ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA

LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI XLII (2000)

Pranas KNIŪKŠTA

Lietuvių kalbos institutas, Vilnius

ELEMENTS OF ADMINISTRATIVE LANGUAGE IN THE WRITINGS OF JONAS JABLONSKIS

Introduction

Our administrative language was destined to lag behind the language of other fields and other functional styles. As we know, written Lithuanian emerged in the sixteenth century, but for a long time only religious and literary works were published in it. It was not until much later, in the nineteenth century, that scholarly and journalistic works began to appear and the rudiments of scholarly and journalistic language began to take shape; in official state life, however, Lithuanian was not used until the twentieth century, and documents and administrative correspondence (except for individual circulars written in East Prussia) were not written in Lithuanian. Even at the end of the nineteenth century, when efforts began to regulate and standardize the Lithuanian literary language, no one raised or discussed administrative-language issues separately. During the oppression of tsarism and the press ban, it was difficult to imagine documents written in Lithuanian. Even after the press was regained, official documents and other administrative correspondence were written in Russian; at the time, even the minutes of the Lithuanian Scientific Society had to be written in that language.

Lithuanian administrative language began to take shape as a distinct functional style only in the early twentieth century. Its development was prompted above all by the restoration of the press and the public discussion of the affairs of the societies active at the time. Even pamphlets appeared that discussed administrative correspondence and office work. Among them were “The Statutes of the Vilnius Lithuanian Relief Society,” printed in 1904, and the pamphlet “Universal, Equal, Secret and Direct Voting.”

As a document in the history of administrative language, the 1906 “Lithuanian Office Clerk,” published in Riga, is of interest. As its subtitle puts it, it is “An instructional book on how to write letters, greetings, petitions (prašenes), and other documents, properly and suitably prepared for every need and every person, and for those who do not know how to write” (Riga. L. Jakavičius Lithuanian Book Printing House. 1906). It discusses the most general questions concerning the writing of various documents and includes advice and examples of letters and addresses. It is true that examples of “official” documents—petitions, promissory notes, contracts, wills, and powers of attorney—are in Russian, but they are discussed in Lithuanian in the preface and explanatory notes. Among the expressions in the booklet, it is worth noting those still in use today: duoti atsakymą, kreipiasi su prašymu, as well as those later replaced by more Lithuanian forms: laiškai rašomi pas viršininką (“letters are written to the superior”), į pirklius (“to merchants”), pirklystės reikaluose (“in commercial matters”); paduodu (“I submit”) several paveikslėlių (“examples”).

190

Among the terms that took root, the more important ones are viršininkas, prierašas, prašymas (“superior,” “annotation,” “request”; the form prašėnė is given in parentheses), adresas (“address”; written in parentheses alongside antrašo), and kontraktai (“contracts”; written in parentheses alongside sankalbos). Among the terms that did not take root, besides paveikslėlių, prašenės, sankalbos, other interesting ones are įgaliotinė (“power of attorney”) and pasurga (“note”).

The rudiments of administrative language can be found in newspaper articles of the period that discuss schools, societies, and other aspects of public life. Jonas Jablonskis also wrote a considerable number of such articles. In his articles and other writings, when discussing these matters, Jablonskis uses the words and expressions needed to describe them, which, judging by their meaning and character, can be classified as administrative language. In addition, he mentions or even discusses words used by others in this field, thereby contributing to their adoption and establishment.

Such articles and essays appear in the first volume of Jablonskis’s writings, “Articles on Society” (Jablonskis’s Writings. Volume I. Articles on Society. Edited by J. Balčikonis. Kaunas, 1933; hereafter R., vol. 1), and in the second volume, “Educational Affairs” (Jablonskis’s Writings. Volume II. Educational Affairs. Edited by J. Balčikonis. Kaunas, 1933; hereafter R., vol. 2). They can be divided into several groups.

I. Early articles on publications and documents concerning administrative affairs

1. Statutes of the Vilnius Lithuanian Relief Society. Vilnius, 1904 [1904, “Vilniaus Žinios” No. 10]. – R., vol. 1, p. 81.

The article is a brief annotation of a translated booklet. Its essence is outlined, and its language is presented and discussed. Jablonskis describes the contents of the booklet using its own words: It is a small book in which the statutes of the sole Lithuanian society in Vilnius are set down. The booklet describes: the society’s purpose, funds, members, members’ rights and duties, the procedure for granting benefits, the society’s board, meetings, etc. As we can see, it contains administrative-language terms, some of which have survived to this day: funds, members, benefit, board, meeting; others have now been refined or acquired a new meaning: draugovė ‘society’, įstatymai ‘bylaws’, (narių) tiesos ‘rights’, priedermės ‘duties’; the expression tvarka pašalpas skiriant ‘procedure for granting benefits’ also belongs among the latter.

Jablonskis views the language of the booklet, and thus its bureaucratic terms, favorably (“…the translation is fairly bold, not slavish”), though with some reservations: “its language, it seems, has been considerably worked over and may provide some material for developing our own terminology.” He is no doubt referring to administrative-language terms. He separately identifies the following words in the booklet belonging to this domain: narys (‘member’; the word is distinguished from sąnarys, ‘joint’), paslauga, sąskaita, apskaita, samota (‘calculation’). He offers only one word of his own, bendrovė, writing it alongside draugovės; this may suggest that he distinguishes them, but more likely that he prefers bendrovei.

2. Our Books. Universal, equal, secret, and direct suffrage. By P. Višinskis [1905, “Lietuvos Ūkininkas” No. 1, p. 20]. – R., vol. 1, pp. 109–110.

191

The article discusses matters concerning “the people’s government” and its election, as well as the aforementioned booklet. The only words given as those of the booklet itself are its title: Universal, equal, secret, and direct suffrage, in which balsavimas (‘suffrage’) is the term, qualified by modifiers. Otherwise, Jablonskis writes in his own words and expressions, among which the following belong to the language of administrative documents: (the country’s) government, (all) authorities, (the country’s) representatives, elections, voters (the verb renka, ‘elects’, also occurs); expressions such as pildyti (‘carry out’) the public’s nusprendimus (‘decisions’); represent… the inhabitants, one’s voters; decides on… the country’s affairs. In his own way, using forms different from those in the booklet’s title, he explains the principles of voting, namely, representatives must be elected by: 1) all… adults, 2) all equally… 3) all by secret ballot… 4) directly or immediately… Two things are significant here: the expression pilnamečiai žmonės (‘adult people’) and the synonym tiesiai (‘directly’), given alongside betarpiškai (‘immediately’), which Jablonskis apparently prefers.

3. Vilnius, December 17, 1904 [1904, “Vilniaus Žinios” No. 18]. – R., vol. 1, pp. 79–80.

The article recounts and explains, “in its own way, in simpler words of its own,” the Supreme Decree issued for “the whole Russian land.” It needs explaining because “we are not accustomed to speaking as people do in such decrees.” Thus Jablonskis explicitly alludes to the distinctive language of documents, in other words, administrative language.

Jablonskis’s own style is clearly narrative, with quite a lot of participial language, which is unsuitable for a business style. Only individual words and expressions he uses are bureaucratic: vyriausybė, valdininkai, viešpatystė (‘state’), luomas, paliepimas (apparently ‘decree’), nužiūrėjimas (‘discretion’), įvedimai (newly introduced matters—‘amendments’), sprendžiamas balsas.

There are more expressions that approach administrative language, revealing the beginnings of this style in Jablonskis’s own language: that peasants might acquire the same tiesos (‘rights’); that they might be equal in rights to the other… estates; before the court all estates… are equal; there will be no coercion… on the part of the government; to entrust matters to certain laws; a person’s offense against the laws will be judged; it narrows and restricts… the inhabitants’… tiesas (‘rights’) (the verb more commonly used in this sense is siaurinti, ‘to narrow’; mažino svetimtaučių tiesas (‘he diminished the rights of foreigners’) is also used); the court has the deciding vote. Here we already see bureaucratic expressions: įgyti tiesas (‘acquire rights’), varžo tiesas (‘restrict rights’), to entrust matters (to someone), equal before the court, an offense against the law, has the deciding vote. In addition, we find a sentence with correlatives viena… antra… (‘on the one hand… on the other…’: one, it is said, there are very many people of that estate, and, on the other, much in the lives of peasants must be revised and put in order).

II. Articles about the Panevėžys Teachers’ Seminary

Many of them were published in the newspaper „Lietuvos Ūkininkas“ (1906, Nos. 22, 24, 29, 32, 37; 1907, Nos. 6, 7). – R., vol. 2, pp. 6–24; (1908, Nos. 20, 96). – R.,

192

vol. 2, pp. 40–42; one—in the newspaper „Vilniaus Žinios“ (1907, No. 71). – R., vol. 2, pp. 27–29.

In the articles in this group, we find words with a shade of meaning associated with office language, relating to education, teaching, admission to school, and documents in this field. From the field of education, besides familiar terms such as school, teacher, and seminary, worth noting are apšvietimas “education” (apšvietimo ministerija, “Ministry of Education”; apšvietimo ministeris, “Minister of Education”), now unfamiliar to us; pradedamoji “primary” school; žmonių “people’s” school; and įžengiamoji “preparatory” klasė “class.”

Admission to the seminary is usually expressed with the verb stoti and its prefixed form įstoti (įstoti į seminariją, “to enter the seminary”; įstoti seminarijon also occurs, p. 10). Those wishing to enroll are admitted to the seminary.

The main document for admission is an application. Other documents attached to it are mentioned (p. 21): metrikai (in parentheses—birth and baptism certificate), paliudijimas apie kilimą (“certificate of origin”), paliudijimas iš mokyklos (“certificate from the school”), and a note from the parents (or guardians). A doctor’s certificate is also mentioned (not strictly necessary). Elsewhere (p. 40), the following are listed: the candidate’s metrikai, a document about the candidate’s origin (later there is also raštelis apie kilimą, “note about origin”), and a note about the candidate’s good character. Initially, all the documents are collectively called popieriais (“papers”) (applications with all the necessary papers are submitted, p. 9), and later dokumentais (“documents”) (if required, other documents would also be presented, p. 21). Thus, terminology for naming documents is still being sought: most often the most general word raštas (“document/writing”) is used, but the precursor of the word liudijimas (“certificate”), paliudijimas, is already apparent. Among other document names that have not yet been standardized, apskelbimas “announcement” is worth noting (instead of replies, applicants are sent only printed announcements, p. 9).

The general act of submitting an application is expressed by the phrase paduoti prašymą (“to submit an application”), while sending it by post is expressed in two ways: leisti prašymą and siųsti prašymą (the latter is more common below). The recipient’s actions regarding an application are described as: priimti (“accept”), atmesti (“reject”), and peržiūrėti (“review”) the application. There is also išpildyti prašymą (“fulfill an application”) (applications… are fulfilled sooner, p. 15). The addressee of an application is expressed using two constructions—one with the dative (siųsti kam, “send to whom”) and one with the preposition į (siųsti į ką, “send to what/whom”); both occur not only with names of institutions but also with names of officials: leisti seminarijos direktoriui prašymus (“send applications to the seminary director,” p. 6); reikėtų leisti prašymą į seminarijos direktorių (“one should send the application to the seminary director,” p. 21). These constructions are used interchangeably even in the same article (p. 27): leizdami savo prašymus tiesiok į ministeri (“sending their applications directly to the minister”); ministeris siunčia tuos prašymus į seminariją (“the minister sends those applications to the seminary”); žmonės savo prašymus siunčia ministeriui, ministeris ir tuos prašymus siunčia seminarijai (“people send their applications to the minister, and the minister sends those applications to the seminary”). This is an example of office language that has not yet been standardized.

The articles contain expressions not directly related to the areas mentioned above. We find office-language forms that had become established by that time, gavo atsakymą (“received an answer”; negavo atsakymo, “did not receive an answer”), but also the construction gavo atsakymą ant prašymo įstaiseime (“received an answer on the application at the institution”; nowadays we say gavo atsakymą į prašymą, “received an answer to the application”); išreikšti savo nuomonę (“to express one’s opinion”; kad… išreikštų apie juos savo nuomonę, “that… they express their opinion about them,” p. 27); and siųsti per ką (“to send through someone”; per mokymo globėją siunčia tuos prašymus, “they send those applications through the education inspector,” p. 27). Alongside these, apparently with a distinction in meaning, the forms prireikus (“if necessary”) and pareikalavus (“if requested”) are used (prireikus arba pareikalavus būsią pristatyti ir kiti dokumentai, “if necessary or if requested, other documents would also be presented,” p. 21).

193

But there are quite a few words and expressions that have not entered present-day administrative language. An interesting expression, though one that did not take hold as an administrative term, is to correspond with someone (to correspond with the Minister of Education, p. 20) (now only to correspond with someone is used in office administration). Jablonskis uses incident (in each such incident one must correspond with the Minister of Education, p. 20) in its present-day sense of ‘case’. Jablonskis had not yet found an appropriate word for the act of legal repeal, and used the verbs to annul (the old law… will not now be annulled, p. 7), to collapse (“The Law”… must certainly collapse this summer, p. 10) in that sense. Even expressions with the word way are used to indicate the manner of an action and reliance on something; these were later classified as errors: one must work here in other ways as well (p. 19), following the path of current laws (p. 21).

III. Articles on events and their organization

1. Lithuanian Teachers’ Conference [1906, “Lietuvos Ūkininkas” No. 28]. – R., vol. 2, pp. 11–12.

The article discusses a request to organize a teachers’ conference (courses) and the response of the Governor of Kaunas. Jablonskis considers the reasons given in the response for why this supposedly cannot be done, using words and expressions related to organizing courses. Among the words not discussed so far, the following are noteworthy: conference (used only in the article’s title) and courses (in the text). The most interesting, however, are the words used to describe the organization of courses. Jablonskis most often uses the verb to set up and its forms and derivatives: to set up summer courses, such courses are being set up, to take care of setting up such courses; three times we find to establish and its derivatives: an authority capable of establishing courses…, wishes to establish courses…, [one] of the founders of those courses; once, the text refers to equipping courses: [is responsible] for equipping all those courses. The appropriate word had not yet been found; the last comes closest to current usage, but it too has a different prefix—today courses can only be organized and held, not equipped.

Among the administrative expressions now established, the article contains: to submit an application (submitted… an application), to receive an application (having received… the teachers’ application), to receive a reply (having received… a reply), to issue instructions; among those not accepted: to fulfill an application (whether it is possible to fulfill those teachers’ application), to express desires ‘wishes’, to go by, ‘be guided by’, instructions (to go by these instructions).

2. On the New Society [1914, “Viltis” No. 289; 1915, “Viltis” No. 3]. – R., vol. 1, pp. 159–166.

The article concerns a meeting of the society called For the Relief of War Victims, also referred to as the relief society (p. 162). The term society is already established here; we find society members, the society’s board, and the society’s event is called a meeting: society meeting, meeting minutes, spoke at the meeting, meeting speaker. Among other noteworthy words are rights, replacing truths (teachers’ rights, journalists’ rights, p. 166), and the verbs to restrict (rights are now only restr-

194

icted, p. 166) and to establish (the “Žiburėlis” is being established), although the society in question is said to have come into being (p. 159).

3. From the Second Lithuanian Teachers’ Conference [1917, “Lietuvos Balsas” No. 59]. – R., vol. 2, pp. 119–121.

The article discusses the teachers’ conference held in 1917. Here too we find some innovations that can be associated with administrative language: conference already has the word’s current terminological meaning—the distinction between a conference and courses is clearly made: Most [of the conference members] were… course attendees. The text speaks only of the formation of a teachers’ union (no longer its setting up), and of a teacher’s right (that meaning is no longer expressed by truth). We find administrative terms that have entered current usage: decisive vote (those having a decisive vote), to adopt a resolution (a resolution was adopted), to entrust with carrying out (decisions were entrusted for execution ‘decisions’).

There are terms Jablonskis used terminologically that have not taken hold today: decisions are called resolutions, conference participants are members, and the order of business, the agenda, is the work programme. In entirely non-administrative language, it is written: there was the second Lithuanian teachers’ conference.

IV. Presentation of documents (rules, statutes)

We discussed a certain document (“The Chief’s Order”) in one of the articles in the first group (see I. 3). Two regulatory documents are described in detail.

1. Bookshops at elementary schools [1907, “Vilniaus Žinios” No. 33]. – R., vol. 2, pp. 24–27.

The article discusses new rules for school bookshops, approved by the Minister of Education in 1906. Eight points of those rules are presented. The explanatory part of the article is similar to other articles from that year. The language of the rules themselves, however, is more interesting and displays more features of specialist language; it contains more words with precise meanings. For instance, the organization of a bookshop is described with the words to establish and to set up (there are also setting up, founders); only once, at the very beginning of the explanatory section, is it written that bookshops are being arranged. Phrases with the verbs to allocate (allocate benefits; once, benefits are also given), to entrust (entrust a task; entrusts the supervision of bookshops) are used in an administrative sense. In addition, the meanings of the verbs to hand over and to entrust are distinguished: The founders may either hand over those bookshops to public schools in perpetuity, or entrust them only temporarily, for that period (p. 25).

Among noun phrases with the character of specialist language, the more important are: educational institutions, public institutions, public reading rooms, public bookshops (explained in parentheses as public libraries, so bookshop is not used in its current sense), newspaper list (explained in parentheses as catalogue). The latter ex-

195

amples show that suitable terms and equivalents for international words are being sought. The search for terms and words is evident in many other cases as well: at first, the teacher managing the bookshop is called a bookshop keeper, and later is referred to as the bookshop supervisor; to express the duration of an action or phenomenon, permanently is contrasted with temporarily and for that period. Such a search is also evident in the aforementioned use of the verbs to establish and to set up, to allocate and to give. Of each of these pairs, some words (to establish, to allocate, temporarily) acquired an administrative flavor, while others (to give, for that period) retain a non-specialist stylistic coloring.

In this respect, complete expressions also differ. The contrast between the adverbs permanently – temporarily carries an administrative nuance, but of those forms only the second took hold unchanged; the adverb permanently is replaced by derivatives of the adjectives permanent or open-ended. The fate of Jablonskis’s expressions (the bookshop) has in one’s charge and has the authority (to permit the setting up of a bookshop) differs: the first entered our administrative usage, while in the second, authority was replaced by right. Two expressions that did not take root in administrative language appear in the explanatory section: specifically to prohibit and will have value, “will have force, be valid.” Even the rules themselves contain non-administrative expressions taken from colloquial speech: having reached an agreement with the founder of the bookshop (today we would say having agreed on the matter), takes the expenses upon oneself, “pays them oneself”; nothing need be paid for reading; one may charge a small fee; one may also assign some sort of salary. Today we would regard such expressions as violations of functional style, but in Jablonskis’s language they are interesting as facts in the history of administrative language.

2. The Czech Savers’ Union in Prague [1913, “Viltis” No. 75]. – R., vol. 1, pp. 156–158. This is part of a larger essay, “The Kite of Our Times” (pp. 151–158). It discusses saving, and at the end, in a separate section, considers the statutes of the Czech savers’ union. Both the general section and the statutes section contain words and expressions related to finance and saving, as well as other specialist-language vocabulary.

First, the use of the organization’s names is revealing: it is identified by its official name, union; Jablonskis himself calls it a society (a society established under this name), yet when discussing the statutes he nevertheless uses union: savers’ union, union members, organ of the union (publication), the union’s purpose and aims (in current terminology, objectives). From the field of finance, we find: deposits, savings deposits, deposit books, deposits paid in, savings banks, credit and savings institutions (p. 154), financial institutions, institutional accounts (ibid.). Among the most interesting are merchant, “trader”; businesspeople (in parentheses, industrialists), “entrepreneurs”; and living, “cash” money (buy goods with cash, p. 155). Overall, however, this text has fewer features of administrative language than the discussion of the bookshop rules.

3. Lithuanian Teachers’ Union [1917, “Santara” No. 36]. – R., vol. 2, pp. 113–117. These are the statutes of the Lithuanian Teachers’ Union prepared by Jablonskis. They make clearer what kind of administrative language Jablonskis envisioned and how he created it. These statutes

196

The language and its relationship to the present-day administrative language should be examined in a separate article. Here we will briefly discuss only its general characteristics.

In the statutes of the Union, Jablonskis repeated many terms, expressions, and syntactic constructions that he had used elsewhere and that were generally in use at the time. But here the vocabulary, terminology, and style already differ somewhat from what they had been ten years earlier—they are already closer to present-day usage. There are many thoroughly modern terms, for example: sąjunga, draugija, skyriai, sekcijos, būstinė, and phrases, for example: Sąjungos įstatai, mokyklų atstovai, revizijos komisija, visuotinis susirinkimas. Many longer expressions have also become established in present-day language, for example: Sąjungos turtą sudaro; vykdo Sąjungos įstatus; sprendimas yra teisėtas; Sąjungos nariu gali būti kiekvienas; išbraukiamas iš Sąjungos narių skaičiaus; kaip reikiant naudotis kultūros vaisiais.

It is true that there are also things here that did not become established and may later have been rejected by Jablonskis himself—word forms, for example: įnašos “contributions,” mokesnis “fee”; expressions, for example: teismo keliu “by means of,” įstatai išdirbti “prepared,” išskiria “appoints” iš savo tarpo komisijas. Such bureaucraticisms were imposed by necessity, used because more suitable, more Lithuanian substitutes had not been found. Jablonskis’s search is illustrated, for example, by the fact that after writing the word atmainyti, he immediately explains it with another—pakeisti; pakeisti alone was not enough, while the present-day atšaukti did not then have that meaning, so atmainyti. was retained.

Concluding remarks

The rudiments of administrative language found in the articles by Jablonskis reviewed here help us understand how our administrative language took shape and imagine its first steps, methods of development, and directions.

We see the emerging administrative language’s connection with the general language of the time. Many words and expressions are drawn from everyday speech, and even colloquial features are present. The manifestations of administrative language are still unstable; suitable words and means of expression are being sought, and many are used alongside one another. Gradually, some words displace others used in parallel, or one is replaced by another. For instance, apšvietimas, used initially, is later replaced by švietimu; draugovė is replaced by draugija; the document regulating its activities changes from an įstatymo into įstatais; tiesas gives way to teisės. We find words in Jablonskis that were not yet standardized and were later corrected or replaced: paliudinimas – liudijimas, nusprendimas – sprendimas, paniekinimas – panaikinimas. The influence of Russian is perceptible; we also find calques in word formation, for example: apšvietimas, apskelbimas, nužiūrėjimas, as well as constructions formed on the model of Russian, for example: išlaidas ima ant savęs, paliudinimas apie kilmę, stato juos pavyzdžiu. Even Jablonskis could not avoid this when he encountered administrative documents.

However, Jablonskis strives to create an administrative language of his own, a Lithuanian one. First, he adapts existing words and familiar methods of word formation for this purpose: his articles abound in derivatives with the suffix -imas, for example: įstatymai, paliepimas, paliudinimas (pažymėjimo is not yet found); we also find krygininką, formed with the suffix -ininkas. For official language

197

passive present-tense participles are used, for example, sprendžiamas balsas. For the most part, he creates not new words but strives to adapt existing ones to administrative language, in other words, to terminologize them; for example: gina “prohibits,” leidžia “sends” (documents), knygyno prievadas “librarian.” We find expressions with generalized meanings such as mokymo įstaigos ir sąjungos organas (“educational institution and union body,” a publication). Sometimes he also gives an administrative flavor to the meaning of existing expressions, for example: turės vertę “will have force, will be valid,” or takes a wholly unexpected, even expressive idiom—padės kūnu versti “will help put into practice.”

As noted, the statutes prepared by Jablonskis differ from what appeared in his first articles concerning administrative language. They are closer to the present-day language of this field and represent a certain stage in the development of administrative language. But the language of Jablonskis’s statutes also differs in many respects from the language of corresponding documents today. Most importantly, the difference lies not only in individual words or expressions, but in more fundamental matters—in their overall character and nature. Our administrative documents are highly standardized, their style has become uniform, whereas Jablonskis’s text exudes an individual mode of expression, often revealing clear reflections of living speech. For instance, regarding what we would call a “violation of rights,” he unexpectedly writes: that rights should not be narrowed or turned into nothing. Or we find participial speech interspersed in the statutes: whether, while the Union is at work, it sometimes strays from the path; they hear what the committees have done and what they have noticed. There are a few such insertions from another functional style. For the most part, Jablonskis’s individual style and the needs of administrative language are harmoniously combined.

Lithuanian administrative language did not follow quite the path onto which Jonas Jablonskis had steered it. It has moved further away from ordinary speech, becoming more standardized and bureaucratized. These features are apparently unavoidable in a fully formed administrative language, but today our language in this field is artificially detached from ordinary speech to an excessive degree. Some of the blame for this can also be attributed to linguists, since they contributed very little to the development of this variety of language. Kazimieras Būga was concerned above all with scholarly matters and the dictionary. For Juozas Balčikonis, only living speech existed; he could not imagine an administrative language that did not coincide with it. The later generation of linguists—Antanas Salys, Pranas Skardžius, and Petras Jonikas—arrived late, when administrative-language practice was already well under way; they had time only to do the finishing work. Among linguists, Jablonskis contributed the most to the creation of Lithuanian administrative language. His greatest contribution was not those few articles in this field or the statutes he wrote, but his entire work of language standardization. Administrative language was created on the foundations of the standard language he laid.

Received 1999 03 17

198

ELEMENTS OF OFFICE LANGUAGE IN JONAS JABLONSKIS’ WRITINGS

Summary

The Lithuanian office language as a functional style evolved at the beginning of the 20^th century. Its rudiments can be easily traced in the leaflets and newspaper articles of that time. Most of them dealt with the activities of schools and associations, other phenomena of social life.

Several such articles were written by Jonas Jablonskis, too. They contain words and expressions peculiar to the office language. Instances of this functional style are even more frequent in the writings where first editions in this area as well as rules and regulations of associations are discussed. J. Jablonskis was the author of the Regulations of the Teachers’ Union (1917) and it is a witness to his contribution to the formation of the office language. The language of regulations is akin to the language of documents written nowadays, still it is less rigid.

J. Jablonskis’ contribution to the formation of the office language is obvious in his normative activities in general. The Lithuanian office language was created on the foundation of standard Lithuanian laid by J. Jablonskis.

199