Dėl kalbos kultūros mokymo

IŠ KALBOS PRAKTIKOS AKTUALIJŲ RITA MILIŪNAITĖ Institute of the Lithuanian Language ON THE TEACHING OF LANGUAGE CULTURE Ida didn’t even notice her father coming, so she didn’t stop, but diligently and obediently repeated the words Emil whispered to her from inside the empty miller’s place. Emil’s father turned pale when he heard them, for he was the churchwarden, and no one used such terrible words in Kalthult, regardless of Ida saying them in such a delicate, gentle little voice. “Be quiet, Ida!” her father shouted. Then he put his hand through the window and grabbed Emil by the collar. “You damned child, what are you teaching your little sister, swearing?” “Not at all,” Emil replied. “I was only teaching her that you must never say ‘by the imps,’ and I also hammered into her head a whole bunch of other words that you must avoid like the plague.” Astrid Lindgren. Emil of Lönneberga It might seem rather improper to meddle in a specialized area without any direct connection to the teaching process, without having written a textbook or so-called teaching aid, and recalling methods of language teaching only from one’s student days. Moreover, in everyday language practice—in outreach work and in continuously advising language users of different ages and educational backgrounds—one more often has to think not about any particular methods, but to rely on an understanding developed over time of how people perceive language and what they truly need from language and linguists. It has been experienced very clearly, time and again: people begin to doubt even the simplest, most fundamental aspects of language use, having lost confidence in their own skills. Worse still, they doubt not because they feel responsible for the text they have written or the words they have spoken, but because they are driven by fear of being publicly ridiculed for having written or said something incorrectly. Thus, contact with language culture is constantly accompanied by inner turmoil, confusion, fear, or even indignation, and other feelings that are far from positive. R. MILIŪNAITĖ. Dėl kalbos kultūros mokymo 151 Therefore, it seems equally inappropriate to remain silent when the true concept of language culture—as cultured language—is becoming distorted in our society, when learning the standard language is turning into learning language errors and, unfortunately, dissolving the last remnants of linguistic intuition and undermining confidence in one’s own language. Thus, this outside perspective may seem somewhat provocative to methodologists who teach language culture, but one would like it to be understood as an opportunity to step back from the customary approach to teaching language errors, established over more than a decade, and to consider: do people still need the same things today? 1. THE IMPORTANCE OF TEACHING THE STANDARD LANGUAGE AND ITS NORMS As the traditional social ties that have developed over a long period of time are fraying in society, the settled nature of the linguistic community is disappearing—a factor important for language norms to remain relatively stable and to be passed on consistently from one generation to the next. The environment from which a child would acquire a solid foundation in language from an early age (usually a dialect) is disappearing too. Consequently, the foundations of the system of the standard language taught at school often become the only linguistic foundations for younger generations of society. Moreover, as the Lithuanian diaspora grows, it is likely that the standard language will be precisely the variety of the national language that performs the nation-unifying function. Thus, teaching the norms of the standard language is becoming increasingly important. It should also be borne in mind that the standard language is strongly affected by other manifestations of the highly heterogeneous, unregulated language used in public settings, and especially, through translations, by other languages. This considerably weakens the norms of the standard language, while the conditions are not always favorable for consolidating and maintaining the skills acquired at school. Specialists in language-teaching methodology acknowledge that teaching the native language cannot be limited to the standard language alone: “in the case of the native language, success is unconditionally determined by the diversity of texts, forms, and examples” (Drazdauskienė 2008: 2–3). Various circumstances of life (for example, translating a work of fiction) encourage familiarity with a range of expressive means and the ability to use them appropriately—at the right place and time—when needed. Accordingly, while maintaining the primacy of the standard language, schools must also present an undistorted understanding of other language varieties, their functions, their purpose in society, and their value; that is, they should not elevate the standard language alone while denying and excluding everything else from “circulation.” Reconciling these aims is not easy because, as Marija Liudvika Drazdauskienė puts it, adherence to the standard “helps one learn, but hinders one’s studies” (ibid., pp. 2–3). 152 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 81 Thinking along these lines, the established understanding of language culture must also change. Nowadays, pupils and students seem to equate this concept with learning language errors. Having learned what kinds of language errors exist, they try to correct them by completing various exercises in workbooks, test booklets, and other teaching materials. In other words, pupils who have only just acquired the foundations of the standard language and have not yet fully consolidated them are turned into language specialists, expected to know even the “underside” of language norms, while students are given even more linguistic rubbish. How does this affect the structure of their own standard-language norms? Does it not create confusion? The path of instruction from error to norm is probably most meaningful when learners study their own mistakes and those of their immediate surroundings, but already possess substantial skills in the standard language. If pupils and students are drilled in violations of norms that are alien and unfamiliar to them and have no connection with current usage or their own language practices, it is no surprise that “language culture” becomes a more repellent subject and the opposite of genuine language culture, which above all means the ability to use the standard language and to draw on a variety of stylistic resources. In recent years, the linguistic situation and the context for the functioning of the standard language and the teaching and learning of its norms have clearly been changing in Lithuania. Is teaching itself changing too—its methods and tools? Language culture is no longer taught in secondary schools and gymnasiums as a separate subject systematically covered alongside other Lithuanian-language topics. The first textbook for secondary schools on this course was published in 1990, and it devoted the eleventh grade to learning language culture; later, the subject was divided up and incorporated into the curricula at every level. In higher education, the teaching of language culture has been adapted to the needs of specific professions under the 2003 Program for the Language of Speciality (SKP 2003), approved by the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language, on the assumption that “it is appropriate for non-philological university programs to focus on the language needs of the relevant specialty.” Textbooks and other teaching materials have also been published for this purpose. Bookshops are indeed overflowing with language textbooks for general education, vocational training, and higher education, as well as books for pupils and teachers, test collections, reference works, collections of rules... The methods they use to teach the norms of the standard language (i.e., finding and correcting errors) are strikingly similar: at least some of the exercises are not particularly creative Kalbos praktikos patarimų, transcripts of the booklets Didžiųjų kalbos klaidų sąrašo and Kalbos patarimų. Whether this meets the new linguistic needs of contemporary society, especially its youth, is a question that should be seriously considered. Lithuanian-language teachers and instructors of language-for-specific-purposes courses themselves could be the first to answer it. R. MILIŪNAITĖ. Dėl kalbos kultūros mokymo 153 2. WHAT UNDERSTANDING OF GENERAL LANGUAGE CULTURE IS NEEDED? The aim of learning the standard language seems simple and clear: one must learn the norms of the standard language and establish a foundation in the language, so that, on this basis, one can use this language variety according to its purpose in different circumstances and styles. One tried-and-tested way of learning is to read a great deal, on an ongoing basis, of texts written in good language (not only works of fiction). This aim is difficult to achieve without understanding what the standard language is, what its purpose in society is and, ultimately, what concrete practical benefits come from mastering it. To reveal the motivation for learning the norms of the standard language, a few axioms and a small but logically presented system of concepts are sufficient: national language, standard language, general and standard usage, functional language styles, language norms, the standardization (codification) of the standard language, the variable nature of language phenomena, their differing value, language errors, etc. These matters are usually set out in the introductory sections of textbooks, but are they always presented with factual precision and appropriately? Let us take a look at several language-culture textbooks intended for colleges and higher education institutions1. For example, the teaching book General and Specialist Language Culture, drawing on Aleksas Girdenis’s article on the standard language in the “Glossary of Linguistics” published in the 1973 issue of Our Language, states that one of the differences between the standard language and territorial and social dialects is that the standard language “has not only an acoustic but also a visual expression (writing)” (BSKK 12)2. That is so, but such a statement, presented without broader explanation, leads to the conclusion that written language is always standard, since that textbook section makes no mention at all of other language varieties that have a written form. Even if we look at language synchronically, this is no longer convincing today. Written Lithuanian functioning in the electronic environment is by no means always standard; manifestations of social and professional dialects can be found there in abundance. It is true that the textbook discusses language in the electronic environment, but not in the introduction: this topic appears elsewhere, at the end. But will students themselves look for the logical connections between the two sections? 1 The purpose of this article is not to examine these textbooks in detail, particularly since they were all reviewed before publication, and some were also recommended by the Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Lithuania or supported by the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language. The comments offered may be useful to language-culture teachers and lecturers who use these textbooks, as well as to authors of future textbooks. The hope that textbooks quickly become outdated, are replaced by new ones, and that perhaps it would not be worth writing about this, is not very reassuring. 2 The page number is given alongside the abbreviated source title; see the end of the article for the list of sources. 154 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 81 The understanding of language norm as something associated only with the standard language is too narrow: “an accepted, established rule or requirement obligatory for the standard language” (LKKV 14), “the totality of language facts and rules characteristic of and used in the standard language” (LKKV 16), as though the norm itself were an exclusive feature of the standard language. This position is also promoted in the test presented immediately here, which rejects as incorrect the definition of a language norm as “generally accepted language conventions and rules” (LKKV 23). When discussing functional styles (colloquial, administrative, scientific, journalistic, literary), the text suggests that these are varieties of the standard language (BSKK 14; section “The Standard Language and Its Varieties”), but here too qualifications are needed: neither the literary style nor, still less, the colloquial style fits within the standard language; the principal function of the colloquial style cannot be equated with the function of public communication, which is essential to the standard language (see Župerka 2005: 60–64 on this point). It also happens that language errors are called language-culture errors (BSKK 107), although, if there are no language-culture norms, there can be no language-culture errors either—Jono Šukys explained long ago that this label is unnecessary (Šukys 1992: 10). Another textbook already warns: “It should be noted that the term ‘language-culture error’, coined by someone, is not to be used” (LKK 14). The very understanding of a language error is also imprecise if it is stated that some errors occur only in a particular dialect or sociolect (BSKK 17). It is forgotten that the concept language error has a clear evaluative aspect. These are unmotivated breaches of codification, and only the norms of the standard language are codified. Thus, it makes sense to speak of errors only in the usage of the standard language, not in the usage of dialects or sociolects, although phenomena that are not characteristic of them may also occur in the latter. Exercises and test questions concerning the understanding of general language-culture matters are sometimes so confusing that, even with a broader grasp of the subject matter than pupils or students have, one feels helpless in attempting them. This is probably because language as a whole is a living formation and functions not as a mechanical accumulation of facts and data, and some claims about the standard language and matters related to its norms cannot be presented solely in diagrams. Or the diagrams need to be better thought through. For example, one is asked to fill in a table (its right-hand side), which should show the sources of six specified types of language errors. A couple of pages later, the answers to the exercise are provided (LKKV 17, 19), so the completed table should look like this: R. MILIŪNAITĖ. Dėl kalbos kultūros mokymo 155 Language errors Sources of language errors a) Pronunciation Dialects, colloquial speech. b) Stress Dialects, colloquial speech. c) Lexicon Dialects, colloquial speech, jargon, other languages. d) Word formation Other languages, colloquial speech. e) Morphology Dialects, colloquial speech, other languages. f) Syntax Colloquial speech, other languages. How much truth is there in this, and what can it offer pupils or students? Is it not enough to know in general where variants (and thus not only errors!) in the standard language come from, and what their causes and sources are? Having a general understanding of the standard language, the nature of its norms, and the criteria for choosing means of expression, we need to turn to the specific aspects of teaching standard-language norms. What is the best way to do this? 3. THE PRACTICE OF TEACHING LANGUAGE CULTURE Every person’s linguistic experience and habits are vastly different—we would not find two people who create their language in exactly the same way, using exactly the same means of expression. The same environment, social and professional commonality, and similar factors undoubtedly lead to similar linguistic behavior, but there is always room for individual usage as well. Thus, levels of proficiency in the standard language can vary greatly, and violations of language norms are not necessarily all equally characteristic of the same group of people, defined by some particular feature. For instance, the students’ standard language at Subačius Gymnasium will differ in certain respects (for example, in the influence of dialect) from that of students at Plungė Gymnasium; yet even within the same class at Subačius Gymnasium, students will also display various linguistic differences. All this is perfectly clear to specialists in language-teaching methodology, but is it taken into account when language-culture textbooks are written? More often, I would say, everything is cut from the same cloth. Everyone must learn the norms of the standard language (and this is indisputable, since they are common to everyone), but why must everyone also learn perhaps someone else’s mistakes, made long ago? The argument that only the most characteristic violations of norms are selected for language-culture textbooks is, as will become clear, not a strong one. 156 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 81 3.1. From error to norm, or vice versa? The distinction should be understood more clearly: one thing is to create language, that is, to seek ways to express a thought and choose appropriate means of expression, discarding those that are unnecessary at that moment (or altogether). Another thing is to intrude into someone else’s text. In the first case, one’s own linguistic skills and habits are recalled and refined, and this is suitable for all language users. In the second, the language created by someone else is evaluated and corrected, and this can be done by language specialists suitably qualified for the task. Editing skills are undoubtedly useful to every educated person, but should this be turned into the principal aim of teaching language culture? Textbook authors seem to understand the real aims of teaching well in theory. The prefaces clearly state what they seek to achieve: The most important aim is for pupils to acquire the skills of using language consciously and correctly [= skills. – R. M.], expressed through text (spoken or written). Text is both the starting point and the ultimate goal. Pupils should know the language norms and avoid violating them in texts. (KKV 7) The aim of this language-culture textbook is to help students acquire the essential knowledge of Lithuanian language culture and language etiquette, learn to use the terms of linguistics and their profession correctly, prepare and format informational, administrative, and organizational documents, develop skills in correct language use and independent learning, and foster self-improvement, creativity, and general competencies. (LKKV 5) In the cultivation of our standard language, correcting errors and learning from them have a long tradition, dating back to Jonas Jablonskis. Yet it seems that for a long time efforts were made to maintain a balance between teaching norms and correcting errors: at school, norms are taught and students learn from their own mistakes, which the teacher corrects. Later, once the foundations of the normative language have been acquired, it is sometimes only necessary to check which of several means of expression is most appropriate in a particular case. In creating and strengthening the written standard language, there was first and foremost a clear need to consult sources of norms (dictionaries and grammars), as well as various compilations of language advice (which must in no way be regarded as merely catalogues of norm violations). The best known are Kalbos patarėjas (1939) and Kalbos praktikos patarimai (1st ed.: 1976, 2nd ed.: 1985) (see Šukys 2002: 7–12 for more). More recently, there have been the List of Major Language Errors and five published booklets entitled Kalbos patarimų, which have also served as the basis for numerous other similar publications intended for language users in different professions and with different needs—parents, teachers, politicians, and so on. Among these compilations, the standouts are Pranas Kniūkšta’s Kanceliarinės kalbos patarimai (KancKP 2002, 2007), in which R. MILIŪNAITĖ. Dėl kalbos kultūros mokymo 157 “‘[f]irst, what is appropriate and acceptable for use is presented, while inappropriate items and cases are usually mentioned after the recommended variants. The aim is not to list errors, but to advise what is suitable for administrative language, what is wrong, and what should not be changed unnecessarily.’ (KancKP 2002: 7). An intermediate approach can be seen in Antanas Rasimavičius’s Vartosenos klaidų žodynėlis, where language errors are classified traditionally (there are six broad groups, from vocabulary to syntax), but examples of corrections are generally presented not in the usual order: the standard example is given first, followed by the error with the negation “not” (Rasimavičius 1999). Compendia of variable language norms and language errors are a convenient way to find out the normative status of a particular phenomenon when writing one’s own text or editing someone else’s. Thus, the intended audience for such compendia consists first and foremost of journalists, writers, translators, editors and, of course, teachers, who have to assess pupils’ language assignments. However, people who are not language-practice specialists do not need to know all cases of violations of language norms. It is language specialists who should know the reverse side of language norms well—just as doctors know the various ways in which potential health disorders and diseases manifest themselves. Is it really reasonable to burden pupils and students (non-philologists) with all this? Consider, for example, an exercise in a textbook intended for colleges: “Give 10 characteristic errors in the locative, explain their origins, and correct them” (LKKV 202). Is this not a science of language errors? It would be better to follow the principle: I learn standard language, and only check when I am in doubt. We should discuss only the most characteristic violations of norms. After all, spelling is still taught by starting with the norms, not with the fact that, for instance, the word vaikelis is not written with –ia-. If a pupil does write it incorrectly, it is only then, after the teacher has corrected it, that the pupil learns from their own mistake. Language users are primarily concerned with how to use language, not how not to use it. Unfortunately, the traditional approach of language-culture textbooks is to teach language errors, since a large part of the text consists of statements such as: “The use of non-pronominal forms instead of pronominal forms to express a distinctive feature of an object in compound terms and names is considered an error [...]” (BSKK 100), along with numerous corrections. There should be incomparably more exercises that encourage learners to create texts of various genres and for different purposes, and to choose the most appropriate means of expression. If an inappropriate choice is made, then one should explain what is wrong and why. It is true that corrections, when presented appropriately, can be very useful. For instance, one chapter of Aldona Paulauskienė’s monograph Teisininkų kalba ir bendrosios normos presents 100 sentences from the language of legal professionals, each of which is examined and corrected with various comments (TKBN 31–84). This encourages readers to think about and evaluate an actual text from their professional field, rather than mechanically identify language errors in isolated sentences that, it is no secret, are often artificially constructed. 158 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 81 Back in 1995, when considering how language culture should be taught in higher education, Juozas Pabrėža wrote about the traditional understanding of the subject: The notion of language culture today is defined in quite different ways. Most often, the content of the subject of language culture is associated with language errors, their classification, analysis and correction; in other words, the prevailing understanding is that language culture should show what is correct in the standard language and what is not, what is good and what is bad. Of course, this is the subject’s most important essence. However, this essence could be approached somewhat differently; that is, the content of the subject of language culture could be understood more broadly. (Pabrėža 1995: 19) There is no doubt that some language-culture textbooks promote this conception of language culture as the classification and correction of errors. For example, the contents of one textbook are: Preface, Pronunciation Errors, Stress Errors, Vocabulary Errors, Morphology Errors, Syntax Errors (KKV). Incidentally, the textbook itself is written quite inventively: each chapter begins not with errors, but with a brief description of the norms, or the norm and the error are contrasted in a table. Other textbooks have also attempted to introduce the norms first and only then their violations, but learning is made more difficult by the abundance of listed prohibited usages and by another factor—the formal principle used to present linguistic phenomena. 3.2. From form to content or vice versa? Traditionally, language-advice compendia are compiled according to a certain formal systematic principle: from form to content. This is probably the most convenient way (when one has in mind the book, rather than electronic, format of the material presented) to quickly find the item one wants to check. For example, if there is doubt about the specific expression trisdešimtieji metai (meaning ‘the fourth decade’), one of the likely places to look for information about it, formally speaking, is under pronominal forms (as it is presented, for example, in Kalbos praktikos patarimuose3). However, when students are supposed to remember this nonstandard usage while studying “Errors in the Use of Pronominal and Non-pronominal Forms” (BSKK 100–101), it will surely pass them by, because it fits into no system of meaning and gets lost among other cases, recounted and corrected from a range of sources in no particular order. 3 In the new Kalbos patarimai, this case is not included under pronominal forms (KP G 26–28), but not because it is no longer considered an error. The essence of the error is not the pronominal form (since the recommended alternative is expressed quite differently), but the erroneous use of the whole phrase with the word metai in the sense of dešimtmečio, and is therefore a calque in the lexicon. R. MILIŪNAITĖ. Dėl kalbos kultūros mokymo 159 Attempts to find a system that is convenient for learning are not always well founded. For instance, the section “Errors in the Use of Number” includes not only singular and plural forms (puokštės: puoškčių [paroda]), but, for some reason, also the use of numeral forms (dviems: dviem; tris: trejus [metus]) (BSKK 98–99). Has there been confusion about what number means in grammar? If there were a resolve to proceed consistently from the norm to the error (as a secondary, supplementary matter), the most convenient approach would also be to proceed from content to form: from what we want to express to the means by which to do so. In lexicon, this means examining systematic and semantic groups of words (for example, native and borrowed names for food products and dishes, verbs of dressing, and so on); in grammar, it means proceeding according to grammatical meanings and functions, rather than learning, say, how a particular case or preposition should or should not be used. For example, one could discuss the varied expression of time and its many nuances (limits of time, points in time, duration, etc.), including standard and, where necessary, nonstandard usages. Vitas Labutis (1994: 1–5) has written clearly and persuasively about teaching grammar according to a functional (that is, essentially semantic-function-based) principle (on functional grammar and the understanding of functions, see Labutis 2007). Thus, the classification for teaching norms (not errors) should be organized according to an entirely different system. Understandably, until foundational works in this area intended for language practice are available, it would be asking too much to expect anything of the kind from specialists in teaching methodology. But is nearly two decades not enough time for clear signs to emerge that attempts are being made to move in this direction? 3.3. What is presented (content) Pupils and students are often made to learn incomprehensible words or meanings of words unfamiliar to them, as well as sentence constructions, and they try to work out from context what these might mean. Particularly striking are the lexical items in language-culture textbooks that are becoming dated, even though the books were published not so long ago. This is a problem common to all Lithuanian-language textbooks (for more, see Rudzevičius 2006: 233–239). Both loanwords and errors in word meaning, if included at all, should be relevant to pupils and students and familiar from their own linguistic environment. It is therefore high time to investigate whether pupils still hear words such as duršliokas, mostis, ščėslyvas, zubai (KKV 33, 34); šesterne, zakliopka (LKKV 96), and so on. Some of these are Russianisms that were used in everyday or professional speech 15 or more years ago (and were not among the most frequent), yet they are included in language exercises that pupils are expected to complete 160 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 81 students who no longer know Russian at all and scarcely ever encounter it. It is highly doubtful that many of today’s pupils and students have heard—and, if they have, whether they know what is meant by: a blouse with embroidered frills, a mink coat (LKK 59). How are they supposed to do such exercises? All that remains is to mock them. These are not merely theoretical misgivings. For example, in 2008, while independently preparing for the Basic Education Achievement Test, one Vilnius tenth-grader tried to practise by doing exercises in workbooks bought in bookshops, but, not knowing Russian, kept getting stuck. He would not have made some of the errors he was instructed to correct in those exercises, nor could he understand why they occurred. For instance, he understood the phrase gimtoji mokykla in an entirely different sense from the one it is customarily corrected for—as a calque of the meaning “one’s own” of the Russian word rodnaja. Guessing, he corrected the sentence in the exercise as follows: Gimtoji (=Pradinė) mokykla jau baigta. Several other similar examples of corrections clearly showed that, in this pupil’s environment, with direct Russian influence having disappeared, the words have their pure Lithuanian meaning for him. Since he is told to correct them, he “corrects” them: Jūsų išieškotas (=rastas) stilius. History is a science rich in subtleties (=a multitude of dates), and so on. It is likely that such a pupil is no exception throughout Lithuania. All the more reason not to include in textbooks dubious corrections, perhaps encountered by chance somewhere, and worse still, to correct linguistic matters that have nothing wrong with them. For instance, consider the exercise: “Have a laugh and correct the sentences” (KKV 62). But finding the following example among those sentences is certainly no laughing matter: Per radiją dabar eina koncertas. The meaning of the verb eiti here is not the most common one, but it is attested in the normative Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian: 23. “to be shown” (Today “Skirgaila” is on at the theatre. A good film was on); perhaps an example with the different nuance “to be broadcast” is simply missing. The radio itself can also eiti (“to work, to be switched on”). Many new linguistic matters—both normative and unacceptable in standard language—do not make it into more slowly prepared codification works in time. Teaching materials, which appear more frequently and can be prepared more quickly, could therefore be of great help here, enabling pupils and students to learn what is relevant to current usage. This also applies to terms from various fields, which are not important for general usage but are needed to develop normative professional language. For instance, the teaching material of Vilnius Gediminas Technical University (KPSTP 79–87) includes new linguistic matters that, it seems, have not been presented or assessed with regard to norms anywhere else. Thus, authors of textbooks on language culture and language for specific purposes need greater autonomy, while the textbooks themselves require more careful selection of the facts presented R. MILIŪNAITĖ. Dėl kalbos kultūros mokymo 161 and presented. Rewriting the Language Advice and presenting every subtlety important to editors or translators is truly an unnecessary burden for those learning the fundamentals of standard language. Arnoldas Piročkinas (2004: 6–7) has written in a journal for Lithuanian-language teachers about how the public feels when “there are so many things being corrected: they pour in in streams.” It is important to foster an understanding that one must care for one’s language at all times. The ability to speak and write in standard language should first and foremost be an inner need, while the task of teachers and lecturers should be to instil the fundamentals of independent work with normative sources, since anyone who writes or speaks in public will need them to a greater or lesser extent throughout life. 3.4. How it is presented (form) The wording of exercises is particularly important to successful learning—to the satisfaction of understanding and completing a task well. If, after reading an exercise, it is not entirely clear what to do and how to do it, or what result is expected, learning becomes a chain of misunderstandings. For example, students are asked: “Explain when these polysemous words should be used,” and are given a two-column table to fill in: the polysemous words are listed in a column in one of them (dainuoti, giedoti, mėgti...), while in the other they are to enter whatever the column heading means by “Used” (LKKV 112). How should this be explained? Should they copy the meanings given in the dictionary? Would it not be simpler to say: “Write down what words the polysemous words can combine with according to their meaning.” Another syntactic exercise that seems simple at first glance is: “Find the correct sentences” (LKKV 228). The exercise contains 33 sentences, divided into 11 groups of three. Each group contains variants of the same sentence. The first three immediately cause confusion: 1. I worked with two looms. 2. I worked on two looms. 3. I worked at two looms. Can all three sentences be incorrect? Must at least one of them be correct? If the wording of the exercise conceals the latter assumption, perhaps the very first sentence is considered correct by the authors (since this is a syntax exercise), while dviejų (=dvejų) staklių is merely an oversight? Interestingly, in the other sentence groups, at least one sentence is always given as correct. One can consider this in various ways, but is it not a waste of time and a source of frustration for students? 162 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 81 By the way, the answers to the exercises are provided a few pages later: the textbook authors consider the first sentence correct. Some textbook examples lack a broader context. Without it, neither the meaning of the phenomenon presented, nor the function it performs, nor its normative status is clear. As a result, a word or phrase is taken to be generally incorrect and unusable in any context, because its meaning is not understood. Such teaching becomes unjustifiably formalistic, and the results can be very regrettable. Without at least a minimal context, only language errors that are clearly recognizable from their form can be presented—loanwords, calques of forms, and sometimes words formed incorrectly. For example, one exercise asks: “Identify violations of the lexical norms of administrative language and the degrees of severity of the errors” (LKK 50). A long list of words and phrases, filling nearly eight pages in a single column, is presented. It includes items such as at a high level, generally, apparently, attach, seemingly, following, as a whole, and so on. Outside a sentence, these are not “violations of lexical norms.” Or, in a list of language errors to be corrected in another exercise, individual words may be understood quite differently from what the authors expect. For example, spiritual, essential, physical, and so on, might be taken to be perfectly ordinary masculine plural nominative adjectives rather than adverbs formed incorrectly; without context, one cannot condemn words such as train, calculate, pass, distinguish, and so on (LKKV 134). In another exercise (a test), there is again a long list of phrases and sentences, which must be marked as usable or not. Yet even the wording of the exercise itself—“If you think that a sentence or word is unusable, write – beside it; if it is usable, write +” (LKK 50, 67, 74, etc.)—creates a sense of insecurity and uncertainty: I may think one thing or another, but who can say what is actually true? And indeed, what should one think about the phrase Based on what has been set out? If it occurs in a personal sentence in which it denotes an action subordinate to that of the same actor, it is an error. Otherwise, it is standard. Is it not such exercises that begin to confuse pupils and students? Every such word or phrase begins to inspire, if not fear, then at least suspicion that it cannot be used at all. 3.5. How it is evaluated Confusing or inaccurately presenting the degrees of evaluation of linguistic phenomena, or descriptions of the status of lexical phenomena, can turn even a matter of style into a language error. Everything is lumped together: may be used, is best avoided, R. MILIŪNAITĖ. Dėl kalbos kultūros mokymo 163 better avoided, better left uncorrected... This destroys whatever linguistic intuition still remains. In some places, descriptions of evaluation degrees given in Language Advice are copied verbatim (LKK 17–18); elsewhere, systems of one’s own devising are introduced (BSKK), and sometimes the status of certain phenomena is considerably distorted. For example, the variants gegužis, lapkritys, rudenio and so on are presented as “forms to be corrected in standard language,” with an equals sign (traditionally indicating that a language error is being corrected), although the text later attempts to explain that “they are recommended for correction only in formal speech. These forms may also be used in informal styles. Moreover, even in formal speech, the use of forms recommended for replacement is not considered a serious error” (BSKK 108). For instance, one section of a textbook is entitled “Errors in the use of long and short forms” (BSKK 107), although, of course, it deals only with matters of style (kalbėjom: kalbėjome, einąs: einantis), and there can be no errors here. The section on reflexive forms gives the following rule: “If a reflexive verb expresses an action that happens of its own accord, spontaneously, or if one wishes to say that an action occurs as if of its own accord, unexpectedly, such forms are better left uncorrected” (KKV 75). Among the examples are: I can’t sleep // I don’t fall asleep, I can’t get to sleep; I didn’t feel like believing // I didn’t want to believe; It seemed to me // I heard, and others. So the point is not “better left uncorrected,” but that these reflexive forms should simply be used normally in their proper place! Phenomena of different status are sometimes lumped together. Here is an exercise: “To which type of language error would you assign the language errors in the sentences?” (LKK 19). Among the language phenomena in the eight sentences that are expected to be identified as language errors (once a year, stain remover, tašė, etc.) there is also the sentence He always likes blooming cherry trees. In normative works, active participles matching the masculine form used with feminine nouns (blooming cherry trees) are considered a marginal feature, a peripheral phenomenon of standard language, and may be used freely in informal styles (KP G 2002:18). How will young readers view our classical poetry if they are taught that this is a language error, equivalent in status to the others presented in the exercise? I once heard a lecturer say that it was too difficult for students who are not Lithuanian philology majors to grasp the use of the plural forms of numerals, because there were too many exceptions. Is this why some textbooks (BSKK 99, LKK 70), wishing to avoid complicating matters, completely omit the main norm (although it does not fit entirely into the formal system)—the plural form vieni, -os? The form vieneri, -erios is taught, so that the former, living form is already as good as condemned to disappear. 164 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 81 4. THE LANGUAGE CULTURE OF LANGUAGE-CULTURE TEXTBOOKS A few more remarks concerning the language and style of the teaching materials themselves, as well as factual errors. It should be: higher, not older grade (BSKK 7), language, not linguistic knowledge, and a linguistic phenomenon (KKV 7, 8). Language errors and lifeless style should not occur in textbooks: Therefore, considerable attention is paid in the book to linguistic correctnessa great deal of attention is paid (: a great deal of attention is devoted). (BSKK 7) As a resultthe main focus was (: the main focus was) not only on the language of the specialty [...]. (LKK 5) A violation of codified norms is considered a language error. They (: Them) may arise from the influence of foreign languages, dialects, and sociolects. (BSKK 16) We will avoid language errors if we take care of their prevention. (LKK 18) Examples and sentences provided for exercises should not be left only half-corrected: The scientists came to a unanimous conclusion (=a unanimous conclusion, to a unanimous conclusion) (BSKK 121) – an error in the meaning of the adjective unanimous (= common) has been left uncorrected. Buy a new hand cream and (apply, use) it every day (KKV 63) – the partitive genitive is required: Buy some new hand cream. It is inappropriate to use the most elementary phonetics topics (KKV 9) in one part of the same textbook, while elsewhere issuing a strict warning: “The international adjectives extreme, minimal, optimal, maximal cannot be graded, because their meaning denotes the superlative degree” (KKV 73). Is elementary not from the same group of adjectives? Incidentally, Kalbos patarimuose such gradation is viewed more leniently, as a tolerable variant of less formal language; therefore, it may not even be necessary to burden textbooks for non-language specialists with similar matters. Alongside dentist, the words humanity, literature are also classified as hybrids with an international suffix and a Lithuanian root (KKV 38). Misunderstanding the laws of word formation, the book teaches that “Words with a double prefix cannot be formed with the prefix per-,” and corrects the sentence: She described everything (not recounted) accurately (KKV 45). “Two-part cases are defined as follows: ‘Two nominal words in the same case occurring in a sentence are called two-part cases’” (KKV 125). But what if an appositive “occurs” in the sentence: What do you know about the writer Žemaitė? R. MILIŪNAITĖ. Dėl kalbos kultūros mokymo 165 When correcting pronominal forms used to refer to decades, the essence of the correction must not be distorted. The textbook states: “When speaking about a historical period, pronominal forms denoting decades should not be used”: the forties should be corrected to the fourth decade, while the thirties should be corrected to the third decade (KKV 88), although in our language these are the fifth decade (1941–1950) and the fourth decade (1931–1940). The adverbs section contains the following rule (KKV 91): “Adverbs of manner are formed from present-tense passive participles, or present participles are used, e.g.: reassuringly or reassuring (not in a reassuring manner) he says; convincingly (not in a convincing manner) she does it; he speaks irritably or irritably (not in an irritating manner.” Here, prescriptive works indicate only tendencies in language, but by no means rule out adverbs formed from active participles, or active participles themselves (a startling discovery, a throbbing head) (DLKG 2005: 411–412; KP G 2002: 39–40). Is this why online discussions are so full of anger: how can anyone insist on using only a moving film? Perhaps those discussants learned from this textbook? A minor point, but one worth mentioning (if new editions are published): the textbook published in 2002 states that language standardization at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language is the responsibility of the Department of Language Culture and Terminology (LKKV 15), although separate units have existed since 1991: the Department of Language Culture and the Department of Terminology (until 2003), and now the Terminology Centre. * * * Language culture textbooks are overflowing with exercises asking students to look for other people’s mistakes and correct them, correct them, correct them... Amid this sea of errors, language itself begins to seem like a terminally ill patient, while less and less room remains for genuine linguistic creativity and language culture. There is no doubt that devising a methodology for teaching language norms that meets the needs of contemporary society is no easy task; it requires, first and foremost, a sound understanding of the teaching process itself and attention to the age and other characteristics of those being taught. No less important is selecting appropriate teaching content that reflects current issues in language use. It would be naive to expect major and rapid changes in this field, but it is high time to start asking whether we have spent too long obsessing over correcting language, while forgetting the very core of language norms. After all, there is no shortage of people capable of thinking—textbook authors and specialists with plenty of creativity—and that is undoubtedly heartening. The scope of this article, however, does not allow me to show what in the textbooks mentioned would truly deserve praise. 166 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 81 CONCLUSIONS 1. Ways should be sought to make the learning of standard Lithuanian norms more systematic, creative, and therefore more effective—not by moving from error correction to norms, nor from form to meaning and function, but in the opposite direction, with greater emphasis on the creative nature of language. 2. Textbooks teaching the norms of standard Lithuanian and language culture must be prepared with much greater care and responsibility: – theoretical statements should be presented more systematically and without logical contradictions, and concepts such as standard language, functional styles, language norms, etc., should be clarified; – major violations of standard-language norms should be more clearly distinguished from stylistically permissible, less formal variants; – the examples of standard and nonstandard language presented must be selected to reflect the linguistic needs of contemporary society; – the meaningfulness of some exercises should be considered more carefully, and their wording clarified, so that pupils and students clearly understand what to do and how to do it, and what result is expected of them. 3. It is worth considering whether to adopt a two-stage approach to teaching standard-language norms: 1) the fundamentals of standard-language norms, focusing only on essential violations of the norms, and 2) exemplary language, according to professional needs. The learning process would then not be overloaded with facts; once the fundamentals had been learned, students could go on to learn how to use standard variants and study the stylistics of more subtle means of linguistic expression. 4. While maintaining the primacy of the standard language, schools must also provide an undistorted understanding of other language varieties, their functions, their role in society, and their value. ŠALTINIAI BSKK – A. Kazlauskienė, E. Rimkutė, A. Bielinskienė. Bendroji ir specialybės kalbos kultūra. [Mokomoji knyga.] 2-as pataisytas ir papildytas leid., Kaunas: Pasaulio lietuvių centras, 2007. KKV – D. Gavenauskienė, O. Keršienė, V. Leonavičienė, E. Vėtienė. Kalbos kultūros vadovėlis. [Profesinių mokyklų moksleiviams.] Vilnius: Homo faber, 2001. KPSTP – A. Kaulakienė, A. Petretienė, L. Rutkienė, R. Žukienė. Kalbininkų patarimai studentams: teorija ir praktika, Vilnius: Technika, 2008. LKK – Lietuvių kalbos kultūra. [Mokomoji priemonė kolegijoms.] Parengė D. Norvaišaitė. Šiaulių krašto vadybos, teisės ir kalbų kolegija, 2006. R. MILIŪNAITĖ. Dėl kalbos kultūros mokymo 167 LKKV – J. Griškevičienė, C. Lapkuvienė, G. Navalinskienė, R. Šmulkštytė. Lietuvių kalbos kultūros vadovėlis. [Kolegijoms.] Vilnius: Homo faber, 2003. TKBN – A. Paulauskienė. Teisininkų kalba ir bendrosios normos. [Monografija.] Vilnius: Justitia, 2004. LITERATŪRA DLKG 2005: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika. 4-as pataisytas leidimas. Red. V. Ambrazas. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Drazdauskienė M. L. 2008: Kalbos mokymo principai, metodai, vadovėliai ir rezultatai. – Gimtasis žodis 2, 2–8. KancKP 2002, 2007: Kanceliarinės kalbos patarimai. Parengė Pranas Kniūkšta. 5-as patais. leid., Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Prieiga internete: http://lkz.mch.mii.lt/Kancel(i)arinis/ KP G 2002: Kalbos patarimai. Kn. 1: Gramatinės formos ir jų vartojimas. Sud. Rita Miliūnaitė, teksto aut. Rita Miliūnaitė ir Aldona Paulauskienė, vyr. red. Aldonas Pupkis. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas; 2-as leid.: 2003; 3-ias leid.: 2004. Labutis V. 1994: Kalbos praktika ir funkcinė gramatika. – Gimtoji kalba 1, 1–5. Labutis V. 2007: Kalbėtojo funkcinės gramatikos įvadas. – Elektroninis mokslo žurnalas Lietuvių kalba 1. Prieiga internete: http://www.lietuviukalba.lt/index.php?id=63 Pabrėža J. 1995: Kalbos kultūros kursas aukštojoje mokykloje. – Kalbos kultūros diegimo praktika ir metodika. [Jono Jablonskio konferencijos pranešimų tezės.] Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. Piročkinas A. 2004: Didelės ir mažos kalbininkų nuodėmės. – Gimtasis žodis 9, 2–7. Rasimavičius A. 1999: Vartosenos klaidų žodynėlis, Vilnius: Vilniaus pedagoginis universitetas. Rudzevičius P. 2006: Svetimybės: žvilgsnis į lietuvių kalbos vadovėlius. – Kalbos kultūra 79, 233–239. SKP 2003: Specialybės kalbos programa. – Gimtoji kalba 8, 18–21. Prieiga internete: http://www.vlkk.lt/nutarimai/svietimo-istaigos/specialybes-kalbos-programa.html Šukys J. 1992: Ką manote dėl termino kalbos kultūros klaida? [Klausimų kraitelė.] – Gimtoji kalba 11, 10. Šukys J. 2002: Kalbos taisymų sąvadai ir mokykla. – Gimtasis žodis 12, 7–12. Župerka K. 2005: Bendrinė kalba ir funkciniai stiliai. – Kalbos kultūra 78, 56–66. Gauta 2008 09 08 168 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 81 ON TEACHING LANGUAGE CULTURE Summary The paper claims that teaching the culture of language has lost its primary aim—to teach accurate standard language and educate language users so that they could freely make use of means of linguistic expression to satisfy the needs of their professional and everyday life. The culture of language eventually becomes a discipline of teaching language errors, the process of teaching is overloaded with examples of norm violation, which are not always relevant. The prevailing task type involves correcting errors in the texts of other students or texts artificially produced for the purpose of teaching rather than one’s own texts. The paper discusses several textbooks for students of colleges and higher education institutions. As a result, the following conclusions are drawn: 1. Ways should be sought how to make the teaching of norms of standard Lithuanian more systemic, creative and effective: the approach based on correcting errors and then explicating norms and generally going from form to function should be replaced by the opposite with the focus on the creative aspect of language. 2. Textbooks on standard Lithuanian norms and language culture should be written with more responsibility and more accurately, viz.: —the theory should be presented in a more systemic way, avoiding contradictions; the terms standard language, functional styles, language norms etc. have to be more precise; —a clearer distinction should be made between gross violations of standard language norms and stylistic variants of less constrained language; —the selection of examples of normative and non-normative language should respond to the linguistic needs of modern society; —some tasks should have a more clearly defined aim and wording so that students understand what and how should be done, what result is expected of them. 3. The question of two-tier system of teaching standard language should be discussed. The first would focus on the foundations of language norms and key violations of the norm; the second would address exemplary language responding to the needs of a profession. Thus the process of teaching would not be overloaded with facts, after the foundations are laid, different variants of the norm and more subtle language expression and style could be taught. 4. Preserving the priority of standard language, schools should get access to the understanding of other language varieties (regional and social dialects, professional language) their functions and social value. RITA MILIŪNAITĖ Lietuvių kalbos institutas P. Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius [email protected] R. MILIŪNAITĖ. Dėl kalbos kultūros mokymo 169