REGINA KOŽENIAUSKIENĖ

Vilnius University

JONAS JABLONSKIS’S ATTENTION TO STYLE

INTRODUCTION

In the preface to Stylistics of the Lithuanian Language, Juozas Pikčilingis writes: “When seeking an answer to the question of whom one should learn style from, one’s eyes are first turned to the very sources on which Jonas Jablonskis relied.” (Pikčilingis 1971: 3). It should be added here that a stylist’s eyes are turned not only to those same sources, but, most importantly, to Jonas Jablonskis’s own writings.

And indeed, J. Pikčilingis’s works on stylistics are full of quotations, examples, corrections, and edits by J. Jablonskis. J. Jablonskis’s writings were a true school of practical stylistics for him: “As a stylist, I constantly have to turn to him and check whether I am following the right path...” (Marčiulionytė 1991: 23).

J. Pikčilingis has more than once acknowledged J. Jablonskis’s contribution to stylistics at conferences, on television programs, in radio broadcasts, and in interviews¹. His final tribute was the commemorative article “May She Live On, the Conscience of the Language” (Pikčilingis 1990: 5–6), dedicated to the 130th anniversary of the birth of the creator of the standard language.

Be J. Pikčilingio, apie J. Jablonskio pažiūras į stilių yra rašę Jonas Palionis (1959: 43–47), Arnoldas Piročkinas (1975: 4–11; 2000: 162–163), o apžvalginėje monografijos dalyje „Apie lingvistinės lietuvių stilistikos formavimąsi“ – Vaida Knabikaitė (2006: 50–63). Tačiau J. Jablonskio atliktų darbų mastas toks didelis, o stilistų tyrimai tokie fragmentiški ir epizodiški, kad jų laukia dar gana daug darbų. J. Jablonskio dėmesys stiliui atsiskleidžia įvairiais aspektais: 1) praktinės stilistikos, t. y. stiliaus kultūros; 2) minties logikos ir stiliaus santykio; 3) kalbos etikos, iš jos – ir etinės stilistikos. Kiekvienas iš jų galėtų būti medžiaga atskirai temai. Antra vertus, dėmesio nusipelno ir paties J. Jablonskio rašymo stilius, buvęs pavyzdžiu to meto rašytojams – ne tik literatams, bet ir laikraštininkams, vertėjams, recenzentams, vadovėlių autoriams. Iš minėtų aspektų straipsnyje paminėsiu tik vieną kitą ryškesnį kalbininko dėmesio stiliui ženklą. Pamė-

¹ Apie tai yra sakęs interviu pats J. Pikčilingis (žr. Marčiulionytė 1991: 23).

66

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 83

I will try to describe J. Jablonskis’s own style as well (it seems that, in general, nothing has yet been written on this subject).

J. Jablonskis’s logically weighed, concise interpretations of one expression or another, and his attentive polemics with writers, suggest that he recognized criteria not only of linguistic correctness and logic, but also of stylistic propriety, as well as general principles governing the requirements of style. The standard-language norm-setter was concerned with linguistic correctness and purity, with precision and clarity, and with fluency, liveliness, and concision. All the qualities of language mentioned by J. Jablonskis—fluent, clear, widely understood, decent, feasible—are also general qualities of stylish language.

J. Jablonskis’s approach to stylistic corrections can be seen in one or another remark or more extensive comment: “a correction of one or another sentence or word taken out of context, without the text itself, seems to have little value for the reader” (JablR IV 1935: 222); “Among the language examples I have written down there are many such words [...], which here, in the text in question, are simply used in the wrong place. Those words themselves are used in the language” (JablR IV 1935: 328); “for that, one would also need to know the dialects of the whole human language very well” (JablR IV 1935: 114). “An author who wishes to be understood by the reader must, when writing, know for whom he is writing. He must write in an accessible manner for people with little education; when writing for a more educated person, he can also use more complex, more elaborate expressions...” (JablR V 1936: 37). These comments can be understood as an explanation of objective stylistic factors: when selecting, using, or proposing particular linguistic and stylistic means, it is important to take into account the content of the text as a whole, its context and the speaking situation, the domain of language use and the addressee, including their age and education. Cf. “If the author [Jonas Jablonskis] is reviewing a school textbook, naturally, he often expresses his opinion about its suitability from the pedagogical point of view as well...” (Balčikonis 1935: VII). In addition, J. Jablonskis recognizes that an editor must understand the author’s thought well; when correcting a text, it is important not to distort it. These remarks remain relevant to the linguistic study of stylistics today.

CRITIQUE OF ILLOGICAL THINKING

J. Pikčilingis began one of the most extensive chapters of Lietuvių kalbos stilistikos, “General Requirements for Stylish Language,” with the subsection “Language Culture Is Thought Culture”—that is, with logical thinking, clarity and precision of language as the foundation of good style—drawing essentially on J. Jablonskis’s corrections and quoting

R. KOŽENIAUSKIENĖ. Jono Jablonskio dėmesys stiliui

67

thoughts grounded in his critical thinking. Contemporaries who knew J. Jablonskis emphasize his iron logic: “He paid particular attention to developing logical reasoning in his pupils.” (Jokantas 1921: 541); “Of course, his outlook was critical in every respect, for he was a man of great logic, who had seen and thought a great deal.” (Smetona 1930: 44).

Even in works of art, in what J. Jablonskis called artificial tales, the logic of the thought’s content must be preserved, he would say; images must be convincing and not stray from reality. Here it is worth recalling that he had studied classical philology and ancient rhetoric, which emphasizes one of the most important features of a text’s language—truth, veracity (Latin veritas), and verisimilitude (Latin veri similis).

Having found an inaccurate account of bees in Skaitymų knygoje, the linguist patiently explains that bees “do not fill ‘their little honey belly,’ they do not pour anything ‘through their little tube,’ and they do not share anything with their little sisters!... Let us speak directly even with children, but let us write in the textbook in such a way that children understand us and that the knowledge we give them is sound” (JablR II 1933: 224). As this example shows, the reviewer’s vigilance, logical thinking, and pursuit of truth are not lulled by tender diminutives (pilvelio, vamzdelį, seselėms). Finding in the same book the sentence “the eagle builds itself a nest in oaks,” J. Jablonskis points out two deviations and writes that one must never say this in a school textbook: such birds do not build nests by twisting them, but “heap them up or make them in some other way; moreover, the eagle makes its nest only somewhere far away, on high cliffs, where, it would seem, there are no oaks” (JablR II 1933: 225).

Following J. Jablonskis’s tradition, J. Pikčilingis writes: “before a sentence is stylistically revised, it must be checked against the requirements of logical judgment, for otherwise all the stylistic ‘embellishment’ may be pointless” (Pikčilingis 1971: 36). Of course, “one should not artificially stretch every utterance on the Procrustean bed of logic [...]. Language does not always welcome excessive logicalizing, especially where it serves an emotive function” (ibid., 42)—that is, in works of art.

EDITING LITERARY TEXTS

J. Jablonskis mostly corrected language errors caused by the influence of Slavic (Russian, Polish) languages. In more than one article, the linguist points out the objective causes of such errors. He addressed these words to Vincas Krėvė-Mickevičius, Juozas Tumas-Vaižgantas, Faustas Kirša, and other writers: Lithuanian writers

68

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 83

They had supposedly become estranged from the language of their own people because they had studied in Russian schools, spoken and written in Russian or Polish, and grown accustomed to expressing their thoughts through Russian literary turns of phrase, and at times with Polish phraseology. More than one had lived and worked in Russia for a long time, “where they also had the opportunity to forget quite a lot of those foreignisms” (JablR IV 1935: 335). While correcting a multitude of spelling, punctuation, grammatical, and lexical errors (individual lexical items and word combinations), the linguist also touched on questions of linguistic distinctiveness and style, though he did not single them out for special attention.

The distinctiveness of the Lithuanian language, inseparable from a native speaker’s feel for their mother tongue and style, is especially evident when translating from a foreign language into one’s own: “A linguist could here turn his attention to the styles of two of our writers and consider how much this entire translation has been expressed as far as possible in the words and sentences of our language” (JablRR II 1959: 416), writes J. Jablonskis about Petro Vaičiūnas’s translation edited by Krėvė. In another review, writing about Skvorcov’s publication translated by B. Grigai ty tė Nuostabūs skruzdės gyvenimo atsitikimai, J. Jablonskis finds the language lacking in liveliness—that “the reader, with a ‘translation’ before him, should feel quite at home, as if working with a text intended directly for Lithuanian children, for our people” (JablRR II 1959: 241–242). He wanted the translation to be such that it “does credit to the craftsman” (JablRR II 1959: 292), and so patiently corrected every unevenness in the translations himself, improving their style. Nor did he lose sight of the intended readership. For example, he did not condemn international or dialectal words; he only said they must be used appropriately: “only where we cannot do without them” (JablR IV 1935: 144). “A translator may like or use certain little dialect words of her own, incomprehensible to many, but they should nevertheless not be forced into a translation intended for school: they will make the text harder to understand” (JablRR II 1959: 243). In another review, he wrote similarly, from a stylistic point of view, about the use of international words—that without those “noxious thistles,” sentences would be much clearer, more comprehensible, livelier, more natural for the pupil…

J. Jablonskis criticized a major flaw in translated texts: word-for-word translation. The linguist taught translators to render ideas, not words, applying this especially to phraseology. He himself translated various word combinations quite inventively and stylishly, using Lithuanian constructions. This can be seen in the Russian booklet by M. Bogdanov, Visuomenės įnamiai, which he translated in 1908. Here are a few examples: zabrošennaja dereuška – menkiausias kaimelis; kruglyj god – ištisi metai; mucha-babucha – muselė-pasiutėlė; durak-durakom – kaip koks vėpla; važnoje lico – didelis daiktas; suščij vzdor – tušti plepalai, and so on. “In fact, those translations contained the whole of J. Jablonskis’s linguistic scholarship [...], the translation of phraseological units and

R. KOŽENIAUSKIENĖ. Jono Jablonskio dėmesys stiliui

69

specific word combinations demonstrates a translator’s ability to grasp the spirit of both the foreign language and their own. Here, word-for-word translation is what must be avoided most of all...” (Vasili auskaitė 1970: 154–155).

J. Jablonskis considered even some phraseological expressions that are now well established in the language in need of correction: laužyti rankas: laužydama rankas (= grąžydama rankas) sako... (JablR IV 1935: 327), iš proto išeiti (= iš galvos išeiti) (JablL 1985: 28, 29). In Krėvė’s Skirgailoje, the phraseological expression turėti omenyje (= turėti galvoj, akivaizdoj): “Do you mean that German?” (JablR IV 1935: 327). The phraseological expressions laužyti rankas, iš proto išeiti, turėti omenyje—although they are in fact translations—are also found in folklore and in the works of the finest writers². Normally, foreignisms in phraseological expressions are not corrected, even when the words are not entirely comprehensible; nor is incorrect syntax edited. Yet J. Jablonskis corrected such things too. For example, as A. Piročkinas (2000: 153) observed, while editing Vaižgantas, J. Jablonskis changed the phrase viso svieto pirkl ys to viso pasaulio pirklį.

Vaižgantas’s text

Text corrected by J. Jablonskis

Not even the crickets chirped. Tepl aveno that one large black moth. Accustomed to seeing how some activity at least stirs the waves of air and produces a sound, that bebalsis plav enimas with its great wings, kai even a little fly, flying through the air, zvembia, made the eerie silence still more oppressive, further lifting the children’s imagination into the world of ghosts that begins here around Valiulis Hillfort; through it one enters that enchanted realm where spirits lie motionless, living or dead. Where, even when they run about, you do not know whether with purpose or without, they tread with gyvom ar negyvom kojom; with vygais or dead wings, like that gedulo moth, they flit through the air.”

Not even the crickets chirped. A black moth tepleveno with its great wings. That bebalsiškas jo plevenimas—when one is accustomed to seeing and hearing how any action at all stirs the waves of air and gives rise to sound, kaip even a little fly, flying through the air, zvimbia—made the eerie silence still more oppressive, raised the children’s imagination even higher into the world of ghosts, which begins here around Valiulis Hillfort: through it one enters that enchanted realm where spirits lie motionless, living or dead; where, even when they run about, you do not know whether with purpose or without, they tread the earth with gyvomis ar negyvomis kojomis; with gyvais or dead wings, like that gedulio moth, they fly through the air. (JablRR II 1959: 403)

² Pavyzdžiui, Frazeologijos žodynas (FŽ 2001: 570) teikia tokius laužyti rankas (reikšme „labai sielvartauti“) pavyzdžius: Taip nelaužyk sau rankų, kaip beržo šakas kad laužo užrūstintas vėjas Mair. Tik Zubrys vienas netylėjo, baltas rankas laužė Krėv. Laužo baltas rankeles jau-nopi martelė ir gailias ašaras lieja Vien. Labiausiai verkė jauna mergelė po sodą vaikščiodama, rankeles laužydama Tvr. Motina rankas laužė, o vaiko jau nėr Grv.

70

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 83

At this point, it would be useful to look at J. Jablonskis’s attempt to revise Vaižgantas’s text. J. Palionis, A. Piročkinas, and V. Knabikaitė have discussed several of Vaižgantas’s sentences edited by him, so here I present an excerpt from Vaižgantas’s text that has not yet been analyzed. J. Jablonskis himself also recognized this writer’s individuality and originality: “He differs from others in his style, too” (JablRR II 1959: 399).

It is clear that even after J. Jablonskis’s fairly cautious interventions in the text, Vaižgantas’s anaphoric parallelisms disappeared: nečiRškė / teplav(en)o at the beginnings of sentences, and the endearing dialectal forms teplaveno, plavenimas³ were lost. The choice of synonyms also raises doubts. For example, Vaižgantas’s word lakioja is gentler and more poetic (when speaking of a world of light, airy phantoms created by the imagination), and is probably more appropriate than the stylistically neutral skraido. Moreover, the trisyllabic lakioja brings the whole paragraph to a more rhythmically satisfying close than the disyllabic skraido. The expression oru skraido seems unsuitable for describing a “mourning butterfly” as bebalsis plavena, since after the revision one can now hear the noisy alliteration of r, r sounds (oru skraido). Even the corrected punctuation (to which J. Jablonskis devoted the greatest attention) changes the phrase’s intonation. For instance, changing the word order (kur guli nejuda, gyvos ar negyvos, dv asios) and removing the question mark eliminates the intriguing dilemma: kur dvasios guli nejuda: gyvos ar negyvos? What most intrigues the reader, what takes their breath away (gyvos ar negyvos?), is quite deliberately placed by Vaižgantas at the end of the sentence, thus sustaining the reader’s curiosity for as long as possible; the question mark is essential here, for it is “a symbol that gives meaning and form to doubt, various tormenting reflections [...], and enigmatic thoughts” (Abaravičius 2002: 168). In the edited text, Vaižgantas’s mystery of conjecture, the persuasive force of the aesthetic narrative, disappears in this instance.

Vocabulary, syntax, morphology, word order, spelling, and punctuation were all revised, undoubtedly not merely for correctness—J. Jablonskis apparently sought greater clarity, fluency, and vitality of thought. The revisions were few and cautious, yet, as this substantial excerpt from Vaižgantas’s text shows, J. Jablonskis’s editing altered the writer’s manner of expression. “Style is the sum of the expressive means characteristic of an author and their recurrence; it is a way of conveying thoughts and feelings, brought to the fore by the selection and use of words and by the ways they are combined into sentences.” (Pikčilingis 1971a: 6).

By J. Jablonskis’s own admission, he disliked interfering with a writer’s style: “I am inclined to leave matters of style to the writers themselves; most often, I…”

³ Cf. J. Balčikonis’s text: Žmonės manė, kad ten gulbė plaveno sparnais (LKŽ X 118).

R. KOŽENIAUSKIENĖ. Jono Jablonskio dėmesys stiliui

71

pati stiliaus kalba terūpi“ (JablR V 1936: 72), tačiau, kaip matėme, net mažiausias žodžių tvarkos pakeitimas keičia rašytojo stilių. Štai, rodos, be reikalo pataisytos net ir daugiskaitos įnagininko galūnės gyvomis ar negyvomis kojomis, nes nebelieka šnekamojo stiliaus intonacijų: plg. gyvom ar negyvom kojom. Nekeliantis abejonių dalykas čia yra J. Jablonskio pastebėta teksto rinkėjų klaida: vygais / gyvais, gal dar nekliūva redaktoriaus prirašytas žodis žemę [mina], nors ir be jo mintis visiškai aiški, todėl belieka pritarti J. Palioniui, kad „[...] savaip perdirbdamas, perstilizuodamas atskirus Vaižganto sakinius, vietomis kiek nublandkino originalų „vaižgantišką“ stilių [...], šitoks tų sakinių pertvarkymas (dalyvinių ar padalyvinių lyčių įvedimas, kai kurių žodžių pakeitimas ir kt.) kiek modifikavo ir patį Vaižganto stilių: perstilizuotieji sakiniai jau nebe tokie glausti ir išraiškingi, jau nebe tokie „vaižgantiški“ (Palionis 1959: 46–47). Panaši ir A. Piročkino nuomonė: „Jablonskis labai rūpestingai ieškojo stilistiškai adekvačių norimai išreikšti minčiai, piešiamam vaizdui pakaitalų. Tačiau ne visada jam tai pavyko padaryti [...]. Apskritai reikėtų pasakyti, kad kiekvienas redaktoriaus įsikišimas į tokio rašytojo kaip Vaižgantas kalbą yra įsikišimas ir į stilių.“ (Piročkinas 2000: 162).

That J. Jablonskis was not always certain about revising some writers’ texts (usually translations rather than original works) is also evident from the comments accompanying them: labiau tiktų, man rodos, and so on. Aware of how difficult it is to define the boundary between tinka / netinka, for example, in his revisions to Krėvė’s Skirgaila, he writes: “If the author or anyone else truly disagreed with some of my revisions to this passage and wished to argue publicly with me about them, I could defend those revisions or, if necessary, withdraw them or make a concession here and there and perhaps agree with my ‘opponent.’” (JablRR II 1959: 312).

Nevertheless, we could by no means claim that J. Jablonskis did not contribute to improving writers’ style. Even when offended and disagreeing with the revisions, writers were compelled to discuss the matter and seek a more precise, livelier, clearer Lithuanian word or Lithuanian syntactic construction, to think things through more carefully, and to pay closer attention to what and how they wrote.

J. Jablonskis would politely and tactfully remind writers to accept at least those revisions with which they agreed; and his correct language and impeccable style undoubtedly reined in literary authors who favored excessive freedom and wrote “without any constraints.” In the linguist’s words, licentia poetica (JablR IV 1935: 304) cannot replace the rules of language, even in poetry:

72

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 83

“I advise the translator finally to take up studying his own language seriously: without language there is no literature...” (JablR IV 1935: 305). In Švietimo darbe (1924, No. 12), commenting on a not especially successful translation of Faust by Faustas Kirša (J. I. Kraszewski’s Vitolio raudą), J. Jablonskis uses a rhetorical question to draw an analogy worthy of a stylist’s pen: “In concluding my review, I put this question to the translator: how would he regard the work of a painter from which it is evident that the painter neither understands nor takes care to understand the significance of colors in painting, or the material and form of the painting?” (JablR IV 1935: 305).

CORRECTIONS TO NEWSPAPER STYLE

The language of newspapers at the time was, one might say, thoroughly poor, full of foreign words, literal calques of syntactic constructions, and clumsy expressions. J. Jablonskis was primarily concerned with correcting errors of logic, spelling, punctuation, and grammar; he also mentions translations of phraseological expressions brought back from Russia: Here is a fact on the face (JablR II 1933: 364); put a question to him sideways (ibid.); Be quiet, because you have nothing to do with it (JablR V 1936: 63).

The linguist wrote about the language of the daily newspaper Lietuvos žinių: “It seems to me that one should take care to ensure that the writers for a given newspaper all use the same language, and differ from one another only in style.” (JablR IV 1935: 181). Thus, he acknowledged stylistic diversity not only among literary writers but also among journalists, yet he noticed stylistic shortcomings because he wanted newspaper language to be “more uniform, more beautiful, more correct” (JablR IV 1935: 187), and for “newspapers and writers [...] to make use, in the future, of these observations insofar as they agree with them” (JablR IV 1935: 182). J. Jablonskis’s comments and observations on shortcomings in newspaper style are quite apt: “Meanwhile, the daily newspaper sometimes also contains [...] c) rather long expressions which, among other things, are put in a style that is too elevated, not quite good, and not quite correct (X, 1 and 2). Such ‘errors’ will not be entirely understandable to the ordinary reader—and this is the reader the writer must care about first—and they are not easy to correct.” (JablR IV 1935: 181).

In short sentences, language errors and unclear expressions were corrected most often. For example, J. Jablonskis rendered such illogical sentences—Owing to political conditions, many teachers had to abandon teaching; The teachers’ meeting closed—in what he liked to call plain language: Because of political

R. KOŽENIAUSKIENĖ. Jono Jablonskio dėmesys stiliui

73

circumstances, conditions many teachers had to give up teaching; The teachers’ meeting adjourned, came to an end (JablR IV 1935: 177). It seems that only the language was being corrected, and that matters of style had not yet been addressed; nevertheless, for every unsuitable word J. Jablonskis proposes at least two correct alternatives (circumstances and conditions; closed and came to an end), from which the author can choose the more precise, more suitable one.

In the longer sentences found in newspapers, style as well as matters of language was corrected:

Sentences from Lietuvos žinių

Corrected sentences

1. What do we see today? Is it not the straightening of shoulders bent under the burden of work too much? Is it not a struggle for rights and steadfast solidarity with those who have already won?Standing

1. What do we see today? Is it not the straightening of shoulders bent too much by weariness? Is it not a struggle for rights and the steadfast defense of those who have won?

2. We have an organism, one giant wing stretched across the Atlantic Ocean, a second—in the East being unceasingly driven (JablR IV 1935: 177).

2. We have an organism, leaning across the Atlantic Ocean on one giant wing, and on the other—in the East, constantly, ceaselessly, unremittingly rising, sinking (?).

The newspaper author’s sentences are incorrect, and their meaning is therefore unclear. The first sentence, edited by J. Jablonskis, became more fluent because of the corrected word order and the matching grammatical forms at the ends of the rhetorical questions: straightening / defense. In the second sentence, in place of unceasingly he supplied several correct synonyms—constantly, ceaselessly, unremittingly—and in place of the entirely unclear word “bėginamą,” driven, submerged (?). The question mark indicates that J. Jablonskis himself had some doubts about this correction; perhaps, moreover, he left room for the author to choose. The linguist usually only suggested what he considered a more correct, better word, offered several alternatives, and candidly acknowledged that he had not yet exhausted all the riches of language and style: “These thoughts can, of course, be expressed in other ways too; one must simply take care always to express them according to the rules of people’s language.” (JablRR II 1959: 210).

Jono Jablonskis’s corrections were a great support to the press workers of his time, and his personal example was no less influential: he was not only a newspaper editor but also an active writer of articles and reviews in his own, highly refined style. “How will contributors learn to write properly for a newspaper if the newspaper itself, through its language and the way it organizes all its work, does not set them a good example?” (JablR IV 1935: 186).

74

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 83

ON THE DISTINCTIVE STYLE OF JONAS JABLONSKIS

J. Balčikonis writes that when all the writings of Jonas Jablonskis were being collected—written “over almost half a century,” sometimes under pseudonyms, and often without any signature at all—it was not particularly difficult to determine what came from his pen: “[t]here could be no major mistakes here, because his language differs from that of other writers not only in its correctness but also in its distinctive style (emphasis mine. – R. K.) (Balčikonis 1932: VII). Nevertheless, it seems that Lithuanian linguistics has not yet discussed precisely what makes his style distinctive.

Indeed, when assessing J. Jablonskis’s texts from the perspective of style, what stands out is not only the correctness, logic, and clarity of his language, but also its fluency, the frequent thought-provoking rhetorical questions, and the periods he was especially fond of. The linguist’s contemporary Motiejus Gustaitis called the period “the fullness, or plenitude, of style.”

Let us listen to the stylistic plenitudes—rhythmic periods—J. Jablonskis formulated as rhetorical questions. For “to check whether a sentence is eurythmic, we must read it aloud” (Pikčilingis 1971: 255). In classical rhetoric, the period was an ideal model for constructing sentences in terms of meaning, rhythm, and intonation. J. Jablonskis learned the art of constructing periods while studying classical philology at Moscow University, as one may infer and clearly sense, from Cicero’s speeches and letters. J. Jablonskis’s periods have the sound of spoken language⁴; we hear the rhythmic ebb and flow of the sentence, expressed through “rounded, artfully arranged sentences” (Gustaitis 1923: 77). And indeed—the living chain of logical thought seems to turn full circle; it becomes entirely clear only when the beginning of the period’s thought finally joins its end and, as if in a single sweep, expresses a complex of ideas:

I myself do use, it is true, the word “war,” but I use it only because I know it from people’s speech—from Juška’s songs and dictionary, and from the speech of the people of Prussia—that “war.” (JablRR II 1959: 111)

Let us discuss one longer period in greater detail:

One question remains to be answered: is the textbook in question suitable for the needs of our elementary school—for the school’s second year of studies? Rather than answer this pressing question, I shall note for now that it is time for our teachers to begin taking real care that the free school of our nation

⁴ Felicija Bortkevičienė in Lietuvos žinios (1930 02 25) wrote that “on Jablonskis’s lips, the Lithuanian language sounded like the most beautiful music.”

R. KOŽENIAUSKIENĖ. Jono Jablonskio dėmesys stiliui

75

truly good textbooks on language science for the education of children would soon be forthcoming: we urgently need them if we wish to speak seriously about the future of our school and our nation, if the school, our young generation, and the life and happiness of our ancestral land are dear to us... (JablR II 1933: 91)

The sentence is rhythmic and lively, with an opening—a rhetorical question—and a conclusion—a clear answer formulated through coordinate sentence elements. It is periodic, with rich enumerations of intonational units, repetitions of sentence elements of similar length, and gradations. The first part of the period is calmer, more restrained, and declarative (it is already time [...] to take care). The only point in this part of the period is that the word order might perhaps be improved in the excessively long subordinate clause (so that the free school of our nation might soon receive truly good textbooks on language science for its needs...). The second part of the period, which follows the colon (we urgently need them), provides justification and arguments for the need for good textbooks; it rises emotionally, builds, is highly rhythmic, divided by meaningful pauses, and consists of subordinate clauses of similar length:

we urgently need them if we wish to speak seriously about the future of our school and our nation, if the school, our young generation, and the life and happiness of our ancestral land are dear to us...

J. Jablonskis metaphorically calls the young Lithuanian generation the life and happiness of the ancestral land... Both metaphorical and allegorical speech (always clear, logical, and unclouded, to be sure) are familiar to him. Here is how J. Jablonskis writes in Lietuvos žinios (1914, No. 111) about the native language (he had read the idea that the native language is “Lithuania’s last fortress” in the same newspaper and was not ⁵indifferent to it). Agreeing with the author, he developed it beautifully in a period:

A superb, beautiful idea! If we do not take care of this now, if we ourselves do not realize right now that we are doing wrong by tearing down that fortress—then later, after some time, it will be very difficult to repair the damage caused by demolishing this great fortress. (JablR IV 1935: 182)

⁵ J. Pikčilingis taip pat šią mintį yra plėtojęs (žr. Marčiulionytė 1991: 24), kalbėdamas apie gimtojo žodžio bičiulių draugiją „Aidija“: „Mano mintis buvo, kad reikia traukti pavyzdžiu, reikia žodžio, kalbos švenčių. Juk, anot V. Hamilttono, „žodis – tai pilis gimtojoji žemė“, tad kiekvienas turim būti atsakingas už tos pilies tvirtumą.“

76 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 83

In Stilistika, M. Gustaitis writes: “In addition to the rules of grammar and syntax, a period necessarily requires two further conditions: an i n n e r, or logical, one, manifested in the strict unity of thought, and an o u t e r—stylistic—one, requiring the complete and fluent development of thought.” (Gustaitis 1923: 78). J. Jablonskis, a specialist in grammar, especially syntax, perfectly meets both conditions set out by M. Gustaitis.

Constantly emphasizing that “writers themselves need to begin taking care that our written language be (a) easy, beautiful, clear, widely understood, and (b) correct (it must follow the rules of the people’s, the readers’ language)” (JablR IV 1935: 144), J. Jablonskis set a fine example for all the Lithuanian intellectuals who wrote, through his own correct language and easy, fluent style:

If my few notes on syntax say nothing to the critic on this matter [...], then will at least this not tell him that this “serfdom” language is used very widely by the Latvians, who have emerged from the “leaven of serfdom,” and by their German pressmen, and that it was also used by the great Roman heroes, warriors (C. J. Caesar...), and by the pressmen, oppressors, and enlighteners of other nations?

Dear Mr. Pilet! “Narrative language” is no remnant of serfdom. Serfdom is not to blame here! If we do not understand this language, if we do not use it where appropriate, the only thing to blame is our own ignorance of our language and our contempt for the rules of the people’s language... Let us at least be honest. (JablRR II 1959: 100)

Acknowledging that J. Jablonskis wrote in exceptionally correct, clear, and pure language, and drawing on M. Gustaitis’s classification of styles⁶, we must say (as the examples cited also show) that the linguist understood well the requirements of the “serious,” “periodic,” “ornate,” “plain,” “elevated,” “humorous,” and other styles. J. Jablonskis had a keen sense of when to write in each style: when a plain, calm, restrained style was appropriate (as he wrote on questions of language science), and when a solemn, elevated one was called for (for example, he welcomed the appearance of Vilniaus žinios in his article “Our Celebration and Our Concern” (JablR I 1932: 73)). Indeed, at times, especially in his replies to opponents, J. Jablonskis’s thought would sparkle with subtle ingenuity, in M. Gustaitis’s terms, with a humorous

⁶ M. Gustaičio Stilistikoje (1923) skiriamos devynios stiliaus rūšys: I. Atskilasis, periodingasis ir mišrasis; II. Paprastasis, dailusis ir vidutinis; III. Liaudies ir meningi liaudiškas; IV. Lietuviškasis ir nelietuviškasis; V. Plast ingasis ir abstraktinis; VI. Rimtasis, juokaujamasis ir aukštasis; VII. Bendrinis ir individinis; VIII. Laiškinis; IX. Nau joviškieji. Toks alogiškas stilių skirstymas ne vienu pagrindu šiandien, be abejo, kelia tam tikrų abejonių, bet J. Jablonskio amžininkas M. Gustaitis nurodo ir lietuviškojo stiliaus pavyzdį: „Idėm lietuviškajam kalbos stiliui pakraipą davė Jablonskis“ (Gustaitis 1923: 201).

R. KOŽENIAUSKIENĖ. Jono Jablonskio dėmesys stiliui

77

in style. As physician Viktoras Vaičiūnas recounts, even when seriously ill and partially paralyzed, J. Jablonskis knew how to joke and was always in good spirits. “With his candor and healthy humor [...] he would quickly win everyone over.” (Lukėnaitė-Griciuvienė 2009: 39).

Examples of a humorous style abound in J. Jablonskis’s writings. Discussing Kazys Bizauskas’s textbook, which deals with lofty matters of literature and stylistics, and criticizing the author’s excessively complicated manner of expression and muddled stylistic terminology, he writes with a touch of irony: “For us, simple people, it is very difficult to grasp these ungraspable distinctions.” (JablR II 1933: 181).

Having found a considerable number of shortcomings, incorrect syntactic constructions, and literal translations from Russian in the language of the poems included in J. Palukaitis’s textbook Žiburėlis, J. Jablonskis writes with great subtlety: “It seems that the expressions marked in the speech of ‘uninsPIRED’ people could also be replaced by these sorts of words...” (JablR IV 1935: 219). After making his corrections, he nevertheless adds that “[w]e should not allow poems, either, to stray too far from the language of the people!” (JablR IV 1935: 220).

When the linguist’s fierce opponent Druskius⁷ exclaimed emotionally and nervously in one article, “I shall die—and never forget the articles that Rygiškių Jonas’s teaching curses, [...] they are so firmly imprinted in my memory!”, J. Jablonskis responded with his customary equanimity, jokingly and, as was his habit, in a fluent periodic style: “I would ask the author of the article, in his ‘hour of death,’ to spare the ‘honored linguist’; to forget his transgression—or perhaps merely his ‘invention’—and forgive him for it: for surely there will be more important things then, which it will not be out of place to have in mind and before one’s eyes as one dies.” (JablR IV 1935: 172). Thus the “sinful flea-hunter,” in a style reminiscent of the intonations of prayers, humbly asks the mortally offended Druskius for forgiveness.

Viewed from the perspective of today’s functional styles, J. Jablonskis’s style can be summed up by saying that his articles on language issues are written in a popular-scientific style: clearly, objectively, and tactfully. A. Piročkinas also writes: “Apparently, his other corrections were similar. Everything was said very tactfully, gently, and in a friendly manner.” (Piročkinas 1978: 75). Even in response to the harshest judgments and insults—which were numerous and at times highly categorical, for example: “Unsolicited style correctors are entirely unnecessary to today’s writers and poets” (JablR V 1936: 66); “having not the slightest understanding of style themselves” (JablR V 1936: 62); “killed the Lithuanian book for a long time” (JablR V 1936:

⁷ Druskius – Adomas Jakštas (real name Aleksandras Dambrauskas).

78

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 83

61), and so on, J. Jablonskis was able to respond with restraint, clear-headedly, and on principle, always answering accusations logically, with reasoned arguments, and in a considered manner.

J. Jablonskis wrote articles on social, cultural, and educational issues, most often for newspapers, in a journalistic style that combines his characteristic intellectual language with restrained expressive devices (as the cited examples of his language show, he was able to speak not only correctly and logically but also emotionally, vividly, and eloquently).

By occasionally replying to his opponents in a humorous style, J. Jablonskis definitively refuted the characterization some writers had given him—that he was merely a dry grammarian, a Suvalkian dogmatist who knew nothing about the subtleties of style.

ORIGINS OF ETHICAL STYLISTICS

Research into ethical stylistics in Lithuania is only just beginning. Stylistician K. Župerka writes: “It would be worth reviewing the works of our linguists that examine matters of language ethics; this would give us a picture of Lithuanian ethical linguistics, from which ethical stylistics could then be distinguished more clearly.” (Župerka 2005: 28)⁸.

J. Jablonskis’s writings, too, yielded so many examples of language ethics that there was enough material for a separate presentation⁹. I will single out at least a couple of cases related to this article’s topic, in which the linguist draws attention to stylistic expression, assessing a text’s author’s (translator’s, opponent’s) language from the perspective of ethical stylistics.

The linguist criticized the following expression: In Bulgaria’s Thrace, there are almost 500 thousand inhabitants heads (JablR IV 1935: 131). In stylistics, a trope in which a whole person is replaced by one of their body parts (in this case, the head) is called synecdoche, or pars pro toto. Such synecdoches are quite appropriate in colloquial speech or literary works: Look out the window—just heads (meaning: lots of people). But what bothered J. Jablonskis about the sentence in question was

⁸On ethical stylistics, see also Koženiauskienė R. The Purpose of Colloquial Language and Slang Lexis in a Journalist’s Public Discourse. – Kalbos kultūra, 2009, 82, 126–137.

⁹The author of this article discusses J. Jablonskis’s language ethics in greater detail in the presentation “Rhetorical Culture: The Importance of Continuing the Tradition (The Beginnings of J. Jablonskis’s Language Ethics),” to be delivered on 3 December 2010 at the international scholarly conference “Challenges of the Dynamics of the Modern World to the Humanities,” organized by the Faculty of Humanities of Mykolas Romeris University; ethical stylistics is discussed here for the first time.

R. KOŽENIAUSKIENĖ. Jono Jablonskio dėmesys stiliui

79

apparently, he also objected to people being counted by heads like livestock (examples from colloquial speech: Eight cows and heifers will have to be milked through the winter Sml; We’ll trade cows, head for head Ml)¹⁰. Although the criticized sentence, like the others, is taken out of context, from a few sentences one can infer that it is an article in the daily newspaper Viltis about a population census, and thus a text in an informational rather than literary style; the linguist therefore suggested replacing it with the neutral wording: In Bulgarian Thrace there are almost 500 thousand people, or there are almost 500 thousand inhabitants.

J. Jablonskis had a subtle sense of the ethical and stylistic nuances of words. The linguist publicly criticized the unethical expression used by the Lithuanian Povilas Žaldokas, son of Apolinaras, with the word rioglinti: Brothers-Lithuanians, let us not stand idle and let the Poles rioglinti (!) a Polish inscription in Vilnius, the capital of Lithuania, on the “Gates of Dawn,” beside the image of the Mother of God! Even without context, rioglinti is clearly a derogatory word, meaning “to put or place awkwardly, to walk clumsily, to drag oneself along.” This text reveals how disrespectful it is toward the Lithuanian people who speak Polish. J. Jablonskis writes: “Had he been speaking of a Lithuanian inscription, Apolinaras’s son would, of course, have managed without the word ‘rioglinti.’” (JablR I 1933: 102).

The examples discussed show that the Patriarch of the Lithuanian Language¹¹ was a person of high culture who understood stylistic matters well, including those of ethical stylistics.

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

By correcting language errors, Jonas Jablonskis also helped shape the criteria for stylistic standardization in the standard language. This merely confirms the idea that language and style are inseparable, that there can be no culture of style without a culture of thought and language, and that there is no literature without language.

When assessing the language and style of a work, J. Jablonskis first turned his attention to the logic of its content, criticizing contrived images that were excessively remote from reality. His logical mind could not accept stylistic “ornaments” that contradicted the logic of thought.

¹⁰ In colloquial speech, such an expression is also possible when referring to people: Seven heads in the family (seven of them) – everyone needs to eat and get dressed Sml. The nobles had heads written under them (they had serfs) Grśl. (LKŽ III 79).

¹¹ Taip savo interviu Joną Jablonskį pavadino J. Pikčilingis (žr. Marčiulionytė 1991: 24).

80

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 83

While editing original and translated literary works, J. Jablonskis addressed questions of style with particular sensitivity, saying that they were not entirely clear even to him, and acknowledging writers’ right to stylistic diversity. Even when they disagreed with some of his corrections, writers had to discuss and debate, seek the truth, and think more carefully about what and how to write. J. Jablonskis’s constant attention to the language and style of writers (authors of literary works, journalists, and textbook writers) produced good results: Lithuanian became more uniform, more correct, livelier, and easier to use.

Viewed from the perspective of today’s functional styles, J. Jablonskis’s own style can be described as follows: his articles on questions of language were written in a popular-scientific style—clearly, objectively, and tactfully. The linguist was able to respond to his opponents’ accusations with restraint, soberly, logically, and with reasoned arguments. J. Jablonskis wrote articles on social, cultural, and educational matters, most often for newspapers, in a journalistic style that combines his characteristic intellectual language with restrained expressive stylistic devices.

The examples discussed show that Jonas Jablonskis had a good command not only of linguistic matters but also of stylistics. Through his corrections and explanations concerning language and style, his ability to write correctly, logically, and clearly, and his fluent, light, and persuasive style, the linguist drew others to him by his living example.

In summary, Jono Jablonskis’s attention to style, expressed in various ways, influenced both writers and researchers of stylistics, and was particularly beneficial to practical stylistics.

ŠALTINIAI

FŽ 2001: Frazeologijos žodynas, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

JablR I 1932: Jablonskio raštai 1, Kaunas: Švietimo ministerijos leidinys.

JablR II 1933: Jablonskio raštai 2, Kaunas: Švietimo ministerijos leidinys.

JablR IV 1935: Jablonskio raštai 4, Kaunas: Švietimo ministerijos leidinys.

JablR V 1936: Jablonskio raštai 5, Kaunas: Švietimo ministerijos leidinys.

JablRR II 1959: J. Jablonskis. Rinktiniai raštai 2, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla.

JablL 1985: Jono Jablonskio laiškai, Vilnius: Mokslas.

LITERATŪRA

Abaravičius J. 2002: Skyrybos stilistika, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

Balčikonis J. 1932: Prakalba. – Jablonskio raštai 1, VII–XXVIII.

R. KOŽENIAUSKIENĖ. Jono Jablonskio dėmesys stiliui

81

Balčikonis J. 1935: Prakalba. – Jablonskio raštai 4, VII–VIII.

Gustaitis M. 1923: Stilistika. Vadovėlis literatūros teorijai, Marijampolė.

Jokantas K. 1921: Jablonskis Mintaujoj, Revely, Pskove. – Lietuvos mokykla 12, 540–543.

Knabikaitė V. 2006: Lingvistinės lietuvių stilistikos raida XX amžiuje, Vilnius: Mintis.

Lukėnaitė-Griciuvienė E. 2009: Konstancijos ir Jono Jablonskių šeima, Lietuvos nacionalinis muziejus.

Marčiulionytė I. 1991: „Žodis – tai pilis gimtojoj žemėj“ (interviu su J. Pikčilingiu). – Gimtoji kalba 3, 23–25.

Palionis J. 1959: J. Jablonskio kalbiniai taisymai. – J. Jablonskis. Rinktiniai raštai 2, 43–47.

Pikčilingis J. 1971: Lietuvių kalbos stilistika 1, Vilnius: Mintis.

Pikčilingis J. 1971a: Kas yra stilius, Vilnius: Mintis.

Pikčilingis J. 1975: Lietuvių kalbos stilistika 2, Vilnius: Mintis.

Pikčilingis J. 1990: Teatgyja ji, kalbos sąžinė. – Mūsų žodis 2, 5–6.

Piročkinas A. 1975: Jablonskis ir kalbos stiliai. – Mūsų kalba 6, 4–11.

Piročkinas A. 1978: J. Jablonskis – bendrinės kalbos puoselėtojas, Vilnius: Mokslas.

Piročkinas A. 1986: Jono Jablonskio kalbos taisymai, Kaunas: Šviesa.

Piročkinas A. 2000: Jonas Jablonskis redaguoja Vaižgantą. – Archivum Lithuanicum 2, 162–163.

Smetona A. 1930: Atsiminimų bruožai. – Kalba 1(2), 37–44.

Vasiliauskaitė S. 1970: J. Jablonskis – frazeologinių junginių vertėjas. – Pergalė 3, 154–157.

Župerka K. 2005: Tekstas etinės stilistikos požiūriu. – Žmogus ir žodis 7(1), 28.

Gauta 2010 10 29

82

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 83

JONAS JABLONSKIS’ CONCERN ABOUT THE LANGUAGE STYLE

Summary

When editing literary texts of other writers, Jonas Jablonskis gave a particular attention to stylistics matters. Although he admitted that certain stylistic issues remained unclear to him, he did recognize the writers’ right to stylistic variation. J. Jablonskis’ constant attention to the written word of writers, newspaper reporters, textbook authors yielded good results: the Lithuanian language was becoming more standardized, correct and expressive.

From the modern perspective of functional styles, the style of J. Jablonskis could be described as popular science writing—his articles on language are written in clear, objective and non-biased language. His responses to opponents are moderate, sensible, logical and argumentative. J. Jablonskis’ articles on social, cultural and educational issues (mostly for the newspapers) are written in the publicistic style which combines the intellectual discourse with moderately expressive stylistic means. Some of his texts are written in witty humourous style which denies the opinion that he was a conservative and dogmatic grammarian insensitive to stylistic subtlety.

It is possible to conclude that the distinctive features of Jonas Jablonskis’ style are an exceptionally correct usage of Lithuanian, transparent and logical expression of ideas as well as easiness in writing and ability to formulate ideas in fluently flowing syntactical periods, showing his fondness for rhetorical questions that focus the reader’s attention and encourage him to think.

REGINA KOŽENIAUSKIENĖ

Vilniaus universitetas

Universiteto g. 3, LT-01513 Vilnius

[email protected]

R. KOŽENIAUSKIENĖ. Jono Jablonskio dėmesys stiliui

83