Pagrindiniai patariamieji lietuvių kalbos vadovai (žanro ypatybės)

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ Institute of the Lithuanian Language THE MAIN ADVISORY GUIDES TO THE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE (GENRE FEATURES) KEYWORDS: standard language, standardization, language guide, language recommendations, prescriptive linguistics. ABSTRACT The intensified destandardization of standard European languages over the past decade has not only prompted language researchers to investigate this phenomenon, but has also spurred a fresh look at the history and developmental features of standard languages themselves. Interest has also grown in the standardization process and the codification of norms in standard languages. Language recommendations provided to language users have a considerable influence on the development of a standard language. Practical language publications (certain kinds of dictionaries) that present such recommendations systematically are also called language guides. This article examines the genre features, as reflected in their introductory sections, of three major Lithuanian language guides – Kalbos patarėjo (1939), Kalbos praktikos patarimų (1976, 1985), and Kalbos patarimų (2002–2013). It draws on similar studies of language guides conducted abroad. INTRODUCTION A closer examination of advisory Lithuanian language guides—publications offering practical advice on the use of the standard language—was prompted by two reasons. First, over the past decade, standard European languages have been experiencing a period of post-standardization (for more, see Ghyselen and BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Pagrindiniai patariamieji lietuvių kalbos vadovai (žanro ypatybės) | 2 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.10 kt. 2016: 75–91; Miliūnaitė 2018: 78–88) ir dėl to išaugo kalbos tyrėjų susidomėjimas veiksniais, lemiančiais bendrinių kalbų ir jų normų funkcionavimą. Language researchers began to take an interest in the normative1 approach to language and its standard variety, which descriptive linguistics had for some time pushed aside and disparaged as outdated (for a more detailed discussion, see Beal 2018: 1–30). Although since the second half of the twentieth century prescriptivism, particularly in English-speaking countries, was set against the academic approach to language and regarded as an activity pursued only by unserious language enthusiasts2, recently the question has increasingly been raised as to why the ideology of the standard language and prescriptivism, as one manifestation of this ideology, have always remained so entrenched among language users in society, while the academic world is supposedly detached from these needs. This question is answered in part by arguing that, once a standard language has been normalized and codified, prescription is inevitable: people use normative dictionaries and grammars, regarding them as authorities on norms (see Milroy, Milroy 1999: 22). Alongside dictionaries and grammars used for practical language purposes, language guides are often mentioned; they have an undeniable effect on the functioning, development, and dissemination of standard-language norms. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, research appeared on English-language guides, in which 1 Although foreign linguistics often presents the prescriptive approach to language as the opposite of the descriptive approach, the former term is too narrow, since it does not encompass certain aspects characteristic of relatively young standard languages, where the need for consistent language planning work persists (for a more detailed discussion, see Miliūnaitė 2018: 168–182). In this article, especially when discussing Lithuanian realities, the terms normative linguistics, normative publication are used predominantly. 2 Joan C. Beal, a professor at the University of Sheffield in Great Britain, notes that the opposition between descriptivism and prescriptivism in the context of English intensified in the 1960s, when the ideas of the American linguist Noam Chomsky, the founder of generative grammar, began to spread following the publication of his 1957 work Syntactic Structures. According to Chomsky, grammar is innate in every person, so prescribing grammatical rules and teaching them is supposedly absurd. On this basis, English-speaking schools stopped teaching grammar and turned away from prescriptivism as well. However, three decades later, higher education institutions began complaining about students’ illiteracy, so, after heated discussions, grammar was reintroduced into schools to remedy the situation, but in a paradoxical way: it was now based on a descriptive approach, had completely abandoned prescription, and tolerated nonstandard varieties (Beal 2018: 3–5). What happened next, and how, is beyond the scope of this article. BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Pagrindiniai patariamieji lietuvių kalbos vadovai (žanro ypatybės) | 3 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.10 their development in form and content over several centuries is examined—from books of this genre first published in Great Britain and the United States in the late eighteenth century to present-day blogs (see Straaijer 2018: 11–29). The abundance of language advice on discussion forums and social networks shows that the ideology of the standard language has found new ground and taken hold across various online platforms (Vriesendorp 2016: 18). In 2011, Leiden University in the Netherlands launched the project Bridging the unbridgeable: linguists, prescriptivists and the general public, which focused on three groups of actors connected with prescriptivism and the relationships among them: language specialists, prescriptivists as compilers of language guides, and language users (for a more detailed discussion, see Miliūnaitė 2018: 277 and the sources cited there). One of the project’s objectives was to investigate the role of practical language publications in addressing language-use problems (Straaijer 2015: 1–47). The project’s findings have been published in various edited volumes and in a substantial monograph on language guides published in English-speaking countries over a couple of centuries and the language recommendations they provide (Describing prescriptivism. Usage guides and usage problems in British and American English, see Tieken-Boon van Ostade 2020)3. The second reason for examining Lithuanian language guides, their similarities, and their differences is that the principal publications of this genre—Kalbos patarėjas (1939), Kalbos praktikos patarimai (1976, 1985), and Kalbos patarimai (2002–2013)—have been digitized and are being prepared by the Institute of the Lithuanian Language for inclusion in the Lithuanian digital resources system E. kalba. Both language researchers and language users will be able to search for language recommendations through a single access point or filter the desired data in various ways, and to examine changes in codification. In preparing the data, it was important to investigate the structure of the language guides 3 A total of 345 English-language guides were published over the period in question, and 77 of them were included in a dedicated database and examined in great detail in the book. The database also provides a structured description of the 123 most common and characteristic problems discussed in language guides (from spelling and punctuation to syntax) that English users encounter. BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Pagrindiniai patariamieji lietuvių kalbos vadovai (žanro ypatybės) | 4 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.10 and content features, so as to establish a common denominator for presenting data of various kinds. The aim of the article is to examine and compare the genre features, as reflected in the introductory sections, of three principal Lithuanian advisory publications issued during different periods in the development of Lithuania’s political life and standard language: Kalbos patarėjo (1939), Kalbos praktikos patarimų (1976, 1985), and Kalbos patarimų (2002–2013). Thus, one element of the language guides’ macrostructure4 is taken as one possible axis for comparing these publications. The aim is not to provide a comprehensive history of compiling language guides, but to consider language guides themselves as a genre. Additional context from other sources is provided to the extent needed to clarify what is missing from the guides’ own introductions. The article addresses the following objectives: 1) to briefly describe the publication context of the language guides under examination; 2) to investigate the guides’ introductory sections and identify their main content elements; 3) to compare the nature of these publications in terms of the objectives set by their compilers, the declared principles for selecting data, and other considerations. The methods used are analytical, descriptive, and comparative. The introductions to the language guides under examination also devote space to describing the language recommendations they contain—their structure, system of evaluation levels, selection of recommendations, illustrative examples, and so on—but this article does not examine the guides’ microstructure5. The study and the article’s conclusions are significant in three respects: 1) they bring renewed attention to the topic of language guides, which has received little attention in Lithuania, since research to date has focused primarily on their compilation 4 Cf.: the macrostructure of a dictionary is “the overall structure of the dictionary, the arrangement of its major parts and dictionary entries” (Jakaitienė 2005: 33). 5 Cf.: the microstructure of a dictionary is “the structure of a dictionary entry, the extent and content specified for each of its constituent parts (lemma, data fields), the selected methods of marking various features, types of illustrations, and supplementary information” (Jakaitienė 2005: 36). In language guides, a dictionary entry is generally equivalent to a recommendation on whether a linguistic phenomenon should or should not be used. BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Pagrindiniai patariamieji lietuvių kalbos vadovai (žanro ypatybės) | 5 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.10 the history and content of language recommendations, but not their genre characteristics; 2) it provides data on the main structural elements of language guides, which is important when updating today’s language recommendations, so as to maintain continuity with the tradition of Lithuanian language guides while bringing to light the new needs of contemporary language users; 3) comparative studies, involving participation in the international context of such research, would not be possible without a comprehensive investigation of Lithuanian language guides themselves. There are two possible approaches to the topic under consideration: chronological (taking the publication order of the language guides under study as the basis) and structural (taking the genre characteristics of language guides as the basis). This article adopts the first approach, which makes it possible to maintain a coherent perspective on the language guides themselves. Of the article’s four parts, the first sets out the general characteristics of the language guide as a genre, with reference to the context of similar studies abroad. The second, third, and fourth parts examine the introductory sections of the language guides under study in chronological order, identifying their most important structural elements. The conclusions summarize the genre characteristics of the language guides under study. 1. THE LANGUAGE GUIDE AS A GENRE OF PRESCRIPTIVE LINGUISTICS PUBLICATIONS Language guides are considered practical reference works (of the handbook or dictionary type), intended to advise people who use a variety of the standard language on which means of linguistic expression to choose so that their written, translated, or edited texts, or their spoken standard language, conform to the norms of that language variety and are appropriate for their intended audience (cf. Straaijer 2018: 11). In describing language guides, efforts are made to highlight how this genre differs from dictionaries, grammars, and style guides in terms of purpose, subject matter, audience, structure, and other genre characteristics (see Ebner 2016: 310–320). BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Pagrindiniai patariamieji lietuvių kalbos vadovai (žanro ypatybės) | 6 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.10 The structure of both dictionaries and language guides is similar—alphabetical—but dictionaries are usually descriptive rather than prescriptive (although some countries, including Lithuania, also publish prescriptive dictionaries), and therefore aim to record and describe actual usage. Language guides focus on usage that raises difficulties, uncertainties, or debate, and address a broad audience: language users who lack confidence and non-native speakers learning the language. These publications are educational and developmental in nature: they explain what should and should not be used. Dictionaries do not indicate problems in language use and generally avoid norms that are unstable or subject to variation, whereas language guides explain what is appropriate and inappropriate in the standard language. Skirtis tarp kalbos ir stiliaus vadovų nėra labai aiški (žr. Ebner 2016: 310–311), nes ir pati stiliaus samprata skiriasi. Vienur labiau pabrėžiamas stil ingumas kaip išpuoselėtos, vartojimo tikslą ir adresatą atitinkančios kalbos ypatybė, kitur – vienodumas kaip tam tikrų formaliųjų teksto organizavimo kriterijų atitikimas. Anglakalbiuose kalbos vadovuose, be įvairių lygmenų kalbos klaidų taisymų, taip pat patariama, kaip kalbą padaryti glaustesnę, tikslesnę ir logiškesnę, vengti nuvalkiotų žodžių ir pan. stiliaus ydų. Grynuosiuose stiliaus vadovuose, kuriuos dažnai naudoja uždaros vartotojų grupės (taigi siauresnis adresatų laukas, pavyzdžiui, stambiosios žiniasklaidos priemonės), daugiausia dėmesio skiriama teksto struktūrai, rišlumui, formatavimui, dažniau vartojamų santrumpų vienodumui ir pan. (plg. Europos Sąjungos institucijų vertimo į lietuvių kalbą vadovas. Liuksemburgas, 2014). Kalbos stil ingumui ugdyti skirti stiliaus vadovai dažniau yra skaitomi, o kalbos vadovai naudojami kaip žinynai ar enciklopedijos, t. y. nėra skirti ištisam skaitymui. The three advisory Lithuanian language guides selected as the subject of this study may be regarded as foundational publications in this genre. Their status as major language guides is due to their collaborative nature, their universal purpose (since they cover many general usage issues), and the level of their approval. The foundational language guides provided BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Pagrindiniai patariamieji lietuvių kalbos vadovai (žanro ypatybės) | 7 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.10 the basis for publishing many other similar works, often with narrower scope or intended for more specific audiences, which reproduce the main recommendations of the earlier guides. The language guides examined were the result of organized, collaborative prescriptive work based on discussion and deliberation, while Kalbos patarimai was also reviewed by the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language. Other language guides and similar advisory publications are more often the work of an individual or a small group of authors. Since the article’s scope does not allow for a fuller account of the history of Lithuanian language guides, and it does not aim to survey other advisory Lithuanian publications in greater detail, only a few of the more important works are mentioned for each language guide discussed. These works provide a general context for language recommendations and reveal the importance of foundational language guides. 2. THE LANGUAGE ADVISER At the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century, as the period of rapid development of standard Lithuanian began, various booklets intended for practical language use also started to appear. These include the Dictionary of Foreign and Unintelligible Words, compiled by Jurgis Šlapelis and published in Tilsit in 1907; Viktoras Kamantauskas’s Short Dictionary of Language Errors and Barbarisms, published in Kaunas in 1928; and a booklet by the same author, Let Us Speak Lithuanian, also published in Kaunas in 1933. These booklets, one might say, prepared the ground for a new genre and its first manifestation—the Language Adviser (hereafter KP), reflecting the experience of collective language-planning work. KP (1939) buvo nemokamas tuo metu ėjusio bendrinės kalbos laikraščio Gimtoji kalba (1933–1941) priedas, Lietuvių kalbos draugijos leidinys, kurį, kaip rašoma viršelyje, paruošė L. Dambrauskas, redagavo A. Salys ir Pr. Skardžius. Jis apibendrino XX a. BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Pagrindiniai patariamieji lietuvių kalbos vadovai (žanro ypatybės) | 8 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.10 the language-planning work on standard Lithuanian begun at the start of the century, which after Jonas Jablonskis’s death in 1930 was continued by the so-called post-Jablonskian generation of linguists (for a fuller discussion, see Miliūnaitė 2000a: 24–35). KP (1939) Pratarmė užima beveik keturis stalinio kalendoriaus dydžio puslapius (p. 5–86) ir yra pasirašyta visų trijų ją rengusių autorių inicialais. Daug dalykų apibūdinta glaustu, nugludintu tekstu, tik, skirtingai nei vėlesniuose kalbos vadovuose, nepateikiama konkrečių kalbos rekomendacijų ar vertinamųjų kalbos reiškinių pavyzdžių. Toliau apžvelgiami pagrindiniai šio kalbos vadovo turinio elementai. 2.1. Motivation for its preparation. The Preface states that readers of the standard-language newspaper Gimtoji kalba, first published in 1933, had been promised a separate publication of language advice, and that this promise was fulfilled. Incidentally, the print run of 12,000 copies stated in the publication roughly matches the print run of the newspaper Gimtoji kalba itself. 2.2. Purpose of the publication. The editors described it as follows: “the aim is very limited—to bring together concisely and as practicably as possible for language practitioners what has hitherto been written in scattered form and in various ways by us or others in different places in recent years <...> and is now less accessible to everyday users.” Thus, the aim was to collect in one publication language recommendations scattered throughout the newspaper Gimtoji kalba and other sources, and to present them conveniently to readers. This aim of collecting and systematizing language recommendations would remain central to later foundational language guides as well. 2.3. Function of the publication. The Preface notes that this is not a systematic description of the standard language, but rather assistance for language users with questions that pose practical difficulties: “<...> in offering the public this kind of Language Adviser, we do not think that it could, or would even claim to, replace any systematic, comprehensive guide to the standard language, <...>.” 6 This and the other two language guides discussed below are cited from the specified pages of their Prefaces and other introductory sections, unless otherwise indicated. BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Pagrindiniai patariamieji lietuvių kalbos vadovai (žanro ypatybės) | 9 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.10 No, with this publication we merely wish to provide the public interested in matters of the standard language with the most essential assistance <...>.” This formulation of its purpose is precisely characteristic of the language-guide genre, distinguishing it from descriptive works on language. 2.4. Intended audience. Throughout the Preface, both the public at large and individual language users are mentioned, for example: “the broader public,” “the public interested in matters of the standard language,” “language practitioner,” “everyday user,” and “everyday practitioner.” Thus, the practical function of the language guide corresponds to a broadly conceived audience. 2.5. Subject matter of the publication. KP (1939) contains data “on the more topical matters of the standard language, mostly vocabulary”; the language phenomena evaluated “are mostly drawn from usage to date.” The subject is clearly identified—standard Lithuanian and its usage—although standard language itself was not separately defined in this language guide. 2.6. Methodological basis of the publication. The editors of KP (1939) state that they draw on two sources of standard-language norms: data from living speech and new language facts that accord with the tendencies of living speech. In this way, they continue Jonas Jablonskis’s tradition of standard-language planning: “in support of our assertions, we have sought above all to use reliable data from living speech, or neologisms that can readily be justified by examples from living speech itself.” At the same time, it is clear that the editors, understanding the standard language as a changing entity, did not rule out newly emerging tendencies in usage: “Nevertheless, in response to the requirements of present-day usage, we had to formulate one or another matter somewhat differently, or, for the time being, when no entirely clear solution could be found, merely to point to a new direction taking shape in the usage of this or that word or expression.” Although decisions on the organization of work on the standard language, summarizing earlier experience in standard-language planning, had already been published in 1936 in Gimtoji kalba itself, the criteria for standardization were not refined and published until November 1938 BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Pagrindiniai patariamieji lietuvių kalbos vadovai (žanro ypatybės) | 10 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.10 numeryje (žr. Miliūnaitė 1991: 17–21), tad greičiausiai Pratarmėje nebespėta jų bent glaustai paminėti. 2.7. Relationship to other language publications. KP (1939) rengėjai nurodo, kad ankstesnės, kaip jie vadina, brošiūrėlės – Viktoro Kamantausko Trumpas kalbos netaisyklingumų ir barbarizmų žodynėlis ir Kalbėkime lietuviškai, Rygiškių Jono Mūsų kalbos žodynėlio dalykai – „savo požiūriu bei aiškinimais yra didžiai trūktinos, o rašomosios kalbos žodynas Lituanistikos Instituto kalbos skyriaus tik dabar pradėtas ruošti“. Be to, minimasis žodynas esantis kitokios paskirties ir negalintis apimti tų dalykų, kurie pateikiami Kalbos patarėjuje: „čia pirmoje vietoje imami taisytinieji arba aiškintinieji, o ten, rašomajame žodyne, tegalės būti duodami tik vartotinieji dalykai, t. y. taisyklingieji mūsų gyvosios kalbos duomenys arba visai vykę naujadarai“. Taigi tie abu leidiniai „tiek savo pobūdžiu, tiek turiniu yra visai skirtingi ir todėl vienas kito negalės atstoti“. Tokiu būdu išryškinamas svarbiausias kalbos vadovo žanro požymis – jame pateikiami nenorminiai, taisytini kalbos reiškiniai arba įvairūs svyruojančių, nenusistovėjusių, kalbos vartotojams abejonių keliančių bendrinės kalbos normų atvejai. 2.8. Data and the principles for their selection and presentation. The editors collected material discussed over a period of 7 years in the newspaper Gimtoji kalba, supplemented it with “quite a lot of material they had gathered from elsewhere,” and presented it “after arranging it in dictionary form.” Thus, KP (1939) may be regarded as a dictionary of language advice. However, in terms of the types of language phenomena covered, it differed considerably from its predecessors, since it focused not only on vocabulary but also on “quite clear, commonly encountered errors in everyday usage or vocabulary.” The most pressing issues were, of course, foreignisms: “we include quite a number of foreignisms that are certainly not to be used in our standard language and can be replaced by suitable native words from the living language or by neologisms”7. Attention was also paid to 7 Although the Preface does not mention it, the booklet also contains numerous recommendations on the grammatical and orthographic treatment of borrowings regarded as standard. BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Pagrindiniai patariamieji lietuvių kalbos vadovai (žanro ypatybės) | 11 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.10 inappropriate use of word meanings: “the specific meanings of some words that had hitherto not been distinguished are more strictly clarified (specified).” As the standard language developed, it was also necessary to separate from it “one or another undesirable usage.” Since Gimtoji kalba had published many grammatical recommendations, some of them were included in this language guide as well—the Preface mentions that “some of the more frequent unsuccessful syntactic usages” were included. It is interesting that spoken standard language was not overlooked either. The KP (1939) is said to include “some words that are stressed quite incorrectly,” and the booklet itself also lists several cases of pronunciation to be corrected (softening of the nonstandard consonant l, for example, in the words Aldona, alfabetas, or hardening). Thus, in terms of the nature of the language phenomena it covers, KP (1939) also fits the genre of a language guide, since it assists language users by seeking to encompass as broad a range as possible of varying language phenomena. 3. LANGUAGE PRACTICE ADVICE According to Aldonas Pupkis, the compiler of this publication, the idea of publishing Kalbos praktikos patarimai (hereafter KPP) arose from the need to systematize and synthesize what had been widely written in the press about practical language issues since 1967, because during the Soviet period “we experienced an influx of Russicisms everywhere, a major impact on the grammatical system, and felt a genuine decline in the language” (see Musteikis 2016). These numerous recommendations also included subjective judgments, so after compiling a vast file of corrections, it was necessary to select and assess “which were serious errors, which minor irregularities or stylistic violations” (Musteikis 2016). According to the compiler of KPP, during the Soviet period it was impossible to implement any language-policy measures to halt Russification; therefore, efforts were made to influence language use at least through practical standardizing and educational work, which enjoyed strong public support: people wanted to defend themselves against the forced encroachment of the Russian language and its harmful influence, and to see their own language BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Pagrindiniai patariamieji lietuvių kalbos vadovai (žanro ypatybės) | 12 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.10 Švaresnę ir taisyklingesnę“ (Mustეikis 2016: plačiau apie KPP sumanymą ir rengimą žr. Pupkis 2016: 147–186). Ši veikla neapsiribojo tik kalbos taisymais ir XX a. 7–9 dešimtmečiais išaugo į ištisą kalbos sąjūdį; stengtasi nuolat skatinti kuriamąsias kalbos galias, plačiau naudotis lietuvių kalbos stilistikos teikiamomis raiškos priemonėmis (žr. Pupkis 2016). Todėl naujasis kalbos vadovas įsiliejo į bendrą pasipriešinimo rusų kalbos poveikiui judėjimą. KPP, kaip ir KP (1939), buvo kolektyvinis darbas; autorių branduolį, taip pat redaktorių kolegiją8 sudarė daugiausia Vilniaus universiteto ir Lietuvių kalbos ir literatūros instituto kalbininkai. Šio kalbos vadovo9 buvo išleisti du leidimai – 1976 ir 1985 m. Spaudoje sulaukta entuziastingų atsiliepimų, o pirmojo leidimo tiražas – 25 tūkst. egzempliorių – buvęs išpirktas per kelias savaites, antrojo leidimo tiražas buvo jau 35 tūkstančiai (Mustეikis 2016). The introductory sections of the two editions differ little, so they are reviewed together below, with differences highlighted where there are any. Compared with KP (1939), the introductory sections of KPP are considerably longer and more detailed. KPP (1976) consists of: Preface (pp. 3–5), Scope of the Recommendations (pp. 6–9), Structure of the Recommendations (pp. 10–13), Sources (pp. 13–14). KPP (1985) consists of: Preface (pp. 3–5), Contents of the Recommendations (pp. 6–9), Structure of the Recommendations (pp. 9–14), Sources (pp. 14–15). Thus, in the second edition, the section Scope of the Recommendations was renamed Contents of the Recommendations, but essentially the same matters are discussed in both, with the second edition additionally indicating what has changed in comparison with the first edition. 3.1. Rationale for Compilation. In the Preface to KPP (1976), the state of public language use is briefly assessed as not at all poor in some areas, while it is also stated that “it is impossible 8 See the article’s list of sources for the full group of KPP compilers. 9 Incidentally, the first, working titles of KPP were Language Practice Handbook and Language Handbook (Pupkis 2016: 148). BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Pagrindiniai patariamieji lietuvių kalbos vadovai (žanro ypatybės) | 13 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.10 to overlook certain shortcomings in written and spoken language.” The need for a publication presenting systematic language corrections is also noted. KPP (1985) pirmosios kelios Pratarmės pastraipos kartojamos, toliau rašoma apie pirmojo leidimo patirtį: Patarimai „visuomenės buvo palankiai sutikti“, „tapo parankine redaktorių, žurnalistų, mokytojų ir kitų sričių specialistų knyga“, tiražas buvo išpirktas, tad kilęs reikalas parengti naują leidimą. 3.2. Purpose and Objectives of the Publication. In a style characteristic of the Soviet period (“to combat shortcomings that still occur”), it is stated that the purpose of KPP is “to continue improving written Lithuanian and to combat linguistic debris that still occurs in spoken and sometimes written language.” The aim is to contribute to the improvement of Lithuanian and to cultivate all its styles and varieties. The importance of this is justified by two interrelated arguments. First, the informational function of language is emphasized; second, language is understood as a cultural value: “Only with logical, precise, clear, correct language can information be properly conveyed and a proper contribution made to the cultivation of culture”; “to meet more fully the increased cultural needs of our society”; “a perfect language is a cultural value in itself. Every cultured society clearly understands the need to care for its written and spoken language, its informational effectiveness and its perfection.” KPP, plačiau nei KP (1939), nurodomi ir uždaviniai iškeltam tikslui pasiekti. Susidarius panašiai padėčiai, kaip ir pojablonskiniu bendrinės kalbos norminimo laikotarpiu, prieš išleidžiant KP (1939), pažymima būtinybė „sisteminti kalbos taisymus“, nes praktinių kalbos patarimų esą prisikaupę nemažai, bet jie išsklaidyti po įvairius leidinius ir ne visada pasiekia adresatą. Todėl vienas iš uždavinių – „surinkti į vieną vietą tas rekomendacijas, jas apibendrinti ir padėti įtvirtinti tuos kalbos reiškinius, kurių normiškumas kalbos mokslo jau yra aptartas ir nustatytas“. Be to, pažymima, kad „kartais vartotojui sunkoka atskirti stambias kalbos klaidas (ypač leksikos ir gramatikos) nuo BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Pagrindiniai patariamieji lietuvių kalbos vadovai (žanro ypatybės) | 14 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.10 minor contextual stylistic shortcomings.” Thus, the KPP compilers clearly recognized the need to distinguish violations of language norms and separate them from stylistic deficiencies. KPP (1985) Pratarmėje pridėta, kad siekiama „diegti ir propaguoti aiškias kalbos normas“, papildyti Patarimus naujais taisymais, taip pat pakoreguoti kai kurias pirmojo leidimo rekomendacijas, nes „kiek pasikeitė ir pažiūra į vieną kitą pačių patarimų ir kitų norminamųjų darbų rekomendaciją“. Kartu pabrėžta, kad svarbiausias antrojo leidimo uždavinys buvo „palaikyti kalbos normų stabilumą ir norminamųjų rekomendacijų perimamumą“. 3.3. Purpose of the Publication. The KPP compilers clearly understood that there are two principal supports for the functioning of standard language norms and for its cultivation. First, one must rely on descriptions of the standard language and its system of norms; second, on corrections of norm violations. The Preface states that Lithuanian language culture is fostered by “the major works of our linguists”—the academic Grammar of the Lithuanian Language, Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language, Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian, terminological and bilingual dictionaries, etc.; publications devoted to language culture include Mūsų kalba and Kalbos kultūra, language columns appear in newspapers and magazines, and Vilnius Radio broadcasts language-education segments. KPP belongs among publications intended to foster language culture, and its purpose is therefore characteristic of the language-handbook genre. 3.4. Intended Audience. KPP is “primarily intended for those who, in their work and daily lives, encounter the evaluation of various linguistic phenomena, whose work is connected with schools, writing and editing texts, or other forms of language use.” In other words, it is aimed at users of the standard language who have practical questions. This is an important feature of the language-handbook genre. 3.5. Subject Matter of the Publication. KPP focuses mainly on public spoken and written language: the language of books, periodicals, radio and television. Standard BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Pagrindiniai patariamieji lietuvių kalbos vadovai (žanro ypatybės) | 15 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.10 Language as an independent variety is not even distinguished, because according to the understanding of the time, everything public had to be conveyed in the standard language, while other language varieties, including dialects, remained beyond the bounds of public language. 3.6. The methodological basis of the publication. The KPP (1976) Preface particularly emphasizes the collaborative nature of the work: the questions addressed in the publication being prepared were discussed and debated. The editorial principles were considered at seminars and published in the journal Mūsų kalba. Language recommendations were based on works devoted to language standardization, and efforts were made to minimize conflicts in codification. Kaip matyti iš KPP (1985) Pratarmės, kolektyvinis darbo pobūdis bei atvirumas įvairioms nuomonėms buvo išlaikytas ir toliau: pažymėta, kad buvo dirbamas kalbos mokslo tiriamasis ir norminamasis darbas, o Patarimų leidimo kryptis apsvarstyta Respublikinės kalbos komisijos 1980 m. gruodžio 15 d. teoriniame seminare. Ši data rodo, kad, išleidus pirmąjį leidimą, darbas nesustojo, išlaikytas jo tęstinumas iki pat antrojo leidimo. Parengtas tekstas apsvarstytas bendruose autorių ir redaktorių posėdžiuose, taip pat stengtasi atsižvelgti ir į kitų kalbos specialistų bei KPP skaitytojų siūlymus ir pastabas. There was considerable discussion in the linguistic literature of the time about the principles and criteria for standardizing the standard language, but neither the first nor the second edition mentions them, although Aldonas Pupa’s book Kalbos kultūros pagrindai had appeared in 1980, setting out a complete system of these principles and criteria. It may be assumed that, as with KP (1939), the editors probably sought to avoid burdening readers of language guides with theoretical considerations. 3.7. Relationship to other language publications. The Preface lists the previous “attempts to systematize language corrections,” while also noting that “they have little impact on language users as a whole”: 1939: Kalbos patarėjas; BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Pagrindiniai patariamieji lietuvių kalbos vadovai (žanro ypatybės) | 16 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.10 1970: V. Nečiūnas’s Medikų kalbos klaidos; 1970: Trumpas dokumentų įforminimo ir rašybos žinynas (prepared by J. Žemaitis); 1972: Vytenis Grabauskas’s Trumpas kalbos vadovas (svarbesnių klaidų taisymai), intended for schools (ed. A. Šoblinskas); lists of language recommendations intended for specialists in particular fields. The editors may not have listed everything, but this list shows that no major language guide had appeared in the three decades since Kalbos patarėjas10, so the need to prepare the KPP was evident. In the Preface, the editors of the KPP (1976) themselves stated that it was “the first wide-ranging, comprehensive work of this kind in the Soviet years.” The final chapter of the KPP’s introductory section (Šaltiniai) is a bibliography that includes several key works by authoritative authors—Juozas Balčikonis, Kazimieras Būga, Jonas Jablonskis, and Juozas Pikčilingis. This list was little changed in the second edition; more articles on language in periodicals (1945–1982) were added, as were Aldonas Pupa’s Kalbos kultūros pagrindai (1980) and two books by Jonas Šukys on the use of cases and prepositions, published in 1976 and 1978. KPP (1985) Pratarmėje atskirai pažymėta, kad į leidinį vengiama dėti tokius kalbos reiškinius, kurių taisymai prieštarautų kitiems norminamiesiems darbams, t. y. Lietuvių kalbos gramatikai ir tuometiniam antrajam Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodyno (1972) leidimui. Taigi KPP rengėjai turėjo platų tuometinių kalbotyros darbų kontekstą, ir matyti pastangos derinti skirtingas nuomones, kad bendrinės kalbos normų kodifikacija būtų kuo nuoseklesnė ir pagrįstesnė. 10For political reasons, the KPP’s introductory section did not mention at least several important practical works published by Lithuanian émigrés, such as the Lietuvių kalbos vadovas, published in Germany in 1950 in a print run of 5,000 copies (compiled by Pranas Skardžius, Stasys Barzdūkas, and Jonas Martynas Laurinaitis), and Pranas Skardžius’s book Lietuviški tarptautinių žodžių atitikmenys (Chicago, 1973). At the time, these works could not significantly influence the development of standard-language norms in Lithuania, but later they became known to and used by language standardizers. BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Pagrindiniai patariamieji lietuvių kalbos vadovai (žanro ypatybės) | 17 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.10 3.8. Data and principles of its selection and presentation. As in KP (1939), the principle for presenting language phenomena remained alphabetical11, and the publication itself is called a correction dictionary in the section Scope of the Advice. The coverage of both lexical and grammatical phenomena became broader, and types of language phenomena were differentiated more extensively. As for lexicon, it “discusses words that, for one reason or another, are wholly unsuitable for the standard language (slang terms, inadmissible borrowings, hybrids, inadmissible calques or unacceptable neologisms, dialect words),” as well as “good native polysemous words, if one or several of their meanings (usually translated ones) are in some way in need of correction.” KPP also included incomparably more grammar—word formation, morphology, and syntax: “the correction dictionary lists alphabetically inadmissible words, words that are not among the best or whose norm is at least fluctuating, their forms, combinations, constructions, and word affixes.” Kitaip nei KP (1939), visai nedėta tarties bei kirčiavimo ir rašybos rekomendacijų: „nėra įtraukti rašybos ir skyrybos dalykai, neaptariami tarties ir kirčiavimo klausimai“; atskirta tikrinių žodžių dalis – dažnesnių norminių (kartais su normos variantais) Lietuvos vietovardžių sąrašas. The editors of KPP note that it “does not even claim to answer a l l questions of language practice”; “nor did it set itself the task of establishing the norms for all the phenomena that vary in the language, but rather sought to discuss only the most relevant language matters that have a tradition of correction and use, and whose norms raise no major doubts among linguists today.” As with KP (1939), viewing the standard language as a constantly changing variety and recognizing that the crystallization of norms is a process extended over time, they acknowledged that it is simply impossible, at the present time, to assess clearly the normative status of some emerging language phenomena: “where actual usage has not become established or has simply not been studied, one is content to indicate the trend in language standardization and to offer non-prescriptive guidance on the use of language phenomena 11 Incidentally, the KPP text, too, was written alphabetically, with the authors each taking responsibility for particular letters. BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Pagrindiniai patariamieji lietuvių kalbos vadovai (žanro ypatybės) | 18 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.10 rekomendacijomis“. KPP (1976) sudėta ir tokių taisymų, kurie, kaip pažymima skyriuje Patarimų apimtis, „nebeaktualūs išprusiam bendrinės kalbos vartotojui, tačiau gali praversti kalbos kultūros propagavimui visuomenėje“. KPP (1985) Pratarmėje duomenų atrankai skirta daugiau dėmesio. Pabrėžta, kad Patarimai „nėra visų neaiškių kalbos praktikos dalykų žinynas“, todėl nesiekta duoti atsakymų dėl visų įvairiojančių reiškinių normos, o parodyta tai, dėl ko kalbos kultūros specialistams nekyla didesnių abejonių. KPP turinio pokyčių būta dvejopų. Pirma, atsisakyta kai kurių kalbos reiškinių iš pirmojo leidimo: 1) obsolete barbarisms, or those “which many people clearly recognize as foreign words that should not be used and know what to replace them with”; 2) occasional, atypical corrections and examples whose transient nature became evident while preparing the second edition; 3) narrowly used specialized terms and examples of professional language; 4) language phenomena belonging to the field of stylistics; 5) corrections “whose justification proved to be not entirely adequate.” Second, new language phenomena were added that “are well-founded theoretically and have not been publicly challenged by anyone,” and on which the editorial team had reached agreement. Although the editors of KPP held that only stylistically neutral language phenomena should be evaluated in the publication, it can nevertheless be inferred from the introductory section that contact with stylistics was unavoidable. First, “some of the words or syntactic constructions corrected in the Advice may be used for a specific stylistic purpose”; accordingly, some kind of stylistic label is attached to such phenomena. Second, there are also stylistic recommendations, needed when a language phenomenon characteristic of a particular style “aggressively intrudes into other styles and disrupts their system.” These links with stylistics show that KPP sought to reflect a stage in the development of standard-language norms when this variety had already matured enough that its BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Pagrindiniai patariamieji lietuvių kalbos vadovai (žanro ypatybės) | 19 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.10 normoms natūraliai būdinga stilistinė skaida, kurios dar nebuvo matyti KPP (1939). Tačiau šios sąsajos su stilistika nėra gausios ir jokiu būdu nebūtų galima teigti, kad KPP peržengia kalbos vadovo kaip žanro ribas ir iš dalies pereina į stiliaus vadovo žanrą. 4. LANGUAGE ADVICE Following the publication of Language Practice Advice, narrower-scope and specialized language-advice publications also began to appear. They were essentially based on the recommendations in KPP12 and were more specifically tailored to target groups of language users. Not all of them could be considered typical language guides, so only a few are mentioned below. One of the more substantial works is Practical Lithuanian Usage, a book prepared by Juozas Vaišnys and published in Chicago in 1985, most of which consists of a dictionary of words and phrases to be avoided. In the preface, the author states that he relied primarily on KPP (1939) and KPP (1976). It is understandable that this work was intended to serve the needs of the émigré community and could not have been used in Lithuania at the time. Published in Lithuania, the work How Not to Speak (1991), compiled by Danguolė Mikulėnienė and entitled a dictionary of errors, was followed by Pranas Kniūkšta’s Advice on Office Language (1st ed. 1993, five book editions in all)13, intended for administrative language; Nijolė Linkevičienė and Laimutis Laužikas’s Language Advice for Journalists (1997); Jonas Šukys’s Language Advice for History Teachers (1998); Genovaitė Irtmonienė and Jonas Šukys’s Language Advice for Physical Education and Sports Specialists (2000); and the online publication by Lina Murinienė and 12 Only a selection of publications that most closely fit the language-guide genre and are based on KPP (derivative works) is mentioned below, although other important prescriptive works by Arnoldas Piročkinas, Aldona Paulauskienė, Danutė Tarvydaitė, Pranas Kniūkšta, and others have also been published. 13 The online version of this publication is edited and updated by Rasuolė Vladarskienė. Available online at http://kanceliariniaipatarimai.lki.lt. BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Pagrindiniai patariamieji lietuvių kalbos vadovai (žanro ypatybės) | 20 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.10 A publication compiled by Rasuolė Vladarskienė, Current Issues in Administrative Language (2014)14, and others. Many language recommendations were published in the journals Language Culture and Native Language, as well as in the periodical press. Against this backdrop, rich in prescriptive information, a little over a decade after the publication of KPP (1985), consideration was given to a third edition (for more detail, see Miliūnaitė 2000b: 180–189). The composition of the author team changed considerably15, as did the preparation process. It was decided that the text would no longer be organized by individual letters, but instead divided by language levels and types of linguistic phenomena, so that the publication itself would be more systematic and coherent. Matant, kad po KPP (1985) leidimo periodinėje ir kalbinėje spaudoje vėl pradėjo kauptis paskiros kalbos rekomendacijos, Lietuvių kalbos institute sukurta skaitmeninė Kalbos rekomendacijų duomenų bazė, apimanti nemažą dalį kodifikacijos šaltinių, kurie pasirodė nuo to laiko, kai nustota rinkti duomenis antrajam KPP (1985) leidimui. Šie duomenys vėliau pateikti naujojo kalbos vadovo – Kalbos patarimų (KP (2002–2013)) autoriams. Be to, per 1997–2005 metus išleista 20 Kalbos patarimų informacinių biuletenių sąsiuvinių, kuriuose pateiktos svarbiausių kalbos praktikai skirtų periodinėje ir mokslinėje spaudoje skelbtų straipsnių santraukos ir rodyklės. Tai taip pat buvo pagalba tiek rengėjams, tiek kalbos vartotojams, laukiantiems naujo KPP leidimo. After the preparatory work had been completed, eight trial booklets and a separate Gazetteer were planned as a substantially expanded and updated counterpart to the list of place names in KPP16. As stated in the Preface to KP (2002–2013), during the work it became clear that “as it was being expanded,” 14 Available online: http://administracinek... 15 See the article’s list of sources for the full KPP editorial team. 16Gazetteer was prepared, reviewed by the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language, and published in 2002 (Gazetteer, compiled by Aldonas Pupkis (compiler and editor-in-chief), Marytė Razmukaitė (compiler), Rita Miliūnaitė, Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopaedia Publishing) – at the same time as the first booklet of grammar recommendations appeared. In 2007, this gazetteer was digitized at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and made publicly available at http://vietovardziai.lki.lt/. This demonstrates the intensive work of the Language Advice group at the time. BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351–7204 RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Pagrindiniai patariamieji lietuvių kalbos vadovai (žanro ypatybės) | 21 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.10 is rewritten and revised to such an extent that, in essence, a different publication emerges, differing more or less from the earlier Kalbos praktikos patarimų both in the scope of the material included and in the way it is presented, and sometimes also in its evaluation”. Since the text was to be considered by the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language, it was decided not to wait until all the authors had written their sections, but to publish one booklet at a time after it had been reviewed, and later, once readers’ comments had been received, to combine everything into a single publication in alphabetical order. However, although this work began smoothly and according to plan, it later proceeded with lengthy interruptions. The first booklet, Gramatinės formos ir jų vartosena, was published in 2002, and three booklets devoted to syntax topics followed in 2003. The first edition of the booklet on lexical borrowings appeared in 2005 (the second in 2013). After the leadership of the Language Commission changed in 2002, the ad hoc subcommittee that had been reviewing Kalbos patarimus was disbanded, and new authors took up the work; however, the three remaining booklets were neither prepared nor published. Following another change in the Commission’s leadership in 2012, the publication’s editor resumed it in 2015 and began preparing the missing sections, while the authors’ collective, owing to its members’ advanced age, did not continue the work. Along with the other two language guides, all booklets of Kalbos patarimų published up to that point began to be digitized in 2018, and a shared database of the language recommendations they contain was created. It is being integrated into the Lithuanian Language Digital Resources System E. kalba (https://ekalba.lt). KP (2002–2013) gramatikos knygelių įvadinių dalių Pratarmės (p. 4–6) skiriasi nežymiai, o tolesniuose jų skyriuose „Kalbos patarimų“ sandara, Linksnių vartojimas (Prielinksnių ir polinksnių vartojimas ir kt.), Straipsnių pobūdis ir sandara, Funkcinis apibūdinimas, Vertinimo laipsniai, Nuorodos į kitus straipsnius (p. 6–16) aprašomi kiekvienai knygelei būdingi duomenų atrankos, skirtumo nuo KPP (1985), rekomendacijų pateikimo, vertinimo ir kt. dalykai. Kadangi knygelės buvo tik bandomosios ir skirtos ne tiek visai BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Pagrindiniai patariamieji lietuvių kalbos vadovai (žanro ypatybės) | 22 doi.org/10.35321/bkbalba.2020.93.10 whether for the general public or for specific audiences, no detailed introductory sections were written, especially since those audiences were already familiar with the previous language guide. 4.1. Motivation for preparation. In the Prefaces to KP (2002–2013), as in earlier language guides, it is noted that since the 1985 edition of KPP, “a considerable number of matters requiring consideration have accumulated, and new questions of concern to users of the standard language have arisen.” As early as 1998, the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language approved the “Foundations and principles for preparing the third edition of Kalbos praktikos patarimų” (see Gimtoji kalba, 1998, No. 12, pp. 4–6). On this basis, the group preparing the publication began in 1999 to study usage data, differentiate usage variants more precisely and purposefully, reassess the evaluation of language phenomena, adjust the boundaries between norms and errors where necessary, and then write the texts of the individual booklets. 4.2. Aim and objectives of the publication. The Prefaces state that the aim of KP (2002–2013) is “to assess language phenomena relevant to the use of the standard language, identify the principal (generally neutral) norms for variants that fluctuate, and distinguish phenomena that lie at or beyond the boundaries of the standard language.” The objectives of this language guide can be said to emerge from statements in the Prefaces about what has been accomplished: “relevant variations in contemporary standard-language usage are presented concisely, the relationship of language phenomena to standard-language norms is shown through different degrees of evaluation, and tendencies in normative usage are explored.” The style of the introductory sections of KP (2002–2013) differs considerably from that of KPP, being more academic and intended for a specific target readership that does not need a lengthy explanation of why such a publication is needed and what it seeks to achieve. 4.3. Purpose of the publication. Continuing the KPP tradition, the editors of the new KP (2002–2013) conceived it as a language-practice publication and thus did not depart from the language-guide genre. In the introductory section entitled “Structure of Kalbos patarimų”, the rationale for presenting language phenomena systematically (and only then alphabetically), rather than primarily in alphabetical order, is explained as follows: “for language practice BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351–7204 RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Pagrindiniai patariamieji lietuvių kalbos vadovai (žanro ypatybės) | 23 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.10 it is useful to have not only an alphabetical list of all the language points that are corrected and advised on, such as the one found in „Kalbos praktikos patarimai“. Systematically setting out evaluative language phenomena by individual language levels not only makes it possible to better understand the nature of the points being corrected and recommended for use, but also helps the recommendations themselves to be remembered more easily“. 4.4. Intended readership of the publication. KP (2002–2013) Forewords mention users of the standard language, while the publications’ annotations state that this is “a collection of recommendations for editors, language regulators, teachers, students—in short, everyone who cares about language culture”. 4.5. Subject matter of the publication. KP (2002–2013) Forewords often mention contemporary Lithuanian language usage (in which various standard and nonstandard language phenomena operate) and standard Lithuanian, as well as its various functional styles and substyles. Interestingly, the description of the publication’s aim and objectives indicates a deliberate and emphatic effort to distinguish the standard language from other language varieties, and its norms from nonstandard language phenomena. This tendency was not explicitly declared in earlier language guides. 4.6. Methodological basis of the publication. Although this was not mentioned in the introductory sections of KP (2002–2013), the theoretical basis on which KP relied was undoubtedly the document approved in 1997 by the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language, Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos tvarkybos principai, kodifikacijos kriterijai ir jų taikymas (Principai 1997), as well as the previously mentioned „Kalbos praktikos patarimų“ 3-iojo leidimo rengimo pagrindai ir principai, which set out the principles of functional (social) expediency, systematicity and purity, and changing norms through variants. Forewords specify only one of the most important provisions: “The aim is to adhere to the principle of stability of norms and to change them not abruptly, but by slightly tightening or relaxing the assessment itself.” It is also noteworthy that a more consistent and clearly defined system of degrees for evaluating language phenomena was developed, based on the theory of standard-language norms; this is discussed in a separate chapter of the Forewords. BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Pagrindiniai patariamieji lietuvių kalbos vadovai (žanro ypatybės) | 24 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.10 4.7. Relationship with other language publications and sources of norms. The main sources of standard-language norms essentially remained the same academic publications—dictionaries and grammars—and thus were not even mentioned in their introductory sections. However, a fundamental difference from earlier language guides also emerged: with the digitization of various language resources and the creation of databases underway, there was no longer a need to compile paper card files of language corrections. The editors made use not only of the aforementioned Language Recommendations Database, but also of the computer bank of language consultations at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and the consultation database of the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language (later converted into the Consultation Bank), mentioned in the Foreword to the 2005 booklet on lexical borrowings in KP. Incidentally, all the recommendations from the printed editions of KP (2002–2013) were later added to this Consultation Bank17. 4.8. Data and the principles for selecting and presenting it. In principle, the selection and content of the data do not differ greatly from those of earlier language guides, since the editors sought to preserve the tradition of corrections and to supplement the language recommendations only with new phenomena whose usage tendencies had already become apparent and whose assessment the editors more or less agreed on. The greatest changes came in restructuring the form of the language guide. The systematic presentation of language recommendations made it possible to link general grammar articles with specific lexicalized cases, which in earlier language guides had been scattered alphabetically throughout the publication. Moreover, it was already understood at the time that KP would sooner or later have to take the form of a digital database; the language recommendations themselves were therefore substantially formalized, and their structure was described in detail in the introductory section entitled “Nature and Structure of Articles”. 17 The capabilities of digital sources (unlimited space, rapid editing when necessary, convenient searching, etc.) enabled a gradual transition from printed language-recommendation guides to a digital recommendations format. Nevertheless, the Consultation Bank cannot replace a systematically prepared, cohesive publication; accordingly, Kalbos patarimų has not been abandoned as a language-guide genre, but will also be made available online. BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Pagrindiniai patariamieji lietuvių kalbos vadovai (žanro ypatybės) | 25 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.10 Kadangi kol kas liko neišleistos trys planuotos KP (2002–2013) knygelės, skirtos žodžių sandaros ir žodžių reikšmių bei kitiems įvairuojantiems leksikos reiškiniams, šis leidinys dar negavo išbaigto pavidalo. Tačiau ir paskelbti tekstai leidžia priskirti jį kalbos vadovo žanrui, nors įvadinės dalys gana glaustos ir neatskleidžia visų šio leidinio ypatybių. Twenty years after the start of publishing the booklets of Kalbos patarimų, users of standard Lithuanian had changed considerably: processes of democratization, the liberalization of social life, and the spread of the internet are changing both language attitudes and the forms in which information is presented. In the post-standardization period, the rationale for language recommendations and clear argumentation for the evaluation of language phenomena are becoming increasingly important. In response, the first steps have already been taken: the principal Lithuanian language guides have been digitized and will be presented to the public in a form that makes visible the development of the codification of standard-language norms over the past eight decades. CONCLUSIONS 1. In terms of genre characteristics, the three foundational publications in Lithuanian prescriptive linguistics—Kalbos patarėjas (1939), Kalbos praktikos patarimai (1976, 1985), and Kalbos patarimai (2002–2013)—meet the defining characteristics of language guides that have existed in Europe for several centuries and together constitute the most important systematically organized legacy of recommendations for the use of standard Lithuanian. Their emergence and nature were shaped both by the tasks of language standardization arising at different stages in the development of the standard language and by changing political circumstances and societal needs. The introductory sections of the language guides examined in this article reflect only part of the context in which they were prepared, but provide information about the characteristics and development of the genre itself, as well as about changes in the norms of the standard language, the development of functional styles, the functional differentiation of linguistic expressive means, and the development of theoretical prescriptive thought. BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Pagrindiniai patariamieji lietuvių kalbos vadovai (žanro ypatybės) | 26 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.10 changes in language norms, the development of functional styles, the functional differentiation of means of linguistic expression, and the development of theoretical normative thought. 2. In preparing Lithuanian language guides, the following key questions had to be addressed (to a greater or lesser extent, these are also reflected in the publications’ introductory sections): 2.1. defining the publication’s aim, purpose, and objectives; 2.2. selecting the publication’s intended audience; 2.3. defining the publication’s subject (which language variety and functional styles to address, and which linguistic phenomena from particular domains of language use to evaluate); 2.4. establishing or selecting the theoretical foundations for standardizing linguistic phenomena (principles and criteria); 2.5. determining the relationship with other language publications; 2.6. defining the principles for selecting and presenting data. 3. KP (1939) was published when standard Lithuanian was only beginning to establish itself in public written and spoken language, at a time when it was necessary not only to continue the codification of its norms begun by Jonas Jablonskis and systematize the experience of language recommendations in the Gimtoji kalba journal and elsewhere at the time, but also to stabilize usage, which varied considerably. KP (1939) may be regarded as the first work in the language-guide genre prepared professionally by a group of language specialists; its introduction—the Pratarmė—briefly presents all the key structural elements characteristic of such publications. 4. KPP (1976), and especially KPP (1985), represented a major quantitative and qualitative leap in codifying the norms of standard Lithuanian. The introductory sections of both editions are exceptionally detailed and informative. They show that by the 1970s, although strongly influenced by Russian, the standard language had become a fully autonomous language variety, and its functional styles were developing rapidly. It is therefore understandable that KPP set a broader aim than KP (1939): it also addressed the stylistic needs of standard Lithuanian in various domains. BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Pagrindiniai patariamieji lietuvių kalbos vadovai (žanro ypatybės) | 27 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.10 During the Soviet period, when it was not possible to speak of language policy, the entire semantic burden of language cultivation was placed on the word culture. The editors of KPP regarded language as a cultural value and emphasized the role of correct and stylish language in cultivating a cultured society. An educational and enlightening character is a typical feature of language guides. One of the most important features of this language guide is the continuity of the work, maintained by following the example of the previous language guide, and its coherence, which was later lost when the editorial group no longer had institutional support. 5. KP (2002–2013) differed considerably from the earlier language guides. Because of the publication’s nature (pilot booklets), many matters described in the introductory sections of earlier language guides were documented outside the publication—in documents of the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language and in scholarly works: 5.1. With the advent of the digital age, collecting and organizing data became more difficult for those who compiled it, since they also had to create databases, but considerably easier for those who used that data; 5.2. During the pilot-booklet period, the intended readership narrowed, since the aim was to improve the material in response to comments and suggestions from special target groups and then make it available to the public at large; 5.3. The publication itself was written more systematically and according to plan, with individual levels and the subsystems characteristic of thematically variable language phenomena in view, rather than isolated language phenomena arranged alphabetically; 5.4. Language recommendations became more formalized, with the aim of retaining all their structural components, providing a rationale for the assessments, and applying a more consistent system of evaluation levels. 6. A study of the genre features of the three foundational Lithuanian language guides showed that, overall, they changed little over time, although the circumstances, methods, and content of the publications’ preparation changed, and their scope expanded. The purpose, aims, intended readership, subject matter, relationship to BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Pagrindiniai patariamieji lietuvių kalbos vadovai (žanro ypatybės) | 28 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.10 Together with descriptive linguistic works, this makes it possible to regard this genre as established and firmly rooted in Lithuanian prescriptive linguistics. Comparative studies of the microstructure of the foundational Lithuanian language guides should also reveal changes in the form and content of language recommendations themselves. In light of these studies and the revision of Language Advice, a review of the principles and criteria for standardizing the standard language, an update to the content of language recommendations, a review of codification, and an assessment of newly emerging phenomena lie ahead. The experience of preparing language guides, conveyed in the introductory sections of these publications, provides a good basis for continuing this work. ŠALTINIAI KP (1939) – Kalbos patarėjas, paruošė L. Dambrauskas, redagavo A. Salys ir P. Skardžius, Kaunas, 1939. KP (2002) – Kalbos patarimai 1: Gramatinės formos ir jų vartojimas, sud. R. Miliūnaitė, teksto aut. R. Miliūnaitė, A. Paulauskienė, vyr. red. A. Pupkis, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 2002; 2-as leid.: 2003; 3-ias leid.: 2004. KP (2003) – Kalbos patarimai 2: Sintaksė: linksnių vartojimas (S1), sud. R. Miliūnaitė, teksto aut. V. Labutis, A. Pupkis, J. Šukys, vyr. red. A. Pupkis. – Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 2003; 2-as leid.: 2005. KP (2003) – Kalbos patarimai 2: Sintaksė: prielinksnių ir polinksnių vartojimas (S2), sud. R. Miliūnaitė, teksto aut. A. Pupkis, J. Šukys, vyr. red. A. Pupkis, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 2003. KP (2005) – Kalbos patarimai 2: Sintaksė: įvairūs dalykai (S2), sud. R. Miliūnaitė, teksto aut. V. Labutis, A. Pupkis, vyr. red. A. Pupkis, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 2003; 2-as leid.: 2005. BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Pagrindiniai patariamieji lietuvių kalbos vadovai (žanro ypatybės) | 29 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.10 KP (2005) – Kalbos patarimai. Kn. 4: Leksika: 1. Skolinių vartojimas (L1), aut. ir sud. D. Mikulėnienė, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 2005. KP (2013) – Kalbos patarimai 4: Leksika: skolinių vartojimas (Leksikos skolinių sąrašas ir Senųjų svetimybių sąrašas) (L2), sud. D. Mikulėnienė, A, Dvylýtė, 2-as patais. ir papild. leid., Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 2005. KPP (1976) – Kalbos praktikos patarimai, sud. Aldonas Pupkis, aut. A. Paulauskienė, V. Labutis, A. Pupkis, J. Šukys, A. Vanagas, J. Žemaitis, Vilnius: Mokslas. KPP (1985) – Kalbos praktikos patarimai, sud. A. Pupkis, vyr. red. Z. Zinkevičius, aut. A. Paulauskienė, V. Labutis, A. Pupkis, J. Šukys, A. Vanagas, J. Žemaitis. Vilnius: Mokslas. LITERATŪRA Ebner Carmen 2016: Language Guardian BBC? Investigating the BBC’s Language Advice in its 2003 News Styleguide. – Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural Development 37(3), 308–320. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2015.1068789. Beal Joan C. 2018: ‘Back to the Future’: The ‘New Prescriptivism’ in Twenty-first-century Britain. – E–rea 15 (2). Prieiga internete: https://journals.openedition.org/erea/6090 [žiūrėta 2020 11 12]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/erea.6112. Ghyselen Anne-Sophie, Delarue Steven, Lybaert Chloé 2016: Studying Standard Language Dynamics in Europe. – Taal en Tongval 68(2), 75–91. Jakaitienė Evalda 2005: Leksikografija, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Pagrindiniai patariamieji lietuvių kalbos vadovai (žanro ypatybės) | 30 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.10 Miliūnaitė Rita 1991: Kalbos norminimo teorija „Gimtojoje kalboje“ (1933–1941 m.). – Kalbos kultūra 61, 7–21. Miliūnaitė Rita 2000a: Kalbos reiškinių vertinimo laipsniai „Kalbos patarėjuje“. – Kalbos kultūra 73, 24–35. Miliūnaitė Rita 2000b: Nuo senojo prie naujojo „Kalbos praktikos patarimų“ leidimo. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 42, 180–189. Miliūnaitė Rita 2018: Kalbos normos ir jų savireguliacija interneto bendruomenėje, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Milroy John, Milroy Lesley 1999: Authority in Language: Investigating Standard English, 3rd ed. (1st ed., 1985, 4th ed. 2012), New York: Routledge. Mustეikis Audrius 2016: Kaip stabdytas lietuvių kalbos nuopuolis. Interviu su Aldonu Pupkiu. – Lietuvos žinios, 2016 10 05. Principai 1997: Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos tvarkybos principai, kodifikacijos kriterijai ir jų taikymas. – Gimtoji kalba 4, 1–3. Pupkis Aldonas 2016: Lietuvių kalbos sąjūdis 1968–1988 m., Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Straaijer Robin 2015: The Hyper Usage Guide of English Database User Manual, Leiden. Prieiga internete: https://bridgingtheunbridgeable.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/huge-manual-2015.pdf [žiūrėta 2020 11 10]. Straaijer Robin 2018: The Usage Guide: Evolution of a Genre. – English Usage Guides: History, Advice, Attitudes, ed. Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 11–29. Tieken-Boon van Ostade Ingrid 2020: Describing Prescriptivism. Usage Guides and Usage Problems in British and American English, London and New York: Routledge. BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Pagrindiniai patariamieji lietuvių kalbos vadovai (žanro ypatybės) | 31 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.10 Vriesendorp Hielke 2016: The Internet’s (New) Usage Problems. – English Today 32(3), Cambridge University Press, 18–19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078416000365. Gauta 2020 12 11 Priimta 2020 12 30 BASIC LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE GUIDES (GENRE CHARACTERISTICS) Summary The functioning of standard language norms is affected to a significant degree by various advice to language users. The language practice publications that feature such advice on a systematic basis fall within the genre of language guides. In Lithuania, the first language guide appeared in early 20th century. The three most prominent guides were published in different periods of political life and standard language development in Lithuania: Kalbos Pata­rėjas was issued in 1939, Kalbos Praktikos Patarimai, in 1976 and in 1985, and Kalbos Patarimai, in 2002–2013. The article addresses the genre characteristics of these language guides that are described in their introductory parts. Reliance is made on comparable studies of language guides conducted abroad (cf. Straaijer 2015; Ebner 2016; Straaijer 2018; Tieken–Boon van Ostade 2020). BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Pagrindiniai patariamieji lietuvių kalbos vadovai (žanro ypatybės) | 32 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.10 The importance of the study and the conclusions made in the article is three-fold: (1) they give relevance to the issues covered by language guides, a subject that has not been scrutinised in any kind of detail in Lithuania yet, because research has so far been focusing on the history of their preparation and the content of language advice rather than the characteristics of the genre; (2) they offer data on the structural elements of language guides, which is important in the light of updating modern-day language advice; (3) an in-depth scrutiny of Lithuanian language guides would open up possibilities for conducting further comparable studies within the international context of this kind of research. The genre characteristics of the three Lithuanian language guides in question mirror the genre characteristics of European language guides that have been in existence for centuries; furthermore, they constitute the most significant structured legacy of advice on the usage of the standard Lithuanian language. Their origins and nature were the product of the different standardisation goals that emerged during different phases of standard language development, the different political circumstances, and the shifting needs of the public. The introductory parts of the Lithuanian language guides in question describe, to a greater or lesser extent, the following elements of contents: (1) the goal, purpose, and objectives of the publication, (2) the audience; (3) the object (the language varieties, its domains of usage and functional styles), (4) theoretical principles of standardisation of language phenomena; (6) the principles of data selection and presentation. The introductory parts of the language guides covered in the article only cast a light on a small segment of the entire context of their preparation, yet they offer some insights into the characteristics and development of the genre per se, as well as into the shift in the norms of the standard language, the development of its functional styles, the functional BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Pagrindiniai patariamieji lietuvių kalbos vadovai (žanro ypatybės) | 33 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.10 differentiation of means of linguistic expression, and the evolution of the theory of standardisation of the standard language. KEYWORDS: standard language, standardization, usage guide, language advice, prescriptive linguistics. RITA MILIŪNAITĖ Lietuvių kalbos institutas Petro Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius [email protected] BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204