Dėl terminų „standartizacija“, „norminimas“ ir „kodifikacija“ santykio dabartinėje norminamojoje kalbotyroje

BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 RITA MILIŪNAITĖ Lietuvių kalbos institutas KEY WORDS: common language, language management, language SANTYKIO DABARTINĖJE NORMINAMOJOJE KALBOTYROJE standardization, standardization, codification, terminology. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS In terms of normative linguistics, standardization, norming and codification are not fully 1 žymimų sąvokų samprata šiuolaikinės lietuvių ir užsienio kalbotyros darbuose įvairuoja, established terms themselves. Therefore, it is no coincidence that the need to review these and some other terms in this field and to define them more precisely (or even to rename one other concept) is raised in several recent scientific publications of Lithuanian linguists. However, the possibility of a comprehensive debate on terms is diminished by the 2 fact that sometimes only single sources are used, which in themselves limit the field of problems related to the use of those terms. Therefore, the conclusions are not always characterized by scientific accuracy and objectivity. There are several possible approaches to the problem of these terms, defining the direction of research: 1) diachronic, which allows to examine the emergence of the aforementioned terms, their historical development and their connections with the stages of formation and development of the common Lithuanian language itself (and, more broadly, with the common languages of other countries); This requires special detailed studies (see Deumert, Vandenbussche 2003: 455–469; Subačius 2004: 97–115; Miliūnaitė 2010: 231–256); 2) synchronous, limited to the current status of language standardization terms and encompassing two aspects: These three terms in the title of the article, in the introduction and in part 1 generally denote the 1 nests of the respective root terms, because in reality more constructive variants of each term are used, and sometimes synonyms denoting similar but different concepts. 2 For example, Audrius Valotka examined the terms of language policy and language planning (Valotka 2015: 84–101); other recent considerations of terminology in this field are discussed in the following sections of the article. RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Dėl terminų standartizacija, norminimas ir kodifikacija santykio dabartinėje norminamojoje kalbotyroje | 2 BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 a) teoriškai apibrėžti kalbamųjų terminų poreikį ir šios mikrosistemos terminais reiškiamų sąvokų tarpusavio ryšius, remiantis svarbesniais dabartiniais lietuvių kalbotyros sources, as well as English-speaking linguistic literature, which today generally determines lietuviškosios terminijos pasirinkimą, kontekstu; a lot b) to investigate the characteristics of actually functioning colloquial terms in various Lithuanian linguistic texts and to determine their usage tendencies. The totality of these research directions and aspects can help to form a fairly comprehensive picture of the development and functioning of colloquial terms in Lithuanian linguistics. The volume of the article allows to choose one aspect. Especially interesting, because it is not easy to implement, seems to be case 2a, so it is further examined, although the links with the mentioned studies of another direction are not avoided. 1. WHAT IS THE SIZE OF “ONE MORE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE BREACH”? An analysis of the terms standardization, standardization and codification in normative linguistics was prompted by the article “On the standard language term” (Smetonienė, Smetona, Valotka 2016) by three authors – Irena Smetoniene, Antanas Smetona and Audrius Valotka, published in the online journal Lietuvių kalba published by Vilnius University in 2016. As the title of the article says, it is dedicated to the term standard language, and as its content shows, it is an attempt to 3 justify the necessity of this term for contemporary Lithuanian linguistics and to replace the term common language, which has been used since 1927 with a few years' interruption during the Soviet period. At the same time, other important terms for normative linguistics are also briefly mentioned (Smetonienė, Smetona, Valotka 2016: 10): Attention should also be drawn to another problem of Lithuanian linguistics – the standardization and codification of the kabba are synonyms for us, and standardization is not defined at all. To support this 4 statement, the authors provide a table on page 10 (without mentioning its title, see Table 1). After this table (hereinafter referred to as the CNS table), without examining its content, the authors of the article make the following conclusion (thinking not only 3 Aldonas Pupkis’ review of this article can be found in the 90th issue of the Journal of General Language (prieiga internete: http://www.bendrinekalba.lt/Straipsniai/90/Pupkis_BK_90_straipsnis.pdf). 4 Straipsnio autorių paliktas korektūros riktas. RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Dėl terminų standartizacija, norminimas ir kodifikacija santykio dabartinėje norminamojoje kalbotyroje | 3 BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 šiuos, bet ir anksčiau savo tekste aptariamus terminus bendrinės kalbos atmainai įvardyti) (Smetonienė, Smetona, Valotka 2016: 11): Thus, as we can see, terminological chaos is obvious (and, by the way, not so rare in linguistic terminology). The purpose of this article is not to sort out this whole microsystem of terms. However, the authors’ statement about “another problem of Lithuanian linguistics” is far from the truth. Why? The main “trouble” of the authors themselves is that they rely on the only Lithuanian source – the Lithuanian Language Encyclopedia (hereinafter – LKE), and also choose only one of the foreign-language sources, so neither the diversity nor other aspects of the use of these terms are visible. Not even the relatively recent source of lexicography – the Dictionary of Linguistics Terms (hereinafter – LTŽ) (2012), which is also in the Term Bank of the Republic of Lithuania (hereinafter – TB), is considered – here these terms are clearly defined. In addition, comparing microsystems of terms in several languages is possible and necessary, but some or other discrepancies do not necessarily mean that one of those microsystems is faulty. On the other hand, it must be acknowledged that there is some disorder in the Lithuanian microsystem of normative linguistics terms, and this is due to several reasons: 1) there is no clear agreement on which concepts are needed and what their content is; 2) the basic concepts of “standard” and “norm” are partial synonyms, and išvestinių sąvokų sinonimiškumą, kartu dviprasmiškumą; this creates 3) the microsystem of terms of Lithuanian normative linguistics is kalbų daroma įtaka, nes ši mikrosistema kitose kalbose kuriama ne visada pagal tokius unbalanced by the same principles of others. The far greater problem, paradoxically as it may seem, is the very current state of codification of Lithuanian linguistic terminology. Separating the codification of Lithuanian linguistic terminology (and spoken microsystem) from actual usage, it can be said that this terminology, compared to terminology of other fields of science, is lexicographically arranged rather poorly. Most of the lexicographical sources are several decades, if not more, behind what is actually used. Many new terms are created or borrowed, reflecting the current situation of foreign linguistics, but this terminology is neither centrally systematized nor XX a. pabaigoje pasirodęs lietuviškas Kalbotyros terminų žodynas (toliau – KTŽ) savo laiku published. was necessary and useful work (see KTŽ 1990, 288 p.), but it can no longer be compared RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Dėl terminų standartizacija, norminimas ir kodifikacija santykio dabartinėje even in normative linguistics | 4 BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 with the Latvian Explanatory Dictionary of Linguistic Terms (hereinafter referred to as VPSV) (2007, 623 pp.). TABLE 1. Definitions of codification, norming and standardization in three language sources (Smetonienė, Smetona, Valotka 2016: 10). The authors of the aforementioned article, realizing that the problem of colloquial didesnio dėmesio, skatina „šioje kalbotyros srityje besispecializuojančius mokslininkus terms is worth taking on the management of the entire microsystem." Such a RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Dėl terminų standartizacija, norminimas ir kodifikacija santykio dabartinėje management, as far as it is necessary, should be in normative linguistics | 5 BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 individual commitment, for example, in preparing a new dictionary of linguistic terms or in publishing a new edition of LKE. However, as mentioned above, in order to thoroughly explain the theoretical and practical aspects of the origin, historical development, functioning and šaltiniuose aspektus, reikėtų platesnės studijos. Todėl šiuo kartu straipsnio tikslas yra presentation of colloquial terms in various contexts, it is necessary to: 1) describe the basic reikalingų sąvokų ir jas įvardijančių terminų mikrosistemą. concepts of the constituent parts (stages) of the normative process of general language; 2) discuss the terms standardization, norming and codification, as well as their variants and synonyms; 3) to reveal the interrelationships of the terms designating language regulation(s) and to present outlines of their possible microsystem. 2. WHAT ARE THE CONCEPT AND TERMS WE ARE TALING ABOUT? The terms standardization, normization and codification, as well as their variants and synonyms, describe various aspects of the regulation of the common language, both externally (i.e., the separation of the common language from other variants) and internally (i.e., the crystallization and arrangement of the norms of the common language) as one of the national language variants. In order to clarify the content and context of the terms examined, it is necessary to define the supporting concepts of “common language” and “common language regulation(s)”. The common language is both a self-developing and a consciously created variant of language. In this it differs from other variants of language, whose emergence, functioning and development of norms are usually described only as self-regulation of language without conscious and targeted intervention šalies. Tiesa, kalbant apie bendrinę kalbą, nusveria (ir visai suprantama, kodėl) vienas from outside. In addition, common language is both the object and the result of regulation. It is poveikis jos raidai, o nuošalyje paliekami savaiminės jos raidos ypatumai. precisely the interaction of these two, albeit contradictory, sides of the same common language – the object and the result of regulation – that is not being attempted to understand in the current debate on the content and relationship of the terms common language and standard language. Moreover, there is an attempt to artificially separate these two sides and deconstruct the unity of the term common language: normative, i.e. RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Dėl terminų standartizacija, norminimas ir kodifikacija santykio dabartinėje norminamojoje kalbotyroje | 6 BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 Codified, the common language is opposed to its actual use, as if they were two separate and visai skirtingais terminais vadintinos atmainos. Todėl, kiek nukrypstant nuo pagrindinio independent concepts. The linguist Pranas Skardžius was the first to publicly use the term common language in 1927 in the journal Švietimo darbas (Skardžius 1997 [1927]: 30–85). By the way, before this, a radio 2013 m. kovo mėnesio Lietuvoje manyta ir rašyta, kad P. Skardžius ir buvo šio termino kūrėjas. Tačiau tą kovo mėn. Lietuvos nacionalinio radijo laidoje „Ryto garsai“ buvo program was broadcast by the Voice of America, which published a recording from the 1964 Catholic Academy Congress in the United States of America, where questions were answered by the famous interwar linguist Antanas Salys, who had withdrawn to the West during the war. He explained that the term common language was suggested by him to P. Skardžius based on a translation of the German term Gemeinsprache, and that he began to use it everywhere. Pranas Skardžius describes the common language as one “which could be understood by the people of the whole country”, which “has become common to the whole country, the whole state”, “recognized, used or attempted to be used as a universal means of communication throughout ethnographic Lithuania”, thus emphasizing especially its commonality (Skardžius 1997 [1927]: 34–35). It is precisely for this act of creating a common language, selecting its norms and sharing them, which extends in time from the very choice of the basis of the common language to the present moment and future guidelines, that special terms are needed, which would allow to describe this process according to various peculiarities. Common language definitions usually specify the most important characteristics that distinguish this language variant from other national language variants. In the context of the terms under consideration, the most important is the characteristic of common language, which determines the nature of deliberate influence on it, or its handling. The process of general 5 language management is incomplete due to the constant change of language, only its extent and means vary from country to country. In view of this, the following definition of the common Lithuanian language could be appropriate: A common language is a prestigious language variant created, used and directed by a historically, culturally and often politically linked linguistic community, intended for the needs of public life and to have norms fixed by codification. 5 Sąmoningai reguliuojama gali būti ne tik bendrinė kalba, bet ir kitos atmainos (pavyzdžiui, norminama bendrinė žemaičių tarmės rašyba), tačiau tai ne tendencija, o greičiau išimtis, diktuojama konkrečios kalbinės bendruomenės poreikių. RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Dėl terminų standartizacija, norminimas ir kodifikacija santykio dabartinėje in normative linguistics | 7 BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 Similarly, but in a broader sense, common language is defined in LTŽ (2012): common language (angl. standard language, fr. langue standard (f), rus. литературный язык, dt. Standardsprache (f) a universally used ↑language, more or less standardized, with the highest prestige, the highest social status in the ↑lingual community, used as the language of writing, public life, education, culture, media, literature, educated strata of society. ∆ is constantly enriched, deliberately created, regulated and standardized, for this purpose dictionaries, grammar, other normative and educational publications are prepared. ∆ standardization is carried out by scientific institutions and state institutions, in Lithuania – the State Lithuanian Language Commission. The ∆ variant is taught in schools, as a ↑foreign language, to non-native speakers. In these two definitions, the concept of common language differs from the traditional Lithuanian linguistics, because two new things are raised. The first is the continuity of the language ordering, because up to now the result of the ordering has been emphasized rather than the process. For example, various works of Lithuanian linguistics indicate that common language is a language for the purposes of people’s public life and culture” (LKE 2008: 77), „sąmoningai apdorota“ (Pupkis 2005: 30), „daugiau ar mažiau sunorminta visos tautos raštų thus raising only one aspect – the aspect of codified common language. The draft amendments to the State Language Act, which are being discussed in the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, refer to the correctness as the main feature: Common Lithuanian language is the written or spoken Lithuanian language for the purposes of public life that is correct, i.e. based on the Lithuanian language vocabulary, grammar, spelling and punctuation rules and other recognized sources of language norms. (2008). Common Lithuanian is a written or spoken Lithuanian language for the purposes of public life, based on the Lithuanian language’s vocabulary, grammar, spelling and punctuation norms. (2011). Similarly, the Higher Education Textbook (LBK 2014: 24, emphasis added): Bendrinė kalba – tai sunorminta (standartizuota), rašytinę ir sakytinę formas turinti, daugelyje spheres used by all language users common language variant. The relationship between these (tarmių ar sociolektų) bendrinė kalba visų pirma skiriasi tuo, kad yra kodifikuota arba sunorminta, t. y. standartizuota. RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Dėl terminų standartizacija, norminimas ir kodifikacija santykio dabartinėje norminamojoje kalbotyroje | 8 BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 The existence of a codified common language can be regarded as normal and correct, but not its actual use, which is often varied both due to internal development and due to the general destandardization processes currently taking place in European languages, and therefore does not lack elements characteristic of other national language variants and other languages. Secondly, the common language has, as mentioned, a level of spontaneous development, because not everything in it takes place by means of conscious regulation. It is therefore important to note that it is also “created by the language community”. two processes – the spontaneous and the conscious – can vary greatly in different languages and at different stages of development. In Lithuanian, conscious influence on the common language, or its regulation, or in other words – language management – occupies an essential part of the development, functioning and change of the common language, and spontaneous processes – a much smaller part. Pranas Kniūkšta assigns standardization, supervision and language education to the general language management (Kniūkšta 1995: 28–39): The most important principle of directional language management is systematicity, or regularity. It not only helps to standardize, maintain and learn the language, but in many cases it is also compatible with the tasks of language education. Language regulation is defined in more detail in LTŽ (2012): language usage, establishment and Kalbos tvarkyba – kalbos apsaugos teisinės sistemos kūrimas, kalbos norminimo, konsultavimo implementation of language supervision and control institutions and bodies, language veiklos organizavimas, kalbos rėmimo programų ir projektų rengimas, administravimas ir standardization, dissemination of language norms, language supervision and control. Thus, the common language, like all its variants, develops, functions and changes by itself, besides being consciously created and managed (regulated). These processes take place at two levels: 1) at the macro level, i.e., the common language is perceived as a variant of the national language; 2) at the microlevel, i.e., by looking at the general language as a whole of its norms. If we separate the entire legal and administrative regulation in the linguistic order, then at least four separate terms are needed to identify other aspects of regulation directly related to the common language variant and its norms (see table 2). RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Dėl terminų standartizacija, norminimas ir kodifikacija santykio dabartinėje in normative linguistics | 9 BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 TABLE 2. The nature of general language regulation(s) as well as the details and the need Jeigu kai kuriuos šiais keturiais terminais įvardijamus procesus suskaidysime į for terms will be discussed in more detailed stages. Since there are several stages of conscious regulation of common language norms (T2) (the establishment, legalization and dissemination of norms in the use), each of them is also often specifically named. So kad lietuvių kalbotyroje šiam reikalui vartojama daugiau terminų, nei pateikta KNS obviously, in the table (see Table 1). 1-ame paveiksle nurodyti dabartiniuose lietuvių kalbotyros darbuose dažniausiai the terms used (or proposed to be used) standardisation (convergence), standardisation; norminimas, normalizacija (normėjimas) ir kodifikacija, kodifikavimas. Tai yra tas terminų inventory, which is discussed below. In addition, all these terms are related to the references sąvokomis „standartas“, „norma“ ir „kodeksas“, todėl reikia išsiaiškinti ir jų reikšmes, related to the terms of the spoken inventory. 1 PAV. In Lithuanian Linguistics used in Normative Linguistics to designate general language regulation(s) | 16 Terms (or proposed use) RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Dėl terminų standartizacija, norminimas ir kodifikacija santykio dabartinėje BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 meet the needs of the language community. In turn, the tasks of normization are related to the threefold state of development of the common language: 1) past: to strive for the stability of norms, i.e. to maintain the continuity of the common language and the tradition of norms; 2) the present: striving for the functionality of the common language, i.e. reviewing the codification at certain intervals of time and establishing such norms of the common language and rules of usage that would allow flexible use of the expressive powers; 3) in the future: to create favourable conditions for the development of the common language and to foresee ways in which and in which directions the common language could be renewed. As can be seen from the CNS table, standardization is sometimes used to confuse it with the term codification. In addition, this process is usually divided into stages, and they often have each their own names. The Czech linguist František Daneš has identified the following stages of the normalisation process (though calling it codification, thus expanding the meaning of the latter, and considering normalisation as one of the parts of codification) (Данеш 1988 [1979]: 281–283): 1) the descriptive stage: the establishment and objective description of the norms of the common language; 2) reguliuojamasis (norminamasis) etapas: a) evaluative (the means of language expression and their ways of use are tam tikrus objektyvius kriterijus, atsižvelgiant į visuomenės poreikius ir bendrinės kalbos assessed according to the dynamics of development), b) direct codification stage; 3) implementing (strategic tactical) stage: implementation of codification in the user experience. In the current normative Lithuanian linguistics (less lexicographically, see table 4, more in the newer scientific literature) there is a clear opposite tendency to use the term norming in a broader sense than that indicated by F. Danešas, and to narrow the meaning of codification to the term naming the 2b stage. RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Dėl terminų standartizacija, norminimas ir kodifikacija santykio dabartinėje norminamojoje kalbotyroje | 17 BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 TABLE 4. Definitions of the term norming in Lithuanian sources Šaltiniai Apibrėžtys KTŽ The standardization of literary language (see n o r m a l i z a c i j a ) is the scientific language and the written language, the written code, the establishment of the LKE determination of the standards of language for use based on the methods of facts of the system of writing language (p. codification, or standardization (p. 253, article language norm). LTŽ kalbos norminimas (tas pat kas standartizavimas) – (angl. standardisation, pranc. normalisation (f), standartisation (f), rus. normalisation, vok. Sprachkritik (f), Sprachlenkung (f), Sprachpflege (f), Sprachregelung (f)) the establishment of a general, universal, exemplary language as the official means of communication; ↑codification of the norms of language use, their refinement and lexicology and the selection is referred to as most often related to the public implementation into ↑usage. ∆ rules, etc. DŽ7i TŽZ no standardisation; norminti – to establish norms, to manage according to norms. no sense, standardization replaces the term T1 – this is how it is defined in the LTŽ: “the standardisation; norminti – to establish norms, to manage according to norms. In the broadest establishment of a general, universal, exemplary language as an official means of communication”, i.e. the choice of a language variant in mind. In a narrower, more typical sense, the establishment of general language norms involves the study of usage, the selection and evaluation of norms. In addition, the normative process includes the official legalization of norms in writing and the dissemination of norms. The second element – the legalization of norms in writing – and sometimes the first one, tend to be referred to as codification (see section 2.3). The law on the State Lithuanian Language Commission (VLKK) also shows that standardization and codification are not always identical. Article 3, which lists the tasks of the VLKK, paragraph 4 uses both these terms, only the law itself does not provide their definitions (VLKK Į 2016): The language commission: <...> 4) determines the direction of Lithuanian language management, resolves issues of Lithuanian language standardization and codification; <...>. By the way, in the same law, the works fixing common language norms do not apibūdinami bendresniu pažyminiu norminamasis, o ne siauresniu kodifikacijos (VLKK Į RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Dėl terminų standartizacija, norminimas ir kodifikacija santykio dabartinėje norminamojoje kalbotyroje | 18 BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 2016), – galbūt todėl, kad, pavyzdžiui, vadovėliai gali būti laikomi normų šaltiniu, bet have codification power: 5) vertina ir tvirtina svarbiausius norminamuosius kalbos veikalus (žodynus, žinynus, vadovus, textbooks); <...>. The term "normalization" is used in Lithuanian linguistics as a variant of norming (and codification in the same sense). Cf. sentence from Jon Klimavičius’ article 11 (Klimavičius 2002: 22): Variations and errors, especially contradictions and conflicts between objective usage and by nature subjective standardization (codification of norms), are the most necessary for scientific linguistic analysis. In the previous linguistic literature, normalization instead of normization was more common, probably supported by the Russian language, and nowadays it is rare, because when normization and normalization are considered terms meaning the same, preference is given to the europeized, or normalization is abandoned altogether (see table 5). TABLE 5. Definitions of the term normalization in Lithuanian sources Šaltiniai Apibrėžtys KTŽ DŽ7i normalizacija, нормализация, normalization. Standardization of arrangement according to norms, rules, determination, handling (p. 135). There is no LKE LTŽ. standardization of normalization is absent. language, normalization of its norms – norms, establishment of norms; regulations. TŽŽ normalizacija 1. normalios padėties nusistojimas, įvedimas; standardization, arrangement according to norms, rules, regulations; 2. the establishment and implementation of binding standards (and two more specific meanings related to industrial production). 11 Such a tradition has existed at least since the pre-war Mother Tongue, where the criteria for the normalization of the common language were discussed, cf. Language, 1938: 143. RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Dėl terminų standartizacija, norminimas ir kodifikacija santykio dabartinėje in normative linguistics | 19 BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 Vis dėlto reikia pažymėti, kad būta mėginimų šiuodu terminus – norminimą ir normalizaciją – diferencijuoti (atsiremiant į tą normalizacijos reikšmės sandą, kuris TŽŽ (2013) nusakytas kaip „normalios padėties nusistojimas“. Pavyzdžiui, Jonas Palionis normalizacijos terminu vadina savaiminį normų kristalizavimosi procesą 12 , kurio metu language norms evolve, become clearer in language practice itself (T4) (Palionis 1989: 51; also cf. Miliūnaitė 2003: 42–43). Another term that is not used in practice is normavimas (Subačius 2002: 229). Is the term normalization necessary in practice at all, or is it important only the theoretical possibility of having it? Since the crystallization of norms takes place in every language undergoing change, and therefore in consciously unregulated variants, it is appropriate to name this process with a separate term, if necessary. The crystallization of common language norms is rarely studied specifically; this process is sometimes conditionally included in the first stage of normization, which describes the norms functioning in usage and their competing variants, but for precision it may be necessary to distinguish it from normization. The crystallization of norms is clearly visible when a new phenomenon enters the language and soon starts competing with variants of Lithuanian expression. In consumer practice, the search for the most suitable option often takes place spontaneously, while the standards authorities monitor the situation and do not interfere in this process. For example, when the English word think-tank, which is difficult to adapt, was introduced in Lithuanian, it usually meant “a group of experts conducting interdisciplinary research, supported by politiniais ar pan. klausimais“ (ND, žiūrėta 2017 11 14), vartosenoje susidarė tokia governmental or commercial clients, and advising them on social, economic, political, cultural, and cultural-political issues”. – R. M.): Not many people have heard about the Institute of Democratic Policy (IDP), which was and is the (unofficial) think tank of the Patriotic Union. And all the more so about its president M. Adomėnas, who since 2006 has also been an advisor to the deputy speaker of the Seimas Andrius Kubilius. (lzinios.lt, 2009) First of all, universities play the role of leaders in their professional field – they organize conferences, invite entrepreneurs, organize annual events, prepare publications, follow news, etc. possible language, the crystallization of norms. 12 kalbėti ir apie kitų kalbos atmainų, ir apie ankstesnio, ikikodifikacinio laikotarpio, iki susikuriant bendrinei RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Dėl terminų standartizacija, norminimas ir kodifikacija santykio dabartinėje in normative linguistics | 20 BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 make expert opinions. In other words, it acts as a think-tank team – as a “brain center” next to the chosen industry. (University Press, 2012) LLRI is not a research institute, but a think tank. It provides practical idėjas, pasiūlymus, situacijos vertinimus bei komentarus, užsiima visuomenės švietimu. (lt.wikipedia.org, 2014) Rusijos „thinktankas“ „Katehon“ yra Kremliaus palaikomas naujienų puslapis, kuris dažnai siūlo geopolitical information, simply saturated with military orthodox nationalism. (tv3.lt, 2016) the social Trečioji pakopa – think tankai arba lietuviškai idėjų kalvės ir smegenų centrai Taip, draugai democrats with their “working groups” tried to turn this mechanism into a parody. But from a brain atskirkime grupę sovietinių partinių bičiulių, kurių vienintelis tikslas greičiau įsisavinti ES lėšas, centre, where the intelligence and international experience of one professor can surpass the whole “working group” put together. (delfi.lt, 2016) Is R. Karbauskis familiar with the aforementioned analytical study of the American think-tank CSIS on Western countries, in order to prevent business „Kremliaus scenarijai“ ir joje išdėstytais konkrečiais techniniais siūlymais, kokių veiksmų turi imtis related to Russia from having a detrimental effect on the economy of Lithuania? “The Committee nacionalinių valstybių politikoms? (delfi.lt, 2016) Bureau has clarified that neither this term nor the previous one there was such a decision that the committee would not go on a mission, all the more so since no funds are requested from the Seimas and this is a serious event, the General Assembly of the think-tank of the European People’s Party, where I represent the Fatherland Union and regularly visit,” M. Adomėnas told BNS. (delfi.lt, 2017) „Europe – are we still working together? What do citizens and elites really think about the EU?” is the title of a think tank study published this Tuesday, based on a large-scale representative survey. (delfi.lt, 2017) These examples show that two Lithuanian metaphorical, and therefore commonplace, equivalents are crystallizing: the forge of ideas and the brain centre, which should eventually push alienation out of official usage at least. It is true that TB provides the Lithuanian equivalent of the plural form of think tanks – analitikų centrai, but in usage it has almost no support, or analitikos centras is translated as another English term analytics center. This stage of the norm’s creation, until a viable option is 13 established in the use, can be called normalization. This term is recorded in the source included in TB: The Encyclopedia of Political Science. Editors: Algimantas Jankauskas (ed.) and others. New York: University of New York Press, 2007. 13 RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Dėl terminų standartizacija, norminimas ir kodifikacija santykio dabartinėje in normative linguistics | 21 BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 often precedes the norming process, and sometimes parallels it (when the changing consumption is observed and studied), until the real norm of a certain period is legalized (codified). In English-speaking linguistic texts, the term norm is often used to confuse it with standard, and sometimes they are treated differently in different branches of linguistics (Locher, Strässler 2008: 1). In dictionaries, norm is defined in a more general sense – as a model, standard or example – as a synonym of standard (OD; MW), and in linguistics – as a narrower concept than standard. The term "normalization" in English linguistics, as shown in the CNS table, is used not for the purposes of normative linguistics, but in the field of phonetics. In the name of the normative process, it is replaced by the standardization in question (in the second meaning, T2) (cf. Bartsch 1985: 23; Subačius 2002: 229). The term language standardization (valodas normēšana) used in Latvian linguistics is defined as "the establishment of a norm – a process related to the study, recording, evaluation, maintenance and dissemination of the laws of language". Sprachnormierung (f), Sprachpflege (f), рус. нормализация языка (VPSV 2007: 421), thus corresponds to the Lithuanian concept of standardization. 2.3. Codification and codification As we have seen in the previous chapter, the important stage of normization (or standardization in this sense), during which selected common language norms are legalized in writing in certain sources, requires a separate term (see (Milroy, Milroy 1999 [1985]: 22, 28; Nevalainen, Tieken-Boon van Ostade 2006: 283). True, often the selection of norms is also associated with this stage, distinguishing it from the more abstract term norming, only, as mentioned In Section 2.2, the limits of the standardization stages are conditional. In theory, codification is particularly important in defining one of the most important concepts of normative linguistics – language norm. When common language norms are legalized in writing, they become codified, so over time they differ more or less from the real norms that function in usage. In English-speaking linguistic literature and lexicographic sources, the word codification is used for this purpose, without distinguishing between the process and its result. Unlike standardization, codification can only be conscious, organized RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Dėl terminų standartizacija, norminimas ir kodifikacija santykio dabartinėje norminamojoje kalbotyroje | 22 BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 activities; as the selection and/or formalization of indicative language norms, codification universalus reiškinys ir turi aiškų kultūrinį pobūdį (žr. Deumert 2004: 6). Šį terminą, is not speaking of language planning, popularized in the 1960s by Einar Haugen (Haugen 1966: 922–935). It is part of language structure planning (see Miliūnaitė 2010: 231–256 for more details): usually the system of signs and spelling rules, pronunciation, pronunciation, vocabulary, morphology and syntax are codified. spelling dictionaries” (VPSV 2007: 184), Latvių VPSV kodifikacija (kodificēšana, kodifikācija) apibūdinta kaip „kalbos normų atranka ir fiksavimas norminamuosiuose šaltiniuose, pavyzdžiui, gramatikose, thus being understood more narrowly than the standardization defined in the same dictionary. In both foreign and Lithuanian linguistic works, the term codification is the least confusing. Codification first of all means the generalized designation of one part (stage) of the normative work: it is the official legalization in writing of the language norms and rules established in the process of standardization in certain prestigious sources available to the linguistic community: dictionaries, grammar, style and language practice guides, rules collections, decisions and recommendations of language supervisory bodies (cf. Garvin 1993: 42). Codification, as one of the elements of language planning, is also included in the well-known language planning model of Einar Haugen, which was repeatedly refined by the author himself and covers the most important stages of the development of a common language (see Haugen 1983: 270–275). Secondly, codification is the result of the legalization of the norms and rules of common language itself, it could be said, the set of legalized norms and rules (Girdenis, Pupkis 1978: 56). The reference term “code” means “a set of rules in a scientific field” (TŽZ 2013). Therefore, where appropriate, it is a question of codification or amendment of the codified norms (for more details see. 2007: 7–23. In order to distinguish the process more precisely from the result or from the generalized designation of one part of the normative work, the term codification is sometimes used in Lithuanian to describe the process of legalizing the norms of the common language in writing, but in reality this tendency is not pronounced. The distinction between codification and codification is also made by LTŽ (2012). In the Lithuanian lexicographic and encyclopedic sources the concept of codification differs little (see Table 6). RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Dėl terminų standartizacija, norminimas ir kodifikacija santykio dabartinėje norminamojoje kalbotyroje | 23 BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 6 LENTELĖ. Terminų kodifikacija ir kodifikavimas apibrėžtys lietuviškuose šaltiniuose Šaltiniai Apibrėžtys KTŽ DŽ7i nei kodifikacijos, nei kodifikavimo nėra. LKE The process of determining and selecting language norms based on linguistic methods is called codification or normalization (see article language norm). LTŽ kodifikacija – (angl. codification, pranc. codification (f), rus. кодификация, vok. Codification (f)) language rules, norms described in normative works and the laws of their use. Codification – (English: codification, French: codification (f), Russian: кодифицирование, German: Kodifizierung) Codex (from Latin codex) is the original text of a law. TŽŽ kodifikacija lingv. pavyzdinių kalbos normų nustatymas ir sisteminimas, teikyba. kodifikacija kalbot. pavyzdinių kalbos normų nustatymas ir sisteminimas. As indicated by the authors of the CNS table, the codification of the LCE is equated with standardization as a synonym. In other sources, the procedures of codification – the establishment, systematization, selection, application of norms – also indicate that codification here means the suprantama labai plačiai ir iš esmės nesiskiria nuo norminimo. Plg. J. Palionio pateiktą definition of codification (Palionis 1989: 51): Scientific description and systematization of the norms of written language, as well as the determination of certain genders of language and spelling that are likely to the norm, is called codification. However, in newer linguistic literature, the term codification relates to the term norming as a part and as a whole (see Miliūnaitė 2003: 42; Miliūnaitė 2006a: 50– 59; Miliūnaitė 2006b: 9–28; LTŽ 2012). Of course, this does not eliminate their synonyms, even if partial. In particular, synonymy is prominent in the principles and criteria of language standardization / codification (-ing) of composite terms in usage. 14 14 See, for example, the titles of scientific articles, which show that at the end of the 20th century these terms were not yet quite established: Principles of General Language Normization and Codification 1978: 53–66); Evalda Jakaitienė. Dėl semantinės motyvacijos, kaip kodifikavimo kriterijaus. – Kalbotyra (Girdenis, Pupkis XXXVII (1), 1986, 102–105; Aleksas Girdenis, Aldonas Pupkis. Principles of language standardization. – Native kalba, 1996, 8, 1–5. RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Dėl terminų standartizacija, norminimas ir kodifikacija santykio dabartinėje norminamojoje kalbotyroje | 24 BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 3. BENDRINĖS KALBOS REGULIAVIMO(SI) TERMINŲ MIKROSISTEMA In response to the needs of normative linguistics to have different terms to describe the spontaneous development and conscious regulation of the common language as a variety and its norms, it is possible to present a set of four basic terms (two of which also have alphabetized variants): standardization – standardization and norming – normalization (see table 7). TABLE 7. In Lithuanian linguistics, it can be said that there is already a consensus about the use of a narrower term for one of the stages of standardization – codification, and the result of the latter is called codification. The diagram in Figure 2 shows the relationships between the terms discussed in the article. Standardization and standardization can be considered as the most general terms for the regulation of common language, including the narrower concepts of "standardization" and "codification". Standardization and standardization are still used quite rarely in Lithuanian linguistics. The basis of the microsystem consists of the terms standardization and codification (codification), while normalization belongs to the periphery, since the axis of the processes of regulation (of) the common language is its active, conscious handling, i.e. standardization. RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Dėl terminų standartizacija, norminimas ir kodifikacija santykio dabartinėje in normative linguistics | 25 BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 2 PAV. Microsystem of terms for general language regulation(s) CONCLUSIONS It must be acknowledged that Lithuanian terminology in linguistics, compared with terminology in other sciences, is poorly organized, it varies considerably in different and rarely updated dictionaries, and there is a general lack of newer systematized sets of terms that would reflect the researches of contemporary world linguistics. This situation makes it difficult to look systematically at the terminology of normative linguistics, because the actual use of terms in this field, although clearly shows certain differences in the abundant works of polinkius, neatitinka to įvairuojančio ir senstelėjusio vaizdo, kuris fiksuotas ne itin lexicography. Remiantis lietuviškaisiais ir anglakalbiais, taip pat latvišku kalbotyros šaltiniu, The article theoretically defines the most important concepts of normative linguistics, the bendrinės kalbos kūrimo(si) ir reguliavimo(si) procesams nusakyti. Pirmiausia pagal šios nature of the necessary variation regulation (regulation) is separated from its spontaneous development and conscious management. The second difference is the microand macro-levels of these processes: in one case, they cover the very variety of general language, in the other – its specific norms. RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Dėl terminų standartizacija, norminimas ir kodifikacija santykio dabartinėje in normative linguistics | 32 BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 With reference to Lithuanian and English sources, as well as one Latvian source denoting the of linguistics (The Glossary of Linguistic Terms), the article makes an inventory of terms (self-)regulation of the standard language: standartizacija (standartėjimas), The spontaneous standartizavimas; norminimas, normalizacija (normėjimas), and kodifikacija, kodifikavimas. development and conscious management of the standard language are distinguished on the basis of the nature of its (self-)regulation. Another distinction is made in terms of the microand macro-levels of these processes, which in Analysis of the mutual relationships of the terms in one case include the strain of the standard language per se, in the other, its specific norms. questions has revealed that interact as a part and whole of the phenomena they denote. some of the terms are overlapping, are synonyms of not-quite-identical meaning, or Notably, opposite to the English language where terminology affects that of other languages to a substantial extent, the Lithuanian language allows certain elements of word formation (in the case at hand, the suffixes -acija and -avimas) to signify the difference between a spontaneous act and an active action. This difference, however, is but a tendency rather than a strong regularity; therefore, when it comes to actual usage, formations of the suffix -acija are often used in both cases – just like in the English language. For the purposes of considering making the microsystem of the terms of normative linguistics clearer and more compact, we could suggest it be given the following guidelines in the terminology of Lithuanian linguistics: 1. Standartizacija (standardization): spontaneous establishment and self-development of the standard language as an individual variety. Standartizavimas: conscious selection of the standard language variety and generalised process of its management. 2. Normalizacija (normalization): the spontaneous process of the crystallisation of standard language norms. Norminimas: conscious management of standard language norms: investigation of 3. usage, selection and assessment, written legalisation, and proliferation of norms. Kodifikavimas (codification): one of the stages of the standardisation process: selection and written legalisation of standard language norms. Kodifikacija: the outcome of this process: the whole of the legalised norms and rules of the standard language. RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Dėl terminų standartizacija, norminimas ir kodifikacija santykio dabartinėje norminamojoje kalbotyroje | 33 BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 Such tendencies of usage do exist in Lithuanian linguistic literature and scientific microsystem texts, yet they call for a closer examination to be able to round up the discussion of the of the terms of this field that is acceptable to the current phase in the course of the development of the standard Lithuanian language. KEYWORDS: standard language, normative linguistics, language standardization, language codification, terminology. RITA MILIŪNAITĖ Lietuvių kalbos institutas Petro Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius, Lithuania [email protected]