania regained independence, the Kalbos kultūros journal worked to consolidate the status of the state language. Vytautas Ambrazas’s (KK 56, 1989, 3–7) and Pranas Kniūkšta’s publications (KK 58, 1990, 21–34; 34–54) were devoted to this topic. The language-policy issues under consideration change over time: previously, it was important to establish Lithuanian as the state language; today, the challenge is how to preserve its distinctiveness in the multilingual European Union, where 21 languages are recognized as official and an extraordinarily large number of texts must be translated into Lithuanian quickly. Under these circumstances, the experience of other countries—especially smaller ones striving to withstand the encroachment of English into every sphere of language use—is valuable; this experience is shared in issue 79 (KK 79, 2006, 96–101, 102–111, 131–136). Rasuolė Vladarskienė (KK 79, 2006, 41–50) and Lina Murinienė (KK 81, 2008, 170–184) write about the impact of translations of EU documents on Lithuanian administrative language.

Kalbos kultūroje publishes a variety of linguistic information. At first, it provided lists of publications important for language practice; later, it began publishing reviews of language-related books. Publications that introduce forthcoming books on language and discuss the principles guiding their preparation are highly valuable. The journal works closely with the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language, publishing its resolutions and commentaries on them, as well as annual reports on the institution’s activities.

Several recent issues of Kalbos kultūros (KK 77–80) differ from earlier ones not only in appearance (their larger format and longer articles), but also in content. This reflects the editorial board’s efforts to take a broader view of language culture: to examine not only violations of language norms, but also current usage phenomena; to investigate relations between language and society; to introduce the latest sociolinguistic, psycholinguistic, and other research; and to seek out new topics and problems. In discussing relations between language and society, the journal tends toward a sociolinguistic perspective. R. Miliūnaitė’s article considers how linguistic means shape a person’s image at the intersection of linguistic and social factors (KK 78, 2005, 32–55); other articles examine the relationship between the standard language and dialects (L. Grumadienė, KK 74, 2001, 81–86; A. Pupkis KK 80, 2007, 64–75; M. Ramonienė KK 79, 2006, 137–148). Dalia Blažinskaitė studies the language of advertising (KK 73, 2000, 96–101; KK 75, 2002, 125–131; KK 77, 2004, 56–66; KK 78, 2005, 144–152), as does Irena Smetonienė (KK 74, 2001, 69–73; KK 76, 2003, 126–130). Ineta Savickienė (KK 78, 2005, 231–240) and Laura Kamandulytė (KK 79, 2006, 264–272) introduce readers to psycholinguistic research on children’s language.

R. VLADARSKIENĖ. Tradicija ir naujovės Kalbos kultūroje

17

New technologies create new opportunities, and more than one linguist bases their articles on data gathered using computer tools. This greatly accelerates language research and makes it possible to study language from various perspectives. Language itself is also changing under the influence of new technologies, giving rise to new forms that linguists are beginning to examine in order to assess their role in society and identify possible research directions (R. Miliūnaitė, KK 81, 2008, 20–49). This topic should hold great promise, since the negative impact of widely used communication technologies on language—especially among young people—is often discussed, while rigorous research remains scarce.

Previously, Kalbos kultūroje published articles only in Lithuanian. Issue 79 included several contributions in English and Russian. These were articles based on papers presented by foreign guests from Estonia, Norway, and Sweden at the 13th International Jonas Jablonskis Conference, “The Standard Language and Society” (comprehensive summaries in Lithuanian were included) (KK 79, 2006, 91–95, 96–101, 102–111, 112–117, 118–123, 124–130, 131–136). They introduce readers to language policy and practice abroad and show that other countries, too, face a number of language-related problems. Some address them in much the same way as Lithuania, while others take a somewhat different approach. Connections with linguists in other countries, enabling the exchange of accumulated experience, could become a promising direction for the journal’s work.

Having turned toward the examination of theoretical issues concerning the use of contemporary Lithuanian, the Kalbos kultūros journal strives to balance matters of language theory and practice. Drawing on a tradition of measured language standardization cultivated over decades, it offers recommendations for evaluating language phenomena and examines new tendencies in contemporary usage. In response to present-day needs, it seeks to identify the reasons behind the not always fruitful dialogue between linguists and language users.

The future of this journal, which has been produced and published for five decades, can be described as follows: to continue its tradition of offering well-founded recommendations for evaluating and standardizing language phenomena, examining problematic aspects of language, and continually attending to new linguistic phenomena. By broadening the understanding of language culture, the journal should rehabilitate this term, which is viewed controversially in society and most often understood merely as the correction of errors. The journal’s aim is to foster language that is cultured in every respect, understanding language culture as a harmony of linguistic correctness, stylistic effectiveness, and linguistic ethics and aesthetics.

18

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 81

LITERATŪRA

LKE 2008: Lietuvių kalbos enciklopedija. Red. Vytautas Ambrazas. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

KK 1961–2008: Kalbos kultūra / tęstinis leidinys, sąs. 1–81.

P u p k i s A. 2005: Kalbos kultūros studijos, Vilnius: Gimtasis žodis.

VLE IX 2006: Visuotinė lietuvių enciklopedija 9, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

Gauta 2008 09 25

TRADITION AND INNOVATIONS IN THE KALBOS KULTŪRA

S u m m a r y

The article gives an overview of 80 volumes of the Kalbos kultūra which was founded in 1961. The journal was the first periodical in post-war Lithuania which focused exclusively on problems of practical language use. The journal established and consolidated major norm setting priorities of standard language and the tactics of language culture. The changes in the publication’s priorities were determined by external factors. In 1990 the monthly journal Gimtoji Kalba was re-established; from the very start it focused on the practical language use, which is why the Kalbos kultūra adopted a more theoretical viewpoint and shifted to more general issues of language culture. Continuing the age-old moderate norm setting tradition, the Kalbos kultūra provides evaluation and recommendations on different language phenomena, deals with the contemporary language use and problems concerned with the impact of new technologies on language. The relationships between language and society are among today’s top priorities. Also linguists attempt to identify reasons why sometimes the dialogue between linguists and language users is not very successful.

RASUOLĖ VLADARSKIENĖ

Lietuvių kalbos institutas

P. Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius

[email protected]

R. VLADARSKIENĖ. Tradicija ir naujovės Kalbos kultūroje

19