Iškilusis bendrinės lietuvių kalbos ugdytojas Kazys Ulvydas

366 Languages and Culture | 83 JONAS PALIONIS Outstanding General Lithuanian Language Teacher KaZYs ulVYDas Kazys Ulvydas (1910–1996) – one of the linguists of the second half of the 20th century, who worked extensively and very fruitfully not only in the field of Lithuanian language science (grammar, lexicology and lexicography), but also in various bars of Lithuanian common language culture. During the difficult years of post-war Soviet occupation he (together with others) prepared the Lithuanian Spelling Dictionary (1948), which was very necessary for practical purposes. The title does not reflect its content, because it gives a concise overview not only of spelling, but also of punctuation, pronunciation, use of consonants, classification of dialects, the nomenclature, and a large list of common words for spelling and pronunciation. This dictionary, which for several years was the only multifaceted tool for learning the Lithuanian language system, has not ceased to be of practical significance until our time. The scope and content of K. Ulvydo’s educational activities in the general Lithuanian language are most clearly revealed in Kalbos kultūroje, a non-periodical publication for the general public, which he began publishing in 1961. Mr. Palin. He was the responsible editor of Kazys ulvydas 367 until 1991 and a member of the editorial board until the end of his life. He has published as many as 45 articles in which he examines the current theoretical and practical issues of the standardization of the common language. Already in the introductory article of the first issue of Language Culture, “Tasks of the development of language culture”, K. Ulvydas outlined the main guidelines of this publication: to improve Lithuanian written language, paying particular attention to newspaper language, to constantly take care that the general spoken language (in the modern term literary spoken language) does not lag behind the written language, to take care of the correctness of newly created terms (by providing linguistic consultations) and so on. Here is expressed the unquestionable view that “language culture should be regarded as an integral part of the cultural level of the individual” (p. 8). In the theoretical articles of later issues of Kalbos kultūra, most of which are introductory (they can reasonably be called programmatic), K. ulvydas discussed the concept of language culture (No. 9), language norms (No. 33), the social essence of language (No. 27), the language of the press (No. 7, 28), school as the most important factor in raising language culture, the relationship of the mother tongue with literature (No. 39), with foreign languages (No. 45) and other problems. In articles of a practical nature he wrote about the meaning and use of the preposition pas in the present Lithuanian language (No. 3), presented a “pinch” of pharmaceutical and medical terms (No. 21), discussed the terminology of the food industry (No. 43), the language of dissertations (No. 4). He did not lose sight of the role of individual linguists in the development of the common Lithuanian language. On the occasion of the 80th anniversary, he wrote about academician Juozas Balčikonis (No. 8), about the suddenly deceased chief editor of the Great Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language, Jonas Kruopa (No. 30, 54), about the syntax and lexicon researcher Adela Valeckienė (No. 30), about the views of Jonas Jablonskis on language (No. 42). Although K. Ulvydas greatly appreciated the views and contribution of Jonas Jablonskis to the creation and standardization of the common Lithuanian language, while studying at Vytautas Magnus University in Kaunas, he had the opportunity to get acquainted with the new theories of the Prague linguistic school of common language, spread by J. Jablonskis’ students Pranas skardės, Petras Jonikas and others. Therefore, in K. Ulvydo’s concept of common language culture, the Jablonsk traditions and innovative views merged. He, like J. Jablonskis, considered dialects as the most important, main source of common language development, especially one dialect (in the case of Lithuanian common language – the South-West Highlands dialect) that emerged in the writings due to the historical circumstances, on the other hand – common language, 368 Language Culture | 83 Similarly to the Pragmatics, they treated it as a “completely independent and unified system, having its own phonetic and grammatical structure, its own norms and laws of development, existing in both its written and spoken forms” (KK, No. 2, p. 5). The well-known linguist Pranas Kniūkšta wrote in his necrological article “The oak of the Palūžo language culture” (GK 1996, No. 4, p. 3): “The thoughts and conclusions he [i.e. K. Ulvydas] taught form a coherent system of language culture work, which can be called the Ulvydas school.” In a small article it is not possible to cover K. Ulvydo’s diverse work on the general Lithuanian language. Therefore, we have to limit ourselves to some of the areas of work that are relevant today, namely, to improve the general spoken language, to improve the terminology of various sciences, to spread language culture. K. Ulvydo concern for the common spoken language is evidenced by his introductory article “More attention to the literary spoken language” published in Kalbos kultūra (No. 2). This was the first time that a written language was used in the context of a spoken language. it is the relatively late interest in its oral expression, the great expansion of the area of use of the spoken language in the post-war years, insufficient attention to pronunciation and spelling in schools, lectures, announcements and in general public life. Moreover, one of the reasons for the backwardness he quite rightly considered the specificity of spoken language – the haste of its expression and the structural differences resulting from that haste and the freer and faster flow of means of expression. However, K. ulvydas did not justify the very frequent pronunciation and spelling errors made on the radio, television and in other cases of public use of language with such reasons. On the contrary, he argued that “there is no justification for a person who is educated to care little or not at all about the culture of his own spoken language” (ibid., pp. 9–10). And one can only regret that these words of K. Ulvydas, said in 1962, were not taken more seriously by our enlightenment not only in the Soviet era, but also after the restoration of Lithuanian independence, when much more favourable conditions were created for the development of a common Lithuanian spoken language. Now, even from the lips of the members of the Seimas elected by the public, it is often possible to hear the incorrectly pronounced genders corrected by K. ulvydas: Lietuvõje (=Lietuvojè), sąjungà (=sjunga), komųtetas (=komitètas), kilògramas (=kilogrãmas) and many others. I will probably not be mistaken if I say that spelling and pronunciation errors in general have not only not decreased, but a host of other, new ones have appeared, about which our current standardizers of the common language should talk more often and louder. Mr. Palin. 369 K. ulvydas’s concern for the improvement of our terminology is shown by articles published in the journals Kalbos kultūra, Kultūros barai and elsewhere. In the article on some pharmaceutical and medical terms he discussed the difference in the use of such statements as eye drops ǁ lašai akims, children's powder ǁ pudra vaikams, explained the badness of the word combinations gauti iš anestezijos, gauti iš šoko, etc. because they are literal values from the Russian language. In total, he answered 17 questions of a terminological nature (No 21) in this article. In another article of the same publication “On the making and use of some terms or other words” (No. 25) K. ulvydas wrote about the very similarly sounding but differently meaning terms slaughtered meat “meat of a carved animal” and carcass “slaughtered animal” used by food manufacturers, as well as about boning “cutting bones” (instead of boning meat, they provided boning meat) and so on. In 1982, he published an article on the topic of food industry in the journal Kalbos kultūra (No. 43). Here, K. Ulvydas criticized as inappropriate the Russian translations of the specific names of milk: whole milk (=unskimmed milk), dry milk (=milk powder), but for some reason he tolerated raw milk (i.e., just delivered), although it is better to call it the usual compound fresh milk. proposed the use of the dairy industry-related terms primilžis instead of izmilžis, primelžimas to refer to the amount of milk milked. In general, K. ulvydas was characterized by a broad approach to the codification of terms, as well as to the development of the general language culture itself. He did not consider their Lithuanianness as the most important criterion for assessing terms, as some other linguists did, but looked at the regularity of the term's construction, the spread of its use, the greater clarity of its meaning. Therefore, neither condemned certain widely used borrowing terms, especially international ones, nor creatively created new special names in accordance with the laws of Lithuanian language construction. “New terms should be introduced only after deep examination of the essence of the concepts they represent” (CC 1965, No. 9, p. 5). A typical example showing K. ulvydo deepening into the concepts expressed by terms may be the interpretation of the already mentioned food terms kardėena and skerdenà: The word kardėena must not be confused with the word skerdenà, which is made up of the same root with the suffix -ena. specialists need two terms: carcass and carcass meat, because they strictly distinguish between the two concepts here. Slaughtered animal before its slaughter, processing meat 370 Languages Culture | 83 specialists refer to the word carcass, and this word is used in the plural. For example, carcasses are counted, e.g. two carcasses, two hundred carcasses, etc. The meat of a slaughtered, processed animal, ready for consumption, is referred to as carcass. so in the store we can buy carcass, and the employees of the meat plant, having just slaughtered an animal, already have a carcass, having slaughtered two animals – two carcasses, and so on. And only when the carcass is dissected, processed and prepared for consumption is it called carcass. industry The word carrion is well composed, and unnecessarily editors sometimes do not want to recognize it, unnecessarily replace it with the word carcass. both these words are necessary, they mean different concepts, they both need to be used. (KK 25, p. 34). It is quite difficult to determine K. Ulvydo contribution to the development and codification of Lithuanian terminology, because his activities in this field were very extensive. It was not only expressed in articles devoted to special problems of terminology, but especially in the editing of normative dictionaries of the Lithuanian language, since K. ulvydas was a member of the editorial board of more than one such dictionary – in addition to the mentioned Lithuanian language spelling dictionary, he edited the 1954, 1972 and 1993 editions of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language Dictionary, and was also the reply editor of volumes III–V and XI–XVI of the Great Lithuanian Language Dictionary. There is no doubt that he has actively participated in the terminology codification of these dictionaries, and K. Ulvydas’s voice has determined the fate of many terms. K. ulvydas has written about the need to take more care of the dissemination of language culture, about the factors of raising language culture in more than one of his articles. He rightly considered the school to be the most important factor in the development of the common language: "... only the school determines the level of language culture of each young person who learns" (KK, No. 14, p. 3). However, Lithuanian language teachers often complain that their work is spoiled by teachers of other subjects who teach poor language and are not concerned about language culture at all (ibid., p. 5). These words also apply to the present restored independent Lithuanian school. Besides school, K. Ulvydas, like other theorists of common language, has often mentioned the importance of the press, especially periodical, literature, cinema, theater, radio, television, and the family in raising the culture of Lithuanian common language. He did not mention only the role of the computer, because in his time there was not yet widespread computerization, which now overshadows many other factors and, unfortunately, often negatively affects the efforts of schools and common language educators to improve the language. Mr. Palin. 371 In the Soviet era, the Lithuanian radio program “Let’s speak and write correctly” contributed to the expansion of the culture of common Lithuanian language. In this program, K. Ulvydas explained phonetics, morphology, syntax and spelling issues relevant to society. that hour was very popular and powerful because of the speaker's vivid pronunciation, logic and simplicity of the ideas. Concluding the more characteristic features of the activities of K. Ulvydas, one of the most prominent educators of the Lithuanian common language in the second half of the 20th century, I would like to add that his works, like many other Lithuanian scholars of the Soviet period, did not go without the ideological lining of the time: the denigration of the culture of the common (literary) Lithuanian language in pre-war independent Lithuania and the exaltation of the conditions for the development of that culture in the Soviet period. However, in many cases this was necessary in order to publicly discuss the current problems of, in his words, the “great wealth of the nation” – the Lithuanian common language. that lining does not overshadow the very important contribution of Kazis Ulvydas to the development of our common language.