PRANAS KNIŪKŠTA

LANGUAGE CULTURE PRINCIPLES AND IDEOLOGY

We have reached a fine anniversary of Language Culture: in 2011 the publication turned fifty. On such occasions, it is customary to review the anniversary period, discuss the work accomplished, and reflect on its significance and meaning. There will be no such review here; plenty have been written on the occasion of smaller anniversaries of Language Culture. Let us briefly recall the most important ideas expressed there.

REVIEW OF REVIEWS

The first decade of Language Culture was discussed in the tenth issue, published in 1966, which included Kazys Ulvydas’s article “Ten Issues of ‘Language Culture’” (KK 10, 3–8). It recalls the circumstances surrounding the publication’s establishment, its reasons and purpose—to improve and enrich the native language. It discusses the areas of language that Language Culture examines and is to examine. In brief, it presents a review of the work accomplished and a programme for future activity. How that programme was carried out can be seen from the 1986 celebration of the anniversary of Language Culture. In fact, two anniversaries were marked then: twenty-five years had passed since the publication first appeared, and its fiftieth issue had been printed. The 51st issue of Language Culture was devoted to this occasion. Like the tenth issue, it opens with an article by K. Ulvydas, “Fifty Issues of ‘Language Culture’” (KK 51, 3–6), which recalls the first steps of Language Culture and lists its editors and most active contributors, but does not examine the contents of the issues published. The focus is largely on the future. It is emphasized that Language Culture must show “what is most relevant, necessary, interesting and, at the same time, accessible to the reader” (p. 5). Other articles in that issue review the publication’s course to date. The programme and its implementation are discussed in Vitas Labutis’s essay, “The ‘Language Culture’ Programme and Areas of Work” (KK 51, 7–11). Similar is Pranas Kniūkšta’s publi-

P. KNIŪKŠTA. Kalbos kultūros principai ir ideologija

17

cation, “On the Principles and Methodology of ‘Language Culture’ and the Impact of Its Proposals” (KK 51, 12–37). Besides the corrections and proposals themselves, it discusses their reception and results. A separate area is reviewed by Kazimieras Gaivenis (“Issues of Terminology Management and Standardization in ‘Language Culture’,” KK 51, 38–43) and Vitalija Maciejauskienė (“‘Language Culture’ on Our Onomasticon,” KK 51, 43–47).

A meeting was held on the anniversary (15 May 1986), and the ideas expressed there were presented in the 52nd issue: the discussion focuses mainly on the publication’s future plans and objectives, and on work in language culture more generally. It was proposed that greater attention be paid to the language of schools, that the language of administrative documents and scholarly writing be developed, and, above all, that ties with the public be expanded and the publication remain responsive to its needs.

The publication’s 75th issue featured a review discussing 25 issues (51–75), published between 1986 and 2002. During that period, Language Culture lost its strategist and executive editor, K. Ulvydas; the editorial board also underwent numerous other changes, but the aims and objectives of its work remained the same. The subject matter and range of issues discussed changed somewhat more. When the terminologists separated from Language Culture in 1994, articles on that field disappeared from the journal, but topics concerning the status of the state language and its implementation, as well as the activities of the Commission of the Lithuanian Language, emerged. There were more articles on the language of office administration and state documents.

The entire history of Language Culture, from the first to the 80th issue, is reviewed in the 81st issue in Rasuolė Vladarskienė’s article “Tradition and Innovation in ‘Language Culture’” (KK 81, 9–19). The review begins with the usual matters—the publication’s purpose and objectives. Since its main objective was to provide language recommendations to the public, brief articles offering specific proposals predominated in the publication during its first decades. But gradually the publication turned toward language-culture theory, with more attention given to general matters of language use; in recent years, relations between language and society have tended to be examined sociolinguistically. As the nature of the publication changed, so did its readership: initially, Language Culture was intended for the general public, whereas now Language Culture is intended primarily for researchers and university lecturers whose work is associated with linguistics. Articles are accompanied by abstracts in English, and articles written in English and Russian have appeared.

Three years passed between the appearance of the 80th issue and the fiftieth anniversary, and three more issues (81–83) were published. A few further innovations appeared, but they do not change the publication’s overall profile.

18

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 84

Since for many years I have observed Kalbos kultūrą at close quarters and have myself had the opportunity to contribute to its publication, I offer a few recollections and reflections about it.

HISTORY AND IDEOLOGY

The idea of a publication devoted to language culture began to be considered well before 1961, and not only by linguists. The term kalbos kultūros was not yet widespread at the time; people spoke of a language publication intended for the public. In 1958, Valdas Petrauskas, scientific secretary of the Academy of Sciences’ Editorial and Publishing Council, proposed the idea of such a publication. He prepared and submitted to the Academy of Sciences’ president, Juozas Matulis, a document entitled “Information on the Publication of a Bulletin on Language Matters” (KK 52, 5). It states that “the publication of a periodical—or, initially, even a non-periodical—guide to contemporary Lithuanian literary language is already an entirely ripe (indeed, more than ripe) matter.” A language society could have published it, but there was no such society at the time, so “this task now falls to the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature.”

Naturally, the idea first had to be endorsed by the Academy of Sciences’ leadership; its implementation was entrusted to the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature, where no such work was undertaken without the director, Kostas Korsakas. Before work could begin, two things had to be decided: the publication’s title had to be envisaged and approved, and its compilers and editor appointed. Gimtoji kalba was not an option at the time, since it was the title of a “bourgeois-period” publication, especially as a publication of that name had been revived in the United States in 1958. The title Kalbos kultūra was chosen. Preparation of the publication was entrusted to the Department of Contemporary Lithuanian Literary Language (departments were called sectors), headed by K. Ulvydas. Thus K. Ulvydas took the preparation and editing of Kalbos kultūros into his own hands.

But K. Korsakas did not turn away from the publication; he took an interest in it and insisted that linguists from every department write articles for it. A point reading “An article for Kalbos kultūrai” was even included in employees’ individual work plans. He took an interest in the texts submitted for publication. Before an issue was approved by the Institute’s Academic Council, it had to be submitted to the director. He reviewed the most topical articles and offered comments, sometimes requiring revisions. In particular, he made sure there were no ideological or political errors.

P. KNIŪKŠTA. Kalbos kultūros principai ir ideologija 19

The editors of Kalbos kultūros themselves had to know what could and could not be written. They were not allowed to write “Easter” and “Christmas” with capital letters. You could not say that some language errors had arisen because of the negative influence of Russian; you had to say they were due to the influence of other languages.

Kalbos kultūra did not publish bare propaganda articles, but publications discussing language matters sometimes contained ideological clichés of the time. For instance, the publication is introduced in the preface printed in the first issue, which begins: “Under the conditions of the Soviet system, science, technology and culture in our country are advancing extraordinarily rapidly.” (KK 1, 3). Tarybinė santvarka here are merely decorative words: they say nothing, but artificially attach the “Soviet” label to ordinary things—science, technology and culture can advance without the conditions of the Soviet system.

K. Ulvydas’s articles sometimes contained conformist clichés. He used them to support and reinforce his own ideas about defending and cultivating the language, sought to present these ideas as matters of state concern, and thereby make them more effective. On the other hand, they can also be understood as a kind of tribute paid to the prevailing political climate or as a lightning rod against possible reprisals from the authorities.

Giedrius Tamaševičius cited one conformist example by K. Ulvydas in his article on metaphors of language defense^*. The sentence is quoted from the article Dėl kalbos kultūros sąvokos, published in the ninth issue of Kalbos kultūros: “By fighting for a high level of language culture, we fight for a powerful means of cultivating culture, for an effective tool for building communism, and at the same time for national culture itself, since language is, after all, an important component of national culture.” (KK 9, 7–8).

It is easy to see that the phrase “for an effective tool for building communism” is an artificial addition to the sentence, connected grammatically not to the sentence as a whole but only to its second part, as a complement to it. We can readily omit “the tool for building communism” as an artificial insertion without disrupting either the flow of thought or the sentence’s syntax. It should be treated as a conformist appendage. G. Tamaševičius “does not want to understand” this and, on the basis of a single sentence containing that appendage, derives what he claims is “the essential formula of the ideology of the standard Lithuanian language of that time,” supposedly formulated by K. Ulvydas: the struggle for language culture = the struggle for a tool for building communism = the struggle for national culture.

Two things need to be clarified here. First, it is not appropriate to write that K. Ulvydas “formulated” that formula. G. Tamaševičius both derived and formulated it. Second, the formula presented was derived in a form different from the one that would follow from the sentence—

* Tamaševičius G. Metaphors that sustain our lives. – New Focus-Aidai, 2011, 5, p. 309.

20

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 84

the important second part of his work had disappeared—the struggle for a means of cultivating culture. For the creator of the formula, the struggle for communism seemed more important than a means of cultivating culture.

It is wholly inappropriate to apply a distorted formula derived from a single sentence to all of K. Ulvydas’s language-cultivation work during the Soviet period, indeed to the entire ideology of the standard language in that period, and thus to impose it on Kalbos kultūrai. The true ideology and principles of Kalbos kultūros are discussed in many articles published in the journal, but they need to be briefly recalled once again for the postmodernists who are developing new theories.

PRINCIPLES AND PROVISIONS

K. Ulvydas opens the programmatic article “The Aims of Cultivating Language Culture,” published in the first issue, by stating that “language is a vast national treasure, amassed for us by dozens of generations who lived before us. It is our sacred duty to preserve this treasure, increase it, and pass it on to future generations” (KK 1, 5). Thus, the first fundamental principle of the ideology of Kalbos kultūros is that language and nation are inseparably connected. Their interdependence is twofold and reciprocal; it is stated more clearly and concretely in another programmatic article by K. Ulvydas, “The Social Essence of Language” (KK 27, 3–5). Language is important to a nation because it “brings together and unites the nation that uses it” and “enshrines the nation’s cultural achievements” (p. 5). In turn, the nation is responsible for its language: “as a product of culture, language demands special care and special attention from every user” (p. 4).

The article “On the Concept of Language Culture” (KK 9, 3–8), which caught G. Tamaševičius’s attention, identifies two degrees, or stages, of such attention: the first is a conscious, creative attitude toward the very essence of language and the processes of its development; the second is active intervention in language development and efforts to improve and enrich the means of linguistic expression. This is the second fundamental principle of Kalbos kultūros and, more generally, of the ideology of the standard language.

No less important is how Kalbos kultūra put it into practice.

From the very beginning, one of the most important tasks of Kalbos kultūros was to provide consultations to the public. The early issues were dominated by brief advice on how one should or should not speak and write. At the same time, efforts were made to justify the advice briefly, persuade readers, and foster in them a conscious attitude toward language.

P. KNIŪKŠTA. Kalbos kultūros principai ir ideologija

21

H owever

Similar writings appear in issue 79: one abstractly describes “the characteristics of child language,” without relating them to language development; another examines not language facts but the social phenomenon of multilingualism “from a psycholinguistic perspective”—it discusses people who use Lithuanian, Russian, and Polish. Seven other articles alongside these deal not with Lithuanian but with problems concerning other languages (Latvian, Estonian, Swedish, Norwegian, and Italian); six of them are written in languages other than Lithuanian. They contribute nothing to the development of the Lithuanian language. On the contrary, after reading that in Italy no care is taken of the native language, someone else may want to behave the same way in Lithuania. This ideology is already beginning to spread in Lithuania; it is seeking to infiltrate Kalbos kultūrą as well.

We see manifestations of this kind in issue 82 of Kalbos kultūros. The clearest example is the acceptance, under the guise of postmodernism in linguistics and analogies with other languages, of the right “to bow to the official requirements of a pure and correct language and to change the conception of language accepted in public usage” (KK 82, 122). Such attitudes are also conveyed indirectly in descriptions of sociolinguistic studies, which examine not linguistic phenomena or the language of particular social strata, but subjective attitudes and views—sometimes negative—toward the standard language. The focus shifts from linguistics and the study of language to the sociology of language.

What is described is not only Lithuanians’ attitudes toward language, nor only their attitudes toward the Lithuanian language. A separate article explains how Russians and Russian speakers in Lithuania understand their native language. What can such studies contribute to the development of our language? And it is quite difficult to understand why readers of Kalbos kultūros need information about Russian swearwords in a Latvian-language textbook.

It would be both unbecoming and unfair to end these anniversary reflections on such a gloomy note. Most of the publications in Kalbos kultūros are interesting, timely, and meaningful. It is symbolic that the anniversary-year issue (83) is devoted to the 150th anniversary of the birth of Jonas Jablonskis. His proclaimed principles for nurturing the language are mentioned repeatedly, and Kalbos kultūra strives to follow them as well. The words of President Antanas Smetona are quoted: J. Jablonskis “cared about everything that affected the fate of the Lithuanians, most of all, of course, their language and writings” (p. 19). We are reminded that J. Jablonskis’s statements “are always based on facts” (p. 54), and that he set language norms “on the basis of the living language of the people” (p. 44). Juozas Balčikonis’s words are recalled concerning another of J. Jablonskis’s qualities—his desire that his “scientific results be taken up by the wider public” (p. 19).

P. KNIŪKŠTA. Kalbos kultūros principai ir ideologija

23

This latter quality is especially important for Kalbos kultūrai, because it has always cared—and must continue to care—that its statements and recommendations be accepted. For them to be accepted and “taken up,” they must be useful and understandable to the public. This does not require grand sociological studies or excursions into other languages, but it does require greater understanding that the native language is a cultural value of the nation. And more contributors who share this understanding!

Received 2011 11 29

24

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 84