Lietuvių kalbos leksikos gryninimo tradicija ir dabarties tendencijos

ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI XLII (2000) Loreta VAICEKAUSKIENĖ Lietuvių kalbos institutas, Vilnius THE TRADITION OF LEXICAL PURIFICATION IN THE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE AND CURRENT TRENDS This article sets out to explore the legacy of the earliest and later lexical standardizers, their efforts to purify the lexicon, and their attitudes toward foreign words. The aim of this historical overview is to show that loanwords in Lithuania have a distinctive and long history of standardization, one connected with current language issues. Looking back, one aspect of loanword standardization stands out above all: the deliberate replacement of loanwords with Lithuanian words. The earliest authors and translators of Lithuanian texts, lacking any theories of standardization and apparently relying solely on intuition, set about purifying the lexicon with neologisms or words from the spoken language; that is, they consciously chose a harder path than that of uncritically accepting every foreign word. It is difficult to determine precisely who coined a neologism, and it is not always clear whether a word arose as a substitute for a loanword or was created to name some new concept. Although researchers of early literature often have to rely on conjecture, most agree that K. Sirvydas was the most prominent lexical purist of the 16th–17th centuries. Sirvydas even replaced international words, for example, philosophy – love of wisdom, pedagogy – child-guiding, theatre – wonder-play, melancholy – gloominess, fantasy – sign-maker, image-maker, veterinary medicine – horse-healing, architecture – house-building (Sabaliauskas 1994: 181–182; Pakalka 1979: 65–66; Palionis 1995: 82). As with other authors, not all of Sirvydas’s neologisms took hold, since Lithuanian was not widely used either for scientific purposes or in public life until the end of the 19th century. However, his dictionary was extraordinarily popular (over a century—from 1620 to 1713—it went through five editions), and each new edition included more substitutes for loanwords, e.g.: tavoras – goods, pekla – hell, slūžiju – I serve (Pakalka 1979: 72). Many others—lexicographers, translators, and writers—used the dictionary, helping to spread words still in use today: pronunciation, quality, hump-back, thinker, cotton, preface, transgression, printing house, scales, rule, market square, kitchen (Balašaitis 1984: 59). The fact that some neologisms did not catch on should come as no surprise; as we shall see, not one creator, not even the most talented, escaped this fate. Although all researchers of early Lithuanian writing emphasize that the status of the Lithuanian language changed in the 18th century, efforts to cultivate it did not essentially cease, but continued in Lithuania Minor (unfortunately, almost no ties with Lithuania Major were maintained until the 19th century). M. Merlin, a pastor in Gumbinnen, put forward the idea of language reform and drew up a concrete project for its purification and standardization. In 1706, he published the treatise “Principium primarium in lingua Lithvanica.” Its main principles were 200 to speak to the people in pure language, because Lithuanians do not understand foreign words; loanwords are best replaced by equivalents found in dialects, and only when none exist should new words of one’s own be introduced; even established foreignisms should be abandoned (Palionis 1995: 125). Merlin’s booklet found supporters: J. Šulcas, P. Ruigys, and others followed the same principles. For example, in Ruigys’s dictionary “Littauisch–Deutsches und Deutsch–Littauisches Lexicon” (1747), many Slavic loanwords are marked e Polon, e pol., e.g.: arielka, klapčius, gadynė, iškada, nedėle, peitnyčia, šliūbas, žyvatas. Germanisms, incidentally, seem to have been so common that they are not marked at all, although the dictionary contains many, e.g.: klučis, plečius, stuba, špykerė, šiupelė (Balašaitis 1984: 65). At the end of the same century, the principle of linguistic purity was raised once again in a debate between K. Milkus and G. Ostermejeris, who had prepared separate hymnals and sought to outdo one another. Both advocated linguistic purity and clarity (viewing unclear neologisms negatively) and emphasized the harm caused by literal translation. Although more scientific research on Lithuanian would have to wait a long time, the tendency to avoid foreignisms had been clearly articulated. Essentially the same ideas about cultivating the language carried over into the 19th century. For example, in the study written in German “Philological-Critical Remarks on the Lithuanian Bible” (1816–1824), L. Rėza says that he sought purity, correctness, and clarity of language, demanded that written works draw on the spoken language of the people, be vivid in style, and avoid barbarisms (Zinkevičius 1990: 286). In Lithuania Major, through the efforts of the famous Samogitian bishop J. A. Giedraitis, many loanwords (mostly Polishisms common at the time) were replaced with Lithuanian words in the edition of the New Testament (1816): čėsas – time, zokonas – law, sūdas – vessel, and so on. S. Daukantas should probably be regarded as one of the most prominent lexical purists of the 19th century; he coined even more neologisms than Sirvydas. According to G. Subačius’s calculations, Daukantas’s three-volume Polish–Lithuanian dictionary contains about 3,800 new words (Subačius 1987: 152–154), including, of course, substitutes for loanwords. Daukantas replaced dziegorių with laikrodžiu, and coined grammatical terms such as būdvardis, daiktavardis (Palionis 1995: 179). In replacing foreignisms, Daukantas also drew on dialect data, used Sirvydas’s neologisms, and created semantic calques (vietovė, cf. the Slavism miestas; skersis, cf. the Slavism kryžius; he also translated some of his grammatical terms: parts of speech (partes orationis), degree (gradus), language science (Sprachlehre)). Although many of Daukantas’s neologisms did not spread more widely, this in no way diminishes the significance of the attitude toward language that he promoted—the very idea of caring for language, the contrast between foreign and native words, the effort to seek substitutes, and the principle of linguistic purification. Despite the considerable efforts of the authors mentioned above, Lithuanian still abounded in Slavic loanwords in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. “Aušra” began urging people to fight unnecessary loanwords: its enthusiastic contributors, especially M. Akelaitis, A. Vištelis, and J. Miliauskas-Miglovara, coined neologisms themselves and spread those created by others. To make the meaning clearer, a neologism or a foreignism more familiar to readers would be used alongside it, with one of them placed in parentheses, e.g.: byla (prova), dirbtuvė (pa- 201 brika), kariauna (vaiskas), bravoras (degtuvė) (Palionis 1995: 312). Aušrininkai teikė atitikmenų ir tarptautiniams žodžiams, pvz.: apšvietumas „civilizacija“, senrašv ietė „archyvas“, raštliava „literatūra“, juokžaislis „komedija“, šviesūnas „filosofas“, pradėvis „iniciatorius“, oramieris „barometras“, šil tamieris „termometras“, savininkas „egoistas“, pirmokas „atomas“, vilkalbis „filologas“, meilraštis „lyrika“, pameklė „ironija“ (Palionis 1995: 252–253). Kadangi aušrininkams trūko lingvistinio pasirengimo, laikraštyje būta nemažai painiavos, pavyzdžiui, kartais klaidingai aiškinta žodžių etimologija ir kai kurios svetimybės laikytos lietuviškais žodžiais. Šiandien galima įvairiai vertinti „Aušros“ reikšmę skolinių norminimo istorijai, tik būtina atsižvelgti į istorinį to meto kontekstą ir lietuvių kalbos padėtį, į būtinumą kelti lietuvių tautinę savimonę. Atėjus laikui kalbos klausimus spręsti konkrečiau ir aiškiau, „Aušros“ bendradarbių parengtoje kalbos gryninimo dirvoje jau galėjo suskambėti „Varpo“, o vėliau ir Jono Jablonskio balsas. Although more moderate than the Aušrininkai, the Varpininkai did not avoid extremes when replacing international words, for example: kitavardis “pseudonym,” saunory stė “egoism,” žinpaišys “correspondent,” pastaruolis “conservative,” antnosiai “eyeglasses,” virtuv as “samovar.” To make it easier for readers to understand, “Varpas,” like “Aušra,” sometimes gave the familiar borrowing or a neologism in parentheses, for example: teismas (sūdas), žingūnė (pašta), učitelis (mokytojis). However, the most important point to note about “Varpas” is the linguistic activity of Jonas Jablonskis. Jablonskis did not leave behind any formulated principles for lexical purification, but his articles on language provide a fairly clear picture of his views on loanwords. Jablonskis did not recommend obvious foreignisms for the standard language; when considering their fate, however, he took into account when they had entered the language, what meanings they had in the dialects, whether they were familiar, and whether there was anything with which they could be replaced. When a foreign word did not disrupt the Lithuanian lexical system and was supported by its established use, prevalence, and other considerations, he did not replace it. Thus, Jablonskis corrected only what he considered unequivocal barbarisms, for example: abrozdas, anūkas, apieka, biskel is, bujoti, čėsas, darmai, kytras, kukorka, liekarsta, macnas, navatnas, padlagas, pečius, ponas, smertis, sosiedas, šmotas, šposas, veselija, viedras, viera, zabova, zerkolas and others (Piročkinas 1977: 102–105; Palionis 1959: 19). Unlike earlier purists, Jablonskis did not shun international words; for the sake of clarity, he restricted their use stylistically, excluding them only from non-scientific literature. He replaced foreignisms with neologisms or words from dialects and old written sources (he followed the principle that, by changing or restricting a word’s meaning, old words could be adapted to express new concepts; here are some folk-language words he introduced: bičiulis, grindys, gudrus, kamštis, laiptai, mirtis, suolas, šeimininkas, tvarka, vaistas, velionis). Jablonskis paid particular attention to the correctness of word formation in the words he coined (he valued a loanword more than a poor neologism)—as shown by the many neologisms he revised or rejected. “Jablonskis was a true master of word creation; some of the neologisms he coined later 202 buvo rasti kaip esantys tarmėse“ (Salys 1983: 168). Iš tiesų neprigijusių Jablonskio žodžių esama nedaug, pvz.: bendravardis „sinonimas“, pinigynas „iždas“, tikraraštis „originalas“ (Palionis 1959: 25). The scholarly contribution of Būga complements the legacy of Jablonskis, a practitioner of language. Būga, too, removed genuine foreignisms from the standard language, but collected them for his dictionary as a historian of language and culture, for whom all words were equal and who understood that “there is no language in the world whose dictionary contains no words of foreign origin” (Būga 1922: IV). Būga based the standardization of foreignisms and the recommendation of substitutes on the principles of actual usage, historical analysis, and functional suitability. He advised taking the context in which a foreignism was used into account and forbade “modernizing” the texts of old writers: “In certain cases, we not only can but must use an obvious dictionary foreignism. [...] Donelaitis must remain with his sopagais and glūpu, and Baranauskas with his šiškomis, iščinto ir kapčiumi” (Būga 1959: 37). Būga called the “denationalization” and “mangling” of language the replacement of clearly Lithuanian words with “misbegotten” neologisms. Having shown that the words replaced by language purists were not loanwords at all, Būga defended such words as skriauda, sarmata, kreslas, kūdikis, labas, marios, prašyti, vilna and others. “By avoiding supposed foreignisms, we only strip the language bare and render it lifeless,” he wrote. “Derived words, the substitutes for supposed foreignisms, have not yet taken root in spoken language and do not make the language lively or fluent” (Zinkevičius, Kabelka 1958: 99). Moreover, Būga objected to neologisms when they were used to replace loanwords naming concepts that did not exist in Lithuanian. Many thought that Būga was undermining the work already begun to “Lithuanize” the Lithuanian language, but he did not oppose the provision of substitutes in general; he simply did not want everything replaced indiscriminately, and he set especially strict requirements for neologisms. In the first decades of the 20th century, language standardization work began to take shape and become increasingly systematic, no longer limited to words introduced by individual enthusiasts. At Jablonskis’s suggestion, a Terminology Commission was formed in 1921, along with subcommittees for preparing terminology that same year. In addition to Jablonskis, its members included K. Būga, A. Vireliūnas, A. Dambrauskas, P. Dovydaitis, P. Mašiotas, A. Varnas, and others. However, its work, which veered toward radical purism—coining new words to excess—soon angered some members. After members ceased cooperating and Jablonskis withdrew, and following Būga’s death, the commission embarked on even greater excesses: it attempted to replace such long-established words as elektra, teatras, direktorius, energija. A few neologisms coined by the prolific S. Dabušis may be mentioned: buitpieša “biography,” saulobuolys “orange,” didžiūris “genius,” trykšlys “fountain,” and others. The commission soon provoked discontent and was dissolved; in 1925 a new one was established, with J. Jablonskis appointed chair. J. Balčikonis, A. Salys, and P. Skardžius joined its work. The new commission considered terminology in surgery, veterinary medicine, artillery, land reclamation, land management, and many other fields, and restored international terms in place of the neologisms that had been coined. 203 An important principle introduced by Jablonskis was that specialists should create terms when these are absent from spoken language, while linguists could only assess them in terms of correctness and living usage. Here are some neologisms from the old commission that Jablonskis rejected: agna “energy,” džiūgautė “triumph,” kūnojas “organ,” raštuomenė “literature,” įdarbė “culture,” mirčioraša “obituary,” reikšlas “symbol.” Indignant, Jablonskis wrote: “We will have new work to do until we learn to use them properly, and once we have grown accustomed to them, we will have to learn all over again when we find our present words in their place” (Jablonskis 1935: 307–308). When Jablonskis, overwhelmed with work, declined the chairmanship in 1926, the Ministry of Education dissolved the commission and entrusted the organization of its work to Kaunas University, where another commission was formed in 1927. Its members included P. Avižonis, S. Šalkauskis, and J. Balčikonis. However, the new commission never got started. It was only in 1933, with the launch of “Gimtoji kalba,” that terminology began to be considered again after a long break; in 1935, a permanent Terminology Section was established under the Lithuanian Language Society (chair: P. Skardžius; members: J. Balčikonis, J. M. Laurinaitis, A. Salys, S. Šalkauskis, A. Vaičiulaitis). Its resolutions, although not legally binding, made a substantial contribution to the creation and codification of terminology. A great deal of terminology standardization work was completed before the war: “Lithuanian Botanical Dictionary” was published, as was S. Šalkauskis’s “General Terminology of Philosophy,” and many terms in sports, theatre, and various fields of science were considered. Sports terms that began appearing in print in 1936 include: baudinis (instead of pendelio), įvartis (instead of golo), kampinis (instead of kornerio), kėlinys (instead of haftaimo), prašanga (instead of faulo), saugas (instead of hafbeko), vartininkas (instead of golkiperio), and so on (Piročkinas 1978: 174–178; Palionis 1995: 283; Sabaliauskas 1994: 295; Piročkinas 1986: 55; Keinys 1967: 27–28; Kusa 1938: 98). In 1936, the contributors to “Gimtoji kalba” adopted the following principles for standardization: do not recommend easily replaceable foreignisms for the standard language (that is, leave them outside the norm); strive to make the language as pure as possible, retaining only as many loanwords as are unavoidable (here is the principle governing standardization and the extent of borrowing: take only what cannot be replaced!); do not avoid international foreignisms, but recommend appropriately formed native words (equivalents) in place of some of the more frequent ones. The question of loanwords was one of the journal’s most important concerns. It was necessary to determine which words of foreign origin were suitable for use and which should be replaced with native words. This could be done only by examining all the foreign words used in Lithuanian. Būga had already accomplished a great deal in this area; his work was continued by Skardžius, an advocate of moderate purification, who proposed “taking the middle road” and replacing loanwords only after careful consideration, when correctly formed substitutes that did not differ from living usage had been found (Skardžius 1997: 79–84). The prewar “Gimtoji kalba” successfully replaced many foreign words with Lithuanian ones, without which we could not imagine our vocabulary today: abzacą – pastraipa, arkūšą – lakštu, lapu, konvertą – voku and others (Jurkynas 1938: 82–83). 204 Balčikonis was also a strong advocate of words from living speech. “When coining a term, one must first look at living speech to see whether a suitable word can be found there,” he wrote. “A dictionary of living speech can provide many substitutes for barbarisms… By collecting words with greater dedication, one can fish beautiful terms out of the language of the people” (Balčikonis 1978: 164–165, 195). Following Būga, he was particularly cautious about neologisms: he preferred to use a foreign word, especially if it was widely used in popular speech, e.g.: aptieka, aficierius, materijolas, vakacijos. Over time, the standardization of international words became established. A 1937 review by the editors of “Gimtoji kalba” states: “We are not so extreme: for the time being, we do not strictly avoid international foreign words that are difficult to replace with wholly suitable Lithuanian words, because we know full well that excessive extremism here will bear no fruit. But wherever possible, we ourselves use and advise others to use more Lithuanian words, e.g.: vaidmuo, nesąmonė, pradininkas, lingynės, gaubtas, paplūdimis and so on, instead of rolė, absurdas, iniciatorius, lisorai, abažūras, pliažas” (GK 1937: 119). Thus, an extreme purist tendency was by no means characteristic of all language purifiers. After the war, the criterion of purity continued to guide the standardization of the lexicon. Efforts were made to avoid borrowings from any one particular language, and substitutes for them continued to be sought (special publications were devoted to replacing foreignisms and introducing neologisms). International words were admitted, although, of course, Lithuanian equivalents were also proposed. Skardžius, who had left Lithuania for the United States, also continued the work of language purification. He wrote several articles and reviews on borrowings and their substitutes, and in 1973 published the glossary “Lithuanian Equivalents of International Words,” intended primarily for practical language use and for popularizing substitutes (especially those used less often). The glossary lists 900 international words and 1,200 equivalents provided by its compiler (Skardžius 1998: 427–507). For now, it is difficult to view current changes in language from the outside, since it takes time for the use of borrowings to stabilize. It is not yet clear which will take root as genuine linguistic phenomena and which will remain merely short-lived witnesses to their era. Yet we must define our attitude toward foreignisms now: will we uphold the century-old tradition of language purification, probably consciously shaped and handed down from one generation to another, and will we continue seeking substitutes? If so, how and what kind? What conclusions can be drawn from the history of standardizing borrowings? Past experience shows that far from every proposed neologism takes hold—only a small proportion do. It is also clear that dilettantish extreme purism and coercion have not produced, and will not produce, good results, especially in a democratic society such as Lithuania seems to want to be. Nevertheless, it is certainly worth the effort to seek equivalents, create substitutes for new foreignisms (using the word-formation patterns of our language), and introduce them—not, of course, all at once by strictly prohibiting the alternatives, but gradually. After all, the influence of enlightened figures of earlier times was not confined to their own lifetimes: the words they introduced, their attitude toward language, and their example of nurturing and purifying it have not disappeared. 205 For standardization work to be carried out professionally, current borrowings must first be thoroughly investigated, and it must be determined which of them—and how many—to admit into the language, and for which substitutes might be proposed. Here we should recall the criterion of prevalence, or the statistical criterion: a certain number of borrowings in a language is inevitable, but the quantitative structure of the language must not be disrupted. The criterion of expediency is also important when standardizing foreignisms: it is not expedient to use a foreign word if Lithuanian substitutes exist. However, expediency is inseparable from functional distribution: foreignisms in public language should be assessed differently from those in everyday colloquial speech, and differently again from their use for stylistic purposes in literary language. The use of international words with clear equivalents should likewise be restricted according to function. By the way, the concept of an international word probably needs to be reconsidered. What should count as a true international word, for which an equivalent is still traditionally proposed, if English influences many contemporary languages and the same borrowing from English spreads like wildfire through all of them? Are we to borrow them all? (Jablonskis primarily left words of classical-language origin in place as international words; today, it seems, there is also a tendency to follow this principle.) Once the relationship between the spontaneous development of language and conscious standardization has been defined, the traditional criterion of linguistic purity, newly relevant today, should continue to be applied, naturally in conjunction with other criteria. One source from which borrowings spread is translation (it is well known that the proportion of borrowings is always higher in translations). This is nothing new, but today we should note the particularly flourishing translation profession and the influence of translated texts—both written and spoken—on our language. How should translators today, when conscious of the issue and wishing to avoid foreignisms, proceed? Linguists often cannot keep abreast of everything or provide all the substitutes quickly. Should a translator coin a neologism and wait for readers’ reactions? Or, as Jablonskis did, include a glossary for the reader at the end of the translated book? Moreover, even if linguists have already proposed a needed substitute, that does not mean it is as familiar to the public as the foreignism it is meant to replace, which may have already become established. Is introducing substitutes in this way compatible with the criterion of clarity? On the other hand, there is no need to fear foreignisms, substitutes, or variants of substitutes—our language is capable of choosing the most suitable one. From karališkojo miesto, miesto pirmutinio, vyriausiojo miesto, sostinės, sostapilio, sostapilės, sostamiesčio, sostavietės, stalčios it chose sostinė, and it discerningly rejected veizdyklės, veido stiklus, žiūryklę, žiūronus, žiūriklį, brilį, nosstiklius, akuliorius and chose akinius. What matters is deciding how to involve the public in the work of proposing substitutes, how to reconcile neologisms put forward by different authors in various sources, and how to disseminate and introduce them more quickly. The relationship between spoken and written language today is also no longer what it once was; the distinction between them is beginning to disappear. Linguists’ concern about the influx of new borrowings was probably prompted precisely by their sudden spread in public written language (something never seen before!). At all times, language standardizers’ attention was directed essentially only toward written language; one might say that Jablonskis did not even study colloquial standard speech. Yet foreignisms are hardest to 206 to push. The introduction of substitutes is also inseparable from this problem: it is one thing when a foreign word is replaced by an editor or stylist, and another when the user consciously rejects it. Here, once again, we encounter the awareness and attitude of society as a whole toward the native language, which are inseparable from the authority of linguists and the prestige of the native language. Thanks to all the language purists mentioned, loans seem to make up only a few percent of today’s standard language, and we can associate a pure language with national prestige. Today, however, the standardization of foreign words should depend not on individuals (even authoritative ones), but on cooperation with the society that supports them. This article deliberately emphasizes the attitude that values the prestige and purification of the native language—in the age of cosmopolitanism, this is no longer self-evident to society, and as a result disagreements sometimes arise between linguists and language users: the former talk about which foreign words to replace and how, while the latter ask why they should be replaced at all. We have theoretical foundations for standardizing foreign words and a century-old tradition, but let us not forget equally important inner attitudes; let us remember, and remind others, that with sufficient determination much can be accomplished. Received 1998 12 15 LITERATŪRA B a l a š a i t i s A. 1984: Žodžiai ir žodynai, Vilnius: Mokslas. B a l č i k o n i s J. 1978: Rinktiniai raštai 1, Vilnius: Mokslas. B ū g a K. 1922: Kalba ir senovė 1, Kaunas. B ū g a K. 1959: Dėl Vaižganto „Pragiedrulių“ kalbos kritikos. – Raštai 2, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla, 37–77. GK – Gimtoji kalba 11, 1937. J a b l o n s k i s J. 1935: Raštai 4, Kaunas. J u r k y n a s M. 1938: Iš raštinės terminų ir kirčiavimo. – Gimtoji kalba 6, 82–84. K e i n y s S. 1967: Lietuvių terminologijos apžvalga. – Kalbotyra 18. K u s a J. 1938: Sporto kalbos reikalu. – Gimtoji kalba 7, 97–99. P a k a l k a K. 1979: K. Širvydo „Dictionarium trium linguarum“. – Pirmasis lietuvių kalbos žodynas, Vilnius: Mokslas. P a l i o n i s J. 1959: J. Jablonskio kalbiniai taisymai. – J a b l o n s k i s J. Rinktiniai raštai 2, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla, 5–54. P a l i o n i s J. 1995: Lietuvių rašomosios kalbos istorija, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. P i r o č k i n a s A. 1977: Prie bendrinės kalbos ištakų, Vilnius: Mokslas. P i r o č k i n a s A. 1978: J. Jablonskis – bendrinės kalbos puoselėtojas, Vilnius: Mokslas. P i r o č k i n a s A. 1986: J. Jablonskio kalbos taisymai, Kaunas: Šviesa. S a b a l i a u s k a s A. 1994: Iš kur jie? Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. S a l y s A. 1983: Raštai 1, Roma. S k a r d ž i u s P. 1997: Bendrinė kalba ir jos vartojimas. – Rinktiniai raštai 2, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 30–85. S k a r d ž i u s P. 1997a: Kalbos mokslas ir purizmas. – Rinktiniai raštai 2, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 519–523. 207 Skardžius P. 1998: Lietuviški tarptautinių žodžių atitikmenys. – Rinktiniai raštai 3, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 427–509. Subačius G. 1987: Dėl Daukanto lenkų–lietuvių kalbų žodyno genezės. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 26, 151–157. Zinkevičius Z. 1990: Lietuvių kalbos istorija 4, Vilnius: Mokslas. Zinkevičius Z., Kabelka J. 1958: Kazimieras Būga. – Būga K. Raštai 1, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla. TRADITION OF PURIFICATION OF LITHUANIAN LEXIS AND TENDENCIES TODAY Summary In Lithuania, borrowings have a special and long tradition of normalisation, and it could be employed in language politics nowadays. The first the authors and translators of Lithuanian literature consciously tried either to coin Lithuanian words or to find some equivalents in spoken language. Not all of those home-made words have been adopted in our language, however, we still have a remarkable amount of them, and they have survived through the ages and now are widely used. In the fifth decade principles of normalisation of borrowings were formulated. Linguists made efforts to maintain the purity of the Lithuanian language, to try to replace as many loan-words as possible except for the international words, though they also could have equivalents. Today language politicians carry on the work of their predecessors – a certain amount of old loan-words has been accepted, but newcomers tend to be replaced. Some research has still to be done in this field. We have to find out which of these new loans should be replaced. More attention should be paid to spoken language, in which the home-made words are not always acceptable. The problem is related to the language attitudes and its prestige in general – a field which linguists should promote and remind our society of since it has a tradition of one hundred years. 208