Lietuvių kalba kaip kalbos politikos objektas Prūsijos Karalystėje: XVIII a. pradžios diskursas

Direct Link:
Collection:
Mokslo publikacijos / Scientific publications
Document Type:
Straipsnis / Article
Language:
Lietuvių kalba / Lithuanian
Title:
Lietuvių kalba kaip kalbos politikos objektas Prūsijos Karalystėje: XVIII a. pradžios diskursas
Alternative Title:
Lithuanian language as an object of the policy on language in the Kingdom of Prussia: the discourse of the early 18th century
Authors:
Aleknavičienė, Ona
In the Journal:
Archivum Lithuanicum. 2022, t. 24, p. 57-102
Subject Category:
LT
Kalbos vartojimas. Sociolingvistika / Language use. Sociolinguistics.
Summary / Abstract:

LTXVIII a. pradžioje Prūsijos Karalystėje kilo polemika dėl lietuvių kalbos vartosenos viešajame gyvenime, o tai sudaro prielaidas traktuoti šią polemiką kaip kalbos politikos reiškinį. Lietuviškų bažnyčių kunigai žodžiu ir raštu diskutavo dėl viešosios kalbos kokybės ir nors siekė panašių tikslų, tačiau matė skirtingus uždavinius ir jų sprendimo būdus. Šio amžiaus pirmąjį dešimtmetį kéltos idėjos ne tik išryškino problemas, susijusias su lietuvių kalbos atmainomis, bet ir parodė valstybės institucijų nuostatas tautinių kalbų ir bendruomenių atžvilgiu. Kalbos politika – nuolatinis procesas, kiekvienoje valstybėje turėjęs ir turintis savitas raidos kryptis, paremtas istoriškai susiklosčiusiais ideologiniais pagrindais, lemiamas skirtingų politinių, ekonominių, socialinių ir kultūrinių interesų. Kalbos politikos objektu plačiąja prasme laikoma tam tikroje teritorijoje vartojama kalba ar kalbos ir jų atmainos, o konkrečiąja – sprendimai, apimantys problemas, susijusias su raštų, viešojo gyvenimo ir kultūros reikmėms skirta kalba. Tiriant istorines visuomenes, nustatyti tam tikru laikotarpiu formuotos kalbos politikos tikslus, kalbos planavimo uždavinius, priemones ir įgyvendinimo nuoseklumą galima tik iš dalies – atsižvelgiant į šaltinių teikiamus duomenis ir rekonstruojant įvykių raidą, kurioje, jei būtų vertinama pagal dabartinę sampratą, matytųsi trūktinųjų grandžių ir, žinoma, nebūtų kai kurių terminų. Tai dar nėra teisiškai pagrįsti nuostatai ir nuoseklus jų vykdymas, o labiau kultūros tradicijomis paremta viešoji kalbos vartosena, kuria suinteresuota valstybė, siekianti ją palaikyti ir valdyti, kad galėtų įgyvendinti savo prioritetus. [...]. [Iš teksto, p. 57]

ENThe article deals with the philological polemics that took place in the Kingdom of Prussia in the 1710s as the first discourse recorded in writing that addressed matters of using the Lithuanian language in social life, covering, among other things, aspects of the policy on language and language planning. Since the process concerning the public language had the involvement of governmental officials who acted in the name of the Prussian Church and the King, and had the authority to adopt different decisions, the Lithuanian language became an object of policy on language in a specific sense. The first language policy makers who in the 18th century recognised and advocated the problems of the quality of the public Lithuanian language and took to making decisions to have the public involved in the resolution of the language matters were as follows: (1) Friedrich Deutsch (1657–1709), comptroller of Prussian churches and schools, chief preacher of the palace, and theology professor at Königsberg University; (2) Johann Berent (1658–1712), councillor of the court of the palace of Königsberg and former law professor at Königsberg University; (3) George Friedrich von Kreitzen (1639–1710), chancellor of the Kingdom of Prussia as a member of the government. The different genres, purposes, and venues of publication of the sources of the discourse were the product of the personal mindsets of the key players in the discourse in terms of matters of the use of the language as well as their social and cultural capital and the authorities’ stance on the importance of the ideas that were being promoted: (1) Michael Mörlin’s (1641–1708) Principium Primarium in Lingva Lithvanica (Königsberg, 1706; MP).a tract that pushed ideas on improving the use of the Lithuanian language in social life, all the while aiming to involve the public in their deliberation and in reaching a decision by mutual agreement which had the support of the authorities; (2) Johann Schultz’s (1684–1709) Lithuanian translation of Aesop’s Fables (Ezopo pasakėčios; Königsberg, 1706; EP): a translation of a book of fiction that radiated a favourable attitude towards the linguistic mindsets laid down in MP and offered a possibility for how they could be implemented in practice; it, too, was backed by the authorities; (3) Jacob Perkuhn’s (1665–1711) Wohlgegründetes Bedenken über die ins Litauische übersetzten zehn Fabeln Aesopi und derselben passionierte Zuschrift (Leipzig and Frankfurt-am-Maine, 1706; PB): an independent review of the first two books that aimed to portray the new arguments as unreasonable, controversial, and incapable of practical implementation; (4) A letter from the Prussian government from 14 April, 1706 in the name of King Friedrich I (1657–1713) and signed by George Friedrich von Kreitzen, chancellor of the Kingdom of Prussia as a member of the government: an official document addressed to Lithuanian counties, ordering them to organise a survey of priests concerning the necessity of the principles of the use of the language as promoted by Mörlin. An analysis of the process of the discourse has highlighted the following positions of its key players in relation to their intended impact on the public Lithuanian language: (1) Michael Mörlin’s position was of a creative kind: in his opposition to the existing use of the language, and the spoken and written clerical language in particular, he envisioned various possibilities for improving the quality of the language, sought to prove to the public how important the language was, and offered methods and tools for implementation.(2) Johann Berent, Johann Schultz and Philipp Ruhig took a supporting position, the translation of Aesop’s Fables standing out as an example of the realisation of Mörlin’s ideas. (3) Jacob Perkuhn’s position was of a critical and defensive nature: he wanted to deny the problem as such, and to preserve the status quo by criticising Mörlin for his innovations in teaching the catechism, and his suggestion that they continue to be applied in the spoken and written language, and advocated for priests who took the traditional stance on the language and the language that they used; (4) A number of orchestrated actions on the part of the governmental bodies emerged in the discourse of the policy on language in the early 18th century: the authorities promoted activities geared towards the development of linguistic mindsets, supported the publication thereof, and sought ways to address matters of implementation. The Prussian government’s letter dated 14 April, 1706 shows that the authorities had discussions on how they could influence the use of the Lithuanian language, and envisioned relevant objectives. Mörlin was the first to identify the issues with using the Lithuanian language in social life, and suggested making an impact on the written and spoken language, especially the language that was used by higher-ranking individuals. By publicising his principles, initiating a demonstration of how they could be applied in practice, and engaging the educated part of the public in the discussion, he sought to give some social and cultural power to his principles. [...]. [From the publication]

DOI:
10.33918/26692449-24003
ISSN:
1392-737X
Subject:
Related Publications:
Permalink:
https://www.lituanistika.lt/content/99948
Updated:
2023-03-31 16:01:06
Metrics:
Views: 25    Downloads: 3
Export:
Download