JURGITA VENCKIENĖ

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

THE HISTORY OF THE CONCEPTION OF THE LITHUANIAN STANDARD LANGUAGE (THE SECOND HALF OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY – THE BEGINNING OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY)¹

KEYWORDS: standard language, written standard language, spoken standard language, purity, codification.

INTRODUCTION

The question of the emergence and beginnings of the Lithuanian standard language (hereafter – SL) has been examined repeatedly in linguistic scholarship. Giedrius Subačius has discussed Lithuanian scholars’ views on the history of the SL—which is usually associated with the history of the nation: “at a certain distinguished stage in the development of the nation (state), a certain stage in the development of the standard language was also discussed” (Subačius 2004: 89). Linguists in the United States and Western Europe, by contrast, study the development of standard languages on the basis of the characteristics of the languages themselves and their specific linguistic and social features (Subačius 2004: 97). Einar Haugen distinguished four aspects in the formation of an SL: the selection of a norm, the codification of form, the development of functions, and social acceptance (Haugen 1966: 252). The emergence and development of an SL are connected with society, and especially with two aspects identified by E. Haugen: the selection of a dialect for the SL and its acceptance by society.

Pranas Skardžius had emphasized the role of society much earlier, too: as an important feature of the emergence and existence of an SL, he identified society’s (or at least a part of society’s) awareness that it has a common language, and its efforts to use that language: “[the SL] is recognized, used, or efforts are made to use throughout all of ethnographic Lithuania as a universal means of communication” (Skardžius 1927: 341). The aim of this article is to show, drawing on the press and egodocuments, when society or at least a part of it began to understand that it had an SL, and how it understood that language.

Writing about sixteenth–eighteenth-century texts, Arnoldas Piročkinas, who explored the problems involved in the formation of the Lithuanian SL, observed that “[n]either M. Daukša nor other writers of Lithuanian texts of that period <...> had yet developed a conscious awareness of a standard language” (Piročkinas 1990: 6, see also

¹ The article is based on the paper “The History of the Crystallization of the Conception of the Lithuanian Standard Language,” presented at the academic seminar The Lithuanian Standard Language Today: Reality, Illusion, Aspiration? (2015 05 22), organized by the Centre for Standard Language Research of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

JURGITA VENCKIENĖ. Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos sampratos istorija (XIX amžiaus antroji pusė – XX amžiaus pradžia) | 2

Piročkinas 1986: 30–31). Bendrinės kalbos idėja buvo iškelta Universitas linguarum Lithuaniae (1737), tačiau toliau ji nebuvo plėtota (Piročkinas 1990: 8).

2. THE CONCEPT OF THE STANDARD LANGUAGE AT THE END OF THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY – THE MIDDLE OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY

At the end of the eighteenth century and the beginning of the nineteenth century, the standard language (bk) became an object of thought for more than one author. G. Subačius examined the emerging need for a standard language, various Samogitian authors’ (Juozapas Čiulda, Simonas Daukantas, Juozapas Arnulfas Giedraitis, Antanas Klementas, Kiprijonas Nezabitauskis, Jurgis Ambraziejus Pabrėža, Jurgis Plateris, Dionizas Poška, Simonas Stanevičius, and others) attitudes toward such a language, and their efforts to create it (Subačius 1991, 58–64; Subačius 1996: 51–59; Subačius 1998 and others). The Samogitians began thinking about how to make the language common (for more detail, see Subačius 1998: 20–21), which makes it possible to speak of the beginnings of standard-language creation, although none of the models developed at the time under discussion became the standard language. G. Subačius reconstructed the concept of a standard language created or sought by these Samogitian authors as follows: “the standard language will be the common and uniform public language of the nation” (Subačius 1998: 20–21), although, as is emphasized, different authors understood uniformity, universality, nation, language differently. For example, J. A. Pabrėža envisaged a standard language for Samogitians alone (around 1831), whereas S. Daukantas, in the later period of his creative work, envisaged one for the Samogitians and Aukštaitians of Lithuania Major and the Lithuanians of East Prussia (Subačius 1996: 53–54, 56).

Motiejaus Valančiaus vyskupavimo laikotarpiu (1849–1875) daugelis kunigų rašė tarminiu mišiniu, daugiau ar mažiau laikydamiesi savo tarminio pagrindo, bet „stengdamiesi būti ir aukštaitiški“ (Jonikas 1972: 135). Paties M. Valančiaus, vadovavusio tikybinei literatūrai, ją prižiūrėjusio, minčių apie bendrą kalbą, regis, nėra išlikusių. Vis dėlto iš akių neišleistina tai, kad M. Valančius rūpinosi rytų aukštaičiams knygas leisti jų tarme, nes jiems esą nesuprantami žemaitiški raštai: 1852 m. pavedęs Juozui Zenevičiui į rytų aukštaičių tarmę išversti Juozapo Želvio lenkiškai parašytą katekizmą, 1865 m. raginęs Antaną Baranauską rašyti kraštiečiams jų tarme. Be to, Petras Jonikas yra užsiminęs ir apie M. Valančiaus ganytojinius laiškus, rašytus tikintiesiems jų tarme (Jonikas 1987: 238). Tai liudytų, kad bendra visiems lietuviams kalba M. Valančiui dar atrodė neįmanoma.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351–7204

JURGITA VENCKIENĖ. Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos sampratos istorija

(XIX amžiaus antroji pusė – XX amžiaus pradžia) | 3

3. THE CONCEPT OF THE STANDARD LANGUAGE IN THE SECOND HALF OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY

Interest in the question of a standard language intensified in the second half of the nineteenth century. Ego-documents and the press of the period are replete with reflections on the standard language and discussions of various issues concerning language standardization.

3.1. The Written Standard Language

Researchers of standard languages agree that a written language emerges and is standardized first (for more on this, see Subačius 2001: 127). The Lithuanian standard language was no exception: at the beginning of the period under discussion, it was understood only as a written language.

A. Baranauskas needed a standard language, primarily for teaching, after he was appointed in 1870 to teach homiletics—the theory and practice of preaching in Lithuanian—at the Samogitian (Telšiai) Theological Seminary in Kaunas (Stakauskas 2003: 71). A. Baranauskas was concerned with creating a model of a common written language (so-called orthography); in his project, the spoken language remained dialectal (Baranauskas 1875 10 04 (16): 6):

there needs to be one orthography for all Lithuania. When writing according to pronunciation, one should include in the orthography and grammar only as much as there are dialects. Yet one grammar, one orthography, and also instructions are needed, showing how Lithuanians of each dialect should pronounce those letters (litterae).

The structure of A. Baranauskas’s written standard language (hereafter – rbk) was close to the dialect of the southern Western Aukštaitians (for more detail, see Jonikas 1937: 50; Zinkevičius 1986: 78), although an attempt was made in writing to encode features of other dialects as well. A. Baranauskas’s rbk model, although popular among Catholic clergy and used in the Samogitian bishop’s chancery until 1908², did not develop into the standard language, just as the projects of Samogitian authors had not at the beginning of the nineteenth century.

The idea of an rbk encoding dialectal features was also developed by Kazimieras Jaunius, who, from 1885, also taught Lithuanian at the Samogitian Theological Seminary in Kaunas (Sabaliauskas 1979: 172). He (Jaunius [1880–1892]: 6) emphasized that

phonetic³ orthography is unsuitable for the writings of all Lithuania: the standard orthography of all Lithuanians cannot attend to the pronunciation of every sound and disregard other words of the same origin and other dialects of the same Lithuanian language..

² Plačiau žr. Venckienė 2014.

³ “sound-based, phonetic” (LKŽė).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351–7204

JURGITA VENCKIENĖ. Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos sampratos istorija

(XIX amžiaus antroji pusė – XX amžiaus pradžia) | 4

The theory of dialect harmonization developed by A. Baranauskas and K. Jaunius was at least partly put into practice in Žemaičių ir Lietuvos Apžvalgoje (1889–1896), a periodical published by Pranciškus Urbonavičius and Kazimieras Pakalniškis, students at the Žemaičių Spiritual Seminary. P. Urbonavičius (1895: 3) wrote:

that a large part of our Samogitians pronounce those same words in which “uo” is pronounced as the single letter “u”; men of learning have therefore indicated that these two letters should be combined and written as follows: lūma, lūkis, lūsas, klūnas, slūti, plūztas, and other similar words, as readers have sufficiently noted in “Apžvalga”; and from now on, in place of “uo,” we too will use only “ū.”

Tarmių derinimo rašomojoje kalboje idėja atrodė patraukli ir Jonui Basanavičiui (1899: 9):

We must reform our orthography in such a way that it becomes kainà⁴, universal in expressing—if possible—all our dialects, so that people speaking the various Lithuanian dialects can read the words expressed by our writing signs in their own way.

He set out his proposals for encoding dialect features in the standard written language and representing differently pronounced sounds in writing (a common pronunciation also did not seem necessary to J. Basanavičius) in the book Prie istorijos mūsų rašybos, published in 1899, and further supplemented them in the 1902 edition of Ožkabalų dainų.⁵

For example, J. Basanavičius proposed marking the affricate [dž] with the diacritic letter <đ>, which “the Samogitians will have to pronounce in the middle of a word as an ordinary d” (Basanavičius 1899: 12); [č] with the diacritic character <ț>—“in Samogitia, where it has not yet softened and remains, they must pronounce this t as an ordinary t” (Basanavičius 1899: 13).⁶

Thus, in the final decades of the nineteenth century and even later, some creators and users of the standard written language considered a regional standard written language encoding features of various dialects necessary and suitable; they did not wish to standardize pronunciation.

⁴ Kainas “common” (LKŽė).

⁵ J. Basanavičius’s project for a standard written language must have been known to the intelligentsia earlier as well, through his Ožkabalų dainų (1884) and Etnologiškų smulkmenų (1893).

⁶ Dėl savitos rbk teorijos J. Basanavičius nebuvo pakviestas tapti Varpo (1889–1905) redaktoriumi – laikraščio leidėjai prisibijojo, kad jis neimtų jos taikyti šiame leidinyje (žr. [Bagdonas] 1937 01 11: [1]). Tai rodo, kad periodinės spaudos leidėjai jautė savo bk modelį dar esant labai netvirtą.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351–7204

JURGITA VENCKIENĖ. Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos sampratos istorija

(XIX amžiaus antroji pusė – XX amžiaus pradžia) | 5

3.2. Choosing the dialectal basis for the standard language and recording the standard language in the 1880s

The publishers of the Lithuanian periodical press took a different path from the proponents of theories of harmonizing dialects in the written standard language. Beginning with Aušra (1883–1886), whose publishers decided to rely on the Lithuanian grammars of August Schleicher (1856) and Friedrich Kuršaitis (1876), the western Aukštaitian dialect spoken in Greater Lithuania (hereafter DL) and East Prussia (hereafter RP) was chosen as the basis for the language of the periodical press. In 1893, Jonas Jablonskis also justified the decision to rely on a single dialect in Varpas: “we will never be able to accommodate all our dialects in our writing” (Jablonskis 1893: 5).

A conscious public awareness that it had such a language was very important for the emergence of the standard language to be recorded. In the final decades of the nineteenth century, with the appearance of the illegal Lithuanian-language press, the public—or, more precisely, its more educated part—began to understand that a dialectal basis for the standard language had been chosen and declared that it possessed a standard language. In the third year of Aušra’s publication, in December 1885, Serafinas Laurynas Kušeliauskas wrote to the priest Aleksandras Burba about the common language⁷: “when writing for Lithuanians and Samogitians, one must adapt to the common language” (Kušeliauskas 1923: 12). Soon, Antanas Vytartas (1887, written language, see below, section 3.4), Juozas Tumas-Vaižgantas (1888, written language, see below, section 3.3), Jonas Mačiulis-Maironis (1891, see below, section 3.4), Mečislovas Davainis-Silvestraitis (1891: 70, literary language), Antanas Milukas (1892: 27, written dialect), J. Jablonskis (1893, language of writings, see below, section 3.3), Vincas Pietaris (1894: 87, literary language), and others recorded the standard language (for more detail, see Venckienė 2007: 27–30).

Thus, in the final decades of the nineteenth century, the intelligentsia began to understand that it possessed a standard language, primarily a written one. This was an exemplary language model to be followed.

3.3. The spoken standard language

At almost the same time as the existence of the written standard language was being recorded, the intelligentsia began raising the question of the spoken standard language (hereafter šbk). J. Tumas-Vaižgantas, often mentioned by scholars, began “speaking in the written language when meeting intellectuals” from 1888 (Jonikas 1987: 352). In 1891, J. Mačiulis-Maironis⁸ recorded the spoken standard language: “From the dialects, the Kaunas dialect was selected, which is the most beautiful and which the majority already speak” (Mačiulis-Maironis 1891: 181). Thus, by the beginning of the final decade of the nineteenth century, at least educated speakers not only recognized the existence of a common written language, but also began to orient spoken language toward it.

⁷ Abelnas “universal, whole, common” (LKŽė).

⁸ Quoted from J. Mačiulis-Maironis’s book Apsakymai apie Lietuvos praeiga, published in 1891. The book’s title page states that it was written in 1886, so the author may have written about the formed standard language not in 1891, but earlier.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204

JURGITA VENCKIENĖ. Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos sampratos istorija

(XIX amžiaus antroji pusė – XX amžiaus pradžia) | 6

Soon afterward, in 1893, J. Jablonskis also emphasized speaking the standard language, noting that it would be intended not only for intellectuals but for all language users (Jablonskis 1893: 9):

if the present-day written language continues to grow fuller and more perfect, without changing dialectally (= in its forms), then sooner or later we will want all people, whether Aukštaitians or Samogitians, to know how to speak and pronounce as the foremost people of Lithuania, the intellectuals, speak; we will want to hear everyone in our Lithuania pronouncing and speaking alike.

Petro Avižonio Lietuviška gramatikėlė (1898), be kita ko, buvo skirta mokytis ir šbk – autoriaus nurodyta, kad kirčio ženklai žemaičiams ir rytų aukštaičiams rodo, kaip tarti rašomosios kalbos formas (Avižonis 1898: 1).

Thus, in the final decades of the nineteenth century, the intelligentsia began to realize that it had a standard language based on one dialect (that of Kaunas and the Suvalkija region), and began trying to speak it. The aim was for it to be adopted by other social strata as well.

3.4. Requirements for the standard language. Purity

The press and egodocuments show that as soon as the existence of a standard language was recognized, a requirement of purity was imposed on it.

Kalbos grynumo reikalavo Aušros (1883–1886) redakcija. Penktajame numeryje Petrui Arminiui-Trupinėliui skirtame redakcijos atsakyme rašyta: „Miklink tik ir vartok griną kalbą“ ([Aušros redakcija] 1883: 151). Vėliau apie tai užsiminė ir Jonas Šliūpas: „Kad atkelti ir atlaikyti grinąją kalbą, reiki, kad visi raštininkai pasistengtu grinai ir gražiai rašyti“ (Šliūpas 1884: 147). P. Jonikas yra užsiminęs, kad Aušroje grynumo kriterijus taikytas ne tik leksikai⁹, bet ir kitiems kalbos lygmenims (Jonikas 1987: 310), pavyzdžiui, svetimos kilmės žodžių [f] stengtasi žymėti <p> [p] (grapas ‘grafas’ A6 1883: 156, pamiliją A2 1886: 59), [ch] – <k> [k] (kolerôs ‘choleros’ gen. sg. A5 1883: 140).

The first issue of the newspaper Šviesa (1887–1888, 1890), published in 1887, probably contained the following words by Antanas Vytartas¹⁰: “The language of our newspaper will be used in a written, pure form, adding another word here and there for clarity” (Vytartas 1887: 3). Vincas Kudirka also mentioned the purity of the language,

⁹ Also worth mentioning is Jonas Palionis’s observation that for the Aušrininkai, who coined neologisms to replace Germanisms, Slavisms, and certain international words in order to purify the language, Lithuanian character was paramount—albeit “sometimes very poor” (Palionis 2014: 14–19).

¹⁰ The article “Introduction” (pp. 1–3) is signed by Ernest Wenyo; however, according to J. Tumas-Vaižgantas, “you can sense the priest’s hand here”—the editor A. Vytartas was probably meant. Vanda Zaborskaitė also considered A. Vytartas the article’s author, suggesting that Jonas Mačiulis-Maironis may have contributed as well (Tumas-Vaižgantas 1924: 10; Zaborskaitė 1987: 62).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351–7204

JURGITA VENCKIENĖ. Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos sampratos istorija

(XIX amžiaus antroji pusė – XX amžiaus pradžia) | 7

rašydamas Ūkininko (1890–1905), mažiau išsilavinusiems skaitytojams skirto laikraščio, leidėjų vardu (Kudirka 1890: 1–2):

Another thing that may make it harder to understand is the use of pure Lithuanian speech. <...> However, even if pure Lithuanian were difficult at first, one can soon get used to it. <...> Therefore, readers, do not be discouraged if No. 1 of “Ukinikas” seems somewhat too difficult to read! It will be easier later.

In the same year, Žemaičių ir Lietuvos apžvalgoje urged readers to pay attention to the vocabulary of gravestone inscriptions ([Pakalniškis] Zuikis 1890: 117):

Why should we use words from foreign languages when we have “just such words of our own.” Instead of “žonka” or szvogerka, would it not be more beautiful to write the Lithuanian words “moters” and “pati”?

Alongside appropriate spelling, J. Mačiulis–Maironis (1891: 182) also called for purity in 1891: “it is not enough to write in just any old way; the writer must know scholarly spelling and the purity of the language.” A. Milukas (1892: 27) also wrote about the need to avoid dialectal forms in his 1892 review of Vaikų kningelės:

The publisher evidently did not give himself an easy task in bringing out this little book: supposedly, he translated it from Samogitian into the contemporary written dialect, but whether out of haste or ignorance of the peculiarities of both dialects, he inserted many expressions and forms not used in the contemporary written dialect.

Purely Lithuanian standard language was also advocated by Aleksandras Dambrauskas (Adomas Jakštas) in 1898 (see below, section 3.6). The question of the standard language’s purity was also discussed in personal correspondence: in 1885, S. L. Kušeliauskas (1923: 112–113) raised this requirement for the standard language: “It is necessary that the language truly be pure and that everyone understand it.”

Thus, although no work had yet been produced to codify the standard language, the part of society that used it already had an awareness of it and no longer tolerated non-Lithuanian elements; the criterion of the standard language’s purity had become relevant. It should be regarded as the oldest requirement raised for the standard language, although it is no longer the most important one (cf. Girdenis, Pupkis 1970: 65–67).

3.5. The territory of use

During the period under discussion, the territory in which the standard language was used was also considered. As already mentioned, at the end of 1885 S. L. Kušeliauskas wrote that the standard language was common to Lithuanians (i.e., Aukštaitians) and

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351–7204

JURGITA VENCKIENĖ. Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos sampratos istorija

(XIX amžiaus antroji pusė – XX amžiaus pradžia) | 8

for Samogitians (see section 3.2). Less than a decade later, in 1893, Jonas Spudulis outlined broader boundaries for the use of the standard written language (rasztkalbēs): it was to be common to the Lithuanians of both Lithuania Minor and the Republic of Poland: “one must again strive for unity in writing between the Prussians and us” (Spudulis 1893 11 26: 3v).

Five years later, in 1898, A. Dambrauskas emphasized that the standard written language (rašliaviška kalba) was common to all Lithuanians, regardless of where they lived: it was used not only by Lithuanians of all dialects in ethnic Lithuania, but also in Europe and the United States of America (Dambrauskas 1898: 2–3):

Today <...> Samogitian or Highlander, Dzūkian or Kapsian, Zanavyk or Guoga—all understand themselves to be Lithuanians; all alike seek to write, renouncing the linguistic features of their own dialects <...> Thus, little by little, one Lithuanian written language developed and established itself, and it is now used by almost all the better writers of our time, regardless of where they live—in Europe or America.

Thus, in the final decades of the nineteenth century, the conception of the territory in which the standard written language was used broadened: it came to be understood as the language of all Lithuanian-speaking territories, also used by Lithuanians living in other countries.

3.6. Expansion of functions

The functions of the standard written language that emerged under the conditions of the press ban could not expand freely; it could not be used in government offices or schools.

In 1898, extending the testimonies of J. Tumas-Vaižgantas and J. Mačiulis-Maironis about the efforts of intellectuals to speak the standard written language, A. Dambrauskas urged that its sphere of use be expanded: it should be used not only for communication among intellectuals, but also in church (Dambrauskas 1898: 4):

it would be much better if every Lithuanian priest, having thoroughly learned one purely Lithuanian written language, preached the word of God everywhere in that language, without any concern for preserving the features of the local dialect. <...> And let no one think that we are proclaiming some kind of heresy here. <...> In ecclesiastical matters, as far as we know, it is written languages, not dialects, that prevail everywhere.

Attention was also drawn to another, very personal yet public sphere of language use, apparently unconstrained by government requirements: inscriptions on gravestones. The press recorded that most inscriptions on Lithuanian gravestones were written in Polish, called for them to be written in Lithuanian, and suggested that such inscriptions be composed by people who knew grammar (Turauskas 1901: 15):

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351–7204

JURGITA VENCKIENĖ. Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos sampratos istorija

(XIX amžiaus antroji pusė – XX amžiaus pradžia) | 9

Dear little Samogitians, always write down for the blacksmith on a slip of paper what words are to be carved on the cross.

<...> If you yourselves do not know how to arrange the words correctly and grammatically, then ask someone who knows Samogitian grammar well to compose the inscription.

Thus, the segment of society that used the standard language for communication among its members began to foster its spread into other areas of use as well, wherever possible, first of all into the church. Attention was also drawn to the language of gravestone inscriptions.

3.7. The need to codify the standard language

In the final decades of the nineteenth century, the need to codify the standard language arose. As early as 1889, V. Kudirka wrote in Varpas (Kudirka 1889: 105):

Today every writer works out a grammar for himself and writes in his own way—and it cannot be otherwise as long as we do not have a short, clear grammar that would answer directly, without any doubt, the more important questions of the language.

The editor of Varpas, Juozas Adomaitis-Šernas, noted in 1890 that a grammar was needed to standardize spelling: “For uniform spelling to emerge and, once established, to endure, a uniform guide and aid are needed, from which everyone could learn that spelling” (Adomaitis-Šernas 1890: 65). Recognizing the need to establish spelling norms, around 1890 the varpininkai took the initiative: they hectographed a collection of spelling rules prepared by V. Kudirka, Statrašos Ramsčiai (Jonikas 1987: 326).

P. Urbonavičius, editor of Žemaičių ir Lietuvos Apžvalga, raised the question of a grammar in 1895: “Then we shall have uniform spelling, when the leaders of our literature (professors) give up their laziness and publish good grammars” (Urbonavičius 1895: 3). In 1897, a contributor to Tėvynės Sargas, Pranciškus Gaigalas, urged the writing of a grammar: “Above all, we must take care and work to build walls around our language and spelling, so that when writing we do not wander astray” (Gaigalas 1897: 18).

With no suitable Lithuanian grammar yet available, the editorial board of Varpas sought a solution: in early 1898 it proposed translating Julius Schiekopp’s grammar (1879–1881), and later recommended relying on P. Avižonis’s Lietuviška gramatikėlė, which presented Varpas’s spelling model ([Varpas editorial board] 1899: 37):

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351–7204

JURGITA VENCKIENĖ. Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos sampratos istorija

(XIX amžiaus antroji pusė – XX amžiaus pradžia) | 10

We published and sent to all editorial offices a lithographed “Little Grammar” (which had not yet been completed at the time), following the spelling of Varpa, which, it seems, was not bad and was convenient to use. The “Gram.” was compiled by a specialist and was therefore reliable.

The standard language was codified in J. Jablonskis’s 1901 Grammar of the Lithuanian Language. To the public, this set of standard-language codes seemed authoritative, and people began to rely on it. The editor of Tėvynės Sargas, J. Tumas-Vaižgantas, decided to follow the norms of J. Jablonskis’s grammar even before it appeared¹¹, in 1900: “with this issue of ‘T. S.’ <...> we began writing in accordance with that common grammar. Wait for it and buy it, because it is already time to begin writing in one way” ([Tėvynės Sargas editorial board] 1900: 68). The publishers of Varpas also followed this grammar; for example, in 1903, drawing on it, they standardized the use of instrumental singular forms of pronouns: “Pronouns must be declined as indicated in the grammar [Jablonskis’s – J.V.]” (Varpas editorial board 1903: 25).

Thus, during the period under discussion, various authors not only recorded that a standard language already existed, but also raised the issues they considered most important: they discussed the relationship between written and spoken language and the territory of its use, began to set requirements for the standard language, and recognized the need to codify it. At the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the standard language was already understood, in part, in the way P. Skardžius would later describe it—as the common language of the nation.

4. THE STANDARD LANGUAGE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY

After the ban on printing in the Latin alphabet was lifted in 1904, the standard language became a legal language of print; when Lithuania became an independent state, it became the state language (as enshrined in the Constitution of the State of Lithuania in 1922) and began to be used in administrative and educational institutions (Zinkevičius 1992: 213–215; Piročkinas 2004: 6), so its functions also began to expand more rapidly.

In 1927, P. Skardžius described the standard language as the common language of the whole nation (“so that the people of the nation could communicate and exchange information with one another more easily and quickly”; a language that could be understood by the people of the entire country” (Skardžius 1927: 340)), and of the state (the standard language “has become common throughout the entire country, for the whole state” (Skardžius 1927: 341)).

At that time the grammar had not yet been printed, but J. Tumas-Vaižgantas had its manuscript—it had been entrusted to him to take to Tilžė (Jonikas 1987: 336).¹¹

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

JURGITA VENCKIENĖ. Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos sampratos istorija (XIX amžiaus antroji pusė – XX amžiaus pradžia) | 11

SUMMARY

1. Before the second half of the nineteenth century, the concept of a standard language can only be reconstructed: it would be a public national language common and uniform for everyone. At this stage, separate standardized models were created, but they did not develop into a standard language.

2. In the second half of the nineteenth century, the need for a common language became increasingly pressing. At the beginning of this period, only a written language seemed necessary and worth developing.

The final decades of the nineteenth century should be considered a critical period, when the standard language based on the Southern Western Aukštaitian dialect began to be understood not as something yet to come, but as something already existing, being used or being actively adopted. The conception of the standard language as a written language began to change: there arose a need not only to write, but also to speak, in the standard language. It was required to be not only uniform, but also pure. Efforts began to ensure that the standard language was used not only in print and for communication among intellectuals, but also in other spheres where possible—in church, and for writing inscriptions on gravestones.

The public began to gain a broader understanding of the territory in which the standard language was used: it was understood as the common language of Lithuanians living in Lithuania and Polish-speaking regions, in Europe and in the United States of America.

The model of the language of the periodical press, initially accepted as a common language only by the more educated part of society, was codified in J. Jablonskis’s grammar in 1901.

3. The model of the language of the illegal Lithuanian press, accepted as the standard language by intellectuals in the final decades of the nineteenth century and codified in J. Jablonskis’s grammar, became the state language in 1922 and began to be used in administrative and educational institutions. By 1927, P. Skardžius had already defined the standard language as common to the whole country and the entire state.

ŠALTINIAI

[A d o m a i t i s - Š e r n a s J.] j. a. 1890: Musų statrašas. – Varpas 2, 65.

A – Aušra, 1883–1886.

[Aušros redakcija] 1883: Gromatnyczia. – Aušra 5, 150–151.

A v i ž o n i s P. 1898: Lietuviška gramatikėlė, Peterburgas; VUB RS: Lᵣ623.

B a r a n a u s k a s A. 1875 10 04(16): Laiškas Hugo Weberiui iš Kauno. – Baranauskas A., Raštai

VII/2. Laiškai Hugo Weberiui ir Aleksandrui Dambrauskui, sudarė Regina Mikšytė, Marius Daškus, laiškų Hugo Weberiui pagrindinį tekstą parengė Rita Šepetytė ir Marius Daškus, komentarus – Bonifacas Stundžia, laiškų Aleksandrui Dambrauskui pagrindinį tekstą,

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351–7204

JURGITA VENCKIENĖ. Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos sampratos istorija

(XIX amžiaus antroji pusė – XX amžiaus pradžia) | 12

vertimą ir komentarus parengė Marius Daškus, Vilnius: Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas, Baltos lankos, 2009, 2–11.

B a s a n a v i č i u s J. 1899: Prie historijos mūsų rašybos. Parašė dr. J. Basanavičius. Tilžėje 1899. Spaustuvėje otto v. Mauderodes.

[D a m b r a u s k a s A.] A. J. 1898: Seni paveikslai ir nauji užmanymai. – Tėvynės Sargas 10, 2–3.

[D a v a i n i s – S i l v e s t r a i t i s M.] Cirulis 1891: Isz latviu kampo. – Varpas 4, 70.

[G a i g a l a s P.] Embė 1897: Raszybos dalykai. – Tėvynės Sargas 8, 18.

[J a b l o n s k i s J.] Obelaitis K. 1893: Dar kelets žodžių apie mūsų rašybą. – Varpas 1, 8–10.

[J a b l o n s k i s J.] 1901: Lietuviškos kalbos gramatika. Rašytojams ir skaitytojams vadovėlis. Parašė Petras Kriaušaitis. Tilžėje 1901. Spauzdinta pas otto v. Mauderode.

J a u n i u s K. [1880–1892]: Lietuviszkas kalbomokslis, LNB RS: F 23-8; rankraštis.

[K u d i r k a V.] Q. D. ir K. 1889: Isz tėvyniszkos dirvos. – Varpas 7, 105.

[K u d i r k a V.] –v–k– 1890: Prakalba. – Ūkininkas 1, 1–2.

K u š e l i a u s k a s S. L. 1923: S. Kušelevskio laiškas kun. A. Burbai. „Aušros“ 40 m. sukaktuvėse (iš spalio m. 1923 „Žvaigždės.“), Philadelphia, 112–113.

[M a č i u l i s – M a i r o n i s J.] 1891: Apsakymai apie Lietuvos praeiga, paraszę Stanyslovas Zanavykas 1886. Tilžė 1891 m. Kasztu Lietuvos mylėtojų spausdinta pas O. v. Mauderodės.

[M i l u k a s A.] Dzukelis 1892: „Vaiku kningele,“ parasyta kunigo-vyskupo Motiej aus Vałanczausko. (Antras spaudimas). – Žemaičių ir Lietuvos Apžvalga 4, 27–28.

[P a k a l n i š k i s K.] Zuikis 1890: Silva Rerum. – Žemaičių ir Lietuvos Apžvalga 15, 117.

[P i e t a r i s V.] Prusas už Prusą 1894: Kalbos dalykai. – Varpas 6, 84–87.

[U r b o n a v i č i u s P.] Prancelė J. 1895: Nereikalinga „į“ su brūkszmel iu mūsų raszyboje. – Žemaičių ir Lietuvos Apžvalga 1, 3–4.

S p u d u l i s J. 1893 11 26: Laiškas Aleksandrui Dambrauskui; VUB RS: F 1 – D 462; rankraštis.

[Š l i ū p a s J.] J. Szl. 1884: Lietuviszkoj i paprasta kalba... – Aušzra 4, 147.

[Tėvynės Sargo redakcija] 1900: „Lietuviszkos kalbos gramatika“. – Tėvynės Sargas 8, 68.

Tėvynės varpai. – Varpas 1, 1898, 13.

[T u r a u s k a s P.] Raseinių Magdė 1901: Iš Raseinių. – Tėvynės Sargas 4/5, 14–19.

[Varpo redakcija] 1899: Redakcijos atsišaukimas. – Varpas 3, 37.

Varpo redakcija 1903: Mūsų rašyba. – Varpas 2, 25–26.

[V y t a r t a s A.] Ernest as Weyeris 1887: Įžanga. – Šviesa 1, 3.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351–7204

JURGITA VENCKIENĖ. Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos sampratos istorija

(XIX amžiaus antroji pusė – XX amžiaus pradžia) | 13

LITERATŪRA

Bagdonas J. 1937 01 11: Pastabos apie rankraščius, Kaunas, [I]; VUB RS: F 1 – F 627; rankraštis.

Girdenis A., Pupkis A. 1970: Bendrinės kalbos normos ir jų kodifikacija. – Kultūros barai 1, 65–67. Prieiga internete: www.straipsniai.lt/kalbos_kultura/puslapis/6484.

Haugen E. 1966: The Ecology of Language, Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.

Jonikas P. 1937: Lietuvių bendrinės rašomosios kalbos idėja priešaušrio metu. – Archivum Philologicum 6, 36–73.

Jonikas P. 1972: Lietuvių bendrinės rašomosios kalbos kūrimasis antrojoje XIX a. pusėje, Čikaga: Pedagoginis lituanistikos institutas.

Jonikas P. 1987: Lietuvių kalba ir tauta amžių būvyje, Visuomeniniai lietuvių kalbos istorijos bruožai, Chicago: Lituanistikos instituto leidykla.

LKŽe – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas, elektroninis variantas. Red. kolegija: Gertrūda Naktinienė (vyr. red.), Jonas Paulauskas, Rიტutė Petrokienė, Vytautas Vitkauskas, Jolanta Zabarskaitė, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2005. Atnaujinta versija, 2008. Prieiga internete: www.lkz.lt.

Palionis J. 2014: Aušrininkų ir varpininkų leksinių naujadarų kūryba, parengė Birutė Kabašinskaitė, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla.

Piročkinas A. 1986: Kaip atsirado lietuvių bendrinė kalba. – Mokslas ir gyvenimas 1, 30–31.

Piročkinas A. 1990: Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos susidarymas. – Gimtasis žodis 1, 6–10.

Piročkinas A. 2004: Lietuvių kalba pirmosios nepriklausomybės metais. – Gimtasis žodis 5, 2–8.

Sabaliauskas A. 1979: Lietuvių kalbos tyrinėjimo istorija, iki 1940 m., Vilnius: Mokslas.

Skardžius P. 1927: Bendrinė kalba ir jos vartojimas. – Švietimo darbas 4, 337–350.

Skardžius P. 1933: Daukša pirmasis bendrinės kalbos kūrėjas Didžiojoj Lietuvoj. – Archivum Philologicum 4, 7–20.

Stakauskas J. 2003: Homiletikos ir lietuvių kalbos profesoriai. – Naujieji nacionalizmai ir katalikų bažnyčia Lietuvoje, sud. Algimantas Katilius, Vilnius: Aidai, 66–81.

Subačius G. 1991: Simonas Daukantas: rašybos ir kūrybinių interesų kitimas. – Iš Lietuvos istorijos tyrinėjimų, Vilnius: Academia, 58–64.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351–7204

JURGITA VENCKIENĖ. Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos sampratos istorija

(XIX amžiaus antroji pusė – XX amžiaus pradžia) | 14

Subačius G. 1996: Trys XIX a. bendrinės rašomosios kalbos modeliai: J. A. Pabrėža, J. Čiulda, S. Daukantas. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 36, 51–59.

Subačius G. 1998: Žemaičių bendrinės kalbos idėjos, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

Subačius G. 2001: Written standard and spoken standard. – Baltų filologija 10, 127–136.

Subačius G. 2002: Perspectives of a History of European Standard Languages. – Lituanus 48(1). Prieiga internete: www.lituanus.org/2002/02_1_02.htm.

Subačius G. 2004: Standartinių (bendrinių) kalbų istorijos chronologija. – Metmenys 84, 97–115.

Tumas-Vaižgantas J. 1924: Doc. p. e. J. Tumo Lietuvių literatūros paskaitos. Draudžiamasis laikas, „Apžvalgos“ grupė, Jonas Maironis-Mačiulis, Kaunas, Marijampolė: „Dirvos“ b-vės leidinys.

Venckienė J. 2007: Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos pradžia: idėjos ir jų sklaida (1883–1901), Vilnius, 2007 (daktaro disertacija).

Venckienė J. 2014: Antano Baranausko lietuvių bendrinės kalbos teorija: priėmimas Žemaičių kunigų seminarijoje. – Archivum Lithuanicum 16, 269–294.

Zaborskaitė V. 1987: Maironis, Vilnius: Vaga.

Zinkevičius Z. 1986: Antanas Baranauskas kalbininkas. – Literatūra ir kalba 19. Antanas Baranauskas, Vilnius: Vaga, 58–81.

Zinkevičius Z. 1992: Bendrinės kalbos iškilimas. Lietuvių kalbos istorija 5, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla.

Gauta 2016 12 05

Priimta 2017 01 19

JURGITA VENCKIENĖ

Lietuvių kalbos institutas

Petro Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius

[email protected]

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204