Go to originalLocalized version was produced by AI. It may contain inaccuracies.
Preparing document pages…
Page 1
RASUOLĖ VLADARSKIENĖ
Institute of the Lithuanian Language
90 YEARS OF NOBLE AGE FOR DISTINGUISHED GRAMMAR RESEARCHER NIJOLĖ SLIŽIENĖ
Photograph by ASTA LESKAUSKAITĖ.
In 2022, habil. dr. Nijolė Sližienė (Paliušytė), one of the most distinguished researchers of Lithuanian grammar, reached a notable jubilee.
Nijolė Paliušytė was born on November 7, 1932, in Raseiniai and attended Radviliškis Secondary School. She came to study Lithuanian language and literature at Vilnius University in 1951. At the Faculty of History and Philology, syntax lectures were then given by Kazys Ulvydas, who also kept an eye out for more talented students and invited them to work at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature. As the jubilarian herself recounted, recalling Kazys Ulvydas1, it was thanks to his efforts that she joined this institution. K. Ulvydas himself called her when, after graduating from the University, she was working in the library of a ministry, and invited her to work at the Institute, as he was assembling a team of authors for an academic grammar of Lithuanian. This offer determined the jubilarian’s subsequent professional path. Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature
1 Colleagues’ recollections of Kazys Ulvydas. General Language 94, p. 8. Available online: https://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba/article/view/2070/2177.
242
BENDRINĖ KALBA | 95
Page 2
At the Institute (since 1990, the Institute of the Lithuanian Language), she worked for 44 years—from 1956 to 2000—and devoted nearly all that time to grammar2. At first she worked in the Grammar Group of the Dictionary Department, and later in the Grammar Department; consequently, the maturest works of her scholarship are studies of grammar. In 1965, N. Sližienė defended her Candidate of Philology dissertation on compound forms of the Lithuanian verb3. Her dissertation supervisor was K. Ulvydas, although, as she herself has said, he provided little supervision; while writing the dissertation, she consulted more often with Vytautas Ambrazas.
Nijolė Sližienė was one of the principal contributors to the most important grammars of the Lithuanian language. She wrote chapters for the second volume of Lithuanian Grammar (Vilnius, 1971) on the category of voice in verbs, compound verb forms, the infinitive, the supine, and the adverbial participle; the third volume (Vilnius, 1976) included chapters she wrote on simple and compound predicates, asyndetic and mixed clauses, and complex sentences. The grammar was written with great care. As the jubilarian herself recounted, Vytautas Ambrazas and Adelė Valeckienė first edited the texts, and then Kazys Ulvydas edited the entire publication. He “would invite the authors to his office, explain what had been written badly, and if someone managed to do so, prove that it was actually good; if they failed, they had to revise it”4. The scholar fondly recalls, however, that she alone managed to diplomatically convince K. Ulvydas that her text did not need revision: she would first let the supervisor express his criticisms energetically, then gradually raise the possibility that perhaps it was well written after all, and they would agree that no changes were necessary.
The linguist also did much work on one-volume grammars of the Lithuanian language. Chapters she prepared on verb tense, finite forms, the sentence core and its patterns, asyndetic sentences, and mixed complex sentences were published in A Grammar of Modern Lithuanian (1994–2006). Chapters she authored also appeared in Lithuanian grammars in Russian (Grammatika litovskogo jazyka, 1985) and English (Lithuanian Grammar, 1997, 2006).
Together with the other grammar authors, she received awards for her work on Lithuanian Grammar: in 1977, the Lithuanian State Prize was awarded,
2 For more on N. Sližienė’s work on grammar, see Loreta Semėnienė, “Congratulations to Nijolė Sližienė.” Language Culture 75, 166–169.
3 Algirdas Sabaliauskas. A History of Lithuanian Language Research. 1980–2010 Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language, 2012, p. 221.
4 Colleagues’ recollections of Kazys Ulvydas. General Language 94, p. 8. Available online: https://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba/article/view/2070/2177.
RASUOLĖ VLADARSKIENĖ. Žymiajai gramatikos tyrėjai Nijolei Sližienei – 90 metų
243
Page 3
For her work on one-volume grammars in Lithuanian, English, and Russian, she received the Lithuanian Republic Science Award in 1999. In 2002, the scholar was awarded the Officer’s Cross of the Order of the Lithuanian Grand Duke Gediminas.
Sližienė also wrote about her grammar research in articles in various journals. However, the scholar’s most important work, in the opinion of both her colleagues5 and herself, is The Dictionary of Lithuanian Verb Valency (vol. I – 1994, vol. II(1) – 1998, vol. II(2) – 2004), since, drawing on the work of foreign researchers, she interpreted their theory of valency in her own way and applied it to Lithuanian. The purpose of the publication is clearly described in its preface: “The dictionary shows how verbs are used in language, what words they occur with, in what forms and constructions, what those words mean, and what semantic functions they perform in a sentence. Verb valency is described on the basis of their valency properties. The dictionary includes verbs whose usage is more varied and complex, and also takes into account variation in usage and errors.” For her research into Lithuanian verb valency, Nijolė Sližienė was awarded the degree of habilitated doctor in 1994.
Alongside her theoretical research into grammar, the linguist was always concerned with matters of language practice as well. Here, too, she accomplished a great deal. One of her most significant contributions was preparing Lithuanian spelling rules. For a long time she was the most authoritative specialist in Lithuanian spelling, and the spelling rules she prepared still form the basis of the updated rules today. Together with Adele Valeckiene, she prepared the normative publication Lithuanian Spelling and Punctuation (1976, 1989, 1992), for which she wrote the Spelling section. She described changes to the spelling rules in detail in the article How Much Has Spelling Changed (Language Culture, hereafter KK 28, 1975). The article opens by stating that in the Spelling section, “the spelling practice up to that point was consolidated without making any fundamental spelling reforms. The main spelling rules are the same as those that became established in the time of Jonas Jablonskis. Spelling matters are simply explained more fully here and amply illustrated with examples. It is true that some inconsistencies have been evened out, spelling has in places been brought into line with pronunciation, and attempts have been made here and there to stabilize variable spelling practices—and this has led to a few spelling changes” (ibid., p. 4). The article then discusses those changes: writing j after the consonants b, p in the roots of bjaurus, pjauti, spjauti; writing the vowels y, ū and i, u in the third-person future tense forms of two-syllable verbs; and rules for writing words together or separately, as well as rules for writing prepositional constructions.
5 Sabaliauskas Algirdas. History of Lithuanian Language Research. 1980–2010 Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language, 2012; Semėnienė Loreta. Congratulations to Nijolė Sližienė. Language Culture 75, 166–169.
244
BENDRINĖ KALBA | 95
Page 4
rules; the use of the hyphen between proper nouns was revised; simpler rules were provided for dividing words between lines; the use of capital letters in proper names beginning with proper place names was clarified somewhat; the original spelling of non-Lithuanian proper names was officially accepted, and this spelling was recommended for names in scholarly works, reference literature, and announcements.
From 1990 to 2002, N. Sližienė was a member of the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language.
It is also important to mention that N. Sližienė was one of the most active authors for Kalbos kultūra, contributing 51 articles to the publication and also helping prepare its issues. In the very first issue of Kalbos kultūra (1961), we find two articles by the linguist, and she continued writing for the publication on current issues of language practice for no fewer than 44 years. The articles cover a range of topics, although most of her publications concern problems of syntax and spelling. N. Sližienė’s earliest publications in Kalbos kultūra reveal one of her principal research subjects: the patterns governing the use of words in sentences. Throughout her life, the linguist was concerned not only with investigating them and describing them using the linguistic theories of the time, but also with explaining problematic cases of usage consistently and with reasoned argument, paying particular attention to a word’s lexical meaning, since it “determines certain combinatory possibilities” (KK 78, 2005, p. 128). Ten articles can be counted on this topic. They include publications on the general meanings of cases (nominative (KK 45, 1983), genitive (KK 1, 1961), dative (KK 1, 1961), locative (KK 16, 1969)) and on the use of the prepositions iš, nuo (KK 66, 1994). The publications also discuss specific, more pressing questions of expression, as their telling titles make clear; some immediately reveal the problem under discussion: “Atsitikti, darytis, būti kam ir su kuo” (KK 54, 1988); “Rūpinimasis ir rūpestis: kuo ar dėl ko?” (KK 67, 1995); “Džiaugsmas, skundas – ne kuo, o dėl ko” (KK 68, 1995); “Nuteisti – ką, už ką ir kokia bausmė” (KK 71, 1998). Other titles name only the verb whose usage is examined: “The meaning and use of the verb tarpininkauti” (KK 75, 2002); “The synonymous meaning of the verbs stigti, stokoti, trūkti and features of their use” (KK 78, 2005).
But most of the linguist’s publications (19) in Kalbos kultūra examine problematic spelling cases. These articles were written when spelling rules were being considered, so it is interesting now to look at the spelling questions that arose at the time. In fact, spelling concerns have changed very little: 50 years ago, people were also concerned with how to spell long and short vowels correctly in word roots (KK 17, 1969; KK 20, 1971; KK 28, 1975), especially in the future tense
RASUOLĖ VLADARSKIENĖ. Žymiajai gramatikos tyrėjai Nijolei Sližienei – 90 metų
245
Page 5
third-person forms of tense (KK 47, 1984), suitable consonants (“Spelling of Baugštus, bugštus, baikštus and their derivatives”, KK 21, 1971).
The linguist’s very thorough article on the spelling of compound names (KK 18, 1970) explains the particular features of spelling compound names, the criteria for distinguishing common and proper names, and discusses their spelling system, rationale, and exceptional cases. It also argues for changes to spelling rules which, in the author’s view, would help avoid spelling variation and inconsistency. Since the spelling of compound proper names has remained essentially unchanged, this article is still relevant today, although the state system and state institutions have changed; the main rules for writing their names, however, have remained the same. N. Sližienė writes the following about names with a direct meaning (which she calls real names): “Proper names of states, state institutions, enterprises, organizations, significant dates, historical events, and other such entities are written according to two rules. Under the general rule, only the first word of a compound name is capitalized, along with any proper nouns and other names within it that are written with capital letters. <...> Nearly all compound proper names are written according to this rule. By a longstanding tradition, only a small number are subject to the exceptional rule: all their words, except function words and the word partija, begin with a capital letter” (KK 18, 1970, p. 58).
Several articles are devoted to the spelling of proper names and titles: the spelling of geographical names is examined (KK 32, 1977), as is the marking of a person’s first name and patronymic (KK 38, 1980). Transitional cases that can be interpreted in various ways give rise to many uncertainties. N. Sližienė explains very precisely when people’s names may be written with a lowercase letter: “<...> the conversion of proper names into common nouns is most evident when they are used in the plural, since then the separation of an individual name from a single specific person and its extension to many people, in order to characterize them in one way or another, is obvious. A proper name becomes a generic term.” She goes on to reason that it is harder to say whether a proper name has become a common noun “when it is used in the singular and associated with only one person, since then it does not acquire a pronounced common meaning and more or less retains its individual meaning”; therefore, spelling variants may also occur (KK 19, 1970, p. 53).
One of the most relevant and complex spelling topics is the writing of proper names and titles from other languages. Several articles are devoted to it, also introducing resolutions adopted by the Language Commission (KK 36, 1979; KK 53, 1987). Sližienė’s thoughts on the spelling of common and proper words from other languages in Lithuanian texts remain relevant today: “<...> the endings of proper words from other languages are Lithuanianized according to the same basic rules as common words. The tradition of Lithuanianizing foreign-word endings is sufficiently old and well established; we need only preserve it and follow it” (KK 24, 1973, p. 7).
246
BENDRINĖ KALBA | 95
Page 6
“The endings of words from other languages are Lithuanianized according to the same basic rules as those of common words. The tradition of Lithuanianizing foreign-word endings is sufficiently old and well established; we need only preserve it and follow it” (KK 24, 1973, p. 7).
In Sližienė’s publications, spelling issues also reflect changes in cultural realities associated with the state’s political transformations: as the national revival gathered strength, the question arose of how to write the names of traditional dances (KK 56, 1989), and when the word saint (St.) should be written (KK 68, 1995); the influx of Western culture also brought questions about the spelling of disco-, pop-, video- (KK 64, 1993).
She also wrote about abbreviating words and institutional names (KK 39, 1980; KK 53, 1987), compound words with the element half- (KK 22, 1972), and the spelling of j (KK 58, 1990).
The linguist was concerned not only with usage issues directly related to her research; like most linguists of her generation, she was an active champion of her native language, felt a responsibility to educate the wider public, and encouraged the use of correct language. Accordingly, a number of publications addressed questions concerning the particular features of language use in various fields. Four publications on administrative language were written: on how to address letters and official documents (KK 16, 1969); shortcomings in the language used at meetings were examined (KK 17, 1969; KK 55, 1988); and several corrections to administrative language were presented (KK 35, 1978). She also wrote about the language of medical professionals (KK 23, 1972; KK 52, 1987), and the language used in works about art (KK 33, 1977).
The author of this article had the opportunity to work alongside the jubilarian—not in the same department, it is true, but their paths often crossed. First, at the beginning of her professional career, she experienced the jubilarian’s generous assistance and the many freely offered pieces of advice. Later, their shared interest in spelling issues brought them closer: a little over a decade ago, they jointly put forward proposed changes to the rules for writing proper names (though these were not approved). The distinguished colleague’s warm, pleasant manner and practical approach to finding solutions to problems were a source of great admiration throughout; the foundation of all her work was the creation of a system, sound reasoning, and consistent adherence to it.
On the occasion of this distinguished anniversary, we wish once again to celebrate the abundance and significance of the jubilarian’s achievements, and to wish her many bright and fruitful years ahead.
