Gimtosios kalbos riteris – ir vienas lauke karys

P E R S O N A L I J O S ALBINA BATAITYTĖ A KNIGHT OF THE NATIVE LANGUAGE – AND A LONE WARRIOR In honor of linguist Pranas Kniūkšta on his 80th birthday In the autumn of this—2013—year, an exhibition of the works of linguist Pranas Kniūkšta was held at the library of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language, marking the eightieth anniversary of his life and work. Representatives of the Institute’s administration, colleagues from the former Department of Language Culture, which he headed for a full decade (from 1991 to 2001), employees of other departments, and fellow scholars gathered for its opening on September 24 to pay tribute to the jubilarian. The jubilarian marked his anniversary with something to show for it: in 2013, his new book Between Grammar and Politics (260 pp., published by the Institute of the Lithuanian Language) was prepared and published. It brings together articles written over the past decade (more precisely, in 2002–2012), published in the press, as well as some previously unpublished pieces. 322 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 86 One would like to begin this article with a review of the book mentioned above, since it considers many topical and important issues directly related not only to language, but also to language policy and to laws enacted by the authorities regulating the use of the state language (as the author’s chosen title also indicates). This is all the more reason to discuss these matters because Pranas Kniūkšta is one of those rare linguists who respond keenly and promptly to current language problems and engage opponents—figures from various fields who seek to spread hostile, and often brazen, ideas against the Lithuanian language, its cultivation, and its standardization—with well-founded and principled arguments. The book consists of seven chapters. The articles in the first two chapters—“Principles and Provisions of Language Cultivation” and “Borderline Phenomena of Language Norms”—examine language-related topics in the strict sense. Considerable space is devoted here to the language policy, practice, principles, and ideology of the publication Kalbos kultūros. A separate article, “Kazys Ulvydas on Language Culture and Society,” surveys the articles of the longtime contributing editor of Kalbos kultūros, published in that journal during his 26 years in the position (1961–1986). Assessing the linguist’s contribution to contemporary Lithuanian, Pranas Kniūkšta emphasizes that “we cannot renounce the scholar’s ideas for developing and nurturing the language.” The articles published in the book originally appeared in Kalbos kultūroje, Gimtojoje kalboje and in periodicals (the publication and date of each article are indicated at its end). As the author writes in the book’s preface, the greatest amount of space is devoted to administrative language. It occupies two chapters: “Administrative Language” and “Writing First and Last Names in Documents.” Although Pranas Kniūkšta regards his 2005 monograph Administracinė kalba ir jos vartosena as his swan song, as we shall see, he accomplished quite a lot in the field of administrative language over the past decade. Discussing the new draft State Language Law (pp. 107–114), the author writes that it needs revision. Two things that run counter to the idea of a state language are especially unacceptable: competition from other languages with Lithuanian, and the definition of public signs and the regulation of their use. Pranas Kniūkšta also considers the draft’s shortcomings to include redundant provisions unnecessary for this law, an especially large number of bureaucratic clichés, and confusion over legal terminology. In the article printed alongside it, “A New Code, Old Language Problems” (pp. 115–126), the author assesses the new Code of Administrative Offences A. BATAITYTĖ. Gimtosios kalbos riteris – ir vienas lauke karys 323 so (his project’s) language. Although the document’s language is not poor, a considerable number of points requiring correction are identified. Having devoted much time and effort to drawing up the Rules for Company Names and to the work and use of company names, the author rightly asks why the Law on Company Names was amended (pp. 127–131). Some of the amendments mentioned open the way for company names to spread without order or rules. Pranas Kniūkšta critically assesses the new Rules for Preparing Documents, approved on 25 May 2006 (pp. 132–139). Alongside meaningful and necessary textual changes, the author points out changes made for no reason at all, merely to make things “different,” or else rendered affected and excessively bureaucratic. Especially topical and important to society as a whole are the articles in the book’s fourth chapter (pp. 147–170). They discuss the spelling of first and last names in state documents—the passports of citizens of the Republic of Lithuania. These are four articles: “On the Draft Law on First and Last Names” (2007 07 20), “Will the Seimas Defend the Lithuanian Language?” (2009 06 19), “Another Unconstitutional Draft Law” (Kalbos kultūra, 2009, vol. 82), “What Could a Law on the Spelling of First and Last Names in Documents Look Like” (2010 06 9–12). Relying on the Constitution and a resolution adopted by the Supreme Council on 31 January 1991, Pranas Kniūkšta firmly defends the legally prescribed requirement that the state language be used in public state life. The main requirement is that a citizen of the Republic of Lithuania’s first and last names in a passport or other document be written in Lithuanian, that is, using Lithuanian letters. However, the drafters of this law disregard this and seek to legalize the writing in documents, using Latin-based characters and other languages, of the personal names of Lithuanian citizens who are not of Lithuanian ethnicity. The revisions and redrafting of this bill, which have continued for nearly a decade, have a clear aim: to allow Polish rather than Lithuanian to be used in the documents of Lithuanian citizens of Polish ethnicity. In that case, Polish would become Lithuania’s second state language. In Pranas Kniūkšta’s view, exceptions allowing a choice of language may apply only to those Lithuanian citizens who have registered a marriage with a citizen of another country (a foreign national). Language is inseparable from state (or government) policy: it enshrines legal acts and other documents, and if its use is weakened in this sphere, statehood is weakened as well. This is precisely what the author of these articles emphasizes. Pranas Kniūkšta discusses many causes of the weakening of the language and efforts to resist them in the fifth chapter’s article “Foreign Words, Politics, and Legal Acts” (pp. 173–179). That these are not merely idle musings is clearly shown by “Scenes of Language and 324 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 86 Politics in Dieveniškės” (pp. 180–192), where, after graduating from Vilnius University, he worked and experienced firsthand what the clash between language and politics means (it continues to this day in southeastern Lithuania). By the way, he examined the affairs of this region in the booklet Vilniaus kraštas ir lietuvių kalba, published in 1990 (issued separately in Lithuanian, Polish, and Russian). After the difficult battles on the language front, with their victories and defeats, the book’s sixth chapter (pp. 195–213) immediately takes on a different hue and evokes the past—just consider its title!—KNIGHTS OF THE NATIVE LANGUAGE. They are Kazys Ulvydas (the centenary of his birth, 1910–1996), one of the editors of the great Lietuvių kalbos žodyno, compiler and managing editor of the three-volume academic Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos, and longtime editor of the Kalbos kultūros journal; the terminologist Kazimieras Gaivenis (who died too soon, 1934–2003); the eminent lexicographer Antanas Lyberis (1909–1996); and the physicist and academician Adolfas Jucys (1904–1974). The author’s recollections are engaging, his assessment of the work accomplished by these linguists is thorough and sensitive, and his portraits of their outstanding personalities are accompanied by warm, affectionate words. Pranas Kniūkšta has also written about the great Lithuanian linguists Jonas Jablonskis, Kazimieras Būga, Juozas Balčikonis, and Antanas Salys. The native skies of Salantai (chapter 7, pp. 217–253) are also bright—or perhaps have grown much brighter thanks to the research of a son of the region who never ate bread for nothing. First, documents relating to the transfer of the card file for the great Lietuvių kalbos žodyno and other valuable information are presented here. This is a good place to pause briefly. As the war was drawing to a close, in the summer of 1944, linguist Antanas Salys, then director of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language, moved the dictionary’s card file to Salantai and entrusted it to the local church priest for safekeeping. The eminent linguist came from the same region: his and Pranas Kniūkšta’s home villages are only seven kilometres apart (Salys was from Reketė, Kniūkšta from Barzdžiai). Among linguists of the older generation, Pranas Kniūkšta greatly admired Antanas Salys: he wrote about him on milestone anniversaries, drew on his work, often quoted him, and, one might say, followed in his footsteps in language planning. Unfortunately, the two linguists did not communicate directly; they were separated not only by age but also by national borders. Salys did visit Lithuania in 1969 and went to the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature. Thus, the book’s final chapter is devoted to the author’s native region: research into the origin of the name Salantai and the surnames of people from his native village of Barzdžiai, including his own surname—research that demanded both time and effort. Archival sources had to be found and examined, conclusions drawn, and comparisons made with the present A. BATAITYTĖ. Gimtosios kalbos riteris – ir vienas lauke karys 325 facts. The author has done all this very carefully and thoroughly1. The Salantai dialect is also discussed, and “Žemaitiška ruoda so pajoukavėmās” deserves the attention of more than just a Samogitian. After this fairly concise review of the book Tarp gramatikos ir politikos, it would be appropriate to return to its author’s biography. It should be said that the facts of linguist Pranas Kniūkšta’s life and work, as well as his contributions, have been described very consistently by Rasuolė Vladarskienė in volume 81 of Kalbos kultūros, on the occasion of his 75th birthday. Thus, five years later, some things can only be briefly reiterated, while others perhaps deserve to be brought out or emphasized more. A comprehensive assessment of Pranas Kniūkšta’s work was presented by the language historian Algirdas Sabaliauskas in his book Lietuvių kalbos tyrinėjimo istorija. 1980–2010 m., published in 2012 (pp. 229–233). Born on September 24, 1933, in Barzdžiai (Salantai rural district), where he grew up and graduated from Salantai Secondary School, Pranas Kniūkšta entered Vilnius University in 1954. He studied Lithuanian language and literature and was a talented, diligent, and active student. After graduating, he could have gone straight into academic work, but because of an unfavorable character reference—the kind written by Komsomol secretaries at the time—and being deemed “not entirely politically mature,” he was not recommended even for a teaching position. Paradoxically, he successfully did this work for six years in Dieveniškės (1959–1965). He describes that period quite objectively in the aforementioned book and in a booklet on the history of his birthplace. After moving to Vilnius, Pranas Kniūkšta began working at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature in 1967. The head of the Department of Contemporary Lithuanian, linguist Kazys Ulvydas, had already taken note of him as a talented student while lecturing at the university. In three years, the young linguist completed postgraduate studies at the Institute and, in 1971, defended his Candidate of Philological Sciences (now doctoral) dissertation, “Adjectives with the suffix –inis and their grammatical synonyms.” A separate monograph based on it was published: Priesagos –inis būdvardžiai (1976). As the author himself writes in his autobiography: “I defended my dissertation and was assigned to work on language culture and sociolinguistics.” At the time, sociolinguistics was understood as bilingualism and the spread of the Russian language. Everyone shied away from it, but Pranas Kniūkšta had a different view: he focused on language use and language planning. 1 The history of the Kniūkšta family also fits beautifully alongside the history of his native region. This is a booklet prepared by the author himself and published in 2013: Žvilgsnis į giminės istoriją. 326 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 86 Starting in 1972, he began preparing and editing the publication Kalbos kultūros; from 1994 to 2003, he was its editor-in-chief. He not only edited and taught young authors how to write, but wrote himself as well—he published about 100 articles, large and small, in Kalbos kultūroje2. In issue 75 of Kalbos kultūros, Pranas Kniūkšta discusses 25 issues of the publication, released over a 17-year period (1986–2002). He reviews and evaluates in a systematic way everything written and published during that time, as well as the changes that affected the publication itself—recalling its editors and authors, the most important language-policy issues that arose at the time, and discussing language planning and strategy. “The task of Kalbos kultūra is to examine contemporary language phenomena, evaluate them, and provide recommendations for their use,” the author writes (Tarp gramatikos ir politikos, p. 30). The linguist observes, however, that the publication has recently been dominated by review articles, with a lack of assessments, standardization, and recommendations for the use of specific new language phenomena. In a much later article, “The Words and Wishes of Language Postmodernists,” published in Gimtojoje kalboje (2011, No. 3, pp. 25–30), Pranas Kniūkšta polemicizes with postmodernists of the new generation (Lithuanian-language specialists and others), who champion “language freedom,” proposing that the criterion of linguistic correctness be rejected altogether and usage left unchecked. “[O]ne should not think that the most scientific research consists of sociological surveys and the calculation of empirical data. The most important thing is to investigate the linguistic essence of a phenomenon [...], and it is then desirable to compare the results of such analysis with data on usage,” says the linguist, because little progress will be made by anyone who “is content with collecting empirical facts and justifies everything that can be found in jargon, hybridized language, or otherwise unclean speech” (Tarp gramatikos ir politikos, p. 54). Agreeing with these authorial views, one can offer a typical outline of a sociolinguistic article from current language practice: its introductory section usually lists foreign authors and works (with publication dates), and in some cases quotes their ideas, seeking to bend them to the article’s stated purpose (the bibliography at the end of the article runs to roughly two or three pages of English-language literature). Next come the technical means—the research methods (usually surveys) and tools. Tables, diagrams, statistical data. Although everything has already been counted (in percentages and hundredths of a percent) and is obvious, just as much again is explained in the text (the article’s importance 2 By 2013, 85 issues of Kalbos kultūros had been published (from issue 81 onward, they are called volumes). A. BATAITYTĖ. Gimtosios kalbos riteris – ir vienas lauke karys 327 scope!). And what does that achieve? “That’s just how things are,” some politician or economist might say (when unable to say anything else). And a sociolinguist? There is no linguistic analysis, let alone recommendations; only socially bare facts about usage are presented, sometimes even with an obvious agenda. In his work on language standardization, Pranas Kniūkšta always acknowledged the superiority of living language over artificial rules and warned linguists about the dangers of excessive normalization: “When working to regulate language, we must leave room for freedom in language as well. Variants of norms and their gradual change must be recognized; major (genuine) and minor (codification) errors must be distinguished, as must the different requirements of various fields of language use and styles, and prestigious and ordinary standard language [...]” (Kalbos kultūra, issue 68, pp. 38–39). Language is alive; it is constantly changing. It cannot be forced into the narrow confines of norms and rules, nor can its development be artificially halted. But neither should it be like a river without banks, carrying every bit of rubbish along with the water. That people are missing language’s rubbish and trying to bring it back into use is clearly shown by a conversation published in the press a couple of years ago among new language ideologues, involving several figures from the cultural sphere. Pranas Kniūkšta responds in his article “What Do the New Language Ideologues Proclaim?” to their nitpicking, denigration of standard Lithuanian and the work of linguists, and arrogant, brazen ideas that fall short of the most basic requirements of normal discussion (Tarp gramatikos ir politikos, pp. 55–59). “Why do men and women of science talk such strange nonsense? the article’s author asks. “This is how they fight the defenders of the language and the official ideology of the Lithuanian language. They use metaphors and hyperbole, and do not shy away from insults [...].” All these arguments have a clear aim: the Lithuanian language does not need defending, standardizing, or regulating. The linguist Pranas Kniūkšta devoted the most mature and productive years of his life to fostering and regulating his native language. His bibliography, published in 2008, lists 358 publications in all, including 13 books; the rest are articles published in works on linguistics, periodicals on language, newspapers, and journals. In the past five years, he has added another 20 articles and two new books (Tarp gramatikos ir politikos ir Žvilgsnis į giminės istoriją). Administrative language, which the linguist systematically studied after Lithuania regained statehood and its fields of use and needs expanded, has already been discussed, but an important work in this field should also be mentioned. 328 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 86 Kanceliarinės kalbos patarimus, of which five editions were published3. Over the past decade, Pranas Kniūkšta has written and published several booklets important to the practice of administrative language: Įstaigų, įmonių ir organizacijų pavadinimai (2004), Viešieji užrašai. Po dokumentus ir Vilniaus gatves pasižvalgius (2006), Dokumentų rengimo taisyklių naujienos. Pataisymai ir nutaisymai (2007). Also important for language use and standardization is Pranas Kniūkšta’s 2001 book Kalbos vartosena ir tvarkyba, in which the author gathered his articles on various language issues written over three decades (up to 2001). It was reviewed in issue 75 of Kalbos kultūros4. Recognizing the school’s great responsibility for fostering culture and literacy in society, the linguist did not stand aside: in 1983 he prepared, with Antanas Lyberis, the Mokomąjį lietuvių kalbos rašybos ir kirčiavimo žodyną (more than 10 reprints were published). Another publication intended for pupils is the Lietuvių kalbos žinynas (Pranas Kniūkšta was its compiler and the author of three chapters). Throughout his life, the linguist was also deeply interested in literature; he enjoyed not only reciting but also studying the language of writers, especially poets. In 1981 he published the book Rašytojas ir žodis. His new book Tarp gramatikos ir politikos includes the previously unpublished article “The Harmony of Poetry and Syntax” (based on the poems of Justinas Marcinkevičius), which examines the harmony of poetic thought and language—a quality that, unfortunately, as the author says, is often lacking in contemporary poetry. In closing, the author of this essay would like to highlight a few more personal qualities in the linguist’s portrait. Since 1995, I have had the good fortune to work with this year’s jubilarian on the publication Kalbos kultūros. At first we worked as editors and later as compilers, carrying out all the editorial and publishing work involved in preparing the publication. It was somewhat daunting and difficult, as the publication demanded both meticulousness and responsibility. Together, we published ten issues of Kalbos kultūros. I cannot say that we had any serious arguments over those ten years. Of course, the editor would sometimes be dissatisfied when we lacked good articles for an issue, when we failed to bring together strong contributors (Institute researchers were no longer required to write for Kalbos kultūrai, as they had been before; it was now up to them—whenever they wanted, whenever they could...). 3 In all, five editions of this publication have appeared since 1993 (six online). 4 Taip pat žr. recenzijas: Acta Linguistica Lituanica, 2002, Nr. 47; Gimtoji kalba, 2002, Nr. 3. A. BATAITYTĖ. Gimtosios kalbos riteris – ir vienas lauke karys 329 Thus I had the opportunity to get to know the Honoree more closely—as a department head, an editor, and, of course, as a person. As a department head, he was tolerant: he did not count the minutes or hours an employee spent at their desk. What mattered to him was what the employee accomplished and how they did it. As an editor, he was demanding and strict. He would immediately reject an article that failed to meet the requirements of Kalbos kultūros, without waiting for a meeting of the editorial board, or require the author to revise it substantially. However, he was attentive to young, inexperienced authors, especially young female Lithuanianists who came to work in the Department of Language Culture. When he noticed a particularly talented one, he strove to involve her in language research and taught her how to write an article. Many fine words can be chosen to honor the Honoree, but above all, he is a true Samogitian: patient, steadfast, hard-working, and possessed of a sense of humor. On more than one occasion, in public life, he has shown courage and civic spirit, defending not only the language but also matters of state connected with it. And one more thing—what could a man accomplish without the support of a good wife? As he himself writes in his family history, he wisely chose Genutė Dagytė, a fellow student and Lithuanianist from the Biržai region, as his wife; to this day, she helps him greatly both at work and in life. On the occasion of his jubilee, linguist Pranas Kniūkšta received a greeting from the President of the Republic of Lithuania, letters of thanks from the Speaker of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania and the Mayor of Vilnius, and a greeting from the Mayor of Kretinga. On October 18, a conference entitled “Between Grammar and Politics” was held at the Kretinga Motiejus Valančius Library to mark the linguist’s 80th birthday. A person’s worth is shown not only by the work they have or have not put into books, but also by the spiritual energy they radiate around them. Through his scholarly work and practical educational activities, linguist Pranas Kniūkšta has made a great contribution to the people of Lithuania. As we wish the Honoree good health and every success, we hope to see him continue to be just as principled and demanding, nurturing and caring for his native language. 330 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 86