Nuo senojo prie naujojo „Kalbos praktikos patarimų“ leidimo

ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA LITHUANIAN KALBOTYROS QUESTIONS XLII (2000) Rita MILIŪNAITĖ Lithuanian Language Institute, Vilnius NUO SENOJO PRIE NEW ‘LANGUAGE PRACTICES ADVICE’ AUTHORIZATION 1. About the preparatory work Pagal A new third edition of “Language ir Practice 1996-2005 m. Tips” is being prepared for the — State Language Use Education Program. The first edition came out 1976, the second — 1985 m. as a collective of authors (Sud. A. Pupkis, vyr. editor Z. Zinkevičius) prepared in Lithuania 1990. pp. 11. The National ir Trust for Historic Preservation — Publication of the National Language Commission. "Language Practice Tips" (hereinafter referred to as — KPP) is an — authoritative work of language culture, a preferred book of common language users. Although in recent meappears tu various similar publications (or D. Book compiled by Mikulėnienė "How not to speak" (1991), N. Linkevičienės ir L. Laužikas "Language Tips for Journalists" (1997), J. Šukio “Language tips for history teachers” (1998) and “Language tips for mathematics teachers” (1998) ir etc.), they are usually dedicated to more specific purposes, to, obviously, be KPP data. So Tips — a publication for general consumer needs side by side with ir “The Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian Language”, “The Grammar of Contemporary Lithuanian Language”, “The Spelling ir of Lithuanian Spelling” are the most important (hereinafter — referred to as bk). On the other hand, a period of silence of several decades since the second — edition is too long for such a publication; this is almost the limit when the forthcoming edition can still be called a third, and not a fundamentally new work. Testimony will have to be maintained, and this, it must be assumed, will be determined by some of the former authors of the previous editions and members of the editors' college - their accumulated experience will be taken over. However, it is also understandable that various objective circumstances have arisen during this period, which may lead to some quantitative and qualitative changes in the third CAP authorisation. Two of the most important circumstances are mentioned (although they in turn could be broken down into smaller ones) — these are: 1) changes in bk usage (including changes in the needs of bk users in a narrower sense); 2) changes in the language normative work (the prerequisites for them are, among other things, the possibility to rely on more extensive data, more systematic collections of them, and the strengthening of the status of language supervisory institutions). These two circumstances make it possible to highlight the problems that arise when moving from old to new. 180 During the period of preparatory work for the third edition of the KPP (1996-1998- ), supported by the State Lithuanian Language Commission, various issues were raised, which had to be discussed before mo the authors took up specific corrections and additions to the new edition. (see section 4.4). Guidelines 1998). The preparatory work was carried out in the following directions: 1) changes in the current usage are monitored (the inventory of variants of the current usage accumulated in the Language Culture Department of the Lithuanian Language Institute was used); 2) language guidelines that appeared after the second edition of the CPP (approximately since 1983) were collected, systematized and computerized from more relevant sources for language practice? 3) the second authorization of the CPP (having an electronic form) is examined from a systematic point of view. 2. Quantitative changes in CPP When preparing publications like the CPP, a few seemingly simple questions have to be answered: what to present, how to present and how to organize the work. On the basis of what has already been done in the above-mentioned areas of work, and in the light of the above-mentioned circumstances – changes in usage and language normative work – these issues can be further elaborated. The question “what to present- ?” forces us to consider the content of the CPP, i.e. the scope of language phenomena assessed in the publication. Of course, it is necessary to add what is relevant to current bk users. However, relevance should not be understood in a straightforward and too narrow way: current consumption is more than everyday consumption. It also includes such areas of BC (especially journalistic, artistic style), in which the layers of language phenomena are much thicker than the superficial layer. Furthermore, from a social point of view, it is a three-generation usage, in which the language habits of people with different linguistic experiences are integrated. First of all, the superficial relevance or non-relevance of language phenomena in relation to the realities of life they describe should not be misleading. It is not cautious to argue that a thing that has lost its relevance in everyday life, along with irreversibly! The preparatory work was carried out by the editors of „Gimtoji kalba“, assisted by the staff of the Language Culture Department of the Lithuanian Language Institute, as well as by Lithuanianists from several other institutions. * Language specialists’ deliberations, language corrections, various opinions on specific issues of language standardization, as well as more important suggestions from language users are recorded. For example, different approaches to the same language phenomenon —the prefix for denoting the removal of the derivatives of past participles — can be seen from the following recommendations: J. Palionis (1990: 156), A. Kaulakienė (1992: 9), Z. Mačionis (1995). In addition, the most important language recommendations published since 1995 in periodical press and in specialised language literature are included in the “Information Bulletin of Language Advice” (Bulletin 1997; Bulletin 1998). 181 Secondly, if in the linguistic consciousness of the society a concept exists longer than the thing itself, even if its expression passes into passive use, a reverse process is also possible. Thus, for example, į daboklė and urėdas (urėdija), DŽ, which had been added with references psn, were revived. su ir history. Thus, we should abandon only the truly obsolete or perhaps accidentally entered into the KPP, as well as the doubtful language phenomena (for example, militiaman, gas welder, etc.). And vice versa, it is necessary to add what was perhaps forgotten, but is still alive or has been activated again in usage (for example, the borrowed words ermyderis, važnyčioti, pėškom, tačka, smičius; the -imvietė construction type of compound words: augimvietė, perimvietė, etc.; it would be appropriate to have a section on word order, etc.). What is to be added? First of all, what language normists have already codified in other works over this time, for example: anūkas, barachitas, kompromatas, kumyras, dukterinis, -ė (subsidiary company- ), vinis (event nail), voliotis (‘to throw, to riogsoti’); endings -abilus, -i (konkurentabilus, -i, transportabilus, -i), -menas (džazmenas, jachtsmenas), -ikas (kubikas, pufikas), the case of a nobleman (Salto smoking ham) and many Other. Moreover, it is not too late to assess what we seem not to have a clear answer for so far: imlus, -i to whom or to what? Or: Should the verbs be lost, confused with the meanings “to be disturbed, to be confused”, if these meanings are neither as normative DZ,, nor corrected KPP,, and the opinions of the normists differ? (plg. : Tarvydaitė 1990: 16; Vitkauskas 1991: 26). The CPP should show the most complete context of the evaluated phenomena, therefore the examples of recommendations and substitutes should be filled in, for example: buvoti — not only visiting, being, but also visiting,. isirasėti į ką —not only to fit into what, but also to adapt to what,...; išlaikytas, -a —not only restrained, -i, polite, -i, but also agreeable, -i, išmislas —not only a fiction, but also a prūmanas,...; provoke —not only cause, but also arouse (a desire),...; pavesti —not only to disappoint, seduce, deceive, but also not to justify hopes, expectations,...; overcome —not only to worry, mourn, [...], but also to cry,..., etc. In order to maintain consistency, other data of the second edition should also be processed. 3 For example, is it possible to consider as a serious argument the statement that repairing kerzavi (=kerziniai) shoes (kerzos) is no longer relevant because “those shoes are no longer in stores”? (Cf. the sentence from the prosecutor’s letter from 1994: J. N.’s leather shoes were taken from the apartment. Mother Tongue, 1995, No. 1, p. 11.) Or how the following facts seem to be compared: in the Language Commission, during the discussion of the List of the Great Language Errors (1993), the preposition on was deleted from the examples of corrections to the word bartai on platforms — also as obsolete, and in 1996 “Verslo žinios” already announces that women’s shoes on “platforms” appeared again in fashion at the shoe fair in Düsseldorf (1996 08 30), not to mention that they soon appeared on the street and again — in language. 182 1. Activated unwanted usage forces to fill in the following sections: ir restore, deep, -i, constant, -i, fresh, -ia (refreshablir e), in the memory section requires compound light memory correction; is rough, -i, not roughly, is rich with what, not enriched with what ir t. t. 2. Some general sections of word formation, morphology and syntax must be ir completed. For example, there are no hints for noun forms, as they are in usage (Dear guests! ti ar Dear guests!) — in this case it is so ne important that linguists have no common opinion here, users still need some answer if the usage is variant. 3. Some phenomena CPP, presented only in the form of a concrete expression as — individual corrections, but usage data indicate that this has sometimes been extended to a more abstract model. For example, the ending su -istinis, given -ė only carist, (presented alphabetically), -ė can be maximalist, -ė, o formalist, ir -ė ir kt ; only three single words (overweight, supernatural, -ė, overprofits) with the prefix oversubmitted; there is no case where the noun is incorrectly controlled by adjectives, alphabetically given o eight specific corrections (good milk, strong spirit, etc.) —in usage this is a very widespread pattern (cf. the oldest in age, high ambitions, beautiful outwardly, etc.). ir 4. On the principle of alphabetic writing į KPP, there are some random ir things: there is a general adverb section, where adverbs from active participants are corrected into passive forms (instructive — better instructive), and alphabetically inserted four words (begging, seeing, scorning, scorning; perhaps it is not a coincidence that the first and third were once included in the 1939 “Language Adviser”) —what worse would calming or frightening be? There is also a general section, providing not to use adverbs with -iniai, but alphabetically, in addition, corrects physical, mathematical and still fiber (why not musical, artistic?..). Similar unlexicalized cases should not be raised separately. 5.The same alphabetic writing principle lacks a system for presenting different things of the same level, such as prefixes and suffixes. Not every prefix section will find cases not to be presented divided on the same basis. In some places there are separately derived prepositional verbs, which are incorrectly used in the meaning of the action, in others — names of actors or devices, incorrectly made from prepositional verbs (for example, a section consisting of three subsections), elsewhere it is mixed into one (for example, prepositional at-). The non-normative cases of the -ėjas, -tojas suffixes, which are usually discussed together, are also presented differently: in the section -ėjas the names of devices, machines and materials are separated, and the -tojas indicates only the meaning of tools and devices, although various examples are added. Thus, the conclusion regarding changes in the content of the CPP: there are many things to be harmonised and the facts should be presented more consistently. This should be facilitated by the choice of a different writing principle in the new edition — not alphabetical, as in previous editions, but in terms of language (the authors write separately the subjects of lexis, word formation, morphology, syntax). 183 ir Write solid text in equal spaces after ir arranging and editing everything alphabetically should be easier (the selected system is ir maintained in the subsystem order) than later to ir edit the uniform alphabetically po scattered language to phenomena of the same type throughout the work. However, it is emphasized that the final In the CPP, the presentation of data must remain alphabetical so as to be — most user-friendly. Separate consideration should be given to the extent į KPP must be placed in peripheral phenomena, especially bk special languages (especially terms), as well as jargon style ir (in the sense of style) things. CFP, everything is there, we can't to give up ir anymore, we just need to be more consistent. As far as possible, you should rely on statistics as frequent — in the usage of one bk another phenomenon. ar For example, if we look at "In the railwayman- 's dictionary" (In the case of the 1992) Germanic languages, there is a distinct distinction ne between the morphological and the semantic aspects of the ir language.) — kasvieté, jack hoist, — dynamometer, ergometer, — etc. ; and vice versa, the CPP publication would not need the fascicle spec. (: 1. inclined; 2. groove) ar flange (: joint). Traditionally, vocabulary, word formation, morphology, and syntax are included in the CPP from the linguistic domains. Spelling, diphthongation, conjugation, and pronunciation—the business of other normative publications. However, it is worth considering whether the morphology should not be expanded to include advice on how to use some more common form variants. For example, it would be useful for users to clarify how to look at the variants daliti: dalyti, žvejas: žvejys, kraujyje: kraujyje, etc., especially since KPP has several similar statements (analizas —analizė, mėgiamas —mėgiamas, etc.). Traditionally, a list of place names is given in the CPP annex. There are proposals to significantly expand it (now we would not even find the name of Lithuania, which is difficult to pronounce for language users), to add names of ethnic Lithuanian lands abroad and the most important places in the world. 3. Qualitative changes in the CPP Changes in usage and language normative work also specify the question of how to provide the necessary data for the CPP. This relates to the theoretical and methodological basis of normative work. The specific work of codification is carried out continuously, publications important for language practice are published, and there have been very few more pronounced theoretical changes in language standardization over the past 15 years.” Without entering into * * Cf. several theses from J. Palionis’ report “A few remarks on the work of our language culture” (Palionis 1996: 21): “2. So far we have not formulated and published well-thought-out and collectively considered theoretical foundations for the development of the Lithuanian common language culture, suitable for the current situation of the functioning of this language.” [...] „5. Successful work on common language culture is also impeded by the shortcomings of our methodology of codification activities: a) the tendency to hypertrophize the so-called ‘language errors’, b) the rigorism of language correctors, c) insufficient argumentation of corrective matters, d) ignoring the usage of authoritative linguists, e) poor coordination of the codification work [...]”. 184 closer theoretical considerations (see section 4.4). Girdenis, Pupkis 1996: 1—5; Kniūkšta 1996: 28— 39; Principles 1997: 1-3), what is important in this regard KPP. First of all, there is a need to review and refine the error ir limits of the standards. Ką ne ką will have to evaluate newly — recognized more strictly correctibo le phenomena, in some cases, on the contrary, expand the limits of the norm. This can be done in two ways to change — the valuelevmo el or (and) adjust the way ir the error rate is described — in the definition itself. For example, in KPP, the preposition about is strictly corrected in verbs requiring the finalis to witness, declare, mark, remember, etc. su ir Nevertheless, it was found that: (Valiulytė 1995: 56-62), that these variants final prepositional — construction at ir least some verbs may have — some shades of su meaning (not the same: the newspaper announces the lottery ir the newspaper announces the lottery), ir so it is necessary to ir describe the error more precisely, to mitigate the degree of evaluation. The essence of standardization is probably ir to search for a boundary between what is suitable for a common language and what is unacceptable or at least undesirable for ir it. ar However, in addition to the phenomena that exist in their pure form, there are a number of transitional cases, which are caused by ir internal causes of the language ir itself, various external circumstances, including the influence of other languages. Clear boundaries of norms are blurred by exceptions if they become too many. For example, according to V. P. Ways, system holes occur, over-spreading fittings -ietis (Bould be 1996). Especially delicate are sometimes those cases where the basis of the distinction between norm and error is not form but semantics. In general, the presentation of semantics in CPP seems to be the most problematic. These are language phenomena that are not easily regulated — there are not very clearly established criteria as to how much changes in the meaning of a word are possible and how much should be stopped. And even the lexicologists themselves admit that in Lithuanian dictionaries "interpretations of meanings remain very inconsistent" (Jakaitienė 1996: 4), — need to study in detail the systemic relationships of different groups of semantic words. While such studies are lacking, it is not easy to properly present corrections of meanings and interpretations of normative usage ir KPP. For various reasons, the boundaries between living and dead, abstract ir and concrete, ir constant and changeabir le can be blurred. For ar example, neat, intelligent, intellectual, professional can be only a person, or and any inanimate object (e.g.: messy dish washer, reasonable prices, intellectual products, professional knives or air conditioners- )? By putting words of different semantic connections into the same context, the difference can be eliminated: Let's not talk about how much we and our dogs eat, but about the current situation and order Republika, 1992 08 04; Lately, Germans [... | decorate their bedroom walls with original framed photos of loved people, animals or birds Lietuvos rytas, 1997 03 05. Another example. We do not hesitate to fix the stain remover, the rust binder, but we stop at the mechanical cook or the automatic translator, because we know that it can also be so: medicine — a good painkiller (not a painkiller!), and improper food — a life-shortener. 185 When looking for limits, especially when the norm is not yet clearly established, one can still see some different tendencies. ar How to show them? Here we should talk about the system of degrees of evaluation of language phenomena (see section 4.4). Miliūnaitė 1995: 45-46). CPP, there are four distinct grades of evaluation (plg. jų the p. 9-10): 1) description 2) a=b; a-b; al||b; 3) a|b): the clear 4) error is 1) indicated by the strictest degree of assessment, when marked n.., not used, t. y. is given on the left side of the expression not to use: gvintas — n. world. thread, thread; I can't — keep it. r. "deduct" etc. ir ; in specific corrections between the evaluated variants, the equality Zenkla® is written; a more moderate 2) than strict degree of evaluation gives the phenomenon better not to use; abbreviated marking better or better not used, one dash is written between the evaluated o variants when correcting: kalba eina geriau is kalbama; actually better actually, truth, real — etc. — iš iš ir KPP, phenomena evaluated at this level are described as not being considered language errors, but jų are advised not to be used because there are better alternatives (KPP,: 9); 3) the same variants of the norm, but nevertheless always ne equivalent, are indicated by parallel jų dashes du between them; the phenomenon presented on the right is considered a little better for various reasons: lampshade lampshade; withdraw from || ko || to give up, ko ir etc. ; 4) equivalent variants of the norm (sometimes duplicates, sometimes synonyms) are jų indicated by the presentation in brackets (usually where the normative usage is discussed): (from joy) shone, in the working age (working age) the stone ir crumbled and so on. KPP, esama ir ne not clear (at least for readers) descriptions — "sometimes better", "somewhere better", "much better", e.g.: decide — much better determine, determine, condition; something —somewhere better somebody, something, this, that, etc. Similar ways of assigning the norm and error are considerably undefined, leaving rather the freedom of choice of one or another, free interpretation. ne ar o Such cases should either be judged according to the above degrees, or, if they relate to partial style norms, by Zymétini special abbreviations (sometimes, by the way, this is done: question —kanc., elsewhere better not to use). Assessment grade system CPP needs to be improved, first of all, in order to harmonise the assessment of the same phenomena in different places. For example, testify about what (a=b, p. 24 and „sometimes better“, p. 149), perform with verb nouns (a-b, p. 34) and execute with verb nouns of abstract meaning (a=b, p. 348), as well as execute with verb nouns (a||b, p. 349) and so on.” By the way, it should be borne in mind that after the Language Commission approved the List of Great Language Errors, there appeared as if another kind of errors —errors that are highly condemnable and even punishable if necessary; its CPP, should be specifically marked, for example with an asterisk, as a subspecies of strict corrections. 186 Secondly, it is necessary to define more su clearly the relationship between the language norm and each evaluation level, especially the two transitional ones (a-b and a||b). The very existence of degrees of evaluation allows to look at the evaluated phenomena more precisely, more flexibly and to record changes in the norm by shifts of those degrees, i.e. to avoid revolutionary leaps, when today consumption is still permitted, and tomorrow it is declared a major error. It is important to clarify and agree, for example, whether “better” means better to use umbrella than umbrella, although umbrella is good (not a mistake), or whether umbrella is better to avoid as a minor error, an undesirable word, and instead prefer umbrella, i.e. evaluate those two variants a-b (p. 147), or perhaps move to “better” a||b, as is DŽ, (umbrella see umbrella; for this cf. Keinys 1996: 11-13). It is clear that the degree a-b ("better") should show a greater shift of the value of the phenomenon towards the error, and a||b ("better") — towards the core of the norm. In this way, intermediate, transitional degrees should be an expression of potential error and the periphery of norms. In general, the KPP can be conceived as a publication that does not show the stagnant state of the past (codification, after all, always lags behind the real norm), but the direction of the crystallization and development of the norms of a particular period, acknowledging that the language itself is alive, having one or another tendency to use. Thus, the consumer should be able to see from the CPP what is viable and supportable in the common language, and what can be gradually abandoned. The relationship of the CPP with other normative works, especially with the “Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian Language” and the “Grammar of Contemporary Lithuanian Language” should also be considered. The normative DZ, the second edition of the KPP, was in places a real obstacle: ten years after the DZ, some things seemed not appropriate, but it was necessary to adjust to the preserved, although outdated norms. With a more flexible system of evaluation grades, “Patarimai” should nevertheless not be afraid of half-tone differences from the aforementioned works (and in turn from DZ. cf. Danielius 1997: 14-19) in some cases, if this can really be based on changes in both bk usage and normative work. It is important that there should be no conflicts and contradictions in principle, which first of all undermine the authority of such works in society and create distrust in language norm-setters. The solution of the issues arising at the intersection of tradition and the present will depend, of course, on the authors and editors of the CPP themselves. This time it was important to show what you need to think about before you start processing specific data — think about the whole of the publication. It should be 187 emphasized that such a continuous work requires a permanent working collective and a systematic approach — a consistent study of the use and consumer needs, even a targeted organization of normative work. Now just tried to go į tą half and, if it proves to be somewhat successful, there will be clearer guidelines for future work. Received 1998 12 04 LITTERACY IR SOURCES Newsletter 1997: Language advice newsletter 1, 2, 3, Vilnius: Institute ir of Science and Technology. Newsletter 1998: Language advice newsletter 4, 5, 6, Vilnius: Institute ir of Science and Technology. Method V. P. 1996: The Olympic ar Olympic. — Dienovidis, 1996 06 28. Daniel M. 1997: Unpresentable words in the dictionary (DŽ,) ir In the tips (KPP,). — Culture of language 70, 14-19. 1 DZ. — Current Lithuanian Language Dictionary, Vilnius: Mintis, 1972. DZ. — Current Lithuanian Language Dictionary, Vilnius: Science ir encyclopedias publishing 1993. house, Guidelines 1998: Language Practice Tips: Third Edition. Guidelines for work [conversation]. — Mother tongue 12, 1-10. Girdenis A. Pupkis A. 1996: Principles of language standardization. — Mother tongue 8, 1-5. GZ 1992: The Railway Dictionary. Compiled by N. Juškaitė, St. Keinys, Vilnius. Modern E. 1996: Lithuanian Lexicography. — Mother tongue 6, 1-5. Kaulakienė A. 1992: Desalinated water? — Mother tongue 4-5, 9. Keinys S. 1996: Umbrella ar umbrella and tap crane ar which is — better? — Mother tongue 2, 11—13. Kniūkšta P 1996: The purpose of — language management is to develop language. — Culture of language 68, 28-39. KPP, — Language Practice Tips, Vilnius: Science 1985. and Technology, Mačionis Z. 1995: Why not make languages more flexible? — The Morning Show 1995 11 15. Miliūnaitė R. 1995: Variant phenomena of general language usage (fixation ir evaluation). — Culture of language 67, 39-49. Palionis J. 1990: Language culture, its theory ir and practice. — Victory 1, 141-157. Palionis J. 1996: A few remarks about our language culture work. — The Lithuanian language: theoretical and practical problems. Thesis of the seminar. Vilnius: Danielius. Principles 1997: Principles of Lithuanian language management, application of ir jų codification criteria / Approved by the State Lithuanian Language Commission. —Native Language 4, 1-3. Tarvydaitė D. 1990: Is it correct to lose? —Native Language 6, 16. Valiulytė E. 1995: Is it possible to remember, to forget about what? —Language Culture 67, 56-62. 1991. "The Great War: A History of Warfare- ". —Words and Meanings 1, 24—28, Vilnius: Mokslas. GUIDELINES ON LANGUAGE USE. FROM THE OLD EDITION TO THE NEW ONE Summary Guidelines on Language Use (GLU) is a collection of language corrections and recommendations. After an interval of more than ten years, its third edition is now being prepared. Therefore, there is a natural need to revise and update many of its issues. Preliminary work has been carried out in the following areas: modern usage changes have been followed; linguistic recommendations issued after the second edition was published have been collected, systematised and computerised; 188