Kalbos taisyklingumas ir naujas požiūris į preskriptyvizmo teoriją Latvijoje

D. STRELĒVICA-OŠIŅA. The correctness of language and a new approach to the theory of prescriptivism in Latvia 259 DACE STRELĒVICA-OŠIŅA University of Latvia CORRECTNESS OF THE LANGUAGE AND A NEW LOOK AT PRESCRIPTIVISM THEORY IN LATVIA KEY WORDS: prescriptivism, influence of language, sociolinguistics, language errors. Linguistic prescriptivism and its manifestations in Latvian society is a topic of current interest, but compared to the Western world (especially the English-speaking environment), where prescriptivism has long received attention from linguists, it has been little studied. Prescriptivism is also expressed in Lithuania (Loreta Vaicekauskienė has basically described the situation in Lithuania as follows: “When language codification fails, it is the users, not the norms, that are forced to change” (Vaicekauskienė 2011), and in other states or ethnic communities with similar historical and political experiences (we will return to the question of why and how this experience is associated with prescriptivism later). Prescriptivism has existed in the history of nations in almost all times and in all cultures since the emergence of language, especially written. However, in the post-Soviet society, this term, especially among non-language specialists, is still relatively rarely used and known. In Latvian linguistic literature, the term prescriptivism appeared in the late 1990s in the articles of Ieva Zauberga (1998) and Andrejs Veisbergs (1999); It is also used in some of the author’s publications (see Strelēvica 2002, 2004, 2005, 2007; Strelēvica-Ošiņa 2008a, 2008b, 2009, 2010a, 2010b, 2011 and others). So what is prescriptivism? In summarizing the ideas of various linguists, it can be said that prescriptivism is the pursuit of language correctness and, moreover, the conscious influence on language to make it correct and "clean". Often prescriptivists (supporters of the prescriptive approach) rely on the assumption that the quality of language is deteriorating compared to its previously ideal and acceptable state, and therefore it is necessary to try to stop this negative process by strictly adhering to language norms and avoiding, in their words, unwanted consequences. 260 LANGUAGE CULTURE | 84 in Kytish language. The scientific term prescriptivism is derived from the words prescribe (to prescribe [drugs, etc.]) and prescription (instruction, order, prescription), which in turn are derived from the Latin praescribere (to write in front, above, i.e. to give an instruction) and praescriptio (instruction, decree). What is the correctness of speech? Since regularity is more an ethical than a scientific category, sociolinguists have not yet given a precise definition of this phenomenon, although the notion of regularity is inevitably involved in the discussion of the human relationship with language. One can quote the title word correctness from the British sociolinguist Peter Trudgil’s A Glossary of Sociolinguistics (2003), where the term is not defined, but only describes its use: “In speech communities that are clearly focused, native speakers often understand which forms of language are regular and which are not. Linguists agree that the language of a non-native speaker is "irregular" if it contains forms and usage that native speakers would never use, such as "I am knowing him for many years". However, linguists do not agree that the forms used by native speakers can reasonably be considered as irregular. They point out that when widespread forms, such as “I did it”, are evaluated in this way, they are based on social evaluation, sui29). This quotation perfectly describes two prevailing opinions in modern English-speaking society: 1) the belief that everything a person uses in his native language is correct by definition, 2) the view that the evaluation of language correctness is primarily related to social power and prestige. How did these opinions arise, are they universal? The first statement immediately makes us wonder – is it when a native speaker takes over and begins to repeat the “irregular” 1 language used by a foreigner that jęs su valdžios, turto ir prestižo paplitimu bendruomenėje“ (Trudgill 2003: the language becomes “irregular”? 2 Trudgill agrees with Robert Le Page’s theory of “focused” and “diffuse” communities and defines them in another place in his dictionary as follows: “According to the typology of language variants established by the British sociolinguist Robert Le Page, some linguistic communities and language variants are relatively “diffuse”, others are more “focused”. [...] “Focused” linguistic communities are those in which there has been noticeable standardization and codification of language, the majority supports the use of norms, and language users are concerned about the “purity” of the language and about their language variant being different from others [...]. In Europe, language communities are clearly focused” (Stewart 2003: 49–50). D. STRELĒVICA-OŠIŅA. The correctness of language and a new approach to the theory of prescriptivism in Latvia 261 form, it automatically becomes "correct"? This question cannot be answered unequivocally. In Latvian society, a positive answer would be considered heretical, as the influence of other languages and foreigners on Latvian is often seen as a negative phenomenon (more on this later). However, there is no denying the fact that all over the world, languages are changing in this way – through direct contact. Of course, earlier such changes were viewed as manifestations of “irregularity” (for example, August Schlegel believed that the synthetic Latin developed into the analytic Romance because the barbarians who conquered Rome did not learn Latin well, and later “the Romans […], hearing their language sound irregular, began to forget its laws themselves and to imitate the jargon of their new masters” (Schlegel 1818: 24)). In our time, a different approach is taken. It should be taken into account that no English-speaking community in the last millennium (since the arrival of French speakers on the British Isles in the 11th century) has faced conquerors speaking another language, the presence of a privileged foreign language and pressure on their land. Since the contact between English and French led to the formation of Middle English, the predecessor of modern English, the influence of other languages on English has never been so strong that English speakers have adopted grammatical constructions erroneously constructed by foreigners (lexical borrowings do not affect the structure of the language). Thus, perhaps English-speaking authors can indeed firmly assert that any form and construction used by a user of English as a g i m t o s i o n is correct. How then to comment on Mr. Trudgil’s second statement that the evaluation of language correctness is mainly associated with power and prestige? Before answering this question, a brief historical overview is appropriate. In ancient cultures, the emphasis on compliance with language norms was mainly placed on religious texts and ceremonies – as Malcolm D. Hyman has pointed out, Sanskrit grammar was written to ensure the correctness of the Vedic language (Hyman 2002). The correctness of the language was also given a lot of attention in Ancient Rome – grammatics, literates, orators, etc. wrote about it. Many sources indicate that Roman society distinguished between the standardized and organized sermo urbanus ('city speech') and the simple folk spoken language, or sermo rusticus ('rural speech'). The concern for the correctness of the language was driven by various reasons – religious aspects, the desire to maintain a correct common language as a symbol of social status, the effort to protect Latin from the influence of other 262 LANGUAGE CULTURE | 84 during the collapse of the empire (Hyman 2002). The tradition of prescriptivism was maintained in the Middle Ages, and it flourished especially during the Renaissance period, when academies were established directly dedicated to the correctness and “purity” of language – the Accademia della Crusca in Italy, the Académie française in France, etc. There was no such academy in England (although there were plans), but grammar and dictionaries were actively concerned with the maintenance of the language and wrote about the necessity of a correct language (especially in the 18th century, which is considered by many to be a special period of English prescriptivism and to which we will return later). It should be emphasized that before the term prescriptivism came into use, this phenomenon was sometimes referred to as purism – a term that originated in the Renaissance in France and was later adopted by English and other cultures. In the Oxford English Dictionary, under the heading purism, there is an excerpt from William Mitford’s work published in 1804, which refers to “what the French call purism” (OED [1933] 1961). In turn, the OED quotes the definition of purist from Edward Phillips’ English Dictionary, published in 1706: “A purist is one who strives to speak or write in an orderly and regular manner” (OED [1933] 1961). In the same sense, the word is often used in Latvian linguistics, for example, Inta Freimane describes purism as “the unwillingness to tolerate [...] any kind of language corruption” (Freimane 1993: 51) and mentions its opposite – the tendency toward antinormality, which “is realized by denying the need for conscious interference in the language process” (ibid.). Thus, the term purism used by I. Freimann can be considered in a certain sense as a synonym of the term prescriptivism. languages, especially the intensified Roman influence. Today, purism is mostly used in a narrower sense – it is called the avoidance of supposedly undesirable lexical phenomena (mostly borrowings from other languages). Sociolinguist George Thomas calls this kind of purism xenophobic purism and emphasizes that it is the most common (Thomas 1991: 204–205). (Purism manifestations in Latvian have been reviewed by Aina Blinkena, Ina Druviete, Vineta (Zoldnere) Poriņa and already mentioned "Andrei Weissberg". For almost as long as prescriptivism itself has existed, there have also been manifestations of negative attitudes towards it – albeit only fragmentary and much less documented than prescriptive provisions. One of the most famous opponents of the old prescriptivism is the Church Father Augustine, who lived in the 4th-5th centuries, who said: „Melius est reprehendant nos grammatici quam D. STRELĒVICA-OŠIŅA. The correctness of language and a new approach to the theory of prescriptivism in Latvia 263 non intellegant populi2” (418; Enarrationes in psalmos, 138, 20). He rejected excessive adherence to accepted norms if this does not take into account language changes and actual usage. In the 19th century, the idea was expressed that natural language development was preferable to prescriptive regulation and standardization. Sociolinguist John Earl Joseph sums up: "From the point of view of nineteenth-century scientific linguistics, language standardization was a destruction of the natural state of language." This view was still prevalent in the second half of the 20th century (Joseph 1987: 9–10). However, the phenomenon of prescriptivism is only named at the beginning of the 20th century, when the negative attitude towards it becomes official policy. At that time, the so-called descriptive linguistics was developing in America – a term that was initially applied to synchronous linguistics. The development of descriptivism was closely linked to the main directions of American linguistics at the time – structural and anthropological linguistics. One of the tasks of this linguistics is the description of Native American languages. Since these languages differed greatly from Indo-European languages in terms of their morphological type (mostly polysynthetic) and sociolinguistic functions (most of them did not have a script and were not standardized in the European sense), they needed to be described objectively and as accurately as possible “from the outside”, without worrying about language changes, user errors or deviations from accepted norms, etc. – earlier this was inevitable, when linguists analyzed their native languages from the “internal” point of view, and also, most often, standardized variants of these languages. It should be added that due to the lack of written monuments, the history of the languages of the ancient inhabitants of America was practically unknown; languages could only be described synchronously, without providing evaluative decisions and prescriptions. Probably this prompted linguists to think about the possibility of studying other languages (including English) from a distance, and to consider everything that a linguist has observed and recorded in one language as a legitimate and correct part of that language. Sociolinguist Richard Hudson believes that “one of the most important achievements of 20th-century linguistics is the destruction of the idea […] that some languages or groups of languages 2 “Better let us be reproached for grammar than not be understood by people.” 3 In sociology, anthropology and elsewhere, two opposite concepts are used – the emic and the ethical approaches. The terms emic and etic, derived from phonemic and phonetic, were coined by Kenneth L. Pike in 1954. According to the opinions of various experts, they represent an "internal" or "external" view of a group-specific phenomenon, depending on whether it is viewed from the point of view of a group participant or from the point of view of an objective investigator outside. 264 LANGUAGE CULTURE | 84 rejected the idea (on which prescriptivism is largely based) that common language is traditionally more regular than variantai yra geresni už kitus“ (Hudson [1980] 2001: 203). Kitaip tariant – dialects and sociolects. A formula has been gradually formulated and has already become an axiom, which is repeated many times (often uncritically and without deepening) in Western, especially English-speaking linguistics – “linguistics is descriptive, not prescriptive”. Jean Aitchison, for example, writes: “First and foremost, the k a l b o t y r a y r a is descriptive, not prescriptive. The speaker is interested in what is said, not what he thinks should be said. It [...] does not create laws of ‘regularity’” (Aitchison 1978: 13; emphasis added). Other authors have expressed similar opinions. The term prescriptivism was used to negatively describe the traditional approach to language and its use, and was associated with the compilation of normative grammar and spelling guides and advice on "how to speak/write correctly" – as already mentioned, this English language tradition flourished particularly in the 18th century Great Britain. Often the leitmotif of descriptivism and anti-prescriptivism (in the West this term is also used by sociolinguists to name attitudes and actions directed against prescriptivism) is the slogan “Leave Your Language Alone”, chosen from the title of Robert A. Hall’s book Leave Your Language Alone (1950). Interestingly, in the first half of the 20th century, English-speaking linguists generally tried to ignore prescriptivism as noticeably outdated and anachronistic, and only in the second half of the 20th century began to consider it as a phenomenon worthy of attention and an object of research. The attitude of the best cited English-speaking scholars of the 1980s to prescriptivism is summed up in the words of Joseph: “The better we know prescriptivism, the sooner we can abandon it completely” (Joseph 1987: 18). James Milroy’s and Lesley Milroy’s extensive work, The Authority in Speech, is similar. Authority in Language: Investigating Language Prescription and Standardization, 1985. Later, at the end of the 20th century and at the turn of the century, the phenomenon of prescriptivism was studied even more objectively and consistently. One of the most important is the sociolinguist Deborah Cameron and her book Verbal Hygiene (1995), which concludes that not only language changes are natural, but also people’s attitudes and reactions (including negative ones) to them; natural is also the concern about the correctness of language use. If language is a social phenomenon, the linguist should not condemn and ignore social factors. In turn, antiprescriptive D. STRELĒVICA-OŠIŅA. 265 The ideology, according to D. Cameron, is often no less categorical and disrespectful of natural processes than traditional prescriptivism: “Many linguists […] believe that they have rejected any prescriptivism in principle. But if the phrase “Leave the language alone!” is not a prescription, then what is it?” (Cameron 1995: 7). It can be said that in the Western world, prescriptivism began to be rehabilitated by sociolinguistics, because it began to justify the “supervision” of language correctness as a natural phenomenon characteristic of many linguistic communities and rejected its categorical condemnation, which until then had been promoted by other directions of linguistics. 20th-century authors often reproached prescriptivism for its non-scientific nature – the lack of understanding of natural language changes and the unreasonable attempt to stop them, considering them “errors”. Many anti-prescriptivists believed that conscious action on language was impossible. The British linguist David Crystal says: “You can’t stop language from changing. You may not like them; you may regret that new elements nė per nago juodymą negalite tam daryti jokios įtakos“ appear in language or that old ones are forgotten, but (Crystal [2006] 2007: 89; highlighted by the author). This approach is somewhat exaggerated. It is possible to deliberately influence language – this is shown by the successful spread of political correctness and gender-neutrality in English, where the words he (‘he’) and man (‘man, man’) are currently practically not used in the general sense, naming persons of both sexes – a number of authors have already written about the great similarity between contemporary political correctness and prescriptivism. (Perhaps it should be concluded that it is easier to start changing language and implement those changes than to stop them.) Anne Curzan writes about prescriptivism as a way of resisting change: “The researchers of the history of the English language have often recklessly equated the efforts of prescriptivists with a hopeless, doomed to failure struggle against the natural element of language change. Indeed, if the stopping of these changes were to be considered a success, then we could speak of the collapse of prescriptivism. A much more complex question is how much the efforts of prescriptivists could have affected both spoken and written English, especially if we consider prescriptivism as part of the process of standardization and codification of English.” (Curzan 2009: 27). Representatives of prescriptivism are often criticized for intolerance and undemocraticism (from other language variants – dialects and sociolects – the common language is highlighted and privileged), for discrimination of people (due to their use of 266 LANGUAGE CULTURE | 84 languages) and so on. It is no coincidence that the definition of P. Trudgill, quoted earlier, refers to the social evaluation of language correctness in relation to the authority’s “spread of wealth and prestige in the community” (Trudgill 2003: 29). An excellent example of this is the interview of Arto Svece with the Australian speaker Dylan Glynne, published in the Latvian newspaper Kultūras Diena on 16 January 2009. Representing the typical (or rather stereotypical) view of English-speaking antiprescriptivists, the latter states: “Any linguist from the West would agree that if you speak your native language and are not tired or, say, drunk, everything you say is linguistically correct. The basic principle of any linguistics is description, not prescription. P r e s k k r ip c i j a is a sociological phenomenon. It is significant if it is y r a va l d ž i o s st r uk t ū r ų i š r a i š ko s d a l i s s k a l b o j e “ (Svece 2009; highlighted by the author). Such statements in the English-speaking environment are indeed logically justified. The absolute correctness of the native language has already been discussed. If we talk about prescriptivism as an expression of authority (power), it should be remembered that in Great Britain there has been a class society since ancient times, in which for centuries one of the most important indicators of a person’s social stratum was the language he used. A correct and standardized common language, as in the classical period of Ancient Rome, was a hallmark of the upper classes of society. Especially the question of the correctness of language became active in the 18th century, when a person had the opportunity to rise (upward mobility) and, using his career, achievements, education and ability to speak common language, to fall into the aforementioned strata of society. Sociolinguist Lynda Mugglestone uses the term “national obsession” (Mugglestone 2006) to describe the unique role of regular common language pronunciation as an indicator of social stratification in the 18th century. [1995] 2007: 5). The link between prescriptivism, concern for language correctness, and social power and prestige is still deeply entrenched in the minds of English-speaking people. For example, the introduction of a modern English language handbook takes for granted the fact that the previously popular “prescriptive laws are often social laws that are thought to characterize a speaker or writer as educated or as a certain t i k r a m v i s u m e n ė s s l u o k s n i u o t s t ova u j a n t i a s m e n in” (Carter, McCarthy 2006: 6; emphasis added). It should be emphasized that the “fall into disgrace” of linguistic prescriptivism was not only caused by new tendencies in linguistics, but also by various social and political D. STRELĒVICA-OŠIŅA. The correctness of language and a new approach to the theory of prescriptivism in Latvia 267 processes related to the development of the ideas of democracy, tolerance, the already mentioned political correctness. Perhaps the hostility to traditional prescriptivism was linked to hostility to the policies that were pursued in the “golden age” of prescriptivism in Great Britain and other similar states – imperialism, colonialist tendencies, racism and other forms of discrimination? Psycholinguist Steven Pinker, a harsh critic of prescriptivism, ironically responded to politically-oriented "combatant anti-prescriptivism" in the middle of the 20th century: "Unlike some academics in the 1960s, I do not believe that teaching common English is a means of sustaining patriarchal capitalist domination of the white race, and that the nation should be freed to write as one wishes." (Pinker 1994: 399). But are prescriptive attitudes indeed always associated with social hierarchy and power? There have been some attempts to analyze the manifestations of prescriptivism in Latvia using this method – here we can mention several publications by Gatis Dilans in the Latvian press in 2003–2005. The author argues that “the transformation of language into a symbol of power confers privileged influence and power on individual groups of prescriptive linguists and their supporters [...]” and that “excessive grammatization of language or pampering stylization from above always allows the promoters of this process to feel superior [...], to view other language users as second-class or incompetent” (Dilāns 2005). In another article, he calls the manifestations of prescriptivism in Latvia “a passionate variant of social control” (Dilāns 2003). However, anyone familiar with the cultural history and social context of Latvia would describe such an assessment as one-sided, when, from the point of view of English-speaking culture and experience, the peculiarities of the situation of Latvia (and other similar communities) are ignored. Why is Latvia different? According to I. Freimane, “the Latvian language never existed as a means of distinguishing privileged classes” (Freimane 1993: 40). It is possible to imagine that in theory this situation could have developed during the period of the First Republic of Latvia – but that period was too short for the correctness of the language to be associated with privileges and power. In the Latvian nation, which has been under foreign rule for most of its history, there has not been a social elite formed over generations, distinguished by political influence, better education, to which people from lower strata of society would hope to belong by trying to learn to speak “regular” Latvian. 274 LANGUAGE CULTURE | 84 vidual. Proceedings of Canadian Studies Conference of Baltic States, Šiauliai: University of California Press. pp. 64–72. S t r e l ē v i c a D. 2007: Linguistic purism trends in society: a tension-reducing factor in interethnic relations? – Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference on the 134th Anniversary of the Birth of Academician J. Endzelins, Riga: LU Institute of Latvian Language, 66–67. S t r e l ē v i c a - O š i ņ a D. 2008a: Manifestations of language prescriptivism in Latvia and its positive side effects. – Linguistica Lettica 17, Riga: LU Institute of Latvian Language, 78–91. S t r e l ē v i c a - O š i ņ a D. 2008b: The Benefits of Language Conflict: Quebecois and Latvian Experiences. – Canadian mosaic. Proceedings of the Annual Baltic Canadian Studies Conference of 2006 in Riga, Rīga: Latvian Association for Canadian Studies, 51–62. S t r e l ē v i c a - O š i ņ a D. 2009: Dialect as a source of comicism: sociolinguistic and sociohistorical aspects. – Antiques live 3. Studia Classica, Riga: LU Academic Press, 108–127. S t r e l ē v i c a - O š i ņ a D. 2010a: The right person, the right language or the right word? Three directions of prescriptivism and the situation in Latvia. – Materials of the International Scientific Conference in Commemoration of the 137th Birthday of Academician J. Endze lin, Riga: LU Institute of Latvian Language, 55–56. S t r e l ē v i c a - O š i ņ a D. 2010b: Understanding language correctness and the causes and consequences of prescriptivism: Latvian and international experience, Summary of the doctoral thesis, Riga: University of Latvia. Strelēvica-Ošiņa D. 2011: Why do we want language to be correct? Insights into the history, theory and practice of prescriptivism, Riga: LU Institute of Latvian Language. S ve c e A. 2009: Who can speak Latvian? [Interview with Dylan Glynne]. – Culture Day, January 16. T h o m a s G. 1991: Linguistic Purism, London and New York: Longman. Trudgill P. 2003: A Glossary of Sociolinguistics, Edinburgh University Press. Va i c e k a u s k i n ė L. 2011: Language ‘nationalization’: One hundred years of Standard Lithuanian. – T. Kristiansen & N. Coupland, eds. Standard Languages and Language Standards in a Changing Europe, Oslo: Novus, Ve i s b e r g s A . 1999: 105–112. Gender category in Latvian dictionaries. – Linguistica Lettica 5, Riga: LU Institute of Latvian Language, 48–59. Z a u b e r g a I. 1998: Reflection of the perception of non-literary vocabulary in Latvian translations. – Linguistica Lettica 2, Riga: Institute of Latvian Language, 89–100. Received 24/10/2011 D. STRELĒVICA-OŠIŅA. The correctness of language and a new approach to the theory of prescriptivism LANGUAGE CORRECTNESS AND A NEW PERCEPTION in Latvia 275 OF THE THEORY OF PRESCRIPTIVISM IN LATVIA Summary This article summarizes (and elaborates further) some of my previous research on the issues of language accuracy and the manifestations of linguistic prescriptivism in Latvia. Unlike the Anglophone world, where prescriptivism has been recognized, named and criticized (as unscientific and socially intolerant and non-democratic) for almost a century, in Latvian culture it has been only about ten years that prescriptive attitudes have attracted the attention of sociolinguists, and, moreover, have been attributed the term “prescriptivism”. However, the pursuit of language accuracy has always been rather intense in Latvia (and usually associated with national identity issues). My research has led me to new insights in the theory of prescriptivism (most of them can be found in my doctoral thesis of 2010 and the book subsequently published in 2011). I have offered a new classification of prescriptivism, which includes three main types: 1) Human-oriented prescriptivism is a type of prescriptivism known (and criticised) in Anglophone culture, where language correctness is historically related to a person’s social ‘correctness’ and people have tried to improve their linguistic performance in order to assert or secure their place in the social hierarchy. Antiprescriptivists, drawing on this experience, see linguistic prescriptivism as mainly based on outdated perceptions of social prestige and power. 2) Language-oriented prescriptivism is a type of prescriptivism which attempts to ‘save’ language from alleged degradation, especially if caused by the influence of other languages. It is characteristic of communities which have been dominated by allophone ethnic groups (but have nevertheless successfully retained their language and still use it in all sociolinguistic functions), such as the Latvian community with the historical experience of German and Russian political and linguistic dominance. These communities have often regarded the protection of their language and its correctness and ‘purity’ as a symbol of and inspiration for national self-confidence and political protest. This kind of prescriptivism and purism has sometimes been credited with xenophobia and ethnic intolerance. However, as the evidence suggests, linguistic communities that attribute great importance to language as the basis of national identity, and to language issues in general (including prescriptive and purist care about language correctness), are able to maintain the ethnic controversies within the sphere of language and to avoid physical aggression. 3) Error-oriented prescriptivism is a type of prescriptivism which can coexist in parallel with either of the first two types. It is a tendency to stigmatize and 276 TALBOS KULTŪRA | 84 eliminate certain ‘popular’ (often encountered and/or criticized), real or imagined language errors. This type of prescriptivism can be observed in many cultures and is sometimes seen by the recipients of the critique as the prescriptivists’ desire to psychologically humiliate other people. The present article discusses some other aspects of prescriptivism and language correctness as well, such as challenging the popular view in Anglophone linguistics that all forms uttered by native speakers are by definition correct. While this may be true for the English language (where, for the last millennium, there has been no considerable impact on its grammar by the dominating presence of a foreign language), we should probably not assume that in any other linguistic community a form or construction used ungrammatically by non-native speakers and repeated likewise by one or more native speakers automatically becomes correct. KEy wORDS: linguistic prescriptivism, linguistic dominance, sociolinguistics, language errors. DACE STRELĒVICA-OŠIŅA University of Latvia Institute of Latvian Language Akadēmijas laukums 1, 902 room, Riga LV-1050 [email protected]