Gramatikos norminimas „Gimtojoje kalboje“ (1958–1968 m.)

LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI, XXXI (1994) KALBOS NORMALIZACIJOS KLAUSIMAI RITĄ MILIŪNAITĖ STANDARDIZATION OF GRAMMAR IN “GIMTOJI KALBA” (1958—1968) The Lithuanian Language Society (hereafter LKD), founded in Lithuania before the war, and its periodical “Gimtoji kalba” (1933—1941; hereafter GK) gave considerable impetus to the work of language standardization, which had fallen into some disarray after the death of J. Jablonskis (1930). For nearly a decade, theoretical questions of language standardization were discussed collectively and a program was adopted, while efforts were made to establish the norms in usage. In 1941, however, this work came to a halt, as, toward the end of the war, a large number of the most active linguists were forced to leave their homeland. In 1950, the LKD was reestablished in the United States, and from 1958 “Gimtoji kalba” was revived and published for a decade.¹ At first, the principal contributors, as in Lithuania, were P. Skardžius, A. Salys, P. Jonikas, and L. Dambriūnas (who in Lithuania had published under the name Dambrauskas). P. Jonikas served as editor for nearly two and a half years, assisted by other linguists; from 1961, Dambriūnas took over the editing alone. Articles were also published by S. Barzdukas, V. Rastenis, K. Grinda, and several other Lithuanian émigrés—not all of them linguists. Here we will consider how the American GK continued the successful work of standardizing the common language carried out in Lithuania, focusing particularly on the standardization of grammar. For a long time, for understandable reasons, this periodical remained beyond the reach of those currently responsible for standardizing our language; all the more interesting, then, to trace the direction in which the common language was standardized abroad. In 1966, one of GK’s contributors, A. Dundulis, critically assessed the state of language-standardization work at the time in the periodical itself: on this subject, he claimed, “almost nothing new has been said so far. In Lithuania everything is being repeated, in places almost word for word, from what was written in Jonikas’s articles nearly 20 years ago” [66 I 2]². We know more or less what the situation was in Lithuania before “Kalbos kultūra” began publication in 1961; but did the American GK really have nothing new to say? GK sought to preserve its predecessor’s structure, but its content and subject matter, though likewise oriented toward practical language issues, changed considerably, since it had to respond to the needs of Lithuanians living in a foreign-language environment. Grammatical phenomena 1For a more detailed account of the publication history and subject matter of this GK, see Miliūnaitė R. The American Lithuanian “Gimtoji kalba” (1958—1968) // Gimtoji kalba. 1991. No. 4. P. 6—11. 2Gimtoji kalba. K., 1933—1941; USA — 1958—1968. Here and below, in parentheses, the first numeral indicates the year of GK publication, the second the issue number, and the third the page. 141 The publication devoted a relatively large amount of space to this subject—both in “The Question Corner” and in many articles. Dambrūnas was particularly concerned with it, being a syntactician himself. Of the 186 recommendations he compiled on the use of grammatical phenomena, 119 (i.e. about 64%) were his; about 10% belonged to S. Barzdukas, about 7% to P. Skardžius, and a few percent each to B. Babrauskas, P. Jonikas, and others. Before discussing the basis on which grammar was standardized in GK, it is useful to clarify the publication’s contributors’ general attitude toward language phenomena and their regulation. Unlike Lithuania’s GK, where the work was carried out collectively and language-standardization programs were prepared, in America’s GK this work passed essentially into the hands of one person—L. Dambrūnas—and the character of the publication as a whole depended mostly on the editor’s own views. The other contributors wrote almost exclusively on practical matters and presented no broader theoretical reflections in this newspaper. While still in Lithuania, Dambrūnas had published theoretical ideas about language-standardization work, collaborating particularly actively with GK from 1934 to 1937 (and editing it in 1936–1937). He divided all language facts in relation to the standard language into three groups, thus recognizing not only the existence of clear norms and errors but also of intermediate phenomena [36 III 34]. Understanding that the standard language had not yet diverged very far from the dialects, he nevertheless did not bar the way to the emergence of various innovations in it and stressed that “the bare argument that people do not speak that way is no longer convincing today […]” [34 III—IV 38]. The proposition that, in standardizing a language, it is important to take account of its developmental tendencies [36 III 34] would later become one of the most important aspects of his views. Thus, in Lithuania, Dambrūnas’s position did not stand out markedly from those of the other GK contributors, whereas in America, as an analysis of his theoretical reflections published in the periodical and his assessments of grammatical phenomena shows, he began to lean toward extremes. In one article, he said of himself: “The editor of this newspaper is a little more liberal on questions of the standard language than our other linguists. He justifies some things that others consider errors” [67 II 21]. The criteria for standardizing the standard language had already been discussed and adopted in Lithuania’s GK [38 IX 143—144], but by 1961 Dambrūnas had moved considerably away from them. In this regard, perhaps his most important theoretical article in GK was “What Is Correct” [61 III—IV 33—35]. The answer to the question in the title is brief: “what is correct is what is formed according to the rules.” The principles on which the rules of the standard language itself are established, however, are explained at greater length: “one is guided, one might say, by a democratic principle.” The essence of this principle is to take account of prevalence and purity of usage: “in the standard language, what is correct is what is native and widely used.” Ir vartojimo platumą, ir grynumą Dambrūnas laiko sąlygiškom sąvokom. Sąlyga „kas sava“ nesanti absoliuti, nes yra išimčių. Taip pat ir kalbos faktas, jei pakankamai plačiai vartojamas, jei nesąs siaurai žinomas vienai kuriai tarmei ar šnektai, tinka bendrinės kalbos taisyklei pagrįsti, bet, antra vertus, platų vartojimą ne visi vienodai supranta. Vis dėlto, anot Dambrūno, siekiant tikslumo, vartojimo platumą visada esą galima patikrinti: „Jeigu pasirodytų, kad kurį nors posakį tevar- 142 Today it is difficult to imagine how the breadth of usage could “always be checked” in practice—quite simply, a sufficiently large body of data has not yet been amassed (the situation is somewhat better for lexicon); usage has not been studied well enough to work with specific figures. Moreover, Dambrūnas’s own recommendations show where one might go astray in applying this principle in language practice when relying on mistaken assumptions and only approximate data (for example, justifying adverbs formed from -inis adjectives). Dambrūnas also fails to mention that statistical study of language facts must take account of the characteristics of the various levels of language: without taking too much risk of error, one might perhaps statistically process certain stress variants and use them to establish or adjust the standard-language norm, but applying this approach to syntactic phenomena, for instance, is much more complicated. Nevertheless, understanding where blind reliance on prevalence of usage could lead, Dambrūnas limits that criterion by means of another—the criterion of purity. In his view, if several language phenomena are native and equally widely used, both are permitted in the standard language; thus, the coexistence of variants is recognized (for example, long and short forms of case endings and personal forms). This, however, is not a permanent state. Viewing language as a process, Dambrūnas sees two forces at work in it—a static one and a dynamic one. The first provides a basis for standardizing language, while the second enables it to change. The most important thing, he argues, is to establish the direction in which language is changing. Some phenomenon may come to be used ever less frequently, and there is no point in reviving it through special measures (for example, the dual or the supine); whereas if a phenomenon was narrowly used but has become more frequent, its establishment should not be forbidden. Otherwise, one would be acting against the natural development of language. In the article “Progress in the Lithuanian Language” [61 I 1—3; 62 II 20—22], Dambrūnas describes processes taking place at various levels of language and concludes that “language naturally strives for greater simplicity, ease, clarity, and elegance. The means to this end are the elimination of unnecessary forms, shortening long forms, leveling parallel forms, and introducing new formations, constructions, or meanings” [62 II 22]. Thus, linguistic progress is equated with simplification, and this principle is adopted in assessing various language phenomena. The Danish linguist O. Jespersen’s theory of linguistic progress must have had considerable influence on Dambrūnas’s views. According to this theory, all language changes are progressive because they make communication easier. In his article “In What Direction Is Language Evolution Proceeding?” [61 II 18—21], Dambrūnas openly acknowledges his reliance on Jespersen and his acceptance of the idea of linguistic progress. Understanding the facts and direction of language development, he suggests, makes it possible to navigate practical questions of the standard language more effectively. Following Jespersen, Dambrūnas regards the simplification of language forms as an unqualified sign of linguistic improvement. As an example, he cites English and compares it with Lithuanian. In his view, English, an analytic language, accumulates fewer markers of grammatical categories within words and therefore uses, to express the relations between words in a sentence, 143 more other means, and this gives it flexibility and ease: “instead of our twelve instrumental case endings, English manages with one preposition, that is, with one ending” [61 II 21]. As an example of a case where English is more flexible than Lithuanian, Dambrūnas also gives the expression the exploitation of man by man. In Lithuanian (already in Soviet times), it was translated according to the Russian construction: išnaudojimas žmogaus žmogumi, and later the error was recognized and corrected, but awkwardly: žmogaus išnaudojimas kito žmogaus. Here Dambrūnas tries to show “how difficult it sometimes is to manage without a preposition,” but from today’s perspective it seems quite unnecessary to lament the inflexibility of Lithuanian and follow English or Russian; in this case it is enough simply to say žmogaus išnaudojimas. In general, such views today could easily be criticized simply by recalling the textbook assertion that every language is perfect in its own way. Thus, Dambrūnas’s formula indicating what is correct describes not a static but a changing object; in addition to breadth and purity of usage, it is supplemented by a dynamic element: “correct is what is native, what is used relatively widely, and what accords with the direction of language development” [61 III—IV 34]. If we compare these criteria with those adopted in Lithuania in 1938, we will see that here Dambrūnas has taken a considerable step backward. First, at that time correctness, purity, characteristic quality (which Dambrūnas called conformity with the direction of language development), purposiveness, and aesthetic quality were identified as independent criteria, and it was held that language standardization required taking their entire complex into account [38 IX 144—145]. Dambrūnas makes correctness the general principle, subsuming under it the criteria of purity, prevalence, and language development. In this way, one of the most important criteria identified by P. Jonikas in 1938—the criterion of purposiveness—is lost, and the stylistic differentiation of norms is no longer taken into account. Most importantly, there is no longer any mention of the need to keep norms as stable as possible. The principle of stability established in Lithuania at the time required “that things established in the language not be removed from it without clearly justifiable reasons” [38 IX 144], and encouraged each phenomenon, especially a newly emerging one, to be assessed cautiously and thoughtfully. In Dambrūnas’s scheme, there is no counterbalance to the tendencies of language development—the norm-setting tradition, which our linguists until then had more or less emphasized and upheld. Dambrūnas associates language development—both improvement and decline—with language users and their cultural level, which he says depended on their living environment [63 II 1—3]. Language progresses not suddenly; “between the old and the new there is quite a long struggle, until finally the innovation wins,” and progress is promoted not only by writers and linguists, but also by language users in general, by the entire nation. By considering the whole nation the creator of language and applying the criterion of prevalence to the usage of “all Lithuanians,” Dambrūnas did not, in theoretical terms, depart from the position formulated by the Lithuanian GK concerning the usage criterion for the standard language (in today’s terminology, the source of norms), but in practice he gave it greater weight than former GK contributors had. At the time, it had been collectively agreed that the source of standard-language norms was current, general Lithuanian usage [36 IV 50; 37 IX 120 and others], but it seems that what this usage actually meant had not been fully clarified. 144 Already living in America, Dambriūnas expresses the view that “usually only what the majority approves becomes established,” and therefore the criterion for the standard language (that is, the source of norms) is the usage of the majority [62 II 22]. Exceptions existing in a language at first merely contradict the rules, but when many people begin using these exceptions, they become customary and become legitimate just like the facts covered by the rules. In 1966, Dambriūnas writes: “the language used by everyone who speaks it, that is, by writers of fiction, poets, philosophers, scholars in particular fields, linguists, and the most ordinary users” [66 I 12], and a couple of years later he clarifies this claim: “However, not all users are alike. One cannot, for example, compare a great writer with an ordinary language user” [68 I—II 1]. Nevertheless, even this clarification does little to explain the concept of the source of norms—the usage of the majority—and leaves open the danger of arbitrary judgments. In several recommendations, Dambriūnas raises another important problem: to what extent can examples from old writings support current standard-language usage? In general, the language of old writings is considered an important source of norms in standardization theory, but Dambriūnas argues, not without reason, that “examples of the language of Mažvydas or similar authorities only tell us that it was used that way in the past,” but by no means imply that it ought to be used that way today [65 III—IV 35], since “the criterion of correctness for the standard language is its current, not historical, usage” [60 II 36]. However, by following this position too straightforwardly in a particular case, Dambriūnas disregards the tradition of usage. For example, he endorses the genitive with a preposition used in the prayer phrase kaip danguje, taip ir ant žemės, which, in his view, is not only a newer form than the locative (žemėje), but is also widespread in current usage and should not be considered a Slavicism. Nevertheless, this time P. Skardžius was most likely right when he wrote an editorial note beneath Dambriūnas’s article (before the latter became an editor). It explains that the locative is indeed older, but is still quite widespread today, and that “tradition partly supports contemporary usage here”; therefore, the locative is more suitable as the standard-language norm, especially in ecclesiastical language [60 II 37]. Dambriūnas says little and speaks imprecisely about the relationship between vernacular and standard language: “current usage does not necessarily have to be supported by dialect examples, or at least not by all kinds of examples and not in every case. The standard language can have its own domains, sometimes not entirely corresponding to dialect examples” [64 III 9]. The recommendations draw on dialects only a few times: when correcting the locative in the expression vaikščiojo drabužiuose to the instrumental drabužiais [65 III—IV 43—44], justifying the construction kad su with a participle in a subordinate clause of purpose [66 III—IV 44—48], and discussing the use of locative forms of abstract nouns [65 III—IV 47—50], as well as explaining tendencies toward the shortening of morphological forms. * * * The difference between Dambriūnas’s theoretical views and those of other language standardizers could not fail to affect language practice, especially after P. Jonikas and P. Skardžius left the GK editorial board. A study of GK recommendations shows that a considerable portion of grammar 10. Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai, XXXI 145 The evaluation of linguistic phenomena, compared with the earlier one that had taken shape in Lithuania, changed considerably. The following section will review the more important recommendations concerning morphology and syntax, which reveal an unconventional evaluation of linguistic phenomena and the rationale behind it. Discussing processes taking place at various levels of language, Dambriūnas identified the reduction in the number of language forms as the most important feature of progress in morphology. The supine and the dual are no longer to be used in the standard language, since they are obsolete and would only “burden the memory”; moreover, other forms take their place, so their excess is supposedly unnecessary. Dambriūnas says nothing about the stylistic value of these forms—for example, whether they might be suitable for use in colloquial speech or works of fiction (a point emphasized in Lithuania’s GK). The rarely used forms tedirbie, tedara, since they are replaced by the simpler form tedirba, tedaro (tegu daro). In this instance, it remains unclear what criteria Dambriūnas uses to distinguish which form is more complex and which is simpler. It is also noted that the number of noun declensions is decreasing, as the relatively few nouns of the 4th and 5th declensions acquire the endings of other declensions. Another supposed innovation in morphology is the emergence of indeclinable forms (once again, it seems, with an eye to the supposedly more advanced English-language model): they are more convenient to use (dešimt instead of dešimties, dvidešimt instead of dvi dešimtys, etc.). Dambriūnas takes a somewhat different view from the customary one of the competition between long and short word forms (eit||eiti; geriem žmonėm || geriems žmonėms). Claiming that “language develops in the direction of shortening forms, not lengthening them” [64 I 15], he strives to support short forms on every occasion and notes that this is also the general tendency of the vernacular [62 I 3]. In addition to this fundamental motive—language progress—a number of others are offered. Short forms are more convenient (and thus particularly suited to newspaper language) and make the language more euphonious, since the frequently occurring Lithuanian sound s is omitted [62 I 3]. On the other hand, Dambriūnas does not deny that the long forms are correct; in general, their use is supposedly a matter of taste [67 III 36]. The largest share of the recommendations concerns various syntactic phenomena. Dambriūnas regards the conjunction kad with an infinitive in a subordinate clause of purpose, the use of a converb instead of a half-participle, the instrumental case for a predicate where the nominative is sometimes required, and several other instances as indisputable, elementary syntactic errors [67 II 21]. He attempts to reconsider many errors that have long been corrected, explaining them chiefly in terms of tendencies in language development. In the substantial article “Some Cases of Case Usage,” which runs across several GK issues, competing case forms are described in detail (for example, predicate instrumental // nominative, dative of purpose // accusative of attribute, etc.), while the conclusions drawn do not always accord with the traditionally established view of the use of this type of grammatical form. What is important is that Dambriūnas attempts to encompass the entire case system and seek connections among its members, rather than examining the use of each case separately and in isolation. He notes that, alongside their primary meanings, cases also have secondary meanings that are not sufficiently clear or defined, and that this is why the domains of use of individual cases— 146 —not only come into contact but also become confused. In this way, a peculiar competition between cases takes place, and as the language changes, the domain of use of some cases expands while that of others contracts [64 I 1]. The recommendations discussing intermediate cases of usage show that Dambriūnas often senses subtle shades of meaning and attempts to take them into account when evaluating one phenomenon or another. For example, he explains in detail the difference between the so-called occasion accusative and the temporal dative. Dambriūnas disagrees with the dative corrected by Jablonskis in the sentence: Išvažiavo kelioms dienoms atostogų. In similar cases, Jablonskis consistently recommended the accusative, associating it with prefixed verbs of movement or motion3. Dambriūnas argues that in such sentences “the dative has by now […] become universally established” [62 II 21], whereas the accusative, expressing the duration of an action, and a perfective verb in the same sentence “clash” [64 IV 11—12]. This is because the temporal accusative has two distinct meanings: it denotes 1) the time during which someone acts or something happens, and 2) the time allotted or intended to be spent. The second meaning is very similar to that of the temporal dative, and therefore the dative tends to be used more often instead of this accusative, to avoid ambiguity arising from the multiple meanings of the accusative. To explain this, Dambriūnas gives Jablonskis’s sentence Važiuosim pas mamą valandėlę and points out that the accusative here can be understood in two ways: as an occasion accusative or as the so-called duration accusative, expressing the length of an action. In the first case, if the intention is to indicate the time allotted to spend or stay, the dative should be used instead of the accusative. Sometimes an abstract grammatical rule does not fit every particular case. Discussing the use of the genitive with negative verbs, Dambriūnas notes that this regularity is not always realized in practice; sometimes the accusative is more appropriate, depending on the sentence construction, the position of the case in the sentence, and other circumstances [64 I 7—8]. For example, one supposedly should not “use the genitive with an infinitive when another genitive is already governed by a negative verb”: nėra reikalo skelbti karą; neturime teisės jį smerkti, and so on. Dambriūnas concludes that with negation either case may be used—the genitive or the accusative—and that the choice between them should be guided by “an individual feel for language.” In present-day language practice, subtle differences and shades of meaning are sometimes sacrificed because a form is supposedly defective; however, closer examination shows that grammatical rules cannot be applied blindly to particular cases or used to constrain the natural nature of language. Nevertheless, in seeking differences of meaning, Dambriūnas does not avoid departing from the criterion of linguistic correctness and the tradition of standardization. Discussing in detail the use of locatives with abstract nouns, he tends to justify some such locatives, which had already been corrected by Jablonskis. In Dambriūnas’s view, the variants savaitės laikotarpyje and per savaitę are not synonymous, and therefore both are acceptable in the standard language. The first supposedly means that the work will be completed during the week, without necessarily working for the entire week, while the phrase— 3 Piročkinas A. Jono Jablonskio kalbos taisymai. K., 1986. P. 175—178. 147 per per savaitę ‘implies work for the entire week’ [65 III—IV 47—50]. Reasoning similarly, the locative forms savaitės eigoje, bėgyje are also considered acceptable, but today we recognize only the norm established by Jablonskis. Since Jablonskis’s time, the construction kad with an infinitive in a subordinate purpose clause has likewise consistently been regarded as an error and strictly corrected right up to the present day. Initially, Dambrūnas also considered the construction incorrect (among other errors, he cited kad turėjus gerų kunigų, [...] [60 II 40]), but in 1966 he stopped correcting it and tried to demonstrate that it was acceptable. First, this construction was presented as a possible substitute for another error—the use of an infinitive with kad in a subordinate purpose clause—since replacing the infinitive with the conditional mood is not always possible, especially in impersonal sentences. In the sentence Tačiau tų priemonių neužtenka, kad pakelti ekonominę gerovę, Dambrūnas corrects the infinitive to a participle (kad pakėlus) and adds: ‘Some linguists frown on this latter expression (kad with a participle), but in my opinion, without good reason’ [66 I 6—7]. In the III—IV issue of GK that same year, Dambrūnas discusses this construction in greater detail and concludes that it is entirely unobjectionable. Having surveyed all kinds of subordinate clauses (object, subject, manner, cause, and others), he observes that the participle is customarily used in all of them, so there is ‘neither a grammatical nor a logical basis’ for making an exception for subordinate purpose clauses [66 III—IV 44—48]. Thus, an artificial attempt is made to devise a scheme and explain phenomena through logical reasoning. Interestingly, Dambrūnas’s view was also adopted by other GK correspondents. In the same issue, V. Rastenis, correcting the language of the Lithuanian press in the United States, considers the construction under discussion, like the construction with the conditional mood, grammatically correct but stylistically flawed—‘heavy-going’: in the sentence Kad nuraminus vokiečius, Kennedy sugalvojo [...], he proposes replacing the subordinate clause with a purpose dative plus infinitive (vokiečiams nuraminti [...]) [66 III—IV 55]. As a new feature of syntax, Dambrūnas identifies the growing use of cases with prepositions in place of the ancient bare cases [62 II 20] and regards this as progress in the language: now we say iš pykčio, o ne pykčiu paraudo, ant žirgo, o ne žirge sėdėjo, žengimas į dangų, o ne dangaus žengimas, and so on. P. Skardžius also recognizes that this process is taking place in Lithuanian, but notes that ‘the transformation of ancient cases into prepositional phrases is not yet a completed process’ [60 V 50]. Even before Dambrūnas’s arguments, at the outset of GK’s publication, several authors had, conversely, complained about the abundance of prepositions that had arisen in the language of Lithuanian emigrants under the influence of English: ateik ant laiko [60 II 26], to nėra į šitą knygą (= šitoje knygoje) [60 II 43]. Dambrūnas, however, pays no attention to this and, having unreservedly seized on the idea of linguistic progress, views prepositional constructions much more favorably than their case-form equivalents. Consequently, he recommends using in the standard language the already-mentioned expression ant žemės, o ne žemėje, taip pat tikėti į ką, rather than the bare accusative [65 III—IV 33—38]. * * * The examples presented show that Dambrūnas’s theoretical discussions and linguistic recommendations reveal a fairly pronounced opposition between normative traditions and a logical approach to linguistic phenomena. Regarding logic as the foundation of all sciences [68 I—II 30], 148 he also tended to assess processes taking place in language from this standpoint, often rejecting linguistic facts that had become established and customary, or justifying errors generally recognized as such. Consider, for example, Dambrūnas’s view of adverbs formed from adjectives with the suffix -inis (išoriniai, vidiniai). Applying his formula for correctness, he argues that such adverbs are acceptable and questions Jablonskis, who, relying on the living language of the people, had avoided such adverbs; this also brings the tradition of correcting them to an end. Here it is worth recalling the claim by our linguists A. Girdenis and A. Rosinas that ‘the norms of the standard language are not scientific truths mathematically provable, but values, and they can be firmly upheld only when the linguistic community respects traditions and the authority of the most eminent language codifiers and normative works’4. One way of imposing logic on linguistic phenomena is through so-called linguistic analogies. Both in standardizing a language and in introducing norms into usage, they often help relate linguistic facts and make it possible to see language as a system. Analogies are especially popular in Dambrūnas’s linguistic recommendations. For instance, in the expression gyveno primityviausių žmonių gyvenimu, he replaces the instrumental with the accusative (gyveno gyvenimą), relying on analogous expressions kovą kovoti, miegą miegoti, dainą dainuoti, and so on [66 I 7]. The problem is that analogies are not always sought successfully. A striking example is the attempt to explain syntactic phenomena through the laws of lexis and phraseology. Dambrūnas notes that some foreign expressions can be used on the same basis as foreign words supposedly are, and justifies the borrowed locative: turi patirtį auklėjime [65 III—IV 48]. This overlooks the fact that a word is a relatively autonomous linguistic unit and, even when foreign, does not disrupt the linguistic system to the same extent as an expression formed according to foreign rules of word combination. For this reason, language generally permits a greater or lesser number of foreign words (loanwords) to function, whereas grammatical foreignisms are most often evaluated negatively. * * * How should we assess the contribution of the American GK (essentially, that of its editor L. Dambrūnas) to the theory and practice of grammatical standardization? Since that GK was almost entirely inaccessible in Lithuania, Dambrūnas’s ideas seem not to have influenced language-standardization work at all. On the other hand, it would be rash to claim that this work proceeded along parallel, non-intersecting lines in Lithuania and America. In America, efforts were made to follow linguistic life in Lithuania as much as possible; new works in linguistics were annotated and reviewed, and criticism was not shunned. This connection, however, was largely one-way, with no response from Lithuania itself. Thus, all that remains is to consider how we might now draw on GK’s experience in language cultivation and what pitfalls we should guard against as we look to the future. As already mentioned, Dambrūnas tended to assess linguistic phenomena on the basis of strict laws of logic, keeping in view the goal of language development—simplification—and his formula for correctness no longer left room for normative tradition or the stability of norms— 4 Girdenis A., Rosinas A. Dar kelios mintys dėl bendrinės kalbos kodifikacijos // Kultūros barai. 1983. Nr. 4. P. 67. 149 for its maintenance. This could not fail to lead to an unjustified revision of certain standard-language grammatical norms, disregarding the relative conservatism of this part of the language system. It may even seem paradoxical, but while still in Lithuania Dambrūnas, in the article “Are We Sometimes Correcting for No Reason?”, as if signing his own verdict in advance, wrote: “To understand correctly the life of a language and its phenomena, one must view them from a historical and psychological perspective, not merely a formal linguistic one. Using only the method of formal comparison to explain linguistic phenomena can be very harmful, for it impedes the language’s normal development and impoverishes the language itself” [35 V 65]. The question arises whether other linguists reacted in any way to Dambrūnas’s “errors.” This was indeed done, but in GK itself only while Dambrūnas had not yet become its editor; later, apparently, it was done in other publications as well5. In GK, Dambrūnas wrote a response only once—in 1968—to an article by P. Skardžius published in the “Draugas” supplement, where the editor was advised not to write about contentious issues in GK, since the publication was supposedly intended for the public, not for disputes among linguists. Could anything positive be found in Dambrūnas’s theoretical discussions and recommendations? His effort to view language as a changing phenomenon and to base standardization work on current usage is noteworthy. Although Dambrūnas did not differentiate more specifically either among language users (he merely emphasized that “not all users are alike”) or among domains of the standard language, and paid almost no attention to the distinctive features of language levels, the idea itself, inherited from the GK standardization program in Lithuania, prompted a new way of looking at processes taking place in language. Another matter is the methods (e.g., statistical methods) and criteria used to select linguistic facts and determine their suitability for the standard language. Similar ideas are being raised today by our linguists6: the need to compile a body of data on current usage is being pointed out, but the same problems left unresolved at the time—selection of informants and the like—are encountered. It is also noted that relying solely on tradition for standardization strategy and tactics is supposedly dangerous, as it may create a gulf between the codified and actual norms. Apparently, we must now seek a middle way, since the American GK makes clear where an excessively abrupt and ill-considered abandonment of traditions leads. GRAMMAR STANDARDIZATION IN “GIMTOJI KALBA” (1958—1968) Summary This paper deals with the problems of standardization of Lithuanian grammar in the newspaper “Gimtoji kalba” (Native Language), which was being published in the USA in 1958—1968 by Lithuanian emigrants there. The theoretical views of the editor of this newspaper, Leonardas 5 For example, see Skardžius P. Earlier and Present-Day Usage of Standard Lithuanian. Chicago, 1971. P. 32—35, 37—44. 6 Grumadienė L., Stundžia B. Are We Continuing the Traditions of the “Atlas of the Lithuanian Language”? // Gimtoji kalba. 1990. No. 5. P. 23—26. 150 Dambrūnas, were in many respects different from other Lithuanian linguists. In his theoretical reasonings and recommendations of the usage of grammatical variants, Dambrūnas ran to some extremes. But though he displayed his subtle sense of language in some questions, generally he estimated the processes of language from the standpoint of logic, and many mistakes of speech, which were traditionally corrected by other linguists, were recognized as standard facts by him. Thus he attempted to revise the traditional Lithuanian grammar system, and took offence against the demand to preserve the stability of norms. 185