Nieostrość określenia „język prosty” na pograniczu bałtycko-słowiańskim z perspektywy języka litewskiego

KOJI MORITA Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, Japan AMBIGUITY OF THE TERM SIMPLE LANGUAGE IN THE BALTO-SLAVIC BORDER REGION FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE KEYWORDS: Balto-Slavic border region, multilingualism, multiculturalism, simple language, prosta mova, Grand Duchy of Lithuania. ABSTRACT This article deals with the so-called simple language, which has been used for centuries by various national groups in the Balto-Slavic border region. This homely and unofficial language functions among the lower social classes solely as a means of verbal communication within multilingual communities. The author also mentions that in the past there existed a language with a similar name. From the 16th century to the middle of the 17th century, a written language called prosta mova was in use in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. At that time, it was the official literary language alongside Old Church Slavonic. It also served as a means of communication for the upper social classes in this multilingual state. The main aim of this article is to highlight the ambiguity of the term simple language in the Balto-Slavic border region, with particular attention to interpreting its meaning from the perspective of the Lithuanian language. ABSTRACT This paper deals with the so-called język prosty which has been used for ages by various national groups living in the Balto-Slavic border region. This homely and unofficial language functions among the lower social classes only as a vehicle for verbal communication within multilingual communities. The author also mentions the fact that in the past there existed a language called by a similar name. From the 16th century to the middle of the 17th century, in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania there BENDRINĖ KALBA 94 (2021) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 KOJI MORITA. Nieostrość określenia język prosty na pograniczu bałtycko-słowiańskim z perspektywy języka litewskiego | 2 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2021.94.09 functioned a written language referred to as prosta mowa. It was then the official literary language, apart from Old Church Slavonic. It also served as a communication tool for the upper social classes in the multilingual country. The main goal of this paper is to highlight the ambiguity of expression simple language in the Balto-Slavic border region, paying more attention to the interpretation of the meaning from the perspective of the Lithuanian language. INTRODUCTION In light of the field research conducted to date, it is known that among Poles and other peoples living in the Balto-Slavic border region, the term simple language (simple speech or other terms used interchangeably) is widespread. Local people use this term for their home language, the unofficial language of the lower social classes. It serves only for everyday conversation and fulfills communicative functions among the multilingual population of the region. Here, however, it is worth recalling that a language bearing a similar name also existed in this region in the past. From the 16th century to the middle of the 17th century, a written language known as simple speech was used in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. At that time, it was the official literary language alongside Church Slavonic, and also served as a means of communication for the upper social classes in the multilingual population. The main aim of this article is to highlight the ambiguity of the term simple language in the Balto-Slavic border region. I have addressed this topic before in my scholarly work (Morita 2002, 2004, 2006), and similar issues have already been analyzed by many researchers; in the present study, however, I will revisit it in order to achieve the main aim, paying greater attention to interpreting its meaning from the perspective of the Lithuanian language. BENDRINĖ KALBA 94 (2021) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351–7204 KOJI MORITA. Nieostrość określenia język prosty na pograniczu bałtycko-słowiańskim z perspektywy języka litewskiego | 3 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2021.94.09 1. SIMPLE LANGUAGE IN THE BALTO-SLAVIC BORDER REGION Linguists and ethnologists believe that in everyday life Poles in the Balto-Slavic border region actually use the local Belarusian dialect, that is, simple language, more often than Polish. This language of the Balto-Slavic border region has not yet been clearly identified by linguists, and many researchers offer only general explanations. For example, at the beginning of a book edited by Irena Maryniakowa, Iryda Grek-Pabisowa, and Anna Zielińska, entitled Polish Dialect Texts from the Former Northeastern Borderlands, the following definition is given: “simple speech or speaking simply is what we call the local Belarusian dialect spoken by Poles” (Maryniakowa et al. 1996: 8). Leszek Bednarczuk writes that “the so-called simple speech [is] a northwestern Belarusian dialect saturated with Polonisms and Lithuanianisms” (Bednarczuk 1999: 6), while Alojzy Adam Zdaniukiewicz says in his book entitled The Dialect of Łopatowszczyzna that “the so-called simple language is a dialect of the Belarusian language” (Zdaniukiewicz 1972: 5). Mikołaj Sawicz claims that “простая мова представляет собой диалект белорусского языка” (Савич 1990: 47)1. For village residents in the Balto-Slavic border region, simple language is the language of the uneducated and lower social classes. As Ryszard Radzik also argues: “Belarusian was regarded by the people as a ‘simple,’ peasant language, unsuitable for expressing lofty feelings or for use in the company of cultured people, and unworthy of being printed” (Radzik 2000: 178). According to Iwona Kabzińska, “the use of simple language takes place exclusively in verbal communication. It is a spoken language, without a writing system or literature” (Kabzińska 1999: 66). The Lithuanian linguist Pranas Kniūkšta, by contrast, emphasizes the convenience of simple language as follows: 1 The author adds: “This dialect is characterized by akanye-yakanye and tsekanye-dzekanye; its morphology, syntax, and vocabulary are typical of northwestern Belarusian dialects.” BENDRINĖ KALBA 94 (2021) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 KOJI MORITA. Nieostrość określenia język prosty na pograniczu bałtycko-słowiańskim z perspektywy języka litewskiego | 4 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2021.94.09 This language was convenient because it made it possible to communicate both with Polish and Russian speakers, allowing one to navigate between the two languages. No one wanted to listen to someone speaking Lithuanian, neither the lord nor the parish priest, while everyone understood Belarusian (Kniūkšta 1990: 12). The Belarusian literary language, by contrast, is regarded by the peasant population as the language of educated people. This is borne out by the following statement from my informant (born 1935), which I recorded during fieldwork in the village of Naliboki, Belarus: “Only some people speak Belarusian (the literary Belarusian language – K. M.), so a person has to be very well educated too” (Morita 2001: 250). Anna Engelking also argues, on the basis of her own ethnographic research in the Grodno region: The language common to the entire rural population here is the Belarusian dialect, called by its speakers simple language or miejscnym (‘local’). The term means ‘the speech of simple, uneducated people; dialect’ and is contrasted with the pure languages—Russian, Polish, and literary Belarusian—which are used by educated, intelligent and noble people (Engelking 1996: 178). It can therefore be inferred that simple language is the language of people belonging to the lower social strata, in contrast to the literary languages (Belarusian, Polish, and Russian) of educated people. Simple language has lower social status when set against the language of city dwellers, elites, and intellectuals (Radzik 2000: 74). It should also be noted that among the less educated population in Belarus, a mixed language composed of various Belarusian and Russian elements, known as trasianka (Smułkowa 2000: 91), is more common, while in Ukraine the corresponding form is suržyk, combining Ukrainian and Russian elements (Masalska 1999: 224). These forms are nonstandard; they arise and function spontaneously, BENDRINĖ KALBA 94 (2021) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 KOJI MORITA. Nieostrość określenia język prosty na pograniczu bałtycko-słowiańskim z perspektywy języka litewskiego | 5 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2021.94.09 they are realized exclusively in verbal communication, mainly in urban social settings (ТДМ 1999: 9). It seems that both mixed languages occupy an intermediate position in the language hierarchy, between literary languages (Belarusian, Ukrainian, and Russian) and folk dialects. 2. PROSTA MOWA IN THE GRAND DUCHY OF LITHUANIA In the past, two literary languages were used in the territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania: alongside Church Slavonic, there appeared the so-called prosta mowa (Успенский 1994: 65; ГЛЗ 2000: 4) (this was the name commonly used by its speakers at the time; similar names were also used for, for example, the chancery language of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Old Belarusian, Old Ukrainian, Kryvian, West Russian, and chancery-Slavonic, etc.), which differed markedly from Church Slavonic both in its grammatical system and in its vocabulary. Linguists, however, have no consensus on what prosta mowa actually was, since the concept is ambiguous (Getka 2012: 20). Prosta mowa (проста мова), which arose as an alternative to Church Slavonic, initially (in the second half of the 16th century) served primarily to make religious-polemical works accessible to the faithful, and thus functioned as a particular variety of written language in the religious sphere, in contrast to the so-called Ruthenian language (руська мова), which had served as the chancery language in the lands of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania since the 14th century (Мякишев 2008: 33–40). It is known from numerous texts dating from the second half of the 16th century to the end of the 17th century. It had different dialectal features depending on the region and its user. I believe that the word simple on the title page of the Catechism by Szymon Budny, published in 15622: для простыхъ людей языка руского was the first 2 The texts of the Catechism by Szymon Budny, published in 1562, were issued in two volumes by Kobe City University of Foreign Studies, with commentary: Shimon Budoni, Kyōri-mondō (1562-nen), dai-ichibu. BENDRINĖ KALBA 94 (2021) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 KOJI MORITA. Nieostrość określenia język prosty na pograniczu bałtycko-słowiańskim z perspektywy języka litewskiego | 6 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2021.94.09 a signal of the emergence of the term simple speech. The Catechism under discussion is the only surviving work by Budny written in Old Belarusian, in which only the biblical quotations were given in Church Slavonic. It may therefore be stated that Simon Budny’s Catechism is one of the most important sources for simple speech in the 16th century. Although other languages (including Latin and Polish) were also used in the writings of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the 16th century, simple speech remained the official state language (Lazutka 1997: 33). It had the status of a chancery language until 1696, when Polish and, in part, Latin were introduced by a resolution of the Warsaw Sejm (Grek-Pabisowa 1997: 146). From that point on, Polish was granted the status of the state language, while simple speech survived in the diverse dialects of the Ruthenian population of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. In the 16th and 17th centuries, two scholars compiled a grammar of Church Slavonic in order to establish its grammatical norms (ГЛЗ 2000) – Wawrzyniec Zyzani (1596) (Зизаній 1980) and Meletius Smotrytsky (1619) (Смотрицький 1979), whereas no precise description of the grammatical norms of simple speech exists (i.e. of the literary Old Belarusian language used in the 16th and 17th centuries in state offices and courts in the territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania). An attempt to present the independent linguistic system of seventeenth-century simple speech as a distinct language is made in two manuscript versions of Ivan Uzhevich’s Slavonic Grammar (Paris 1643; Arras 1645) (ГС 1970). Uzhevich compiled a grammar of Old Belarusian, that is, the state language of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (Яскевіч 2001: 51). It is generally accepted that this language developed on the basis of Old Russian, common to the populations of Belarus and Ukraine at the time when these lands formed part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (Bardach 1988: 20), Tekisuto oyobi kaisetsu [Szymon Budny, Katechizm (Rok 1562), część pierwsza. Tekst i komentarz], Kobe: Institute for Foreign Studies, Kobe City University of Foreign Studies, 2002, ii + 148 pp. (Annals of Foreign Studies Vol. 56); Shimon Budoni, Kyōri-mondō (1562-nen), dai-nibu, dai-sanbu, dai-yonbu. Tekisuto oyobi kaisetsu [Szymon Budny, Katechizm (Rok 1562), część druga, część trzecia, część czwarta. Tekst i komentarz], Kobe: Institute for Foreign Studies, Kobe City University of Foreign Studies, 2008, viii + 131 pp. (Annals of Foreign Studies Vol. 71). BENDRINĖ KALBA 94 (2021) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 KOJI MORITA. Nieostrość określenia język prosty na pograniczu bałtycko-słowiańskim z perspektywy języka litewskiego | 7 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2021.94.09 that is, in this interpretation simple speech is a supraregional form shared by Belarusians and Ukrainians (Getka 2012: 21). East Russian developed separately in the Muscovite state, from which Russian evolved. Boris Uspienski briefly outlines the general characteristics of simple speech: Simple speech is contrasted both with Church Slavonic and with Ukrainian or Belarusian dialectal speech. Unlike Church Slavonic, however, this language displays an unmistakable colloquial substratum, which is artificially bookishized through, first, Slavonization and, second, Polonization. Accordingly, two varieties of simple speech can be distinguished—Ukrainian and Belarusian: the Ukrainian variety is more Slavonized, while the Belarusian one is more strongly Polonized (Успенский 1994: 68). I think it is difficult to agree fully with Boris Uspienski’s thesis above; the only certainty is that simple speech was highly varied regionally. The social sphere in which simple speech was used was much broader than that of Church Slavonic, which served primarily religious purposes and, to a lesser extent, literary ones. Church Slavonic, far removed from the realities of life at the time, was no longer understood by broad sections of society, especially the lower classes (Успенский 1994: 252). Simple speech, despite lacking the abstract vocabulary found in Church Slavonic, served as a useful instrument for both religious and secular writing (e.g. chronicles, state documents, legal collections, Sejm resolutions, private correspondence) (Witkowski 1969: 8). This language was used above all to write the Lithuanian Metrica (records of the grand-ducal chancery from the 15th century) and the famous Lithuanian Statutes (I: 1529, II: 1566, III: 1588). It is not known, however, whether at that time the linguistic system of simple speech (of the kind described in Uzhevich’s Grammar) was widespread throughout the Grand Duchy of Lithuania or only in a limited area. The principal BENDRINĖ KALBA 94 (2021) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 KOJI MORITA. Nieostrość określenia język prosty na pograniczu bałtycko-słowiańskim z perspektywy języka litewskiego | 8 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2021.94.09 users of this language were the higher, better-educated strata of Ruthenian society, not its lower strata. It may therefore be inferred that simple speech occupied a lower position in the language hierarchy than Church Slavonic, but a higher one than the vernacular dialects. For people of Ruthenian culture, Church Slavonic was pure, and the emergence of simple speech meant for them, as Teresa Chynczewska-Hennel emphasizes, “a kind of Ruthenian-Polish amalgam resulting from the clash of Polish-Latin culture with the Byzantine-Slavic tradition” (Chynczewska-Hennel 1985: 57). It may therefore be concluded that simple speech was a mixed language, in contrast to the pure Church Slavonic language. 3. DEFINING PROSTY FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE Today, in simple language, which is used only for everyday conversation, the term simple is used in accordance with its dictionary meaning in contemporary Polish3. It is worth noting, however, that the adjective simple, attested in Polish since the fourteenth century, has been polysemous from the outset4, occurring with both literal and figurative meanings. Zigmas Zinkevicius gives several Lithuanian-language equivalents of the expression simple language, e.g. (pa)prastà kalbà, prãstas liežùvis, as well as simply, e.g. paprastai (Zinkevicius 1993: 246; Зинкявичюс 1996: 304), whereas in Lithuanian simple language is more often referred to, among other terms, as gudų 3 Dictionary of the Polish Language PWN, with supplement edited by Mieczysław Szymczak, vol. II, Warsaw: PWN, 1998, 898–899. Entry “prosty”: 1. “not deviating in any direction, not turning to the side; straight, not crooked, not winding, not bent, not curved”; 2. “of people: at a low level of intellectual development, culture, education, social refinement, etc.; low in a given hierarchy”; 3. “of objects: undistinguished, modest, unpretentious, ordinary, common, unadorned, plain”; 4. “uncomplicated, straightforward, simple, obvious, comprehensible”; 5. “ordinary, natural”. 4 Etymological Dictionary of the Polish Language edited by Andrzej Bańkowski, vol. II, Warsaw: PWN, 2000, 788. The author emphasizes that this word has been polysemous from the outset and requires further study of its semantic development. BENDRINĖ KALBA 94 (2021) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 KOJI MORITA. Nieostrość określenia język prosty na pograniczu bałtycko-słowiańskim z perspektywy języka litewskiego | 9 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2021.94.09 kalba, gudìškai (Zinkevičius 1996: 306–307). We współczesnym języku litewskim gudas jest synonimem baltar usis, trzeba jednak zwrócić uwagę na to, że gudas ma jeszcze dodatkowy sens, którego nie ma baltar usis. Nazwa gudas jest tradycyjnym określeniem Białorusina, szeroko rozpowszechnionym w litewszczyźnie przedwojennej (Čekmonienė, Čekmonas 1993: 352). Jest to obecnie oficjalna nazwa Białorusina. W słowniku etymologicznym języka litewskiego jest definicja następująca: 1. ‘Białorusin’, 2. ‘Polak, Rosjanin’ (Smoczyński 2007: 207). Według 20-tomowego słownika języka litewskiego, gudas to przede wszystkim baltar usis (kartais lenkas ar rusas), czyli ‘Białorusin (czasem Polak lub Rosjanin)’5. Należałoby jednak wyjaśnić, dlaczego czasem Polak lub Rosjanin? Gudas—once a resident of Lithuania of non-Lithuanian origin—is primarily an East Slav, a Ruthenian (Belarusian); the term was used less frequently for Poles and Russians. Most often, it means ‘a person who does not speak Lithuanian’. Today, when the word is used colloquially, it is essentially treated as derogatory, and a gudas can be not only a Belarusian but also a Pole or a Russian. In summary, gudų kalba has an imprecise meaning: ‘a language used in Lithuania mainly by the Belarusian, Polish, and Russian population that does not speak Lithuanian’. In Lithuanian dialects, the name gudas undergoes appellativization and may mean ‘a person who speaks another (Lithuanian) dialect’ (Smoczyński 2007: 208)6. The old prosta mowa, by contrast, differs considerably from its modern counterpart, since it belongs to the category of literary languages, and its users were people from the upper social strata. Boris Uspienski argues that: “The name проста itself must under no circumstances be understood literally, since the expression проста мова derives from Latin lingua rustica” (Успенский 1994: 66). Uspienski treats the old prosta mowa as lingua rustica. Referring to the Grammar 5 Lietuvių kalbos žodynas, t. III: G–H, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla, 1956, p. 692. 6 Oprócz tego Słownik etymologiczny języka litewskiego (Smoczyński 2007: 208) podaje kilka derywatów od nazwy gudas: gudijá ‘miejsce, gdzie mieszka wielu Białorusinów’, gudiškas ‘białoruski’, gudiškai ‘po białorusku’ itd. BENDRINĖ KALBA 94 (2021) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351–7204 KOJI MORITA. Nieostrość określenia język prosty na pograniczu bałtycko-słowiańskim z perspektywy języka litewskiego | 10 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2021.94.09 Użewicz writes that lingua rustica, that is, prosta mowa, occupies a position in the linguistic hierarchy between lingua sacra sclavonica (that is, Church Slavonic) and lingua popularis (that is, folk dialects). The term prosty once meant ‘secular, not belonging to the clergy’, since I. I. Sreznevsky’s dictionary gives the following definition: простъ – ‘мирской, не принадлежащий къ духовенству’7. In other words, at that time świecki (‘secular’) was a synonym of prosty, and its antonym was sakralny (‘sacred’). The old prosta mowa was a literary language used by educated people, so we should assume that the term prosty had the meaning mentioned above. Although this speech is prosta, this does not at all mean that it is a folk dialect. CONCLUSION As I noted at the beginning of the article, the term język prosty is now widespread in the Balto-Slavic border region. It should be emphasized, however, that there is no język prosty as a uniform linguistic system functioning throughout the entire Balto-Slavic region. This language may have different dialectal features depending on the region and the speaker. Any language may be prosty (simple) as long as it is contrasted with languages of higher status in a given society’s linguistic hierarchy—that is, with any literary language, and formerly with Church Slavonic. This is an imprecise and ambiguous concept. Poles living in this border region are ashamed of their dialect, saying that it is ungrammatical and impure, that is, prosta (simple). It follows that for many years the term język prosty has been used primarily to indicate lower social status in relation to languages of higher status. Behind the term prosty lie secularity or a lower social position, resulting from the hierarchical structure of the Balto-Slavic border region. As a result of the long-standing social stratification in this area, a distinct form was created 7 I. I. Sreznevsky, Materials for a Dictionary of the Old Russian Language Based on Written Monuments, vol. II, St. Petersburg: Printing House of the Imperial Academy of Sciences, 1902, p. 1584. BENDRINĖ KALBA 94 (2021) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 KOJI MORITA. Nieostrość określenia język prosty na pograniczu bałtycko-słowiańskim z perspektywy języka litewskiego | 11 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2021.94.09 of diglossia. The practice of describing a low variety of a language as prosty (simple) has been followed for centuries. It seems to me that researchers should be cautious when determining whether the language under study can be classified as prosty (simple). What matters most is how its speakers situate themselves within the hierarchical structure of society. From the accounts of my interlocutors in Lithuania, it appears that Polish-speaking people in rural areas also often consider their language prosty (simple) compared with the language of residents of central Poland. According to Iwona Kabzińska, some residents of Belarus claim that język prosty is a variety of Polish or a Polish dialect (Kabzińska 1999: 66). Katarzyna Konczewska argues that in the Grodno region, mowa prosta may be either a typical Belarusian dialect or a local variety of Polish (Konczewska 2021: 62). We must not forget that the social status of a given language always depends on its hierarchical position in relation to other languages in society, as well as on its speakers’ social awareness. To sum up the discussion so far, it seems reasonable to conclude that język prosty and prosta mowa are different languages, although the circumstances of their emergence are similar: 1) they are contrasted with languages of higher status in the linguistic hierarchy—formerly with Church Slavonic and today with literary languages. At the same time, they indicate the social position of their speakers within the hierarchy; 2) they are mixed forms created to facilitate communication among a multilingual population, formerly mainly in writing and today in speech; 3) without directly referring to any nationality, they make it possible to maintain ambiguity in linguistic and identity boundaries amid disputes between different nationalities. This is also evidenced by the fact that people living in these areas often consider themselves tutejszych (locals) and speak po prostu (simply). It seems that historically, in this multilingual area, the term prosty is the most appropriate and makes it possible to preserve the ambiguity of linguistic and identity boundaries. My informant (born in 1935) from the village of Naliboki in Belarus speaks of this ambiguity in the term języka prostego as follows: “Such a language, well, almost everyone calls it simple; it is neither Polish nor Russian nor Belarusian; well, in a village like this they talk this way, and it is simple BENDRINĖ KALBA 94 (2021) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 KOJI MORITA. Nieostrość określenia język prosty na pograniczu bałtycko-słowiańskim z perspektywy języka litewskiego | 12 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2021.94.09 język“ (Morita 2001: 250). Tadeusz Lewaszkiewicz, in order to emphasize the need for a cautious approach to declared national identity, cites facts concerning the wavering national consciousness of former residents of the area around Nowogródek: National consciousness is a very complex phenomenon. People often identify with a particular national origin depending on the situation, that is, they choose the more advantageous national option—which ensures better living conditions. This applies not only to mixed families, but also to ethnically homogeneous ones (Lewaszkiewicz 2017: 45–46). Ines Katharina Ackermann, in the context of language as an important element of identity in the Polish-Lithuanian-Belarusian borderland, convincingly argues: “It is also possible to change one’s identity or to have more than one. In different social situations, the same person may present themselves in different ways, and thus present a different part of their identity as well” (Ackermann 2015: 48). For centuries, the Balto-Slavic borderland has seen a need for peaceful adaptation to continual changes in political and social as well as linguistic and cultural conditions. Such indistinctness of linguistic and identity boundaries allowed the population to maneuver between different political and social situations and made it possible to avoid declaring an unambiguous identity. The communicative community consisting of a multilingual population, established by the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, remains present in the Balto-Slavic borderland to this day through the continued use of the designation simple. Everything indicates that, in conditions of multilingualism and multiculturalism, the indistinctness of linguistic and identity boundaries plays an extremely important role. BENDRINĖ KALBA 94 (2021) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 KOJI MORITA. Nieostrość określenia język prosty na pograniczu bałtycko-słowiańskim z perspektywy języka litewskiego | 13 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2021.94.09 BIBLIOGRAFIA Ackermann Ines Katharina 2015: Granice języka. Samookreślenia Polaków na Białorusi i Litwie, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo DiG. Bardach Juliusz 1988: O dawnej i niedawnej Litwie, Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM. Bednarczuk Leszek 1999: Stosunki językowe na ziemiach Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego, Kraków: Oficyna Wydawnicza Edukacja. Čekmonienė Irena, Čekmonas Valerijus 1993: Język litewski dla każdego (Lietuvių kalba kiekvienam), Kaunas: Šviesa. Chynczewska-Hennel Teresa 1985: Świadomość narodowa szlachty ukraińskiej i kozaczyzny od schyłku XVI do połowy XVII w., Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Engelking Anna 1996: Każda nacja swoją wiaru ma. – Polska Sztuka Ludowa. Konteksty 3–4, 177–183. Getka Joanna 2012: Prosta mowa końca XVII wieku – język „Nauk Parafialnych” (Poczajów 1794), Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego. Grek-Pabisowa Iryda 1997: Językowa rzeczywistość na dawnych Kresach północno-wschodnich. – Kresy – pojęcie i rzeczywistość, Warszawa: Slawistyczny Ośrodek Wydawniczy. Kabzińska Iwona 1999: Wśród „kościelnych Polaków”. Wyznaczniki tożsamości etnicznej (narodowej) Polaków na Białorusi, Warszawa: Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii Polskiej Akademii Nauk. Konczewska Katarzyna 2021: Polacy i język polski na Grodzieńszczyźnie, Kraków: Instytut Języka Polskiego Polskiej Akademii Nauk. Kniūkšta Pranas 1990: Wileńszczyzna i język litewski, Wilno: Mokslas. Lazutka Stanislovas 1997: Język Statutów Litewskich i Metryki Litewskiej. – Lithuania 1/2 (22/23), 26–33. Lewaszkiewicz Tadeusz 2017: Język powojennych przesiedleńców z Nowogródka i okolicy, Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM. Maryniakowa Irena, Grek-Pabisowa Iryda, Zielińska Anna 1996: Polskie teksty gwarowe z obszaru dawnych Kresów północno-wschodnich, Warszawa: Slawistyczny Ośrodek BENDRINĖ KALBA 94 (2021) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 KOJI MORITA. Nieostrość określenia język prosty na pograniczu bałtycko-słowiańskim z perspektywy języka litewskiego | 14 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2021.94.09 Wydawniczy. Masalska Irena 1999: Kilka uwag o ukrainizmach i rusycyzmach słownikowych w języku powojennej inteligencji polskiej Lwowa. – Studia nad polszczyzną kresową 9, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Semper. Morita Koji 2001: Teksty gwary polskiej ze wsi Naliboki na Białorusi. – Studia nad polszczyzną kresową 10, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Semper. Morita Koji 2002: Związek prostej mowy na dawnych Kresach Wschodnich z prostą mową w Wielkim Księstwie Litewskim. Uwagi terminologiczne. – Studia Slawistyczne 3: Wielojęzyczność i wielokulturowość na pograniczu polsko-wschodniosłowiańskim, Białystok: Libra. Morita Koji 2004: Mowa prosta na Kresach Wschodnich w aspekcie historycznym. – Kultura i świadomość etniczna Polaków na Wschodzie. Tradycja i współczesność, Wrocław: Katedra Etnologii i Antropologii Kulturowej Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego. Morita Koji 2006: Przemiany socjolingwistyczne w polskich społecznościach na Litwie (region trocki) i Białorusi (region iwieńiecki). Studium porównawcze, Warszawa: Slawistyczny Ośrodek Wydawniczy. Radzik Ryszard 2000: Język jako wyznacznik tożsamości Białorusinów. – Język a tożsamość na pograniczu kultur, Białystok: Katedra Kultury Białoruskiej Uniwersytetu w Białymstoku. Radzik Ryszard 2000: Między zbiorowością etniczną a wspólnotą narodową, Lublin: Wydawnictwo UMCS. Smoczyński Wojciech 2007: Słownik etymologiczny języka litewskiego, Wilno: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wileńskiego. Smułkowa Elżbieta 2000: Dwujęzyczność po białorusku: bilingwizm, dygłosia, czy coś innego? – Język a tożsamość na pograniczu kultur, Białystok: Katedra Kultury Białoruskiej Uniwersytetu w Białymstoku. Witkowski Wiesław 1969: Język utworów Joannicjusza Galatowskiego na tle języka piśmiennictwa ukraińskiego XVII wieku, Kraków: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Oddział w Krakowie. Zdaniukiewicz Alojzy Adam 1972: Gwara Łopatowszczyzny. Fonetyka, fleksja, słownictwo, BENDRINĖ KALBA 94 (2021) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 KOJI MORITA. Nieostrość określenia język prosty na pograniczu bałtycko-słowiańskim z perspektywy języka litewskiego | 15 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2021.94.09 Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich. Zinkevičius Zigmas 1993: Rytų Lietuva praeityje ir dabar, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Zinkevičius Zigmas 1996: Lietuvių kalbos istorija, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. ГЛЗ 2000: Грамматики Лаврентия Зизания и Мелетия Смотрицкого, сост. Е. А. Кузьминова, Москва: Издательство МГУ. ГС 1970: Граматика слов’янська I. Ужевича, відп. ред. М. А. Жовтобрюх, уклад. І. К. Білодід, Є. М. Кудрицький. Київ: Наукова думка. Зизаний Лаврентий 1980: Граматика словенська, відп. ред. В. М. Русанівський; підготовка до вид. В. В. Німчук. Київ: Наукова думка. Зинкявичюс Зигмас 1996: Восточная Литва в прошлом и настоящем, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Мякишев Владимир П. 2008: Язык Литовского Статута 1588 года, Kraków: Lexis. Савич Николай А. 1990: О языковой ситуации в одном из ареалов юго-восточной части вильнюсского района. – Kalbotyra 41(2), 41–48. Смотрицкий Мелетий 1979: Граматика, Київ: Наукова Думка. ТДМ 1999: Типология двуязычия и многоязычия в Беларуси, под ред. А. Н. Булыко, Л. П. Крысина, Минск: Беларуская навука. Успенский Борис А. 1994: Краткий очерк истории русского языка (XI – XIX вв.), Москва: Гнозис. Яскевич А. А. 2001: Старабеларускія граматыкі, Мінск: Беларуская навука. Gauta 2021 11 23 Priimta 2021 12 23 BENDRINĖ KALBA 94 (2021) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 KOJI MORITA. Nieostrość określenia język prosty na pograniczu bałtycko-słowiańskim z perspektywy języka litewskiego | 16 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2021.94.09 THE AMBIGUITY OF EXPRESSION SIMPLE LANGUAGE IN THE BALTO-SLAVIC BORDER REGION FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE Summary This paper deals with the so-called język prosty which has been used for ages by various national groups living in the Balto-Slavic border region. This homely and unofficial language functions among the lower social classes only as a vehicle for verbal communication within multilingual communities. The author also mentions the fact that in the past there existed a language called by a similar name. From the 16th century to the middle of the 17th century, in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania there functioned a written language referred to as prosta mова. It was then the official literary language, apart from Old Church Slavonic. It also served as a communication tool for the upper social classes in the multilingual country. The main goal of this paper is to highlight the ambiguity of expression simple language in the Balto-Slavic border region, paying more attention to the interpretation of the meaning from the perspective of the Lithuanian language. There are actually two different languages, while the circumstances of their creation are similar. The author enumerates the similarities between język prosty and prosta mова: 1. They can be contrasted with languages of higher status in the linguistic hierarchy: in the past it was Old Church Slavonic, whereas nowadays these are the Polish, the Russian, the Belarusian and the Lithuanian literary languages. At the same time, they indicate the position in the social hierarchy of their users; 2. They are hybrids created so as to enable communication within multilingual communities, in the past as a written language, and today as a spoken language; 3. Without being directly related to any nationality, they allow for the maintenance of the ambiguity of linguistic and identity boundaries in disputes between different nationalities. The communicative group using numerous languages which developed out of the BENDRINĖ KALBA 94 (2021) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 KOJI MORITA. Nieostrość określenia język prosty na pograniczu bałtycko-słowiańskim z perspektywy języka litewskiego | 17 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2021.94.09 Grand Duchy of Lithuania exists till today and is continued in the Balto-Slavic border region by the still used expression prosty. In the conditions of the multilingualism and multiculturalism, the ambiguity of language and identity boundaries plays an extremely important role. KEYWORDS: Balto-Slavic border region, multilingualism, multiculturalism, język prosty, prosta mowa, Grand Duchy of Lithuania. KOJI MORITA Tokyo University of Foreign Studies 3-11-1 Asahi-cho, Fuchu-shi, Tokyo 183-8534, Japan [email protected] BENDRINĖ KALBA 94 (2021) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204