Pr. Skardžiaus terminologijos srities veikla ir jos reikšmė

PRAEITIES AIDAI Stasys KEINYS Institute of the Lithuanian Language Prof. Skardžius’s Work in the Field of Terminology and Its Significance At the end of the nineteenth century, and especially during the first three decades of the twentieth, the foundations of modern Lithuanian terminology were laid. A group of enlightened figures of the time created and organized terms in various fields, or updated them in accordance with the requirements of the modern standard language. J. Jablonskis was not only the inspiration and spiritual leader of this small but very industrious community, which was largely selfless and devoted to the needs of the nation, but also its hardest worker. It is no coincidence that soon after the death of this classic of Lithuanian linguistics, his comrade J. Balčikonis wrote: “In the history of our school, Jablonskis’s name will remain forever. For he was the first to give it not only a Lithuanian grammar and readers, but also the terminology for other subjects”1. Together with the enlightened figures of his generation, J. Jablonskis also established the direction of terminological work and determined its organization and methods, which at least the more prominent practitioners in this field have essentially followed to this day. Thus, when the young, beginning linguists Pr. Skardžius, A. Salys, and others entered the field toward the end of the third decade, they no longer had to lay the foundations of modern Lithuanian terminology, either theoretical or practical2. Those foundations had essentially been laid. The new generation had to build the walls of the terminological edifice, course by course. The workforce was small, and even those available were primarily occupied with other tasks, so there was no way to expect the work to flourish. At that time, the philosopher was the one most interested in theoretical questions of terminology 1 Balčikonis J. Prakalba // Jablonskio raštai. Kaunas, 1933. T. 2. P. VII. 2 Cf. Rosinas A. Pranas Skardžius – scholar and developer of the standard language // Pranas Skardžius – theorist and developer of the standard language: Seminar theses. Vilnius, 1999. P. 5, where it is stated that “Skardžius laid the theoretical foundations for the ordering of terminology.” 69 St. Šalkauskis, moreover, had major practical plans, which apparently brought his promising theoretical work on terminology to a halt. Many others of the period, as one might suppose, did some practical work on terminology. Pr. Skardžius should be counted among these primarily practical workers. Tad Pranas Skardžius (1899–1975), kurio šimtosios gimimo metinės neseniai Lietuvoje buvo plačiai paminėtos, yra pirmosios pobūginės bei pojablonskinės kartos kalbininkas. Jam dar teko, kad ir trumpai, pabūti mokiniu tų dviejų žymiausių dvidešimto amžiaus pradžios (ir ne tik jos) kalbininkų, ne vienu atžvilgiu pelniusių atskirų mūsų kalbotyros barų pradininkų šlovę, o J. Jablonskiui net pripažįstamas garbingas pačios bendrinės kalbos tėvo vardas (jei taip, tai, matyt, kartu ir tos kalbos terminologijos tėvo garbė). Rūpestingo tėvo, nes tai J. Jablonskio rūpesčiu Pr. Skardžius kartu su A. Saliu (1902–1972) buvo pasiųstas baigti mokslų į Vokietiją, ir iš ten abudu po keleto metų tuomet dak­taruoti grįžo tęsti savo buvusių kauniškių profesorių darbų. K. Būga tuomet jau keletą metų ilsėjosi Vytauto prospekto kapuose, netrukus Viešpaties Angelas buvo sugiedotas ir tų pačių kapų priglaustam J. Jablonskiui. Šitaip labai greitai jauniems apsukriems vyrams atiteko nemaža dalis velionių varytų darbų, su jais ir kalbinė terminologijos baro pusė. At the outset, it should also be said that K. Būga was probably a major influence on Pr. Skardžius, although, as he himself wrote, he had closer dealings with J. Jablonskis3. In his first short articles on language, written while he was still studying in Germany, he clearly tried to follow in the footsteps of the author of “Language and Antiquity”; in addition, he began to criticize some of J. Jablonskis’s recommendations, at first without naming him, thereby already differing from K. Būga. Pr. Skardžius did not long avoid such criticisms (which he repeatedly returned to). These criticisms, disagreements, and at times even displays of superiority (emphasizing that J. Jablonskis himself had yielded to him) still seem, after 60–70 years, neither sufficiently justified nor appropriate in time or place. All the more so since the critic himself, whether young or older, does not seem to have been scrupulous about the standard language 3 Skardžius Pr. Rinktiniai raštai. Vilnius, 1997. T. 2. P. 16. 70 a guardian, or at least an adherent, of the vitality of language usage and the consistency of its standardization. Pr. Skardžius must have begun working in terminology while still studying at the University of Lithuania (where he studied from the autumn of 1923 until November 1925). On the occasion of his seventy-fifth birthday, in an article published in the journal „Aidai“ entitled „Mano gyvata ir darbas“ [“My Life and Work”], he himself wrote of this as follows: „<...> together with him [J. Jablonskis – St. K.] I worked on the terminology commission, which met at his place and for which I served as secretary, and later for some time I worked with him on the spelling commission as well, until I left for abroad“4. Later, in the 1930s, after J. Jablonskis’s death, Pr. Skardžius headed the Terminology Section of the Lithuanian Language Society, founded in 1935. As can be seen from reports published in the periodical „Gimtoji kalba“ at the time, that section considered the terms in „Bendroji filosofijos terminija“ [“General Philosophical Terminology”], a dictionary prepared by Prof. St. Šalkauskis, as well as collections of terms from sports (football, basketball, skating), eye diseases, and theater. Undoubtedly, the section’s most substantial work was „Bendroji filosofijos terminija“, which clearly shows the contribution of knowledgeable linguists. This is stated, incidentally, in the dictionary’s very first sentence of the „Pratartis“ [“Foreword”]: „The review, correction, supplementation, and adoption of the philosophical [=philosophical – St. K.] terminology printed below is the first major work carried out by the Terminology Section (TS) of the Lithuanian Language Society (LKD), composed of its chair, Associate Professor Pr. Skardžius, its secretary A. Vaičiulaitis, and its members: the dictionary’s editor J. Balčikonis, Col. J. M. Laurinaitis, Associate Professor A. Salys, and Prof. St. Šalkauskis. The scale of the work can be judged from the fact that more than 35 meetings, each lasting two hours, were devoted to it“5. Furthermore, as stated in the same place, Prelate A. Dambrauskas, Dr. J. Pankauskas, Bishop M. Reinys, Prof. V. Sezemanas, Prof. J. Vabalas–Gudaitis, and artist A. Varnas contributed comments, advice, or suggestions to the preparation of the dictionary, while Pr. Skardžius marked the stress of the terms included and „also did much to improve the entire work“6. 4 Ibid. 5 Šalkauskis, St. Raštai. Vilnius, 1991. Vol. 2. P. 126. 6 Ibid. P. 127. 71 „Bendroji filosofijos terminija“ is one of the best terminology dictionaries of the interwar period; in essence, it has been fully incorporated into the most important works on standardization in contemporary standard language. This is the strongest evidence of the work’s recognition. The fact that the dictionary contains not a single so-called international term seems to offer clear proof of the compilers’ aim to purify the language, yet it is also a particularly interesting step in the history of standard-language standardization in general. This dictionary convincingly demonstrates that those people of the time and today (including linguists) are entirely mistaken when they often claim that Lithuanian cannot express everything (or can express only some of it) that others convey using those “international” designations, or even that there is no need to try. The dictionary undoubtedly reflects the compilers’ so-called purist (language-purifying) aims. In this regard, the dictionary „Lietuviški tarptautinių žodžių atitikmenys“ [“Lithuanian Equivalents of International Words”], published in Chicago in 1973, 35 years after „Bendroji filosofijos terminija“, is also truly fascinating and noteworthy. The introduction to this work rightly states that „people who know the necessary foreign languages and are familiar with the international terminology of the relevant field are often not particularly inclined to use Lithuanianized substitutes, which by association often differ from the corresponding international words. This practice is especially noticeable abroad, where emigrants often manage better in the foreign languages they have learned than in their native languages, particularly in a specialized field“},{7. Alas, alas! Reluctance to use, and especially to seek, Lithuanian substitutes is characteristic not only of emigrants, as Pr. Skardžius writes, but also of at least a considerable portion of active people in Lithuania’s fields of science, technology, religion, politics, and others. Here, too, one sometimes has to spend quite a long time persuading more than one convinced “internationalist” that a Lithuanian term, even if it is not given preference, at least has the right to be used alongside the borrowed term, which is often not international at all. The dictionary „Lietuviškų tarptautinių žodžių atitikmenys“ presents Lithuanian equivalents for approximately a thousand international words. A considerable number of them have long been familiar in the usage of the standard language 7 Skardžius Pr. Rinktiniai raštai. Vilnius, 1998. T. 3. P. 437. 72 ... coinages or even words of the living language, e.g.: abažiūras – cover, abscesas – abscess, abstinencija – sobriety, abstrakcija – abstraction, abzacas – paragraph, etc. That dictionary, which was undoubtedly also intended to help purify the Lithuanian language, is very important for the specialized Lithuanian language of the late twentieth century, in which far too many miscellaneous loanwords are used, honorifically called international words. Today’s specialized language is no less contaminated by loanwords than the written language of earlier centuries. And a good many of those loanwords are in no way superior to the barbarisms that the enlightened people of the last century and the beginning of this one drove out of the language. Thus, Pr. Skardžius’s book under discussion, which was also drawn upon in preparing the third edition of the Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian, remains, even after a quarter of a century, very important for contemporary terminology and, more generally, for the usage and recommendation of the standard language. Incidentally, the same is true of St. Šalkauskis’s General Terminology of Philosophy, published more than sixty years ago. After the Second World War, having found himself in the USA and unable to find work as a linguist, Pr. Skardžius completed library school and soon began working at the country’s principal institution, the Library of Congress (he worked there for 15 years, until 19718). His library training and work presumably led him to compile a glossary of library science terms comprising nearly 200 dictionary entries. The glossary was published in 1961 in Gimtoji kalba, which had been revived in the USA. In the author’s words, it included Lithuanian names for concepts used more broadly (not only for the narrow needs of librarianship), equivalents in English, French, and German, and brief explanations of some terms. Without more extensive research, it would be difficult to say whether Pr. Skardžius made use of the glossary Bibliotekinė ir bibliografinė terminologija, compiled by I. Kisinas and published in Lithuania in 1956: only a little over one-sixth of the terms in Pr. Skardžius’s collection coincide with terms in I. Kisinas’s glossary, and some concepts are named differently—for example, Pr. Skardžius proposes antrinininkas (or dublikatas), antrinis autorius, jungtinis katalogas, papildas, etc., whereas I. Kisinas’s glossary has dubletas, bendraautoris. 8 Skardžius Pr. Rinktiniai raštai. T. 2. P. 24, 29. 9 Reprinted in the third volume of Pr. Skardžius’s Rinktiniai raštai (pp. 315–324). 73 =co-author – St. K., consolidated catalogue, supplement. Some of the terms introduced by Pr. Skardžius are virtually unknown in Lithuania, for example: address book “address book,” librarianship “librarianship, library science,” calligraphic types “calligraphic types,” Gospel book “book of the Gospels,” travel writing “book of travel, itinerary,” copyist “copyist,” storybook “book of tales,” lending department “lending department, lending room, loan department,” and so on. In general, Pr. Skardžius’s innovations in this collection did not take root, one might say; some are also too unusual in practical terms (for example: librarianship, calligraphic types, broadsheet “broadsheet, broadside, flysheet, leaflet”). In addition, the collection includes terms which were not recommended for use in Lithuania then or are recommended now, for example: title “the name or heading of a book or article,” title page “title page” (the term title page, included in I. Kisinas’s glossary and approved for use by the Terminology Commission of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature, is generally used by specialists in this field). Thus, this work by Pr. Skardžius may be regarded as an attempt to contribute to the development of library-science terminology that had little impact. Indeed, perhaps it was more useful for the Lithuanian language in America. Pr. Skardžius corrected and proposed numerous terms from various fields (perhaps somewhat more from technology) in his many articles and shorter pieces devoted to practical matters of language. These give the impression that the linguist preferred to coin terms himself rather than seek them in the language of the people. Perhaps this is why quite a few of his proposals did not gain wider acceptance. On the other hand, these articles and shorter pieces contain useful advice of a more general nature, showing how terminological work should be done and in what direction it should proceed. For example, in 1940, after the Russians had occupied the country, he wrote in Gimtoji kalba, in response to the question “Is obalsis really the only form to be used?”, that some people, without offering proof, began to assert and even order people to use obalsis rather than šūkis, and on that occasion he rightly admonished them: “<...> more judicious linguists support their assertions with evidence from people’s speech; therefore, those who wish to contribute positively to improving the usage of our standard language should publicly substantiate the broader matters they newly propose and clearly explain why a form that has been widely used until now is no longer acceptable; otherwise, an individual and dictatorial approach can do considerable harm to this cause— 74 to this cause and can do considerable harm”10. This idea, expressed with great clarity and in the spirit and style of J. Jablonskis, must have been especially important amid the language revolution that began at that time; today’s proponents of prescriptive rule by command should also take it to heart. Pr. Skardžius did not write any articles specifically devoted to the theory of terminology, nor did he examine or discuss such theoretical matters at length elsewhere. Apparently, he did not delve deeply into the distinctive nature of terminology or the requirements placed on terms. He raised questions of terminology primarily on the basis of his general understanding of linguistics and the prescription of the standard language—that is, in the same way as other matters of language regulation. Nevertheless, as noted, his articles and shorter pieces contain many apt generalizations, golden insights, and valuable recommendations that are also important to the theory of terminology. These matters should someday be examined more fully in a separate study. After the Second World War, having spent three decades of his mature life abroad, Pr. Skardžius did not have as much influence here, in his homeland, as he might have had under different circumstances. True, his books and articles were familiar both to language prescriptivists and to terminologists, and were used by them; however, the principal work of developing and cultivating Lithuanian terminology was carried out without his direct participation, alongside him. His role was left to that of an observer of what was being done in Lithuania—at times a very critical, perhaps even stern, observer. Over time, however, that critical stance visibly cooled: some of the language-prescription works of Lithuanian linguists that he had initially criticized sharply, such as the Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian, were later mentioned quite favorably. It is true that Pr. Skardžius appeared to ignore the numerous terminology dictionaries published in Lithuania from the mid-1950s onward. But he wrote a great deal, seeking to awaken and raise the terminological culture of the émigré community. In this respect, his comments remain highly instructive and important today not only for émigrés: they concern P. Orintaitė’s remarks in Gimtoji kalba in 1958 about the usage of the terms romanas, poema, novelė, given that in English these words mean something else and therefore do not help, and may even hinder, communication “with a foreign culture” (hence the proposal— 10 Skardžius Pr. Rinktiniai raštai. T. 3. P. 797–798. 75 to replace it with purely Lithuanian terms). On that occasion, Pr. Skardžius spoke at greater length about the relationship of terms to individual other languages and the question of their stability. He wrote: “If we begin to use certain terms not as we have been accustomed or inclined to use them, but as, for example, the English or Americans use them in an entirely different way, we will sever our direct ties with our established usage and thereby clearly hinder mutual communication, and thus considerably impede the appropriation of foreign culture. If we start using apysaka or something similar in place of the novel used hitherto, at the same time we will greatly hinder understanding everything that has hitherto been said and recounted about novels everywhere in our literary histories or textbooks; moreover, by doing so, we would needlessly confuse two entirely different things—in this case, the apysaka and the novel, or the novella and the short story. And yet, by following this path, foreign culture would not become any closer to us: the Americans and the English have followed entirely different paths from ours, and therefore the paths we have taken cannot properly be adapted to Anglo-Saxon ones. For example, in Lithuania the term dirigentas ‘conductor, leader of a choir or orchestra’ has long been and still is used, while its English equivalent conductor ‘conductor’ corresponds to our konduktorius ‘train attendant’. Or again: in our language, the creator of musical works has long been called a kompozitorius, whereas its English equivalent compositor (the stress falls on the -po- syllable) means only ‘typesetter’. <...> No, we can no longer renounce either the conductor, the composer, the novel, the novella, the poem, the pamphlet, or other similar international loanwords merely because they have a different meaning in English or some other foreign language than in ours. They have all already taken root in our language and have certain traditions, and therefore we must continue to use them, since they serve the immediate purpose perfectly—the mutual and general exchange of information among us”11. A fairly long extract from Pr. Skardžius’s article “Is It Scrap That Has Outlived Its Usefulness?” has been included here deliberately, because now, four decades later, ever more voices are being heard in Lithuania itself—more precisely, more words are being used 11Ibid. Pp. 285–286. 76 —of linguistic revolutionaries who blindly follow the same English language mentioned by Pr. Skardžius and take no account of the fact that this only hinders Lithuanians from understanding one another better. Pr. Skardžius showed with the utmost clarity that this is not a path for developing the language, but a dead end—or, more precisely, a wrong turn. Living in America, he assessed the relationship between Lithuanian and English far more soberly than many people in Lithuania today, where English is being enthusiastically and rapidly imposed. Pr. Skardžius’s legacy is significant and inseparable from the work of standardizing, cultivating, and developing the standard Lithuanian language. And since terms are a very important and increasingly significant component of that language, it is easy to understand why he devoted so much attention to matters of terminology. Received 1999 09 20 THE TERMINOLOGICAL ACTIVITIES OF PR. SKARDŽIUS AND THEIR SIGNIFICANCE Summary This article reviews the main organisational and practical work of the Lithuanian linguist Pranas Skardžius (1899–1975) in the field of terminology, done in Lithuania and America after the second world war. From his pre-war works, his participation in preparation of the philosopher St. Šalkauskis’ dictionary “General terminology of philosophy” stands out. Pr. Skardžius’ book “Lithuanian equivalents of International words” published in the USA in 1973 is discussed and the collection of the terms of librarianship is analysed. Attention is turned to some topical thoughts from Pr. Skardžius articles on particular terms, e.g. the importance of substantiating the introduction of terms, to keep to the principles of constancy and tradition. 77