Kalbos reiškinių vertinimo laipsniai

ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA XLVIII (2003), 97–103 Degrees of Evaluation of Language Phenomena RITA MILIŪNAITĖ Institute of the Lithuanian Language, Vilnius 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. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS In the theory and practice of language culture, some of the most important questions are how to evaluate particular language phenomena, which principles and criteria to follow in standardization, and how to demonstrate the differing value of phenomena and the specific features of their use. The latter question—the system of different degrees of evaluation—is becoming particularly relevant. It arises naturally, first of all, because standard Lithuanian has reached a stage of development at which it can evolve independently and draw on its own resources, while at the same time being noticeably affected by external influences; recently, this entire process has intensified considerably. Another consideration is that contemporary usage of standard Lithuanian is becoming increasingly fragmented into various genres and domains, while the boundaries of functional styles, once considered fairly well-defined, are eroding considerably. The variety of standard spoken language is particularly difficult to define, as it often interweaves elements of standard language, dialects, and slang. Thus, the diversity of standard-language usage encourages standardizers to exert a more active, conscious influence on the development of the standard language, so that spontaneity does not gain the upper hand, since that would fundamentally run counter to the very nature of a standard language. Users of the standard language are also changing. For decades, the authority of the standardizer and the tradition of standardization played a fairly important role in the work of standardizing Lithuanian. Recently, language users have no longer been satisfied with a simple answer to the question of whether a particular phenomenon may be used. They ask for an explanation: why? They want language recommendations to be consistent, systematic, and logical, and express dissatisfaction when the same phenomenon is evaluated differently in different standardization sources. Recent standardization publications, various collections of language advice, articles on language practice, reviews, and so on, lack a unified and clear system for evaluating language phenomena. The evaluation of language norms and errors is 98 | RITA MILIŪNAITĖ Evaluations vary considerably, and it is not always possible to tell whether an author regards a particular phenomenon as a language error or merely as a violation of stylistic norms, and so on. Thus, it seems useful to discuss at least the most important features of a possible system for evaluating phenomena. With all this in mind, language phenomena need to be viewed somewhat differently from the way they were commonly viewed a decade or so ago: users of the standard language are beginning to find that the information published in earlier language-planning works is no longer sufficient, not only quantitatively but also qualitatively (e.g.: Kalbos praktikos patarimuose, 1985; Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodyne, 2000; Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatikoje, 1994, etc.2). In other words, it is necessary not only to take account of the very latest changes in the standard language (the emergence of new borrowings, new word meanings and entire constructions, the retreat of certain phenomena from usage, and the functional and stylistic differentiation of various means of expression), but also to seek ways of improving the system for evaluating phenomena that vary. The outline of this article took shape as early as 1998, when the principles and foundations for a new edition of Kalbos praktikos patarimų were being considered by the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language3. It was necessary to justify the system for evaluating language phenomena chosen for that publication, and the application of four evaluation levels was proposed4. Before undertaking to describe the levels for evaluating language phenomena, it is necessary to briefly discuss the main concepts involved. It is important to emphasize at the outset that an evaluation level is a derived measure. It depends on how we define the standard-language norm. 2. CHARACTERISTICS OF STANDARD-LANGUAGE NORMS Without dwelling at length on theoretical considerations here, we should provide the definition of the standard-language norm that we find most acceptable and describe the features relevant to the ensuing discussion of the levels for evaluating language phenomena. This is not easy, since in Lithuanian language-culture theory there is both terminological confusion and disagreement about the concept of the norm, particularly with regard to the relationship between norms and usage (cf. Girdenis, Pupkis 1978: 56; Knūkšta 1979: 85; Pupkis 1980: 20; Gaivenis, Keinys 1990: 134; Ambrazas, ed., 1999: 295–296; Klimavičius 2002: 19). The most neutral and universal definition seems to be the one in the “Encyclopedia of the Lithuanian Language”: language norm (Latin norma ‘measure, rule’)—“the totality of language facts and ways of using them recognized in a given society at a given time” (Amb- 1 This edition essentially reproduces the 1993 edition. 2 Cf. also the assertion in a school textbook that no longer meets today’s needs: “The standard-language norm is quite strict; it is based on two criteria: correct–incorrect, pure–impure” (KOŽENIAUSKIENĖ R., DOBROVOLSKIS B., ZINKEVIČIUS Z. Lietuvių kalba. Vadovėlis IX klasei, Kaunas: Šviesa, 2001, 3rd edition, 15). 3 These principles were approved by the Commission and published in the journal Gimtoji kalba (1998, 12, 4–6). 4 In developing and summarizing further the ideas on this topic that she had presented in fragments in her earlier articles, the author also draws on her experience in examining recommendations in language-planning works, as well as in considering grammatical phenomena for Kalbos patarimų in the Lithuanian Language Commission and in repeatedly discussing the substance of this system of evaluation levels and the principles governing its practical application. KALBOS REIŠKINIŲ VERTINIMO LAIPSNIAI 99 razas, red., 1999: 295). Iš čia išvedamas ir bendrinės kalbos normų apibrėžimas: „bendrinei kalbai būdingų ir joje vartojamų kalbos faktų bei taisyklių visuma“ (ten pat). Čia galima įžvelgti du normų aspektus: normas kaip visuotinai pripažintą vartoseną ir normas kaip kalbos dėsnių ir taisyklių visumą. Pirmuoju atveju galima kalbėti apie REALIĄSIAS (funkcionuojančias) normas, antruoju – apie KODIFIKUOTĄSIAS (idealizuotas). The second aspect of standard-language norms—codification—is essential, distinguishing standard-language norms from language norms in general. However, it is mistaken to think that only what has been codified can be considered a standard-language norm. In some cases, codification may be outdated and incomplete, failing to reflect the actual situation, since it usually follows real norms. For example, DLKŽ₄ does not include the words aplinkosauga, jogurtas, rankinė, žiniasklaida, etc., although they are already fully established in standard-language usage and are therefore real norms. Standard-language norms can also be characterized according to several other features: 1) according to whether the norms form the core or the periphery of the standard language, they are MAIN and SECONDARY; 2) from a temporal perspective, standard-language norms may be RETREATING (outdated), CURRENT, or EMERGING (beginning to become established) (cf. the dynamic theory of norms, Pupkis 1980: 21–24); 3) according to whether they belong to general (universal) usage or to particular functional styles of the standard language, they are GENERAL and SPECIAL (cf. Klimavičius 2002: 23). As noted, the degree of evaluation is a derivative, relative measure and depends on the conception of standard-language norms; therefore, the system of evaluation degrees must reflect the diversity of standard-language norms (their variation, stability, development, the relationship between actual and codified norms, the functional-stylistic differentiation of norms, etc.). 3. DEGREES OF EVALUATION AND THEIR TYPES That linguistic phenomena are evaluated differently, and that their relationship to standard-language norms is described in various ways, is evident from the relatively brief history of standard-language regulation in our language. Even in the corrective practice of Jonas Jablonskis, a tendency begins to emerge not merely to draw a strict boundary between norm and error, but also to discern more varied relationships between norms and errors. This is related both to the multifaceted nature of standard-language norms discussed above and to the particular features of how those norms function. Various normative publications seek, in one way or another, to show what should not be used and to distinguish minor errors from what is more or less acceptable in the standard language (for example, on the system of evaluation degrees in „Kalbos patarėjas“ (1939), see Miliūnaitė 2000: 24–35). Considerable progress was made in this respect in preparing the first edition of Kalbos praktikos patarimų (1975) (see Labutis 1972: 12–16; there, three different degrees of regulation, or normativity, were discussed, although four are readily discernible in the publication itself). 100 | RITA MILIŪNAITĖ The degree of evaluation indicates the relationship of the linguistic phenomenon being evaluated to the norm of the standard language. To determine the degree of evaluation of a phenomenon, one must first answer the question: IS THE LINGUISTIC PHENOMENON A NORM? Since the boundaries between errors and norms cannot always be precisely determined because of continual changes in language and the intermediate cases, various exceptions, and so on that arise from them, at least four answers are possible: (1) this is a universally recognized linguistic norm (if it has variants, those variants are equivalent); (2) this is a norm, but only one (secondary) competing variant of it; (3) this is not a universally established norm, but neither can it be considered a major error; (4) this is not a norm but a universally recognized violation of one (that is, an error). This can be represented schematically: Thus, four degrees of evaluation of linguistic phenomena are distinguished, indicating what is acceptable in the standard language, what may be used in certain cases, what should be avoided, and what is unacceptable. By convention, they are written (a – the phenomenon being evaluated, b – the normative phenomenon) as follows: (1) a+ or a | b; (2) a || b; (3) a avd. – b, (4) a unacc. = b. 3.1. a+, a | b This degree of evaluation indicates that the phenomenon being evaluated is a norm (a+) or, if the norm has variants, that the phenomena being evaluated are FULLY EQUIVALENT with respect to the norm (a | b), and are therefore usually absolute synonyms (doublets) at various levels, for example: Someone knocked (| tapped) on the door5. Such phenomena form the core of the norm and are positively codified, that is, considered correct. From the perspective of usage, if the norm has variants, these phenomena may have certain relatively subtle functional and stylistic nuances, usually determined by their origin, tradition of use, prevalence, domain of use, and so on. Over time, as they are used without competing, they may acquire additional features and cease to be considered doublets, or one of them may leave the core of the norm. 5 Since the article discusses the characteristics of the degrees of evaluation themselves and the principles for distinguishing them, relatively few specific examples are deliberately provided; examples organized according to the system of degrees of evaluation under discussion can be found in the “Language Advice” booklet series (see Language Advice I. Grammatical Forms and Their Use. Ed. in chief A. PUPKIS, Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopaedia Publishing, 2002; Language Advice II. Syntax: 1. Use of Cases. Ed. in chief A. PUPKIS, Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopaedia Publishing, 2003). KALBOS REIŠKINIŲ VERTINIMO LAIPSNIAI | 101 3.2. a || b Šiuo vertinimo laipsniu žymimi NORMOS VARIANTŲ santykiai (plg. Miliūnaitė 2002: 38–39), kai gerėlesni, labiau bendrinės kalbos polinkius ir vartosenos poreikius atitinkantys kalbos reiškiniai teikiami vietoj ne pačių gerųjų, bet nelaikomų klaida reiškinių. Tokie variantai dažniausiai santykiauja kaip normos branduolys (neutralioji, visuotinė norma) ir periferija (šalutiniai normos variantai), pavyzdžiui: vieneri (II vieni) metai; čia pirmasis variantas vieneri yra sistemiškesnis, bet dirbtinis, o antras nuo seno tradiciškai vartojamas ir teikiamas kaip pagrindinė norma. Palaikant bendrinės kalbos grynumą, šiuo laipsniu vertintini dalis tarptautinių žodžių (ypač turint galvoje visuotinę, ne specialiąją vartoseną) – tada, kai jiems esama visiškai lygiaverčių pakaitų, pavyzdžiui: siurprizas (II staigmena, netikėtumas). In addition, such variants may differ functionally and stylistically, in which case they relate as stylistically unmarked and marked phenomena, for example: diega šonas (II šoną); in this case, the nominative is a secondary norm characteristic of informal styles, while the accusative is the neutral norm. Thus, while preference is given to the better variants, the less good ones ARE TOLERATED, and users may choose according to functional style, their own linguistic habits, and so on (for example, the better variants are recommended for prestigious language use and are presented as the primary forms when teaching Lithuanian to non-Lithuanians). Variants assessed at the second level constitute the fluid part of the norm. Over time, a secondary variant of the norm may outcompete the primary one—that is, the two may switch places—or fall out of use and cease to be considered a norm of the standard language. 3.3. a vngt. – b At this level, linguistic phenomena are assessed that lie on the boundary between norm and error, in the so-called gray area, where various linguistic tendencies are often only beginning to crystallize and are therefore not always easy to identify and define. Such linguistic phenomena are not universally established (that is, they may be negatively codified or may not appear in normative publications at all, either as a norm or as an error). In many cases, these phenomena are considered deviations from the norm, inappropriate linguistic tendencies; for example, competition between periphrastic and synthetic degree forms: Dabar atliksime labiau sudėtingą (–sudėtingesnį) pratimą. These are intermediate cases between error and norm, arising for various reasons: 1) language development and the resulting conflicts at the intersection of a system and a subsystem, or of several subsystems (for example, phenomena of the same type but with different lexical expression may be established to different degrees in the language); 2) incomplete investigation of the nature of a phenomenon and lack of discussion of its assessment; 3) stylistic variation, and so on. This level of assessment may also indicate the status of an emerging or receding norm (one that formerly existed but no longer has prospects)—for example, a decade ago there was an erroneous attempt to revive the plural spalių mėnuo. Thus, it is advisable to avoid such variants and choose a more appropriate mode of expression, in the hope of slowing the spread of phenomena undesirable in current standard-language usage. 102 | RITA MILIŪNAITĖ 3.4. a ntk. = b These are clear LANGUAGE ERRORS, mostly violations of the system. Such phenomena are not recommended for use in the standard language at all and are strictly corrected. In normative works, they are usually marked with the abbreviations ntk., nevart. All the cases in the List of Major Language Errors6 also belong to this group. In addition, violations of norms for specialized vocabulary (terms) belong here. These are mostly phenomena arising under the influence of foreign languages: foreign vocabulary, calques or foreign word meanings, calqued expressions and syntactic constructions, etc., for example: imidžas (= įvaizdis), komisijos sąstatas (= sudėtis), the conjunctions kad, jei(gu) with an infinitive to express purpose, and so on. In addition, this group may include irregular linguistic phenomena that have arisen within the language itself, very narrowly regional forms, and completely obsolete items that are atypical of present-day usage—that is, anything contrary to the system of the standard language and at odds with its laws and rules. 4. CONCLUDING REMARKS The connections between the features of the norm and the system of evaluation levels could be described more specifically as follows. 1. The opposition between positively and negatively codified phenomena corresponds to the distinction between evaluation levels I and II, and III and IV. Actual norms may coincide (and in many cases do coincide) with codified ones; if they have not yet been codified at all, they are often represented by evaluation level III. 2. The distinction between primary and secondary norms corresponds to the distinction between evaluation levels I and II. 3. It is important that both the primary norm (level I) and the error (level IV) are protected against overly abrupt changes—they are separated by two transitional levels (II and III). 4. Evaluation level III (“to be avoided”) is suitable for reflecting the dynamics of declining (aging) norms and emerging (beginning to take root) ones. Over time, some such phenomena may become errors (level IV), while others may be recognized as norms (i.e., may be codified) (levels II and I). 5. The functional-stylistic differentiation of standard-language norms (essentially, the distinction between general and specialized norms) can serve only as an additional feature of the evaluation levels. It is useful to indicate it with appropriate labels alongside the phenomenon being evaluated a. For example, if a phenomenon being evaluated is considered functionally obsolete, it may be marked: a psn. vngt. – b; if it is dialectal: a trm. vngt. – b, and so on. It should be emphasized that the prerequisite for the existence of phenomena belonging to various functional styles in the standard language is their grammatical correctness; thus, one can speak only of phenomena evaluated at levels I and II as belonging to some functional style or group thereof7. For example, if a phenomenon is characteristic of informal- 6 Lietuvių kalbos komisijos nutarimai 1977–1998, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 1998, 123–176. 7This does not refer to nonstandard phenomena used for a justified purpose, for example in literary style, which can be considered only partly a domain of standard-language use. KALBOS REIŠKINIŲ VERTINIMO LAIPSNIAI 103 for all styles (journalistic, literary, colloquial), i.e. as opposed to the official styles (informational, administrative, scientific), this can be represented as follows: a free. || b or a free. || b. In such cases, the b phenomenon is regarded as the primary, stylistically neutral phenomenon characteristic of general usage. The system of degrees for evaluating phenomena in the standard language discussed above makes it possible to implement not only the principle of change in standard-language norms but also that of their stability, i.e. it helps reduce the gap between the codified norm and actual usage. It is a kind of safeguard for the stability of norms, preventing them from being changed without reason and recklessly, or at least mitigating their inevitable fluctuations. At the same time, this system of evaluation degrees is also a mechanism for changing norms, since, taking language development into account, it allows norms to be changed when necessary, and only through variants, without skipping several stages (a ntk = b → a vngt. – b → a || b → a or in the reverse sequence). This can reduce the discrepancies currently found in various normative works. Therefore, it is precisely the value of a phenomenon, assessed on the basis of the system of evaluation degrees and by applying the principles and criteria of standard-language codification, that should be the primary subject of linguistic disputes among language planners. LITERATŪRA AMBRAZAS, V., red. 1999: Lietuvių kalbos enciklopedija, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. GAIVENIS, K., KEINYS, S. 1990: Kalbotyros terminų žodynas, Kaunas: Šviesa. GIRDENIS, A., PUPKIS, A. 1978: Bendrinės kalbos norminimo ir kodifikavimo principai. Baltų kalbos ir jų tyrinėjimo metodai, Vilnius, 53–66. KLIMAVIČIUS, J. 2002: Lietuvių bendrinė kalba: ribos ir beribiškumas, sistema, norma ir kodifikacija. Terminologija 9, 7–25. KNIŪKŠTA, P. 1979: Lingvistinis ir socialinis kodifikacijos santykis su norma. Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 19, 85–91. LABUTIS, V. 1972: Leksikos ir žodžių darybos norminimo principai. Mūsų kalba 8, 12–16. MILIŪNAITĖ, R. 2000: Kalbos reiškinių vertinimo laipsniai „Kalbos patarėjuje“. Kalbos kultūra 73, 24–35. MILIŪNAITĖ, R. 2002: Gramatikos normų variantai ir jų vertinimo ypatumai. Kalbos kultūra 75, 35–46. PUPKIS, A. 1980: Kalbos kultūros pagrindai, Vilnius: Mokslas. Rita Miliūnaitė Lietuvių kalbos institutas P. Vileišio g. 5, 2055 Vilnius, Lietuva [email protected] Gauta 2003 03 28