Lingvistinės stilistikos užuomazgos Prano Skardžiaus ir Petro Joniko darbuose

ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA XLVI (2002), 49 - 57 The article deals with the approach of the Lithuanian linguists Pranas Skardžius (1899-1975) and Petras Vilniaus universitetas Jonikas (1906-1996) to the object of stylistics in the 1930s. The influence of Ch. Bally’s ideas and the Prague Linguistic School on the views of Jonikas and SkardZius is also discussed. 0. IVADAS Pranas Skardžius (1899-1975) and Petras Jonikas (1906-1996) — famous Lithuanian linguists, who worked both in the field of scientific research and language culture. Ionian mainly studied various problems of the history of the common language. Skardzio research covered both the history of the Lithuanian language and the general Lithuanian language. The contribution of these prominent Lithuanian linguists to Baltic studies is described in various publications (Sabaliauskas 1979: 200—202, 204—205; 1999: 281-282, 583-584; Palionis 1995: 288-291; Zinkevičius 1992: 299-306, 311-313; Rosinas 1994: 6; 1996: 7-28). Jonikas and Skardzius, the most important educators of the common language in the interwar Republic of Lithuania (1918-1940- ), involved in the practical work of creating and organizing the common language, could not avoid the problems of stylistic differentiation of the common language. Jonikas, having become acquainted with the concept of language postulated by the linguists of the Prague linguistic school, was the first of the Lithuanians to draw attention to the functional nature of language phenomena (Savukynas, 1977: 3-9; Zinkevičius 1992: 313). Skardzius was concerned with the relationship between language culture and linguistic stylistics, since the stylistics of the Lithuanian language was initially mainly a part of the practical standardization and management of the language (Ambrazas 1999: 602). In the interwar years, functional styles of common language were rapidly formed in the Republic of Lithuania. Skardžius and Jonikas contributed greatly to their education (Ambrazas 1999: 204—205). This article discusses in more detail the views of Skardžius and Jonikas on the premises of the linguistic stylistics of Lithuanian language in the 1930s. The aim of the article is to examine the approach of Skardzis and Jonikis to the stylistic division of the common Lithuanian language, the possibilities of creating linguistic stylistics of the Lithuanian language. The main source for this article are the publications of Skardzis and Jonikas, published in the interwar magazines Židinys and Naujoji Romuva in 1937 and 1938. The problems raised in the publications are relevant even today, so we do not avoid referring to the content of publications or quoting longer paragraphs. The tasks and research strategy formulated by Skardžius and Jonikis for the creation of linguistic stylistics of Lithuanian language suggest that the 50 | VAIDA KNABIKAITĖ The formation of the Lithuanian language stylistics science would have been much earlier if not for the unfavorable historical circumstances (war, occupation) and the emigration of the most famous linguists from Lithuania. 1. PRANO SKARDŽIAUS VIEW ON STYLISTICS Pranas Skardžius, the most prolific interwar Lithuanian linguist, has set out his view on stylistics in the article “Gramatika ir stilistika” (1938) and in two reviews of Juozas Pikčilingis’s work “Lietuvių kalbos stilistika- ”, published in the American press in 1971 and 1972 (see Skardžius 1997: 502-509, 608-612). In the article “Grammar and stylistics” Skardžius briefly describes the history of the relationship between grammar and stylistics. He recalls that the ancient Romans regarded stylistics as part of grammar (syntax). Thus, in ancient times, stylistics was nothing more than a syntactic suffix used for practical purposes. Over time, there was an increasing effort to separate stylistics from syntax and make it a separate, completely independent thing. At the beginning of the 20th century, K. Vossler and L. Spitzer even wanted to dissolve grammar into stylistics. Skardžius recalls that, for example, Vossleris, acknowledging the idealistic principle of causality in the development of language, already in 1904 was determined to interpret all language phenomena (sounds, verbs, verbs) and syntactic structures stylistically. Skardžius quotes this author: “Grammar is a part of the history of style and literature, which in turn is part of the universal history of human spirit and freedom (the history of culture)” (1997: 282). Skardžius considers this understanding of grammar and stylistics to be “extreme and therefore unreliable” (1997: 282). The linguist points out that in the 1930s stylistics can no longer be considered as part of grammar, as it was in ancient times. It is also impossible to dissolve grammar in stylistics, as Vossler suggests. In the view of Skardzis, grammar and stylistics are two adjacent, closely related, yet distinct fields (1997: 282). Following Ch. In addition to Bally's and Prague School linguistic ideas, Skardžius also distinguishes between literary and linguistic stylistics. The linguist explains: “What our textbook authors of literary theory usually consider to be not entirely successful means of literary language, is often used in our folk language. For example, we ourselves in our everyday speech often change the literal meanings of words (see pagramdukas — “a loaf of bread baked from scraped dough” and pagramdukas “the youngest child in the family”), and we describe exaggerations or comparisons in a certain way (see him that skėlė į antausį, even sparks in the eyes poured out; goes like a frog on his way), and we reduce certain expressions (see children hells, without children not well), and we use many other similar things” (1997: 282). Skardžius illustrates the stylistic powers of the language with the so-called gemination phenomenon, e.g.: medžiai, i.e. many forests); I got up early early (i.e. very early) and so on. Furthermore, Skardžius, explaining the phenomenon of gemination, shows that there could be another direction of stylistics - 'HISTORICAL STYLISTICS', unfortunately, not developed in modern linguistic stylistics at all. 3 Cf. description of the object of historical stylistics (Rozenbergs 1995: 52). 51 Similarly to Jonas Jablonskis, who demanded that the common language be based on the laws of the folk language, in his words, the laws of the human language, Skardžius also urges the researchers of stylistics to turn to the folk language: “For this reason [in order to be close to the speaking society — V. K.] the authors of stylistic works, in order to properly represent the stylistic means of a language, cannot take their hand off the living, folk language. They must remember that not only individual authors can have their own style, but that the language of each nation is also stylish in its own way, i.e. it has its own national style” (1997: 283). Skardžius very aptly observes that linguistic stylistics is closely connected with the culture of the common language: “Moreover, the linguist comes into contact with stylistics when he is concerned with the culture of the common language, its purity, regularity, etc.: here he inevitably has to deal with the norming of the language, with the formation of its character in one way or another, which, according to E. Otto, is precisely the subject of stylistics” (1997: 284). In this article, the linguist has touched on the main problems that arise when trying to establish the boundaries of the subject of linguistic stylistics. It discusses the misunderstandings that arise between linguists themselves, between linguists and writers about the relationship between grammar and stylistics, about the concept of style itself, about the nationality of style. (1997: 284). Skardžius, in proposing to overcome mutual misunderstanding, foresees the following tactics and basic tasks: 1) “to take a sober look at the mutual fields of work”, 2) “to look at what our living language can objectively contribute to common grammar and stylistics”, 3) “to think about what our literary language really is and how it should relate to the common language” (1997: 285). Knowing in advance the opinions of some writers (e.g., Vincas Krėvė’s polemic with the linguists “blusininkais”, Balis Sruoga’s dissatisfaction with the translations of Juozas Balčikonis Hauf’s fairy tales, 1927: 3-4), the opposition to orientation towards the living language (Sruoga’s description, the language of Pumpėnai shepherds), believing that this inhibits their creativity, Skardžius concludes the article by stating that it is necessary to develop the Lithuanianness of the common language: “If we want our common language to be Lithuanian, then we just as much cannot deny the Lithuanian stylistic elements, which are so abundant in our living language and which, as Vosslerio, Bally and others’ researches show, we can use a lot to create individual styles. Moreover, by carefully using the treasure of that language, we acquire not only logical intellectual, but also affective means of language expression that are characteristic of us, we bring to the fore the general stylistics of our language and at the same time enable ourselves to express ourselves properly. Finally, as many have already observed, the individual language creation must not overshadow the general creation of one's national language: it must be beautifully and properly harmonized, care must be taken to express the individual diversity lively in the general unity. By turning our gaze in this direction, we will find more common ground, get to know each other better and contribute more positively to the creation of our common language.” (1997: 285). Although Skardžius- ’s article “Grammar and stylistics” was written more than 60 years ago, the problems raised in it, such as the definition of the concepts of linguistic stylistics and style, the relationship of linguistic stylistics with the language of general and fictional literature, the promotion of the nationality of style, the inclusion of general stylistic language requirements (precision, purity, etc.) in the subject of linguistic stylistics, are still relevant today. Therefore, it is quite understandable Skardžius- ’s positive attitude to Pikčilingis’s Lithuanian language stylistics I 52 | VAIDA KNABIKAITĖ volume chapter “General requirements of stylistic language- ”, although in Lithuania Pikčilingis has been criticized for not clearly distinguishing the subjects of linguistic stylistics and general language culture. Skardžius, reviewing the first part of Pikčilingis’s Lithuanian language stylistics in Aidas, gave this work a very positive assessment. He wrote: "J. Pikčilingis, taking care in the first place of stylistic language, the stylistic possibilities of means of expression and their ways of realization, at the same time does not lose sight of the requirements of general language usage, its regularity, and therefore he corrects many stylistic shortcomings of language, and those corrections, in general, are quite well done, careful, not much different from those of J. Jablonski and other linguists [...]” (Skardžius 1997: 507, 509). The review concludes with the following words: “Overall, this work by J. Pikčilingas, the first of its kind in Lithuanian, written well prepared, with insight and insight, is a very valuable contribution to the culture of the Lithuanian language. Everyone will be able to learn a good, stylish Lithuanian language from it: writers, scientists, publicists, journalists, etc. ; it will be equally beneficial to local and foreign Lithuanians” (Skardžius 1997: 509). This work is perceived both as a continuation of the traditions of Lithuanian language education and as a new word on the path of Lithuanian language education —the highest stage of its education — THE CULTURE OF STYLE. In independent Lithuania, style education is only being prepared. After the war, these issues could not be of much interest to Lithuanian society either, so only the years 1971—1975, when Pikčilingis’ two-part work Lithuanian Language Stylistics was published, can be considered the birth year of Lithuanian theoretical stylistics. 2. PETRO JONIK’S VIEW ON THE GENERAL LITHUANIAN Petras Jonikas — the most famous student of Pranas Skardzis and Antanas Salis and his closest collaborator at the University of Vytautas the Great, who continued his studies at the universities of Riga, Karaliaučius and Vienna, had the opportunity to get acquainted with Nikolajus Trubeckojus, one of the most famous theorists of the Prague linguistic school, was particularly interested in the works of Bohuslavas Havranekas, a Czech theoretician of the written language, and was the first Lithuanian linguist to introduce the functional theory of language culture in his work on the standardization of the common Lithuanian language (Sabaliauskas 1996: 4— 6). Jonikas presented his view on the functional fragmentation of the common Lithuanian language in a theoretically significant article “The Problem of the Culture of Our Common Written Language” (1937: 529-544). This article is the first attempt in Lithuanian linguistics to minas autoriaus nevartojamas. Bendrinės kalbos stilistines atmainas Jonikas, kaip ir Havrainvestigate the functional styles of the common Lithuanian language. Of course, FUNCTIONAL STYLE ternek, called functional languages (1937: 538). In the first part of the article, “A matter of principled consideration”, three statements are made: 1) the normalization of the common language (in the article — NORMALIZATION), 2) the functional division of the language, 3) the role of linguists in solving the first two problems (1937: 530). In the second part of the article, “The Improvement of the Common Written Language- ”, the author describes the Prague Linguistic School (phonology), “which the French linguist J. Vendryes has called the most active and prolific linguistic school in Europe at present [...] LINGUISTICAL STYLISTICS | 53 school, examining language as an expression? with regard to the system of means, is particularly interested in synchronic language research, because it is here that it is best possible to know the various structures, plans of that linguistic system. In this way, the common written language is a separate system of its own, serving its own purpose. The research of this school can be used in many ways for the improvement of the general written language. This has already been demonstrated by the Prague Linguistic Circle (Pražsky lingvisticky krouzek), whose work (lectures, writings) contributed to the development of the Czech written language and culture [...]“ (1937: 531). In the third part of the article, Jonikas discusses two important concepts for the theory of language culture — NORMALIZATION and STABILIZATION. Normalization is understood as “the establishment of certain (valid) norms appropriate for the entire linguistic community” (1937: 532). Once language norms have been established, it is ensured that they are not changed by anyone at any time, otherwise the language would no longer be useful for the common cause. Thus, stabilization is an immanent (normal) mark. In the fourth part of the aforementioned article, “The source of norms”, the author, having become acquainted with the views of the Prague linguistic school, unlike Jablonskis, who regarded the folk language as the basis for the norming of the common Lithuanian written language, refers to the use of the common written language itself as the main criterion for the norming of the common language (cf. Palionis 1995: 289). Jonikas writes: “Only ambiguities could arise when specifying this principle, let’s say: how far back in the past can this use go? Of course, it is difficult to draw a precise line here. This limit may vary for different languages. For example, Czech linguists, members of the Prague Linguistic Circle, have established the written language as being the language of the last 50 years. The usage gap in our language would be even smaller" (1937: 533). Jablonski has never raised the question of the current general written language usage as a criterion for standardization. According to Jon Palionis, “Now, from a half-century perspective, such a shift [from folk language to the current usage of the language — V. K.] may seem too premature, but in terms of the further development of the Lithuanian common language it was sooner or later necessary, because, as the sphere of use of this language steadily expanded and as its functional styles grew and differentiated, the folk principle became too narrow, insufficient” (Palionis 1995: 289). In the fifth paragraph of the article "Criteria of norms", Ionikas sets out the criteria for norming written language in the following order: 1. Purity, 2. Regularity, 3. Clarity, 4. The characteristic inclinations, 5. Objectiveness". In the sixth part of the article “Functional language structure — the final basis of criteria” Jonikas discussed for the first time in Lithuanian linguistics not only the theoretical statements of functional language culture, but also functional stylistics. First of all, in this part of the article the linguist raises the question: “Is, in linguistic terms, language really a functional structure, a system of purposeful symbols- ?” He explains: "[...] the common written language, although it has common features that distinguish it from the popular language, nevertheless has multiple purposes. Therefore, it is always necessary to pay attention to the FUNCTIONAL DIVISION of the general written language, more precisely suspe- * The language of the article has not changed. *—Clarity, purity, purposefulness —not only criteria of general language norms, but also stylistic categories, discussed already in the first Lithuanian stylistics, see, for example, M. Gustaičio Stilistika (1923) and others. 54 | VAIDA KNABIKAITĖ kissing language means. Let’s say that the intellectualization of language means is gradual: less of it is only in everyday communication language, more of it is transferrkalboj, dar daugiau mokslo kalboj. Lygia dalia ir vienos funkcijos automatizacijų negalima ed to another function in administration, court, because, as we have seen, it becomes automated (deautomated) there, thus losing its agreed defining meaning” (1937: 538). In addition, Ionik presents the classification of general language functions by general language theoretician Havranek. The functions of the general language are: 1) communicative, 2) special practical and 3) special theoretical. They are all dependent on the general NOTIFYING function. The fourth function is aesthetic, which has no message purpose. “According to them, there are also 4 areas of general language, or FUNCTIONAL LANGUAGES: 1) CONVERSATION (conversational), 2) SPECIAL WORKING (scientific) LANGUAGE (pracovni, vecny jazyk), 3) SCIENTIFIC and 4) POETICAL. Each of these functional languages has its own, more or less different linguistic means and even a whole linguistic system. Therefore, the theoretician or corrector of the general written language cannot measure all these types of language with one standard and apply the same criteria to all of them. And in fact, in the simple CONVERSATIONAL LANGUAGE the relation of lexical units (words) to the expressive object is free (just imprecisely defined), expressions are incomplete, comprehensibility is based on situation and conversational (conversational) automations. In SPECIAL WORKING LANGUAGE the relation of lexical units to the subject is contractual (word term), expressions are relatively complete, definition is obtained by special contractual (conventional) automatizations (terms and formulas). And in SCIENTIFIC LANGUAGE the relation of lexical units to the expressive object is strictly defined (word-concept), expressions are completed, accuracy is based on definitional and codificational automations. Therefore, it is not possible to “write as you speak”, but to describe a purely scientific topic “humanly”, i.e. by means of everyday folk language” (Jonikas 1937: 539). From this excerpt of the article “The problem of our common written language culture” it is clear that Ionik, following Havranek, uses the term FUNCTIONAL LANGUAGE instead of the now established term FUNCTIONAL STYLE. The philosopher Stasys Šalkauskis (1886—1941), discussing Jonikas’ lectures (articles) “The Problem of Our Common Written Language” and “The Regularity of Common Language” at the Permanent Terminology Section of the Lithuanian Language Society (at the meetings of 1937-1938), correctly observed that the relationship between the terms “FUNCTIONAL DIVISION OF THE COMMON LANGUAGE” and “FUNCTIONAL LANGUAGE” used by Jonikas is unclear. St. Šalkauskis asks, having read Jonikas’s lecture — the article “The problem of our common written language culture”: “a) what is more correct: to talk about the functions of the common language or about functional languages, and b) what is the real relationship between general language and functional languages” (Čižikienė, Vitkauskas 1982: 33). Another very insightful remark by Šalkauskas about the term FUNCTIONAL LANGUAGES: “It is not enough to talk about the functions of one common language, but it is too much to talk about equally adjacent functional languages” (Čižikienė, Vitkauskas 1982: 34). Unfortunately, Šalkauskas- ’s questions were answered only in Pikčilingis’s work Lietuvių kalbos stilistika (1971), which describes the stylistic differentiation of the common Lithuanian language. Apparently, Havranek also had similar doubts, so he later introduced the term FUNCTIONAL STYLE in linguistics. In 1971 Pikčilingis, influenced by the tradition of Russian stylistics, without hesitation chose this term —FUNCTIONAL STYLE—to describe the stylistic variations of the common Lithuanian language (see Pikčilingis 1971: 277-336). 55 Šalkauskis particularly criticized the seventh part of the article “The Problem of the Culture of Our Common Written Language”, entitled “The Language of Poetry”. Ionik, on the basis of Havranek’s theory of the automatization and actualization of language, declared that the language of poetry is “[...] a deformation of the general norm of written language” (1937: 539). To support this statement, the author of the article gives examples from the works of the four-part poet J. Ženga „Bobiskas pavasaris“ and „Baranausko pamokslas apie lietuvišką futbolą“. Šalkauskas’s remarks, aimed at analyzing Jonikos’ theoretical statements about the language of poetry, are significant, have lasting value and may be “the cornerstones of the theory of poetic language” (Čižikienė, Vitkauskas 1982: 31). Šalkauskis agrees with Jonik’s statement that the most individual, concrete, determined or decided is the language of poetry and that the greatest actualization of linguistic genders is the function of the language of poetry. The philosopher finds the author’s assertion that the language of poetry is a deformation of the general norm of written language, that without this deformation there would be no poetry at all, completely unacceptable. From the discussion of Šalkauskas and Jonikas emerge several very important theoretical statements for the science of stylistics. First, the close relationship of the language norm with the corresponding functional style, in this case poetic language, is shown. In Šalkauskas’s view, the norm of common language is the reference system for evaluating a poetic work*. Secondly, the question is discussed, what is the nature and essence of the general language norm and what is its relationship with the language of a particular work and the literary language norm in general. These questions were solved much later, in the 1970s, by representatives of structural poetry. We can see that Jonikas, choosing the poetic texts of the four-way singer J. Ženge, has nevertheless adequately demonstrated the actualization of the poetic language, when the poetic language first of all “demonstrates itself”, drawing attention to its very expression. Ionikas understood well that the questions of poetic language still await their solution. The study of the function of the poetic language is impossible without the creation of functional stylistics, which is why in the ninth part of the article “The Problem of Our Common Writing Culture” “The Duties of Linguists” states: “The most important task of them [linguists — V.K.] now is the interpretation of the functional division of written language. It's a mature matter. This interpretation would help others to make better use of this functional difference and thus raise the culture of a common written language. They can do this either by studying individual functions of general language, i.e. by systematic examination of linguistic tools adapted to a particular language purpose; or the critique of individual subjects of general language and individual genders of language” (Jonikas 1937: 543). At the end of the article, the main task for linguists is stated — in addition to a general vocabulary of the language, a general grammar of the written language, it is necessary to prepare “[...] STYLISTICS, where the functional division of the language would be raised” (Jonikas 1937: 544). Thus, the creation of functional Lithuanian stylistics seemed to Jonikas to be a mature matter, since the Lithuanian common language developed rapidly in the years of independence (1918-1940- ). In the 1970s, both linguists and poets, considering the relationship between the norms of poetic language and common language, observe that “[...] the source of the language and style of poetry is no longer —as before— the dialect, any tradition or, as in earlier stages of literary development — the normative language. The source of poetic language is now very broad — what we could call philological culture” (Martinaitis 1977: 15). “Our poetic culture has long used non-normative things as a means of expression, as a tradition of philological culture. They now do not hinder the establishment of language norms” (Rosinas 1977: 50). See also In 1977, he published the first volume of his poetry. 56 | VAIDA KNABIKAITĖ scientific, publicistic, stationery (Palionis 1995: 279-308). Unfortunately, this work was not completed, because the development of Lithuanian linguistic stylistics (together with other fields of science) was halted for several decades by unfavorable historical circumstances — war and occupation. 3. CONCLUSIONS 1. In the 1930s, the formation of functional styles of the written common language — artistic, scientific, publicistic, clerical — allowed the prominent linguists of the period, Skardžius and Jonikas, to raise the idea of stylistic research of the Lithuanian language, to foresee the strategy, tactics and tasks of such research. Jonikas was the first Lithuanian linguist to introduce the theory of functional language culture and functional stylistics of the Prague School of Linguistics. From the point of view of this theory, the POETICAL function of language, which is characterized by maximum text actualization and deformation of the language norm, is discussed for the first time. 3. In the 1930s, the philosophers Šalkauskas and Jonikas discussed the relationship between the norms of poetic language and the norms of common language. Šalkauskas’s view that the main source of poetry’s language and style – normative language – is too narrow in the eyes of contemporary functional stylistics. Jonikos’ statements are closer to the theoretical thinking of the representatives of structural poetry of the 1970s. 4.Skardžius, based on Bally, Vossler, Spitzer’s views on literary and linguistic stylistics, also distinguishes these two directions of stylistics. The subject of linguistic stylistics: 1) individual types of styles, 2) stylistic powers of language, 3) promotion of national style, 4) individual style. Such a perception of the stylistic object was new and promising, therefore further research is being developed in the directions mentioned by other researchers. LITERATURE AMBRAZAS, V. 1999: Functional style. Vilnius: Vilnius University Press, 2016. AMBRAZAS, V. 1999: Stylistics. Vilnius: Vilnius University Press, 2002. pp. 602-603. BALLY, CH. [BaAjiiu, III.] 1961: Opanyyvsxas cmunucmuxa, Mocksa: H3nuarenbocrBo HHOcTpaHHoNH JNMKTEpaTypkI. C1ZIKIENE, N., VITKAUSKAS, V. 1982: From the history of Lithuanian language standardization. Stasys Šalkauskis on language standardization. Our Language 5, 34-35. GusrTaiTIs, M. 1923: Stylistika, Kaunas-Marijampolė. HAVRANEK, B. [I'aspanex b.] 1967: The ¢ynkunonansHOM pacc0eHHH JiKTEpaTypHOTro s3sika. KoHjpamos, H. A., pen., Ilpanackuū aunzéucmuveckuu kpyxcok. Coopuuk crarei, Mocksa, 432-443. JONIKAS, P. 1937: The problem of our common written language culture. 12: 529–544. MARTINAITIS, M. 1977: The Daily Bread of Poetry. Our Speech 1, 12-18. PIKČILINGIS, J. 1971, 1975: Lithuanian language stylistics 1—2, Vilnius: Mintis (1), Mokslas (2). PALIONIS, J. 1991: In the bars of the native language. Peter Jones 85. Linguistics 4: 28–30. PALIONIS, J. 1995: History of the Lithuanian written language, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. RosiNAS, A. 1977: Press review. Our Language 1, 46-51. RosiNAs, A. 1994: Basics of General Language Education and its Codification Criteria in the Theoretical Articles of P. Skardžius. In Lithuanian: researchers and research. Conference papers, Vilnius, 6. |57 Rosinas, A. 1996: Pranas Skardžius and his works. Pranas Skardžius, Selected Writings 1, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, VII-XXVIII. ROZENBERGS, J. 1995: Latvian language stylistics, Riga: Zvaigzne ABC. SABALIAUSKAS, A. 1979: The History of Lithuanian Language Research until 1940, Vilnius: Mokslas. SABALIAUSKAS, A. 1996: Peter Jonikas. Language 4, 4-8. SABALIAUSKAS, A. 1999: Ionikas. Vilnius: Vilnius University Press, 2008. pp. 281-282. SABALIAUSKAS, A. 1999: Skardžius. Vilnius: Vilnius University Press, 1999. pp. 583-584. SAVUKYNAS, B. 1977: The Specifics of Poetical Language. Our Language 1, 3-9. SKARDŽIUS, Pr. 1938: Grammar and Stylistics. New York: Routledge. pp. 991–992. SKARDŽIUS, Pr. 1997: General language subjects. 2, compiled and prepared for publication by A. Rosinas, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 281—285, 502-509, 609-612. SRUOGA, B. 1927: About linguists and writers. Lithuania 12, 3-4. ZINKEVIČIUS, Z. 1992: History of Lithuanian Language 5. The Rise of Common Language, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Vaida Knabikaitė Received 2002-03-22 Department of Lithuanian Language Universiteto g. 5, 2734 Vilnius, Lithuania Vilniaus universitetas