Lietuvių bendrinė kalba: ribos ir beribiškumas, sistema, norma ir kodifikacija

LITHUANIAN COMMON LANGUAGE: BOUNDARIES AND LIMITS, SYSTEM, NORM AND CODIFICATION The rich and diverse, but concise, often theoretical thoughts of this article are derived from the author, a dictionarist, terminologist, language culturalist, long years of scientific activity, mainly applied — normative, and a modest constant attempt to theoretically justify and justify it —“so that the practitioner is at least a little and a theoretician” (IlemxoBckuit 1984: 247). The normative activity requires a scientific theoretical basis, but it is not possible to obtain it at once forever – it must be constantly expanded and deepened while maintaining its integrity, together with critical examination with comprehensive counter-- arguments. It was thus developed over a long period of time by reading the books and articles of F. de Saussure, E. Coseriu, L. Hjelmslev, B. Havranekas, A. Pieškovskis, G. Vinokuro, L. Ščerba, L. Ožegovas, V. Vinogradovas, G. Serebrenikovas, E. Filinas, G. Stepanovas, J. Stepanovas, V. Zvegincevas, A. Leontjeva, V. Kostomarova, B. Golovinas, B. Skvorcovas, V. Ickovičius, K. Gorbacevičius, N. Pilinskis, Z. Klemensiewiczius, W. Doroszewski, L. Ceplytis, J. Pommeras, V. Skujinis, H. Saaris, J. Jablonskis, K. Būga, J. Balčikonis, P. Jonikas, P. Skardžys, A. Salis, Z. Zinkevičius, J. Palionis, J. Lebedis, J. Kabelka, K. Ulvydas, V. Ambraz, A. Valeckienė, J. Pikčilingis, A. Piročkinas, R. Venckutė, A. Šoblinskas, K. Župerka, V. Vitkauskas, P. Kniūkšta, K. Gaivenis, S. Keinis, B. Stundžys, R. Koženiauskienė, A. Bitinienė, G. Subačius, D. Mikulėnienė, R. Miliūnaitė and others on general linguistics, general language theory, history of the Lithuanian common language, language culture (theory and practice), stylistics, terminology. The constant checking of the thoughts I read in my own (and colleagues’) practice helped to create a more harmonious, consistent picture and a stronger foundation. In many cases, that “bridge between science and life” (ITemkosckui 1984: 247) held well. 7 Quotes and references are used here only in a few more special cases —in the modest opinion of the author, when the theoretical ideas are not general, when they are rare in our scientific circulation, when the author himself finds them more significant, relevant. I. The question of boundaries always arises when there is something to limit — there are the very adjacent things, but the definitions and their meaning are not yet sufficiently clear. The common language is, of course, a certain separation from dialects. Most of the time we talk about their contradiction, often about interaction or unilateral reciprocal influence. We always talk about the basis of the common language — the single dialect, i.e. the similarities between that dialect and the common language (and later, of course, about the differences). It is less commonly spoken, but it is meaningful and necessary to talk about the common language and the inherent commonality of all dialects. Very well — precisely and specifically motivated Lithuanian language term dialect (in the meaning of “language” used in Konstantinas Sirvydas’ dictionary, in the meaning of “dialect” — Antanas Baranauskas and Kazimieras Jaunius): taf m € s are divided mainly according to t or im g —phonetics. Differently pronounced duona, dūna, dona, douna, danyte, donela, but recognized by everyone duona, duonytė, duonelė — there is no lexical limit: the internal norm of all dialects and the norm of common language here is one. This commonality could be called an infinite level (<> boundaries) in order to achieve terminological consistency of the subject. Here the limitless —it is not more ordinary, more everyday 2. "very large, excessive, extraordinary" (DZ,), i.e. "infinite, unlimited- ", and 1. „without limits“ (DZ,) —this is the basic meaning of the word limitless and it is terminologically the most normal, cf. heartless „infertile person“ (DZ), but in the Dictionary of Medical Terms: acardius — heartless (malformation without heart), acardia —akardija —besirdysté (malformation). The limitless range of common language and dialects is very wide, linguistically speaking, siste minis (system scale). This alignment is important both theoretically and practically — by taking care of the linguistic heritage, which consists of two parts — common language and dialects, the common self comes into one common field of language protection and nurturing as a matter of everyone’s care for the whole language. The common language differs from dialects 8 primarily as a norm, not as a fundamentally different system. Differences are individual (infinite number) and systemic — according to some level of the system, part of the system or a more pronounced, more general feature. By their systematic differences, dialects stand out sharply (in contrast) from the infinite common ground (and, of course, differ from each other) — they remain outside the bounds of the common language: accent-detracting dialects, dialects that do not maintain the contradiction of the natural length of the vowels, dialects that harden consonants, dzūkuojantys dialects, etc. Since this marginality is partial —not the whole dialect system is in marginality —it is not more accurate to say otherwise: in marginality there is the detraction of the accent, the failure to maintain the natural length of the vowels, the hardening of the consonants, the dzungling, etc. For the people of the dialects, and especially for the common-language speakers who are descended from them, there would be a great difference — in the first case they are as it were left entirely on the margins, in the second we draw them to the boundless surface and partly include it. In other aspects of the system of language — grammar, vocabulary — the common identity is incomparably greater and more significant than the multitude of differences of a smaller scale. Only the differences – phonetics, pronunciation – are substantial – spoken, heard, but differently valued by the natives and non-natives: the non-natives are foreign to the natives, and therefore difficult to replace. In general, the main consonant of all the dialects is common — only the Žemaites do not have the Afrikaans ¢', dž' in one position; Dzūki differ by the afrikatas c', dz' in one position or —others — in two; only the Samogitians do not have o, only one of their adverbs has ou; only Dzūki has av instead of au; very distinct eastern highlander es. Gramatiniy system of categories is almost universal. On the other pole — in the field of vocabulary, the most prominent (in general) dialect, the furthest from the common language, although it has many lowland dialects, but chrestomatical, i.e., those that are known through folklore and literature to the users of the common language, and through the common language and the Žemaites themselves perceived as their differences, are not many, some of them have traces in the common language, for example, kūlgrinda žem. "Stone-based secret underwater pathway- ", kūltupis zool. "bird of the family Oenanthe, nesting among stones (Oenanthe oenanthe)" (DZ). Collisional things, i.e., there are no numerous contradictory differences, e.g., prey 1st floor. ‘rib’, p.g. ‘Hose’ (DŽ,); smagus 6. žem. ‘severe’ (DZ); 9 March 2. d., r. ‘mat’, 3. ryt., dz. "Jovatiesė", 4. d., r. ‘woven blanket’, 5. ryt., dz. ‘staltiesė’, 6. zem. ‘hand towel’, section 7 ‘small two-pull net without a sucker, biped’ (DZ,), although all are trimmers. In general, this is typical of the language, although sometimes there are difficulties, but more in jokes, only for children, for example: —What are these berries called? —the child asks. - Blueberries. "There are inter-term misunderstandings, there are obstacles to the entry of such words into the common language or to their use in it. But they are overcome. For example, the needle is 1. ‘coniferous needle’, 2. ‘pine branch’, || ‘spruce branch’, 3. ‘pine or spruce fruit, coneflower, žebelys, mugutis’, || ‘spruce fruit’, || ‘pine fruit’, || ‘horse’, 4. ‘shell, thread’, p. 5 pl. “a breaking part of the bark, a dry flake”, 6. „pleiskana“ (skujos „litter“; still adds a little bit of variants skujas, skūjė, skujys, skujokas, skujenos and Vedic meanings) in LKŽ XII, but despite these semantic contradictions there are already established terms related to the meaning of the needles as „scales“: skujagalvė bot. „<...> skvynuotas grybas, <...> (Pholiota)“ DZ, „Sskujuočiai 2. „horned-scaled order of higher mammals (Pholidota)- “, because it is not enough to name a number of similar things with a single root skvyn- (there is a fungus Zvynabudeé, Zvynaroplis). The boundless morpheme (the common identity of the common language and dialects) is not unchanging, so it is possible to talk about the limits of its change. In the initial stage of the formation of the common language, the influence of the dialects on the common language was more pronounced, then — as if in reverse — the influence of the common language on the dialect-derived users of the common language, and finally — the influence of the common language on the dialects. So the natural limitless range has now changed considerably and is much wider. The spoken style of the common language (if it is still recognized, if it is not yet abandoned- ), although it cannot go beyond the norms of the common language, the function of the language (which can be expressed briefly in very simple words — how it is spoken depends on who speaks what to whom and why) is the closest to the dialogue of dialects. The interdialect (interdialectism) of folklore is often mentioned (but not explained). The movement of folklore works between dialects in general is not entirely unlimited, and as it is, it is not a prerequisite for any auxiliary or partial interdialectal language —although it is not possible to fully dialectize, but it is essentially dialectized (folklore texts function only as dialects, they are written and published in this way) — the third, intermediate, variant does not arise. Therefore, the not quite pure dialecticity of folklore is not interdialectalism in any way, even not superdialectalism. However, another thing is important here — folklore has other functions than the dialogic dialect language, and according to its function, the artistic style of the common language is in the same typological row as the 10 folklore style. II. 1998-1999 Before explaining the various boundaries of the common language, we should say a word about the boundaries of dialects. Territorial dialects have limits of time and space—age and area. Local dialects are the common dialects of the Lithuanian language. Other dialects—social, professional—are almost not studied in Lithuanian linguistics. Although it would be too early to say that someone will not find the remains of Pomeranian fishermen, Nemunas pilgrims, Dainava woodland hunters or Šiluva beggars, but the best time has long been lost. And the present social and professional dialects are not becoming the basis of territorial dialects, but of urban dialects and common dialects. In his 1916 Course of General Linguistics, E. de Saussure describes the dialectal state of a language as follows: "Left to itself, a language remains fragmented into dialects, none of which invades the domain of the other. Under such conditions, it is doomed to endless decomposition” (Coccrop 1977: 231). "Lithuanian dialects are the eternal foundation of the common language. Thinking socially, we must say that the Lithuanian common language is also the true savior of dialects. The beginning of the separation of the common language from dialects is the writing and the book, which form the basis for education, culture, literature and science. To the question whether writing is necessary for a common language, Saussure answers: "Homeric poems seem to prove the contrary" (Coccrop 1977: 231), but this is rather an ancient exception—- rather, it would be the beginnings of a common language. And written language necessarily follows the path of common language. The role of the State and the Church (baptism) is also invaluable. The line of common language boundaries should begin with the historical border. Already with the baptism of King Mindaugas the Lithuanian language was baptized narrowly, and with the universal baptism of Lithuanians it was baptized broadly. Although “the Lithuanian language was used quite widely in the local administration, transcending ethnic boundaries” (Dubonis 2002: 478), although even “non-Lithuanians in the LDK learned Lithuanian” 11 (Dubonis 2002: 478), but Lithuanian was only one of the state languages and, unfortunately, mostly spoken. In the political Lithuanian nation of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the Lithuanian ethnic group, although not the most numerous, was the main, but the Lithuanian language was not properly mastered. “In 1540 Sigismund the Old granted Kaunas the privilege to have two official languages in the city’s courts – Lithuanian and Polish” (Dubonis 2002: 476). In 1551, in the statutes of the city of Vilnius, “the summons to court and the decisions recorded in the court books are published in Polish and Lithuanian and Russian” (Dubonis 2002: 478), but the language of the statutes is already Polish. The official written language was the official Slavic language, and Lithuanian was not cancelled. The bilingualism of the Lithuanian clergy – Slavic and Church – limited the use of Lithuanian. The Lithuanian language was raised and brought to the Church by a new kind of thinking of a new class of clerics, who turned to the West (through Western Christianity), showing the ideal of national common languages, ideas for their creation and living examples (remember the knowledge that Mikalojus Daukša had about Italian purism, known as cruscantism). However, the votes of Lithuanian statesmen Mykolas Lietuvis (Venclovas Mikalojaitis) and Augustinas Rotundas to raise Lithuanian to the position of the official Slavic language did not win. However, the Slavic language of the offices did not prevail definitively either — in the homeland, the native Polish language, which had won over Latin in the new Western spirit, and the LDK replaced the Slavic language of the offices, and as the native Lithuanian language withdrew from the court of the ruler and the Lithuanian aristocracy taking its tone from it, the Lithuanian language, which remained in the Republic of Both Nations in the narrow use of the domestic spoken language. European university Latin universalism (and a certain conservatism in comparison with the flourishing of national literatures) contributed to, or rather led to, the fact that the Vilnius University (with its academy) founded by King Stephen Báthory — a centre of science, education, and progress in life in general — did not open up opportunities for the development and even survival of the Lithuanian language in this strategic area. The precise, undisputed boundary of the time of Lithuanian common language can be drawn similarly to the age of cities or the age of a person — excluding the prenatal period. Thus, this time can be counted only from the first writings, in the case of the common Lithuanian language — from the first book: in 1547 Martynas Mažvydas booked the Lithuanian language. 12 There is also a small minority of Lithuanians. The first is the written language (the general written language seems to be a pleonasm). In many countries, the common language, which includes both written and spoken forms, is traditionally called the written language (and the common spoken language sometimes has a separate —different—term, for example, German. Biihnen(aus)sprache). In the written language, the territorial (dialectal) boundaries are immediately visible. The regional variants of the Lithuanian written language — simultaneous (synchronous) and non-synchronous (heterosynchronous) — were precisely determined by the unfavorable factor that Lithuanian was only one of the parallel languages of the state and until they, together with another — the Chancellery Slavic, did not displace new political partners, but anyway foreign and competing — Polish. Thus, paradoxically, the most significant, the most vibrant appeared to be the old variant of Lesser Lithuania, which existed in another —not the LDK —state, cultivated and practiced by the defeated, and therefore non-state, denomination, and therefore inevitably went the way of regional common language and disappeared there, in its homeland, but with the grammar of August Schleicher and Friedrich Kuršaitis, with the dictionary pronounced by Friedrich Kuršaitis (although the lexicon is significantly regional), with the Lithuanian press transmitting its western phonetics of the Highlands; the legacy of pronunciation, morphology (the syntax was already alienated!), the nucleus of the vocabulary, which together with the work of Peter Kriaušaitis (i.e. The 1901 Lithuanian Grammar, which established the "simple Suvalkian dialect", became the common heritage and the basis of the new true Lithuanian common language. By the way, it was with this version of Lesser Lithuania that Kristijonas Donelaitis began his true artistic style (various precursors have existed for a long time and quite a lot). Of course, the variants that failed to withstand the pressure of the Polish language — the eastern (Vilnius) variant by Konstantinas Sirvydas and others, and the middle, or so-called Žemaičių (Kėdainiai) variant by Mikalojus Daukša and others, which was lately legalized by the grammar Universitas lingvarum Litvaniae printed in 1737, as well as the multilingual variants of the stateless Lithuania period that were interrupted by the emergence of the new common language — the eastern (Antanas Strazda13 s, Antanas Baranauskas and others), the Žemaičių variant created by the Lithuanianist movement of the Žemaičių bajors (related to the University of Vilnius, although far from being encouraged by its official line) and which directly claimed the status of universal common language, and, by the way, the latest — the western (Antanas Tatarė, Mikalojus Akelaitis and others) — all did not go unmarked and without benefit. Each of them witnessed the need and efforts to have a common language for the future, each disappeared leaving an example to be followed to re-create. It is significant that their rather twisty history also shows an almost consistent shift from the state centre, which lost its native language, and the surrounding southeastern areas to the west (where Lesser Lithuania was). The significance of the latter — western — variant is perhaps not yet sufficiently understood and raised (mainly this is related to the lack of realization and justification of Mikalojus Akelaitis as a post-revolutionary connection with “Aušra”). In the case of the Lithuanian common language, the statement of the far-sighted E. de Saussure is confirmed, that the motive for choosing one dialect as the basis of the common language does not necessarily have to be “the dialect of a country that has political hegemony and where there is a central government”, but also “the dialect of a culturally more developed area” (Coccrop 1977: 231). The movement of national rebirth and liberation in the late 19th century, the struggle for the recovery of the press and book-carrying, the formation of the new national enlightenment, Lithuanian patriotic newspapers, in which the journalistic style was born and brightened by the talents of Vincas Kudirka, Juozas Tumas-Vaižgantas and others, the ambitions of language purity (often very uneducated, unsuccessful and naive, but lively, sincere) raised the common written language of the whole of Lithuania (although spelling norms were not established for a long time after that!), which was held by an old and at the same time somewhat unexpected dialectal foundation, rather than the central (capital) one. However, from the point of view of dialectal fragmentation of the Lithuanian language system, the Southern Western Highland dialect (together with the essentially identical written heritage of Lesser Lithuania) very well represents the state of that system — in its almost classical form. In 1901, the grammar of John Jablonski is the visible time limit of the Lithuanian common language, although that really common language was still, as Jablonski called it, only written. The Lithuanian language was nationalized, really educated and universityized even after two difficult decades. The office style did not receive any Lithuanian legacy, but, unfortunately, it received Russian, it was subdued in the Soviet era, only now it becomes more favorable to get rid of it, although the habits of time and contact with the Russian language have been interrupted. Moks14 linear style (especially terminology, mainly botany), which had considerable roots even before the beginning of the common language —in the most difficult period between university [Jurgis (Ambraziejus) Pabrėža, Laurynas Ivinskis, Ambraziejus Pranciškus Kašarauskas, Jonas Balvočius-- Gerutis, Jonas Basanavičius, Petras Vileišis and others], but then more manifested as a popular postil, was found —a true scientific style (and teaching postil)—only when the written language became university (a good start, albeit mainly in the humanities field, will have been given by the activities of the Lithuanian Science Society). It is not a secret, but an inevitability, that the state, office, and scientific language was often half-generic for a long time — the best example of this half-heartedness (of no small level) could be the writings (some edited) and speeches (some printed) of the President of the Republic of Lithuania, a good philologist (translator, associate professor- ), experienced journalist and orator Antanas Smetona. Only now, in a revived Lithuania, can we hear examples of oral language from the limited cinema chronicle of that time (if it does not seem to anyone inferior to some current statesmen or cultural leaders, this is a shortcoming of the present, not the perfection of those of that time). The common language became more consistent thanks to the efforts of Antanas Salis and Andrius Ašmantas. Significant was the understanding of the State Theatre (only luck that there was no German example —Biihnen(aus)sprache —the term stage talk, because now it could mean only bitter irony...). The description of the language of Lithuanian radio, which appeared in late 1926, given by Juozas Balčikonis in early 1928 —“When the antenna sounds, waves of irregular language pass through all of Lithuania” (Balčikonis 1978: 97) — was perfectly valid for a long time, and almost as valid for a large part of the current aerial news!. In any case, the enlightened community raised in Lithuanian schools — gymnasiums, seminaries, universities — more or less mastered the common language, and the understanding of its importance — certainly. Now the positions of the common syllable are significantly moved, audio and visual technical means are unforgivably not used to teach it. ! And Balčikonis’s generalizing thought of the time — “the higher the institution in our region, the worse it speaks Lithuanian” (Balčikonis 1978: 97), accurately describing the fateful tradition of centuries, is still not outdated. 15 formerly a subject of didactics, becomes a theoretical problem of science. Variations and errors, especially contradictions and conflicts between objective usage and by nature subjective standardization (codification of norms), are the most necessary for scientific linguistic analysis. In the field of variants, it is important to distinguish between normative and non-normative variants, and to change the norm only through the variants of the norm. In connection with variantity arose the principle of communicative purposefulness—- the second regulator, the external. The first — the norm — operates within the boundaries of language structure; the second — purposefulness — arises from the connections and relationships between language and reality, language and consciousness. The principle of purposefulness applies mainly to lexicon, but even here its soft recommendations may come up against the strict requirements of norms. Only in stylistics purposefulness prevails (CKBopm0B 1984: 30-36). IV. After clarifying the limits of the common language (and the unlimited plain, common with dialects), its historical and temporal limits, the limits of system and norm, norm and codification, there are still a lot of limits. Although this is a fairly broad topic, other boundaries are only touched on in general terms. Starting from the outside. The territorial boundaries of the Lithuanian common language are Lithuania. This is also supported by the State Language Act. The boundaries of the common language area should be understood somewhat differently — the area where the common language is used exclusively or mainly — the state apparatus and government institutions, the education system, cultural institutions, the media, literature. It is not possible to claim that in the capital Vilnius and in the former provisional Kaunas Lithuanians would be used only as a common language (even though they themselves think so). The common language in the ethnic Lithuanians’ overseas areas is more limited by the limited educational and press opportunities, which are often greater than those of Lithuanians abroad. The quantitative limits of the common language for some dreams absolute — 4-2.5 million. Where in the world is this? Without diglossia, dialects would definitely disappear. First of all, adequate literacy should be achieved. Here it is necessary to distinguish quite clearly between the ability to write and speak a common language and its passive mastery- —the ability to understand better or worse. The knowledge of Lithuanian common language by Lithuanian non-native speakers is generally quite possible, although different — much better than that of the old, traditional non-native speakers and all the younger generation. In Lithuania remained from the Soviet era 22 but this situation is corrected by the attitude of the foreigners themselves — quite a lot of children attend Lithuanian-language schools. Quite clear qualitative boundaries: I — stages of development: incipient, beginning, growth, maturity (possibly degeneration); II — degrees of perfection: 1) poor — with great errors in the system, 2) satisfactory — without major errors in language, 3) good — without major errors in standards, and 4) exemplary. Humanitarian enlightenment speaks well or satisfactorily, others — satisfactorily or unsatisfactorily, the elite — from exemplary to the worst level (a large part). There is even a departure from the common language, but less frequently — from dialects… There are also limits or proportions of the substantive parts of the language. We should try to clarify the past, present and reasonable future boundaries of the common language between folkloric and literary, Lithuanian (purity) and foreign, or its partial case — international. I would dare to say that bookishness in the office and especially in the scientific style at least slightly exceeds the limit, bookishness in the wrong place (in the journalistic style, even in the artistic and colloquial) is terrible, 0 purity begins to lack like air — some Englishness (leasing, etc.) is not even prevented, some international words are used barbarously (the center of consumption — “Akropolis”. It should be said that the boundaries of functional — styles and posts and the boundaries of general and special norms do not coincide entirely. The general norm appears to be a more accurate understanding than neutral usage. The special norm may be not one, but a common of several closer styles (scientific and stationery, artistic and publicistic, artistic and colloquial). The term partial norm may imply some freedom of normativity, and should therefore be used with caution. If there is a special function, then there is a special rate. The boundaries of this kind of Lithuanian common language have established themselves quite quickly, they are quite clear (some of them are even statistically justified), but they are also variable. Our young (though mature) scientific style is sometimes old-fashioned, dry, boring, sometimes a bit clerical (scientific language!), the journalistic style sometimes moves away from the artistic, also becomes heavy, rude or — on the contrary — without spine, full of empty whims. Limits—statics and stability. If the boundary becomes, it is a sign of growth, creation, improvement, if the boundary is clear, firm, it indicates maturity, stability; if the boundary becomes unclear, it is a sign that a trap is being found — this is dynamics: the boundary becomes a transitional strip, then the boundary can disappear, shift, extend, etc. Dynamics is an equally normal and necessary part of language life: “In some cases, fluctuations that objectively exist in language may be normative. The norm is then the limit of these fluctuations” (ILlep6a 1974: 36). Of course, if such uncertainty is prolonged, stagnation or even collapse may occur. —In the development of the Lithuanian common language there are so many twists, crossroads, bilingualisms and variants, as well as few straight sections, that one 23 can only wonder and rejoice at the achievement of such differentiation, distinctiveness, clear boundaries in the highest form of language, that there are no very terrible boundaries, boundaries and distinctive — transitional bands. The challenges of living in the free space of the European Union will of course be a decisive test for the young, but well-mature Lithuanian common language and will require even greater efforts. But I am not afraid to say the words of Horace: — — —Whenever they will Use, for it is the supreme will of speech Let us not forget: Horace, the poet of the golden age. And let us remember: common language is a creation, and thus use is a creation. Many of the things that are said here are not new in themselves, although almost every one can still be studied extensively. But science is not only for science — here a certain propedeutical purpose was pursued — that which every language norm-setter, creator of terminology, and worker in language culture must keep in mind and lively feel throughout and constantly. And each of them should not be afraid of their own fate, which A. Pieškovskis aptly described: “the spontaneity of language phenomena is difficult to combine with individual interference and always gives it the image of donkeyhood” (ITemkoBckwuit 1984: 248). Don Quixote’s goals are noble, necessary and eternal. LITTERATUR Balčikonis J. 1978: Selected Writings 1, Vilnius. Coseriu E. 1963: CunxpoHus, JĮMaXpOoHHSs H HCTOpus. —Hosoe 6 aunzeucmuke 3, Mockaa, 143-343. Dubonis A. 2002: Lithuanian language: demand and consumption rates (second half of XV century — first half of XVI century). —The New Home-Echoes 9-10, 473-478. [TemmkoBckuit A. M. 1984: ObsLekrnBHas H HOpMATHBHAsSI TOYKA 3peHHA Ha 24 SI3BIK. —OcHo6bi Kyabmypol peuu. Xpecmomamus, Mocksa, 238-249. Piroc¢kinas A. 2000: Jonas Jablonskis —the creator of new words. —The born word 10, 2-6. CKBopu0B JI. H. 1984: AkryajibėbIe TEOPETHYECKUE ITPOOIEMBI KYJIBTYDpbI DEY. —Ocnoebi KYAbmypbi peuu. Xpecmomamus, Mocksa, 5—42. Coccrop OD. xe 1977: Kypc oOueh JmurBucruku.-Coccerop @D. ne. Tpydbi no a3viko3nanuio, Mocksa, 31-273. CremanoB IO. C. 1966: Ocnuo6ebi a3biko3nanus, Mocksa. [Ile p6a JI. B. 1974: O TposikoM acneKTe SI3bIKOBBIX SIBJICHUI H OO 3KCIIEPUMEHTE B si3piko3HaHuu. —Ille p 6 a JI. B. f3sik06as cucmema u pueeas desmenvHocme, Jlenunrpan, 24-39. STANDARD LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE: LIMITS AND LIMITLESSNESS, SYSTEM, NORM AND CODIFICATION Summary The standard language to some extent dissociated from dialects, but a commonality also exists. The layer of common systematic traits is quite thick, although systematic and especially numerous, solitary differences are noticeable. The start of the process of dissociation of standard language from dialects is the appearance of writing and books (the first appearance in Lithuania —1547). The role of the State and the Church (conversion to Christianity) in this process is very important. First of all, Lithuanian became a language of the church (after conversion to Christianity in 1387). However Lithuania used other official languages, then it lost its statehood (1795), and Lithuanian became the state language only in 1922. In soviet times its rights were restricted again. Written Lithuanian is quite old, but the new standard language, especially its scientific style and terminology are rather young. However, norms of the written and spoken standard language and of its functional styles are already quite well settled and codified. The codification of the Lithuanian language is scientific (of the good theoretical level) and official. The State Lithuanian Language Commission is responsible for the status of the state language and the main issues of its codification. After many twists and turns of history, bilingualism and changes of versions of the written language, the highest form of the language has been achieved —a mature, stable and differentiated standard language. The challenges of the living in EU will be the decisive test and will demand an even bigger effort. Jonas KLIMAVICIUS Received 2002-10-25 Lithuanian Language Institute P. Vileišio g. 5, LT-2055 Vilnius E-mail [email protected] 25