Lingvistinės stilistikos užuomazgos Prano Skardžiaus ir Petro Joniko darbuose

ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA XLVI (2002), 49 – 57 The Beginnings of Linguistic Stylistics in the Works of Pranas Skardžius and Petras Jonikas VAIDA KNABIKAITĖ Vilnius University The article deals with the approach of the Lithuanian linguists Pranas Skardžius (1899–1975) and Petras 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 Skardžius is also discussed. 0. INTRODUCTION Pranas Skardžius (1899–1975) ir Petras Jonikas (1906–1996) – žymūs lietuvių kalbininkai, dirbę tiek mokslo tiriamąjį, tiek ir kalbos kultūros darbą. Jonikas daugiausia tyrinėjo įvairias bendrinės kalbos istorijos problemas. Skardžiaus moksliniai tyrimai aprėpė ir lietuvių kalbos istoriją, ir bendrinę lietuvių kalbą. Šių žymių lietuvių kalbininkų įnašas į baltistiką yra aprašytas įvairiuose leidiniuose (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 ir Skardžius, žymiausi bendrinės kalbos ugdytojai tarpukario Lietuvos Respublikoje (1918–1940), įsitraukę į praktinį bendrinės kalbos kūrimo bei tvarkymo darbą, negalėjo apeiti ir bendrinės kalbos stilistinio diferencijavimosi problemų. Jonikas, susipažinęs su Prahos lingvistinės mokyklos kalbininkų postuluojama kalbos samprata, pirmasis iš lietuvių atkreipė dėmesį į funkcinį kalbos reiškinių pobūdį (Savukynas, 1977: 3–9; Zinkevičius 1992: 313). Skardžiui rūpėjo kalbos kultūros ir lingvistinės stilistikos santykis, nes lietuvių kalbos stilistika iš pradžių buvo daugiausia praktinio kalbos norminimo bei tvarkymo dalis (Ambrazas 1999: 602). Lietuvos Respublikoje tarpukario metais sparčiai formavosi bendrinės kalbos funkciniai stiliai. Prie jų ugdymo labai prisidėjo Skardžius ir Jonikas (Ambrazas 1999: 204–205). This article discusses in greater detail Skardžius’s and Jonikas’s views on the prerequisites for developing a linguistic stylistics of the Lithuanian language in the fourth decade of the 20th century. The aim of the article is to explore Skardžius’s and Jonikas’s views on the stylistic differentiation of standard Lithuanian and the possibilities for developing a linguistic stylistics of the Lithuanian language. The main sources for this article are publications by Skardžius and Jonikas, printed in 1937 and 1938 in the interwar journals Židinys and Naujoji Romuva. The issues raised in these publications remain relevant today; therefore, the article does not hesitate to discuss their content at greater length or to quote longer passages. The tasks and research strategy for developing a linguistic stylistics of the Lithuanian language formulated by Skardžius and Jonikas suggest that linguistic 50 | VAIDA KNABIKAITĖ stylistics of the Lithuanian language as a scholarly discipline would have taken shape much earlier if unfavorable historical circumstances (war, occupations) and the emigration of the most prominent linguists from Lithuania had not hindered its development. 1. PRANAS SKARDŽIUS’S VIEWS ON STYLISTICS Pranas Skardžius, the most productive linguist in interwar Lithuania, set out his views on stylistics in the article “Grammar and Stylistics” (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 “Grammar and Stylistics,” Skardžius briefly outlines the history of the relationship between grammar and stylistics. He recalls that the ancient Romans regarded stylistics as part of grammar (syntax). Thus, in antiquity, stylistics was nothing more than an adjunct to syntax used solely for practical purposes. Over time, increasing efforts were made to separate stylistics from syntax and make it a distinct, fully independent subject. At the beginning of the 20th century, K. Vossler and L. Spitzer even wanted to dissolve grammar into stylistics. Skardžius recalls that, for example, Vossler, recognizing the idealistic principle of causality in language development, was already prepared in 1904 to explain all linguistic phenomena (sounds, inflection, word formation) and syntactic constructions stylistically. Skardžius quotes this author: “Grammar is part of the history of style and literature, which in turn forms part of the universal history of the human spirit and freedom (the history of culture)” (1997: 282). Skardžius considers this understanding of grammar and stylistics “extreme and therefore unreliable” (1997: 282). The linguist points out that, by the fourth decade of the 20th century, stylistics could no longer be regarded as part of grammar, as had been done in classical antiquity. Nor is it possible to dissolve grammar into stylistics, as Vossler proposes. In Skardžius’s view, grammar and stylistics are two neighboring fields, very closely related to one another but nevertheless distinct (1997: 282). Following the linguistic ideas of Ch. Bally and the Prague School, Skardžius also distinguishes literary and linguistic stylistics. The linguist explains: “What the authors of our textbooks on literary theory usually, and not entirely aptly, regard as the means of literary language alone is often used in our vernacular speech as well. For example, in our everyday speech we ourselves often replace the direct meanings of words (cf. pagramdukas—‘a small loaf of bread baked from scraped dough’ and pagramdukas—‘the youngest child in a family’), and express exaggerations or comparisons in distinctive ways (cf. he hit him so hard in the face that sparks flew from his eyes; he goes about like a blind man looking for the road), and rhyme certain expressions (cf. children are a torment, without children life is poor), and use many other similar things” (1997: 282). Skardžius illustrates the stylistic resources of language with the phenomenon known as gemination, cf.: stands in the forest’s edge, tiny tiny cottage; wherever I look—forests, forests everywhere (forests upon forests, i.e., a great many forests); I got up early early (i.e., very early), and so on. Further, in explaining the phenomenon of gemination, Skardžius shows that another branch of stylistics could be developed—HISTORICAL STYLISTICS1—which, unfortunately, is not developed at all in contemporary linguistic stylistics. 1 Plg. istorinės stilistikos objekto nusakymą (Rozenbergs 1995: 52). LINGVISTINĖS STILISTIKOS UŽUOMAZGOS 51 Like Jonas Jablonskis, who insisted that the standard language be based on the laws of the vernacular, or, in his words, the laws of the people’s language, Skardžius likewise urges researchers of stylistics to turn to the vernacular: “For this reason [since they must be close to the speaking community – V. K.], authors of works on stylistics, if they wish to represent properly the stylistic means of any language, cannot disregard the living, popular language. They must remember that not only can individual authors have their own style, but the language of every nation is stylistically distinctive in its own way, that is, it has a certain national style of its own” (1997: 283). Skardžius aptly observes that linguistic stylistics is closely connected with standard-language culture: “Moreover, the linguist encounters stylistics when concerned with the culture of the standard language, its purity, correctness, and so on: here he inevitably has to do with language standardization, with shaping its character in one way or another, and, according to E. Otto, this is precisely the subject of stylistics” (1997: 284). In this article, the linguist identifies the principal problems that arise in attempting to establish the boundaries of the object of linguistic stylistics. He discusses the misunderstandings that arise among linguists themselves and between linguists and writers concerning the links between grammar and stylistics, the very concept of style, and the national character of style (1997: 284). To overcome mutual misunderstanding, Skardžius proposes the following approach and principal tasks: 1) “to take a sober look at our respective fields of work”; 2) “to consider what our living language can objectively contribute to standard grammar and stylistics”; 3) “to reflect on what our literary language actually is and how it should relate to the standard language” (1997: 285). Aware in advance of the opinions of some writers (for example, Vincas Krėvė’s polemic against “nitpicking” linguists, and Balys Sruoga’s dissatisfaction with Juozas Balčikonis’s translations of Hauff’s fairy tales, 1927: 3–4), their resistance to looking to the living language (in Sruoga’s description, the speech of the shepherds of Pumpėnai), on the grounds that this constrained their creativity, Skardžius concludes the article by asserting the need to cultivate the Lithuanian character of the standard language: “If we want our standard language to be Lithuanian, then we likewise cannot deny the Lithuanian stylistic elements, so abundant in our living language and, as the studies of Vossler, Bally, and others show, of such great use to us in creating individual styles. Moreover, by carefully drawing on the treasury of this language, we acquire not only logical and intellectual, but also affective means of expression characteristic of us; we bring to light the stylistic character of our language as a whole and at the same time enable ourselves to express ourselves appropriately. Finally, as has been observed by more than one person, individual linguistic creativity must not overshadow the creative development of our national standard language: the two must be harmoniously and properly reconciled, and care must be taken to express individual variety vividly within the unity of the standard language. Turning our attention in this direction, we will find more common ground, come to know one another better, and contribute more positively to the shared creative development of our language” (1997: 285). Although Skardžius’s article “Grammar and Stylistics” was written more than 60 years ago, the problems it raises—the definition of linguistic stylistics and style, the relationship of linguistic stylistics to the language of the standard language and of belles lettres, the cultivation of the national character of style, and the inclusion in the object of linguistic stylistics of general requirements for stylistically sound language (appropriateness, purity, and so on)—remain relevant today. Skardžius’s positive view of the section “General Requirements for Stylistically Sound Language” in the first volume of Pikčilingis’s Stylistics of the Lithuanian Language I is therefore entirely understandable. 52 | VAIDA KNABIKAITĖ volume, although in Lithuania Pikčilingis was criticized for not clearly distinguishing the objects of study of linguistic stylistics and standard-language culture. In his review of the first part of Pikčilingis’s Aiduose Stylistics of the Lithuanian Language, Skardžius assessed the work very positively. He wrote: “While giving priority to matters of stylistic language, the possibilities of stylistic means of expression and the ways of realizing them, J. Pikčilingis at the same time keeps in view the requirements governing the use of the standard language and its correctness; consequently, he corrects many stylistic shortcomings in language, and, taken as a whole, his corrections are quite apt and cautious, and in many cases do not differ from those of J. Jablonskis and other linguists [...]” (Skardžius 1997: 507, 509). The review concludes with these words: “Taken as a whole, this work by J. Pikčilingis, the first of its kind in Lithuanian, is a highly valuable contribution to Lithuanian language culture, written with thorough preparation, insight, and discernment. All who seek good, stylistic Lithuanian—literary authors, scholars, journalists, newspaper writers, and others—will be able to learn a great deal from it; it will be equally useful to Lithuanians there and abroad” (Skardžius 1997: 509). This work is understood both as a continuation of the traditions of cultivating the standard Lithuanian language and as a new departure in that endeavor—the highest stage of its cultivation: THE CULTURE OF STYLE. In independent Lithuania, preparations for the cultivation of style had only begun. After the war, these matters could not have been of great concern to Lithuanian society either; therefore, only the years 1971–1975, when Pikčilingis’s two-part work Stylistics of the Lithuanian Language was published, can be considered the birth years of Lithuanian theoretical stylistics. 2. PETRAS JONIKAS’S VIEW OF THE FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENTIATION OF THE STANDARD LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE Petras Jonikas was the most prominent student of Pranas Skardžius and Antanas Salys and their closest associate at Vytautas Magnus University. He continued his studies at the universities of Riga, Königsberg, and Vienna, where he had the opportunity to meet Nikolai Trubetzkoy, one of the leading theorists of the Prague Linguistic School. He was especially interested in the works of Bohuslav Havránek, the Czech theorist of the written language, and was the first Lithuanian linguist to introduce functional language-culture theory into the standardization of the standard Lithuanian language (Sabaliauskas 1996: 4–6). Jonikas set out his view of the functional differentiation of the standard Lithuanian language in the theoretically significant article “The Problem of the Culture of Our Standard Written Language” (1937: 529–544). This article represents the first attempt in Lithuanian linguistics to examine the functional styles of the standard Lithuanian language. Of course, the author does not use the term FUNCTIONAL STYLE. Like Havránek, Jonikas calls the stylistic varieties of the standard language functional languages (1937: 538). The first part of the article, “The Need for a Discussion of Principles,” presents three propositions: 1) standard-language standardization (termed NORMALIZATION in the article); 2) the functional differentiation of language; 3) the role of linguists in addressing the first two problems (1937: 530). In the second part of the article, “Improving the Standard Written Language,” the author describes the Prague Linguistic School (phonology), “which the French linguist J. Vendryes has called the most active and productive school of linguistics in Europe at present [...] This LINGVISTINĖS STILISTIKOS UŽUOMAZGOS 53 The school, examining language in terms of a system of means of expression2, is particularly interested in the synchronic study of language, since this is where the various structures and levels of that linguistic system can best be understood. Thus, the standard written language, too, is a distinct system of its own, serving its own purpose. The research of that school can also be put to considerable use in improving the standard written language. This has already been demonstrated by the Prague Linguistic Circle (Pražský linguistický kroužek), which through its work (lectures and publications) contributed to the regulation and cultivation of the Czech written language [...]” (1937: 531). In the third part of the article, Jonikas discusses two concepts important to the theory of language culture—NORMALIZATION and STABILIZATION. Normalization is understood here as “the establishment of certain norms appropriate (valid) for the entire linguistic community” (1937: 532). Once the language norms have been established, care is taken to ensure that no one changes them arbitrarily, since otherwise the language would no longer be suitable for general use. Thus, stabilization is an immanent feature of the norms. In the fourth part of the article, entitled “The Source of Norms,” the author, having become acquainted with the views of the Prague Linguistic School, identifies the usage of the standard written language itself as the principal criterion for standardizing the standard language, unlike Jablonskis, who regarded the vernacular as the basis for standardizing the standard Lithuanian written language (see Palionis 1995: 289). Jonikas writes: “Difficulties might arise only when specifying this principle, for example: how far back into the past may this usage extend? Naturally, it is difficult to draw a precise boundary here. This boundary may vary from one language to another. For example, Czech linguists, members of the Prague Linguistic Circle, have decided to regard written-language usage over the last 50 years as the relevant span. For our usage, the span would be even shorter” (1937: 533). Jablonskis never proposed the usage of the contemporary standard written language as a criterion for standardization. According to Jonas Palionis, “Now, from the perspective of half a century, such a shift [from the vernacular to contemporary language usage – V. K.] may seem premature, but from the standpoint of the further development of standard Lithuanian, sooner or later it was necessary, since, as the sphere of use of this language continually expands and its functional styles grow and differentiate, the vernacular principle becomes too narrow and inadequate” (Palionis 1995: 289). In the fifth part of the article, “Criteria for Norms,” Jonikas lists the criteria for standardizing the written language as follows and in this order: 1. Purity, 2. Correctness, 3. Clarity, 4. Characteristic tendencies, 5. Expediency3. In the sixth part of the article, “Functional Language Structure—the Ultimate Basis for the Criteria,” Jonikas, for the first time in Lithuanian linguistics, discussed theoretical propositions not only concerning functional language culture but also functional stylistics. First, in this part of the article, the linguist raises the question: “Is language, in linguistic terms, in fact a functional structure, a system of purposeful symbols?” Thus, Jonikas was the first Lithuanian linguist to draw attention to the functional nature of linguistic phenomena. He explains: “[...] although the standard written language has common features distinguishing it from the vernacular, it nevertheless serves more than one purpose. Therefore, attention must always be paid to the FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENTIATION of the standard written language, examining it in greater detail— 2 The language of the article has not been changed. 3 Clarity, purity, and expediency are not only criteria for standard-language norms but also stylistic categories, discussed in the earliest Lithuanian works on stylistics; see, for example, M. Gustaitis’s Stilistika (1923) and others. 54 | VAIDA KNABIKAITĖ …specializing linguistic means. Let us say that the intellectualization of language means is gradual: there is less of it in everyday communication, more in the language of administration and the courts, and still more in the language of science. Likewise, the automatisms of one function cannot be transferred to another function, because, as we have seen, they become de-automatized there (disautomatized), and thus lose their agreed, determinate meaning” (1937: 538). Jonikas then presents the classification of the functions of the standard language formulated by Havránek, a theoretician of the standard language. Havránek considers the following to be functions of the standard language: 1) communicative, 2) special practical, and 3) special theoretical. All of them depend on the general COMMUNICATIVE function. The fourth function is aesthetic, which has no purpose of conveying a message. “According to these, four spheres of the standard language, or FUNCTIONAL LANGUAGES, should also be distinguished: 1) CONVERSATIONAL, 2) SPECIALIZED WORK (subject-specific) language (pracovní, věcný jazyk), 3) SCIENTIFIC, and 4) POETIC. Each of these functional languages has its own linguistic means, more or less different, and even an entire linguistic system. Therefore, a theoretician or editor of the standard written language cannot measure all these language varieties by the same yardstick or apply the same criterion to them all. Indeed, in ordinary CONVERSATION, the relationship between lexical units (words) and what they denote is loose (imprecisely defined), utterances are incomplete, and comprehensibility relies on the situation and on conversational automatisms. In SPECIALIZED WORK LANGUAGE, the relationship between lexical units and what they denote is conventional (the word is a term), utterances are relatively complete, and definiteness is achieved through special conventional automatisms (terms and formulas). In SCIENTIFIC LANGUAGE, by contrast, the relationship between lexical units and what they denote is strictly defined (the word is a concept), utterances are complete, and precision relies on definitional and codificational automatisms. That is why one cannot ‘write as one speaks’ or express a purely scientific topic ‘in human terms’, that is, by using the means of everyday vernacular” (Jonikas 1937: 539). This longer excerpt from the article “The Problem of the Culture of Our Standard Written Language” shows that Jonikas, following Havránek, uses the term FUNCTIONAL LANGUAGE instead of the now-established term FUNCTIONAL STYLE. The philosopher Stasys Šalkauskis (1886–1941), discussing Jonikas’s lectures (articles) “The Problem of the Culture of Our Standard Written Language” and “Correctness in the Standard Language” at the Lithuanian Language Society’s Permanent Terminology Section meetings in 1937–1938, suddenly observes that the relationship between the terms FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENTIATION OF THE STANDARD LANGUAGE and FUNCTIONAL LANGUAGES used by Jonikas is unclear. Having read Jonikas’s lecture-article “The Problem of the Culture of Our Standard Written Language,” St. Šalkauskis asks: “a) which is more accurate: to speak of the functions of the standard language or of functional languages, and b) what is the true relationship between the standard language and functional languages” (Čižikienė, Vitkauskas 1982: 33). Šalkauskis makes another very perceptive comment on the term FUNCTIONAL LANGUAGES: “It is not enough to speak of the functions of a single standard language, but it is too much to speak of adjacent functional languages as equal” (Čižikienė, Vitkauskas 1982: 34). Unfortunately, Šalkauskis’s questions were answered only in Pikčilingis’s work Lietuvių kalbos stilistika (1971), which describes the stylistic differentiation of the standard Lithuanian language. Havránek, too, apparently had similar doubts, and later introduced the term FUNCTIONAL STYLE into linguistic scholarship. In 1971, under the influence of the Russian tradition of stylistics, Pikčilingis unhesitatingly chose precisely this term—FUNCTIONAL STYLE—to describe the stylistic varieties of the standard Lithuanian language (see Pikčilingis 1971: 277–336). LINGVISTINĖS STILISTIKOS UŽUOMAZGOS | 55 Šalkauskis was especially critical of the seventh part, “The Language of Poetry,” of the article “The Problem of the Culture of Our Standard Written Language.” Drawing on Havránek’s theory of language automatization and actualization, Jonikas declared that the language of poetry “[...] is a deformation of the norm of the standard written language” (1937: 539). To support this claim, the article’s author gives examples from the works “A Girlish Spring” and “Baranauskas’s Sermon on Lithuanian Football” by J. Žengė, a poet associated with the Four Winds movement. Šalkauskis’s remarks analyzing Jonikas’s theoretical claims about the language of poetry are significant, enduring in value, and may be regarded as “cornerstone propositions in the theory of poetic language” (Čižikienė, Vitkauskas 1982: 31). Šalkauskis agrees with Jonikas’s claim that the language of poetry is the most individual, concrete, and highly determined or conditioned, and that the greatest actualization of linguistic forms is the function of poetic language. The article’s author’s claim that the language of poetry is a deformation of the norm of the standard written language, and that without this deformation there would be no poetry at all, is entirely unacceptable to the philosopher. The discussion between Šalkauskis and Jonikas brings to light several very important theoretical propositions for the science of stylistics. First, it demonstrates the close connection between the language norm and the corresponding functional style, in this case poetic language. In Šalkauskis’s view, the norm of the standard language is a reference system for evaluating a poetic work4. Second, it considers the nature and essence of the standard-language norm and its relationship to the language of a particular work and, more generally, to the norm of literary language. These questions were addressed much later, in the 1970s, by representatives of structural poetics. We see that, by choosing poetic texts by J. Žengė, a poet associated with the Four Winds movement, Jonikas nevertheless aptly demonstrated the actualization of poetic language, in which poetic language first and foremost “displays itself,” directing attention to its own expression. Jonikas understood well that questions concerning poetic language still awaited resolution. The study of the functions of poetic language is impossible without the development of functional stylistics; accordingly, the ninth part, “The Duties of Linguists,” of the article “The Problem of the Culture of Our Standard Written Language” states: “Their [the linguists’ – V. K.] most important task now is to explain the functional differentiation of the written language. This is already a fully ripe matter. Such an explanation would help others make better use of this functional differentiation and, in this way, raise the culture of the standard written language. They can pursue this either through studies of the separate functions of the standard language, that is, systematic analysis of linguistic means adapted to a particular purpose of language; or through criticism of separate aspects of the standard language and of individual linguistic forms” (Jonikas 1937: 543). At the end of the article, the principal task for linguists is stated: alongside a dictionary of the standard language and a grammar of the standard written language, they should also prepare “[...] a STYLISTICS that would bring out the functional differentiation of language” (Jonikas 1937: 544). Thus, to Jonikas, the development of Lithuanian functional stylistics seemed an already ripe matter, since the Lithuanian standard language developed rapidly during the years of independence (1918–1940). All the main functional styles of the standard language took shape: artistic, 4 In the 1970s, both linguists and poets, when considering the relationship between poetic language and the norms of the standard language, observed that “[...] the source of the language and style of poetry is no longer—as before—a dialect, any tradition, or, as in earlier stages of literary development, the norm-governed language. The source of poetic language is now very broad—it is what we might call PHILOLOGICAL CULTURE” (Martinaitis 1977: 15). “Our poetic culture has long used nonstandard elements as a means of expression, as a tradition of philological culture. They no longer hinder the establishment of language norms” (Rosinas 1977: 50). See also Mūsų kalba, no. 1, 1977, devoted to the discussion of the language of poetry. 56 | VAIDA KNABIKAITĖ mokslinis, publicistinis, kanceliarinis (Palionis 1995: 279–308). Deja, šio darbo imtis nespėta, nes lingvistinės lietuvių stilistikos (kartu ir kitų mokslo sričių) raida buvo keliems dešimtmečiams pristabdyta nepalankių istorinių aplinkybių – karo ir okupacijų. 3. CONCLUSIONS 1. The formation of the functional styles of written standard language—artistic, scientific, journalistic, and administrative—in the 1930s enabled the prominent linguists of that period, Skardžius and Jonikas, to raise the idea of a stylistic study of the Lithuanian language and to envisage the strategy, tactics, and objectives of such a study. 2. Jonikas was the first Lithuanian linguist to introduce the theory of functional language culture and functional stylistics developed by representatives of the Prague Linguistic School. From the perspective of this theory, the POETIC function of language was discussed for the first time; it is characterized by the maximal actualization of the text and the deformation of linguistic norms. 3. In the 1930s, the philosopher Šalkauskis and Jonikas debated the relationship between poetic language and the norms of standard language. From the perspective of contemporary functional stylistics, Šalkauskis’s view that the principal source of the language and style of poetry is normative language is too narrow. Jonikas’s claims are closer to the theoretical thinking of the representatives of structural poetics in the 1970s. 4. Drawing on Bally’s, Vossler’s, and Spitzer’s views on literary and linguistic stylistics, Skardžius also distinguishes between these two branches of stylistics. The objects of study of linguistic stylistics are: 1) individual types of style, 2) the expressive resources of language, 3) the cultivation of national style, and 4) individual style. This conception of the subject matter of stylistics was new and promising; consequently, other researchers have continued to develop studies along these lines. LITERATŪRA AMBRAZAS, V. 1999: Funkcinis stilius. Lietuvių kalbos enciklopedija, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 204–205. AMBRAZAS, V. 1999: Stilistika. Lietuvių kalbos enciklopedija, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 602–603. BALLY, CH. [Балли, Ш.] 1961: Французская стилистика, Москва: Издательство иностранной литературы. ČIŽIKIENĖ, N., VITKAUSKAS, V. 1982: Iš lietuvių kalbos norminimo istorijos. Stasys Šalkauskis apie kalbos norminimą. Mūsų kalba 5, 34–35. GUSTAITIS, M. 1923: Stilistika, Kaunas–Marijampolė. HAVRÁNEK, B. [Гавранек Б.] 1967: О функциональном расслоении литературного языка. Кондрашов, Н. А., ред., Пражский лингвистический кружок. Сборник статей, Москва, 432–443. JONIKAS, P. 1937: Mūsų bendrinės rašomosios kalbos kultūros problema. Židinys 12, 529–544. MARTINAITIS, M. 1977: Poezijos kasdieninė duona. Mūsų kalba 1, 12–18. PIKČILINGIS, J. 1971, 1975: Lietuvių kalbos stilistika 1–2, Vilnius: Mintis (1), Mokslas (2). PALIONIS, J. 1991: Gimtojo žodžio baruose. Petrui Jonikui – 85. Gimtoji kalba 4, 28–30. PALIONIS, J. 1995: Lietuvių rašomosios kalbos istorija, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. ROSINAS, A. 1977: Spaudos apžvalga. Mūsų kalba 1, 46–51. ROSINAS, A. 1994: Bendrinės kalbos ugdymo pagrindai ir jos kodifikavimo kriterijai P. Skardžiaus teoriniuose straipsniuose. Lietuvių kalba: tyrėjai ir tyrimai. Konferencijos pranešimų tezės, Vilnius, 6. LINGVISTINĖS STILISTIKOS UŽUOMAZGOS 57 Rosinas, A. 1996: Pranas Skardžius ir jo darbai. Pranas Skardžius, Rinktiniai raštai 1,Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, VII–XXVIII. Rozenbergs, J. 1995: Latviešu valodas stilistika, Rīga: Zvaigzne ABC. Sabaliauskas, A. 1979: Lietuvių kalbos tyrinėjimo istorija iki 1940 m., Vilnius: Mokslas. Sabaliauskas, A. 1996: Petras Jonikas. Gimtoji kalba 4, 4–8. Sabaliauskas, A. 1999: Jonikas. Lietuvių kalbos enciklopedija, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 281–282. Sabaliauskas, A. 1999: Skardžius. Lietuvių kalbos enciklopedija, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 583–584. Savukynas, B. 1977: Poet inės kalbos specifika. Mūsų kalba 1, 3–9. Skardžius, Pr. 1938: Gramatika ir stilistika. Naujoji Romuva 51/52, 991–992. Skardžius, Pr. 1997: Bendrinės kalbos dalykai. Rinktiniai raštai 2, sudarė ir parengė spaudai A. Rosinas, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 281–285, 502–509, 609–612. Sruoga, B. 1927: Apie kalbininkus ir rašytojus. Lietuva 12, 3–4. Zinkevičius, Z. 1992: Lietuvių kalbos istorija 5. Bendrinės kalbos iškilimas, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Vaida Knాబikaitė Lietuvių kalbos katedra Vilniaus universitetas Universiteto g. 5, 2734 Vilnius, Lietuva Gauta 2002 03 22