Kalbos reiškinių vertinimo laipsniai

ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA XLVIII (2003), 97-103 The aim of the article is to introduce a system of degrees of evaluation of language features which, if applied in prescriptive linguistics, could enhance the consistency of prescriptive work and the effectiveness of language recommendations. The degrees of evaluation reflect different types of relationship between the language features involved and the codified norms of the standard language. In assigning them, the features of these norms are taken into account, viz. variation, stability, language change, functional and stylistic differentiation etc. The author discusses four degrees of evaluation, defines their basic features and looks at how they work out in practice. 1. INTRODUCTION In the theory and practice of language culture, one of the most important questions is how to evaluate one or another language phenomenon, what norming principles and criteria to follow, how to show the different value of phenomena and the peculiarities of their use. The latter — the question of the system of different degrees of evaluation — is becoming particularly relevant, and naturally arises primarily because the common Lithuanian language has already reached such a level of development that it can roll on its own, rely on its own powers, but at the same time it is noticeably affected by external influences, and this whole process has recently intensified. Another thing is that the current usage of Lithuanian common language is becoming more and more fragmented into various genres, areas, and the boundaries of functional styles previously considered quite defined are disappearing. It is particularly difficult to describe the variant of the common spoken language, in which elements of the common language, dialects and slang are often intertwined. Thus, the diversity of the use of common language encourages more active conscious influence of the norm-setters on the development process of common language, so that stichiSkumas does not prevail, because this would be fundamentally contrary to the very nature of common language. Users of the common language are also changing. For many decades, the role of authority (language normizer) and the norming tradition was quite important in the normative work of the Lithuanian language. Recently, language users are no longer satisfied with a simple answer to the question — can you use a certain phenomenon or not. Please justify why. The desire for consistency, systematic, logical language recommendations and expresses dissatisfaction with the uneven evaluation of the same phenomenon in different normative sources. Recent normative publications, various collections of language advice, articles on language practice, reviews, etc. do not contain a common and clear system of evaluation of language phenomena. Assessed language norms and errors descriptions 98 | RITA MILIŪNAITĖ The characters vary considerably, and it is not always possible to understand whether the author is making a mistake in the language or simply violating the style norms, etc. Therefore, it seems useful to discuss at least the most important features of a possible system of phenomenon evaluation. Having all this in mind, the evaluation of language phenomena should be viewed from a slightly different angle than it was usual about a decade ago: the information that was published in previous normative works (e.g.: Language Practice Advices, 1985; Contemporary Lithuanian Language Dictionary, 2000; Contemporary Lithuanian Language Grammar, 1994, etc.*) is no longer sufficient for the users of common language, not only quantitatively, but also qualitatively. In other words, it is necessary not only to take into account the most recent changes in the common language (the emergence of new borrowings, new meanings of words, whole constructions, the withdrawal of some phenomena from usage, the functional stylistic breakdown of various means of expression), but also to seek ways to improve the system of evaluation of varying phenomena. The idea for this article arose in 1998, when the State Lithuanian Language Commission discussed the basis and principles of the new edition of Language Practice Advices. It was necessary to justify the system of evaluation of language phenomena chosen for this publication and four levels of evaluation were proposed- ." Before describing the degrees of appreciation of language phenomena, it is necessary to briefly discuss the main concepts involved. It is important to emphasize immediately that the degree of appreciation is a derived quantity. It depends on how we define the norm of common language. 2. GENERAL LINGUISTICAL NORMS Without dwelling on the theoretical reasoning, it is necessary to present the most acceptable definition of the general language norm and to describe its characteristics, which are important for the further discussion of the degrees of evaluation of linguistic phenomena. It is not easy to do this, because in the theory of Lithuanian language culture there is both terminological confusion and different concepts of norm, especially with regard to the relationship between norm and usage (cf.: Girdenis, Pupkis 1978: 56; Kniūkšta 1979: 85; Pupkis 1980: 20; Gaivenis, Keinys 1990: 134; Ambrazas, ed., 1999: 295-296; Klimavičius 2002: 19). The most neutral and universal definition appears in the Lithuanian Language Encyclopedia: “language norm (from Latin norma ‘measure, rule’) —a set of language facts and ways of using them that are recognized in a society at a certain time” (Ambį, 1993). 2 Cf. the statement in a school textbook that no longer corresponds to the needs of today: “The standard of common language is quite strict, it is based on two measures of evaluation: correct — incorrect, pure — unpure” (KOŽENIAUSKIENE R., DOBROVOLSKIS B., ZINKEVICIUS Z. Lithuanian language textbook for class IX, Kaunas: Šviesa, 2001, 3rd edition, 15). These principles were approved by the Commission and published in the journal Mother Tongue (1998, 12, 4-6). Further developing and summarizing the ideas fragmentarily presented in her previous articles on this topic, the author also draws on the experience gained from examining the recommendations of language normative works, as well as from discussing the grammatical phenomena of language advice in the Lithuanian Language Commission and from repeatedly discussing the essence of this evaluation system and the principle of its application in practice. DEGREES OF VALUE OF LINGUISTICAL EXPRESSIONS | 99 razas, red., 1999: 295). The definition of general language norms is derived from this: “the set of linguistic facts and rules characteristic of the general language and used in it” (ibid.). There are two aspects of norms here: norms as universally accepted usage and norms as a set of language laws and rules. In the first case we can talk about REAL (functioning) norms, in the second — about CODIFICATED (ideal) ones. The second aspect of the general language norms—codification—is essential, distinguishing the general language norms from the language norms in general. However, it is wrong to assume that only what is codified can be considered as the norms of common language. Codification may in many cases be outdated and incomplete, not reflecting the real situation, because it usually follows real norms. For example, the MRLs do not include the words environment, yogurt, handbag, media, etc., although they are already fully established in common language usage, so they are the real norm. The norms of the common language can be described according to several other characteristics: 1) according to whether the norms form the core of the common language or the periphery, they are PRINCIPAL and SECONDARY; 2) from the point of view of time, general language norms can be NON-RETRACTING (obsolete), PRESENTS and FUTURES (beginning to take hold) (see dynamic norm theory, Pupkis 1980: 21-24); 3) according to belonging to the general (universal) usage or to some functional styles of the general language — GENERAL and SPECIAL (cf. Klimavičius 2002: 23). As mentioned, the degree of evaluation is a derived, relative magnitude and depends on the general concept of language norms, so the system of evaluation grades must reflect the diversity of general language norms (variability, stability, development, real and codified norm ir relations, functional stylistic breakdown of norms, etc.). 3. GRADES OF ASSESSMENT AND THEIR TYPES The relatively short history of the standardization of our common language shows that language phenomena are not assessed equally, that their relationship with the norms of common language is described differently. Even from the practice of Jan Jablonski’s corrections, a tendency is emerging not only to follow a strict path between norm and error, but also to see more, more diverse relations between norm and error. This relates both to the discussed multifaceted nature of general language norms and to the peculiarities of their functioning. Various normative publications in one way or another try to show what is unusable, to distinguish what is a minor error, and what is more or less acceptable for the common language (for example, about the system of evaluation grades of the “Language Advisor” (1939) see. 2000: 24–35. In this respect, considerable progress was made in the preparation of the first edition of the Language Practice Advices (1975) (see Labutis 1972: 12-16; here it was spoken of three different degrees of norming, or normativity, although it is not difficult to notice that there are four in the publication itself). 100 | RITA MILIŪNAITĖ The degree of evaluation indicates the relation of the evaluated language phenomenon to the general language norm. In order to determine the degree of appreciation of the phenomenon, first of all it is necessary to answer the question: IS THE LINGUISTICAL FENOMENE A NORM? Since the limits of error and norm cannot always be precisely determined due to the constant changes in language and the intermediate cases that result from them, various exceptions, etc., there are at least four possible answers: (1) it is the universally accepted norm of language (if it is variant — those variants are equivalent); (2) it is the norm, but only one (side) competing variant of it; (3) this is not a generally accepted rule, but it cannot be considered a serious error; (4) it is not a norm, but a generally accepted violation of it (called —error). This can be shown in the diagram: error Therefore, there are four degrees of evaluation of language phenomena, which indicate what should be used in common language, what can be used in certain cases, what should be avoided and what should not be presented. Conventionally, they are written (a — the evaluative phenomenon, b — the normative phenomenon) as follows: (1) a+ or a |b; (2) a || b; (3) a vngr. —b, (4) ank. 3.1.a+,a|b This degree of evaluation indicates that the evaluated phenomenon is the norm (a+) or, if the norm is variant, the evaluated phenomena are, from the point of view of the norm, ALL EQUAL (a|b), thus most often absolute synonyms (dubblets) of various pronouns, for example: „Someone knocked (| knocked) on the door“. Such phenomena constitute the core of the norm and are codified positively, i.e., they are considered regular. From the point of view of functioning, if the norm is variant, these phenomena may have some, relatively vague, functional stylistic nuances, which are usually determined by the origin of the phenomena, the tradition of use, the prevalence, the scope of use, etc. In the long run, they may acquire additional characteristics without competing in the usage and no longer be considered duplicates or one cater withdraws from the core of the norm. 5 Since the article deals with the very characteristics of evaluation degrees and the principles of assignment, deliberately few specific examples are given; of them, presented according to the assessment system in question, can be found in the “Language Advice” booklet series (see. Language tips 1. Grammatical forms and their use. Vyr. red. A. Pupkis, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 2002; Language Tips 11. Syntax: 1. The Use of Funnies. Vyr. red. A. Pupkis, Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopedia Publishing, 2003). DEGREES OF APPRECIATION OF LINGUISTICAL EXPRESSIONS [101 3.2.a || b This degree of evaluation denotes the relationships of NORMAL VARIANTS (see Miliūnaitė 2002: 38-39), when better language phenomena, more corresponding to general language tendencies and usage needs, are presented instead of not very good, but not considered error phenomena. Such variants usually relate as the core of the norm (neutral, universal norm) and the periphery (side variants of the norm), for example: one (|| vieni) year; Here the first option one is more systematic, but artificial, and the second has long been traditionally used and presented as the main norm. In order to preserve the purity of the common language, some international words (especially in general, not special, use) should be evaluated at this level, when there are completely equivalent substitutes for them, for example: suprizas (|| surprise, unexpectedness). In addition, such variants may have functional stylistic differences and in this case relate as stylistically unmarked and marked phenomena, for example: diega šonas (|| šoną); The denominator is the secondary norm, typical of free styles, and the adjective is the neutral norm. Thus, while preferring the better, the worse ones ARE TOLERED, and users can choose — according to functional style, their language habits, etc. (for example, the better variants are recommended for a prestigious language, they are presented as the basic for teaching non-Lithuanian Lithuanian). The second-degree a variants are the moving part of the norm. In the long run, the secondary variant of the norm may outcompete the main one, i.e. swap places with it, or withdraw from usage and no longer be considered the norm of the general language. 33.a vngt. —b In this degree, language phenomena are evaluated that are on the borderline of norm and error, in the so-called gray zone, where often only one or another language tendency is crystallized and therefore is not always easily palpable and defined. Such language phenomena are not universally legalized (i.e. they may be codified negatively or not at all in normative publications, neither as a norm nor as an error). In most cases, these phenomena are considered deviations from the norm, inappropriate language tendencies, for example, the competition of conjunctive and continuous degree forms: Now we will perform a more complex (-complexer) exercise. These are intermediate cases between error and norm, which arise for various reasons: 1) language development and the resulting contradictions between the system and the subsystem or several subsystems (for example, phenomena of the same type but different lexical expression may be unevenly established in the language- ); 2) because the essence of the phenomenon has not been fully investigated and its evaluation has not been discussed; 3) for stylistic diffusion, etc. This degree of appreciation can also indicate the position of an upcoming or retreating (former, no longer having a perspective) norm, for example, a decade ago there was an inappropriate attempt to revive the plural of the month of October. Therefore, it is advised to avoid such variants, choose a more appropriate way of expression, thus hoping to stop the spread of phenomena that are undesirable in the current general language usage. Page 102 | 103 3.4. and I. = b These are obvious LANGUAGE ERRORS, usually system violations. For the common language, such phenomena are not put into use at all and are strictly corrected. They are usually described in normative works by the abbreviations ntk., nevart. This group also includes all cases of the "List of Great Language Errors". In addition, violations of the norms of special lexicon (terms) fit here. These are mainly phenomena that have arisen due to the influence of foreign languages: foreignness of the vocabulary, translational words or meanings of foreign words, translational phrases and syntactic constructions, etc., for example: image (=image), composition (=composition), conjunctions that, if(gu) with communicative purpose, etc. In addition, here can be included irregular linguistic phenomena that have arisen in one's language, very narrow dialects, things that are completely outdated and not characteristic of current use - that which is contrary to the system of the common language and conflicts with its laws and rules. 4. CONCLUDING REMARKS More specifically, the relationships of the norm characteristics with the evaluation grade system could be described as follows. 1. The contradiction of positively and negatively codified phenomena is reflected in the assignment of I, II and III, IV evaluation degrees. Real norms may coincide (and in many cases do) with the codified ones — if they are not yet codified at all, they are often reflected in the III degree of evaluation. 2. The primary and secondary standards shall be reflected in the assignment of grades I and II. 3.It is important that both the basic norm (grade I) and the error (grade IV) are protected from too sudden changes — they are separated by two transitional degrees (II and III). 4. Assessment level III (‘avoidable’) is appropriate to reflect the dynamics of receding (obsolete) and emerging (beginning to take hold) standards. Over time, some of these phenomena may turn into errors (grade IV), while others may be recognized as norms (i.e., may be codified) (grades II and I). 5.Functional stylistic division of general language norms (essentially — the division of general and special norms) can be only as an additional characteristic of the degrees of evaluation. For example, if the evaluated phenomenon is considered functionally obsolete, it can be marked: a psn. vngr. —b; if dialect: a itrm. vngr. —a pan. It is emphasized that the necessary condition for the existence of phenomena of various functional styles in common language is their regularity, so it is possible to talk only about the belonging of phenomena assessed in the I and II degrees to some functional style or their group." For example, if the phenomenon is characterized by freeDecisions of the Lithuanian Language Commission 1977-1998. This does not include non-normative 1998, 123-176. phenomena used in a motivated manner, such as in artistic style, which can only partially be regarded as the sphere of general language use. 103 for public styles (journalistic, artistic, spoken), i.e. as an opposition to the official (informational, administrative, scientific), it can be marked as follows: a free. | b or a free. || b. In such cases, b is considered to be the main, stylistically neutral, general usage phenomenon. The discussed system of degrees of evaluation of general language phenomena allows to implement not only the principle of the change of general language norms, but also the principle of the permanence of those norms, i.e. helps to reduce the gap between the codified norm and the real one. It is a kind of safety net for the stability of rates, preventing unreasonable and indiscriminate changes in rates or at least mitigating their inevitable fluctuations. At the same time, this system of degrees of evaluation is also a mechanism for changing norms, since it allows the norms to be changed as necessary, taking into account the development of the language, and to do so only through variants, without skipping several levels (a ntk. = b-D armg.-b->al|- |b-—a|b or the reverse). In this way, it is possible to reduce the current disagreements in different normative works. Therefore, the value of the phenomenon, based on the system of evaluation grades and applying the principles and criteria of standardization of the general language, must be the main object of linguistic disputes of the standardizers. AMBRAZAS, V., ed. 1999: Encyclopedia of the Lithuanian Language, Vilnius: Institute for Publishing of Science and Encyclopedias. GAIVENIS, K., KEINYS, S. 1990: Dictionary of Language Terms, Kaunas: Šviesa. GIRDENIS, A., PUPKIS, A. 1978: Principles of standardization and codification of common language. Krimavicius, J. 2002: Lithuanian common language: boundaries and limitlessness, system, norm and codification. Terminology 9, 7-25. KNIUKSTA, P. 1979: Linguistic and Social Relationship of Codification with the Norm. Issues of Lithuanian Linguistics 53-66. 19, 85-91. LaBuris, V. 1972: Principles of lexical and word formation standardization. Our Speech 8, 12-16. MILIONAITE, R. 2000: Degrees of evaluation of language phenomena in „Language Advisor“. Language Culture 73, 24-35. MILIONAITE, R. 2002: Variants of grammar norms and their evaluation characteristics. Language Culture 75, 35-46. Pupkis, A. 1980: Language Culture and Language Policy, Vilnius: Mokslas. Rita Miliūnaitė Received 2003 03 28 Lithuanian Language Institute P. Vileišio g. 5, 2055 Vilnius, Lithuania ritam(tlki.lt