Article.
Аlla
Arkhanhelska DOI 10.31558/1815-3070.2018.36.15 УДК 81'27 PURISM: TRANSFORMATIONS ON THE
WAY TO A REVIVAL OF THE CZECH AND UKRAINIAN LITERARY LANGUAGE[1] У статті зосереджено увагу на феномені чеського
пуризму як одного із найбільш потужних процесів європейського мовного розвитку
на тлі активізації пуризму в українському культуромовному суспільстві новітньої
доби. Пуризм розглянуто як конститутивний складник відчуття мови європейських
народів, як шлях до відродження літературної мови за небезпеки її руйнування з
боку іншої мови, що набула домінувального характеру, як явище складне і
суперечливе у багатомірності його позитивних та негативних упливів на
поступальний розвиток мови. У зіставному контексті проаналізовано розвиток
пуризму в чеській та українській лінгвоспільнотах з погляду його стимулів,
вихідних констант, характеру перебігу, векторів та результатів. Підсумовано, що
глибокий і неупереджений аналіз чеського пуризму, його надбань і прорахунків
може стати надзвичайно корисним сучасним українцям на шляху до їхньої національно-мовної
самоідентифікації. Ключові слова: пуризм, іномовний елемент,
відродження мови, національно-мовна самоідентифікація, чеський пуризм,
український пуризм. 1. Prologue:
purism as a constitutive part of the linguistic identity of European nations[2] Purism
(from Lat. purus
– pure) has always been a constitutive part of the linguistic
identity of European nations. In the Humanist
period, European languages faced not only with a large number of borrowings
from classical languages, but also with the need to limit their impact by means
of own language tools which were aimed to implement new language functions. In
the Baroque period, changes which had
a distinctly defensive character were oriented primarily towards the lexical
level. This period was characterized by the preferential usage of native
(non-Latin) language resources. The decisive feature of the periods of Enlightenment and Classicism was the strict word-formation rules and standards
existence. The tendency towards the precise organization of grammatical systems
and inflectional paradigms which were based on native language patterns was
strong. In the 19th century, due to
the processes of the national revival and formation of European nations, the
language and axiological approach to it as factors of the national integration
became one of the basic linguistic and national characteristics. In the 20th/21st centuries, with the
emergence of new countries and contemporary trends of globalization, purism
gets a new life. In addition to strong puristic waves that occurred in Europe
regularly in different periods of time and covered several languages
concurrently, purism of different types occured in national languages in
Europe. It intensified to varying degrees in different periods of time due to
unequal socio-political, national, and linguistic factors. Growing on the
national soil, it acquired more and more specific nature. The
oppositions we – they, own – foreign,
native elements of the language – foreign language impacts have always been
the main driving force of the process of purism. Taking into account
geopolitical conditions, the understanding of foreign language impacts in various cultural and linguistic groups
applied to any borrowings from other languages, individual languages which have
durably been numerous sources of borrowings (classic languages, German, French,
English), and “neighbouring” languages of the particular language group which,
due to certain socio-political circumstances, acquired the status of dominant
and dangerous. Native elements of the
language are understood as the consequence of its own development.
Therefore, the process of purism has been associated with searching for sources
of the language’s indigenousness and correctness as well as with trying to
preserve its national identity. However, the ratio of foreign impacts and
native elements has always presupposed the subjective component which made the
phenomenon of purism many-sided, multivectoral, and largely contradictory as
well as entailed the existence of a number of positive and negative trends. Purism
as the fight of nations for the purity of their literary languages has
different motivations. The rational
motivation of purism is based on the criterion of understandability: the
borrowing has to be understandable to users as well as suitable for the
implementation of communicative functions. In this case, the rational approach
to the language as a mean of communication, assessment of its expressive means
by the criteria of acceptability and adequacy of its functions, and its
adherence to collective norms are dominative. In modern terms, this approach
has a place in languages with the strong sociolinguistic position. The irrational puristic motivation can
focus on aesthetic factors as well as on the understanding of the uniqueness of
the national language and culture. Its line of reasoning is based on the
implementation of the conservative “protection” of one language against another
which is dominant. This motivation is typical for languages with the weak
sociolinguistic position which have evolved under the powerful influence of
other (neighbouring) languages. In this case, we are talking about keeping the
spirit of the nation and its language, revival of the national consciousness,
and confrontation against those foreign language elements which could threaten
the linguistic and cultural national identity. Under this approach, the
incentive for purism becomes the idea of creating the new standard of the
language, or implementing of the state policy. In this case, the irrational
element and ecstatic attitude to language as a miracle, a unique symbol of the
national identity become fundamental (Тkachenko 178–191; Daneš 254; Chýlová 27–28).
The motivation of purism as the idea of the purification of the language from
borrowings has caused both the indisputably positive assessment of this
phenomenon and the critical one. Each of the assessments is objectively based. The
activity of cultivating their literary language by purists has never been an
easy task and has always been accompanied with the hard physical (manual) work,
which gave rise to numerous metaphors which marked it. Yet the Roman educator
and rhetorician Quintilian compared the work of purists with the artisan
activity, namely the process of surface treatment of metal by grinding,
removing superfluous elements, making the surface shine. This metaphor was
later established in the Czech language as brusičství
‚metal sharpening‘, or
‚glass grinding‘. The
association with the hard work of a farmer (whose objective is to separate the
grain from the chaff) was first noted by Florentines in the XVI century. In
their understanding, purists had to separate expedient and inexpedient elements
of the language. In the XVII century, the work of the German purist (whose
objective was to select the language means for creating new and improving the
existing language means) was associated with the work of a gardener. The idea
about the disease (or the presence of infection in the language) led to the
metaphorical vision of the purist being a doctor (language therapy and verbal
hygiene (M. Weingart, F. Daneš, D. Cameron)). It also led to the
possibility of considering purism in the context of linguoecology
(D. Bolnger). The metaphor of the purist being a geneticist is connected
to the idea of the purity of blood (i.e. the meaning of the word should
correspond to its etymology; all the linguistic “bastardisms”, “illegitimates”,
and hybrids should be removed from the language). The purist can be also
metaphorically compared to a priest or a preacher who sets people’s souls on
the path of truth (the modern Jewish metaphor). His work is perceived as the
realization of the divine will (see Thomas). These
metaphors are extremely interesting and deeply informative: on the one hand,
the work of the purist is the hard physical or research activity which requires
much effort and patience; on the other hand, it requires much knowledge and
skills. With one careless step, the result of the work will be of poor quality;
and all valuable features and properties will be lost. The unsuccessful
activity of a doctor or a priest would definitely harm the physical or mental
health of the patient. Depending on subjects of its implementation, the process
of purism can be assessed as either scientific or pseudo-scientific
(dilettantish). 2. Understanding
of purism in linguistics In
a narrow sense, purism is seen as the purification of the language from foreign
borrowings. In a wide sense, it is the critical point of view on changes and
borrowings in general. Purism is also understood as the effort of the society
or collective of speakers to remove both real and seemingly foreign elements
from the literary language. It also concerns the elements of other codes
(dialects, sociolects, common speech elements, etc.). Primarily, purism
concerns all the aspects of the codification, cultivation and language planning
(Thomas). There exists a huge number of definitions of purism. Often, they are
directly focused on the language situation in the country in which the process
is ongoing, or on the established vision of purism in the society which was
formed out of ideological reasons and covers only the one-sided phenomenon,
rather than its multi-dimensional essence. Let us compare: purism is “the
progressive phenomenon which is a part of the national struggle for the
political and cultural independence” (Vedenov 66), “the activity which is not
based on the scientific investigation of the development trends of the given
language” (Akhmanova 374), “the activity which is aimed at the purification of
the literary language; purists understand the identity of the national language
as its full release of “even (!) essential
elements which were borrowed from other languages”” (BSE 230). In Soviet times,
purism was described as “inappropriate” for the socialist society. It was
called the “class”, “bourgeois”, and “nationalistic” one (Akulenko 88;
Zhuravlev 99). In
modern Ukrainian linguistics, purism is defined as the extreme manifestation of
concerns about the purity of the literary language, as the excessive desire for the purification of the literary language from
foreign borrowings and neologisms, as the attempt to save the literary language
from the penetration of lexical or grammatical items which are considered
non-normative, and as the strict rules of the compliance with standard norms.
Taking care of the original development of the
national literary language and literature and the proper using of their lexical
heritage are considered the positive features of purism. Negative puristic
trends appear in the areas of proclaiming the dogma of the unalterabless of
literary norms, referring to the internal laws of the development of the
national language, deepening the differences between the spoken and literary
language, not accepting any new word-formations (which supposedly destroy the
system of the national language), non-understanding of the progressive
development of the language (UME 503; Azhnyuk). In this process, both
positive and unwanted (negative) side effects are singled out. The “extremes”
in approaches of purists to the purity of the language are stressed. In modern
Czech linguistics, purism is defined as the combination of approaches which
govern the codification and culture of the literary language according to the
ideal model of the “pure” language by means of removing the foreign elements
which contradict this model. The purification of the language aims to prevent
the gradual destruction of its system by the dominant language (Jelínek “Purismus“ 364; Jelínek, Krčmová 1521–1522). 3. Purism
as an object of interest of Ukrainian linguistics: the state of the study The
investigation of the understanding of the process of purism in two Slavic
languages (Ukrainian and Czech) is not casual. Ukrainian linguistics has never
paid attention to purism and its role in the literary language development.
Advanced studies in this field are few in number; and the approach to the
phenomenon of purism is extremely controversial (Dzis; Kravchenko, Kotlakova;
Masenko “Ukrayins’kyy puryzm: mif chy real’nist‘;
Pasemko; Selihej “Puryzm v ukrayinskiy movi”, “Puryzm u
terminolohiyi…”; Taranenko “Suchasni
tendenciyi do perehlyadu normatyvnykh zasad ukrayinskoyi movy i yavyshche
purzymu (v mezhakh imennykh hramatychnykh katehoriy)“, “Suchasni
tendenciyi do perehlyadu normatyvnykh zasad ukrayinskoyi movy i yavyshche
purzymu (na zahal’noslovyans’komu tli)”; Gaudio et. al.). In
Soviet times, the phenomenon of purism was assessed one-sided negatively.
Nowadays, on a wave of the national revival, purism is perceived generally
positively, since “making your own choice about whether to borrow or not
depends not so much on intralinguistic factors, but rather on ideological
guidelines of the society” (Selihei “Puryzm u terminolohiyi…” 59). So, the
negative side of the process of purism is kept undiscussed. Therefore, critical
thoughts about the process of purism are much less numerous (Shevelov “Portrety ukrayins’kych movoznavciv” 13–14;
Taranenko “Suchasni tendenciyi do perehlyadu normatyvnykh zasad ukrayinskoyi movy i
yavyshche purzymu (v mezhakh imennykh hramatychnykh katehoriy)“, “Suchasni
tendenciyi do perehlyadu normatyvnykh zasad ukrayinskoyi movy i yavyshche
purzymu (na zahal’noslovyans’komu tli)”; Kravchenko, Koltakova 83–84). In
the research studies on purism, Ukrainian researchers not only (however, very
casually) consistently mention Czech purism as one of the most successful in
the European area (focusing mainly on its achievements), but also define it as
“the example to follow” by Ukrainians (Selihei “Puryzm u terminolohiyi…” 55;
Pasemko 18; Masenko “Ukrayins’kyy puryzm: mif chy real’nist”
49–50 et. al.). Unfortunately, modern
Ukrainian linguistics has no evidence of studies which could comprehensively
present the Ukrainian reader the phenomenon of Czech purism. Due to the
language situation in Ukraine, the ups and downs of Czech purism could be very
instructive, as at one time it influenced all Slavic purisms. 4. Czech
and Ukrainian purism: common and different features Of
course, both the Czech and the Ukrainian language have their own language
history which evolved under various socio-political conditions. However, Czech
and Ukrainian approaches to purism have much in common. The same psychological motivation certainly
belongs to one of the common features of Czech and Ukrainian purism. The fear
of the foreign domination is definitely the strongest stimulus to resist
against the hybridization of languages. Due to the mutual contact of languages,
one of which is dominant, the hybridization of the dominated language becomes
inevitable. The essence both of Ukrainian and Czech purism has always been
X-fobic (see the typology of O. Ševčík, quoted in Thomas 75–76), which means that only the
borrowings which were borrowed from a neighbouring language were removed from
these languages. The most active stages of Czech and Ukrainian purism were
connected to the threat from the neighbouring German and Russian languages. All
the influences of other languages which (in the opinion of purists) did not
threaten the national identity of the language were ignored. Both in Czech and
Ukrainian linguocultures, the most powerful waves of purism coincided with
stages of the national self-assertion. In the Czech culture, the period from
the end of the 18th century through the first half of the 19th century is known
as the Czech national revival. The end of the 19th century is marked by the
strengthening of the national spirit due to the absence of the autonomy of the
Czech lands within Austria-Hungary. The 20–30-s
of the 20th century are associated with the formation of the First Czechoslovak
Republic (1918) and state-building. In the Ukrainian culture, these are the
period of Ukrainization (the 20–30-s
of the 20th century)[3], and the period from gaining independence to the
present (from the early 90-s of the 20th century until now). Puristic trends in the Ukrainian language have intensified
much after the revolutionary events of the second Maydan, geopolitical changes,
and significant deterioration in Russian-Ukrainian relations. In the defined
periods, both Czech and Ukrainian purism had the X-fobic, selective,
and unidirectional character. Processes
of purism were focused on eliminating the impact of one particular
(neighbouring) language. Both
Czech and Ukrainian puristic trends have the jump character: purism has been
particularly intensive in certain periods, then it has gone on the decline or
has been invalidated. Unlike Czech purism which, after the intervention of
representatives of the Prague linguistic school in 1932, has not been
intensified until now, Ukrainian purism was invalidated in the 30–80-s of the 20th century, but has
significantly increased its power in the era of state-building. Paradoxically,
on the initial stages, Czech anti-German and Ukrainian anti-Russian purisms
were both of imitative nature. The impulse to purify the Czech language came
from the German language. R. Jakobson defined it as the action calquée, as Czech purists not only copied the procedures
of word-formation and syntactic structures which were typical for the German
language[4], but also used German as the starting point in their work[5] (see Engelhardt 235–244). According
to G. Shevelev, Ukrainian purism was extremely timorous in its first
steps. It constantly followed the example of Russian purism[6]
(Shevelev ”Puryzm v ukrayins’kiy movi”). Both
Czech and Ukrainian purisms have the
traditionalistic character. The preservation of the ancestral heritage of
the language and fidelity to the tradition have been regarded as the best way
to resist the denationalization pressure of foreign cultural influences. At one
time, Czech purists were trying to reconstruct “the golden age” of the Czech
language of the period before the Battle of White Mountain and make it the
model and source of the literary language enrichment. It was also considered
the model and source of the literary language
enrichment by both J. Dobrovský and
J. Jungmann. Ukrainian purists
consider the period of Ukrainization which is also called “the shot revival”
the golden age of the Ukrainian language. This kind of purism is focused on the
tradition and traditional values which, however, were not clearly and
systematically identified in Ukrainian linguistics in contradistinction to the
Czech one[7]. Czech
purism of the period of the national revival as well as Ukrainian purism of the
20–30-s of the 20th century were
marked by both aggressive and moderate features. These features of
Czech purism will be mentioned below. Let us have a look at Ukrainian purism in
more detail. Both Czech and Ukrainian purism (one of its schools) had the ethnographic character. Purists
considered foreign language elements to spoil and threaten the national
language, so they had to be replaced with native, common, or dialectal ones. In
the Ukrainian context, this approach to the formation of the Ukrainian
terminology was popularized in early writings of representatives
(А. Krymskyi, Y. Tymchenko, M. Hladkyi, S. Smerechynskyi,
V. Simovych, І. Ohienko and О. Kurylo) of the extreme puristic
and ethnographic school (Kyiv). The moderate views were shared by
О. Syniavskyi, М. Sulyma, M.Nakonechnyi, O. Kurylo in their
later writings (the Kharkiv school). “Moderate” purists considered borrowings,
in particular the terms of the Latin and Greek origin, the natural phenomenon
of the development of the scientific style, while extreme purists offered to
replace them with words of the Ukrainian origin. The word конус ‘cone’ was offered to be replaced by the word стіжок, the word екватор ‘equator’– by the
word рівник, the word маятник ‘pendulum’– by the word хитун, the word фільтр ‘filter’ – by the word цідило, etc. In the historical context,
this process reflected the desire to establish the identity of the national
language. The process of Ukrainian purism, therefore, was placed on the axis Regionalization – Internationalization
(Europeanization) and concerned mainly the scientific language (Moyseienko; Serbenska “Vzayemyny ukrayins’koji ta pol’sk’oyi mov…“),
while the process of Czech purism had a much wider range of the influence,
spreading not only on the scientific language, but also on various standards of
the literary norm. The chronological depth of
Czech and Ukrainian purisms was different. The beginnings of Czech purism date
back to the end of the 14th – the beginning of the 15th century and are
connected to the name of John Huss. Ukrainian purism originates (there is no
special research on the first stage of Ukrainian purism, but it is often
mentioned in writings) from the work of Ukrainian-Belarusian codifiers of the
norms of the Church Slavonic language who were authors of grammars of the
second half of the 16th – the beginning
of the 17th century. They tried hard to purify the literary language from
common speech elements, since they deprived literary texts of the ancientness
which manifested the constancy of the language and culture (Isaievych; Dzis 8).
On the initial stages of purism, the Czech literary language of the period of
J. Hus and baroque was influenced by Latin, while the Ukrainian was
threatened by the effect of common speech elements on the Church Slavonic
language. The duration of the active
cultivation of purism was also different. The history of Czech purism
consists of 9–14 stages, the most
active and successful of which were the period of the Czech national revival
(the end of the 18th– the beginning of the 19th century), the end of the 19th
century, and the 20-30-s of the 20th century. The first active stage of
Ukrainian purism occurred in the period of Ukrainization. The period of thaw
(the early 1950-s – the early 1960-s of the 20th century), though being singled
out in many writings, cannot be considered even a trend. The second stage of
Ukrainian purism is the contemporary one. When
viewed in the historical context, both Czech and Ukrainian purisms were orientated on the ideal sample. In
the context of the revival of Slavic foundations of the Czech language (the
idea of Pan-Slavism was of great importance) which
was the result of almost two hundred years of germanization, Czech linguists
(J. Jungmann) used to believe that the best samples were Russian and
Polish, but the Polish sample turned out to be stronger[8]. In the
period of Ukrainization, the idea of the national consciousness was of great
importance for Ukrainians. The formation of unified standards of the Ukrainian
language took place in circumstances of competing samples (the Russian (the
East-Ukrainian version of the language) and the Polish one (the West-Ukrainian
(Galician) version of the language). Later on, Ukrainian purism was formed
under the massive influence of the Russian sample. Nowadays, in the context of
the nationalization of the Ukrainian language, purists prefer to use the Polish
sample (instead of the Russian one)[9]. The role of the authority (a
scientist or a team of scientists whose thought was of unconditional
importance) was vital both in the development and the subsequent destiny of
Czech purism. Authoritative linguists interfered in the course of the
purification of the Czech language from germanisms only when the activity of
purists had reached a critical point. Though lived in
different times, they were J. Dobrovský, J. Jungmann,
J. Gebauer, and some of members of the Prague Linguistic Circle –
V. Mathesius, R. Jakobson, B. Havránek. Though influenced by
purism to some extent, J. Zubatý and V. Ertl also tried to preclude
unnecessary puristic interventions in the language of the 20-s of the 20th
century. There were no authoritative linguistics like this in Ukrainian
linguistics. The
specific language situation is
another significant and crucial difference between Czech and Ukrainian purisms.
Czech purism of the 19th–20th century
developed in terms of the autonomy (Czech lands within Austria-Hungary and the
Czechoslovak Republic) and the Czech-German non-familiar bilingualism which
eventually completely disappeared. From the beginning of the 20th century to
the present, the language situation in Ukraine has remained radically different (Shevelev
“Ukrayins’ka mova v pershiy polovyni dvadcyatoho stolitt’a”;
Moser “Prychynky do istoriyi ukrayins’koyi movy“, “New
Contributions to the History of the Ukrainian Language“; Masenko
“Mova i suspil’stvo: postkolonial’nyy vymir”, “Ukrayins’kyy
puryzm: mif chy real’nist“; Mychaltsuk).[10] It has
preserved the distinctly more bilingual and bicultural character. From the
beginning of the 20th century to the present, Ukraine has never been neither
the culturally nor the linguistically unified country. In the 20–30-s (the first active stage of
Ukrainian purism of the period of Ukrainization), the language situation in
Soviet Ukraine was marked by the competition of Russian and Ukrainian languages
as well as harmonization of various literary and linguistic practices (the
so-called West-Ukrainian (Dniester Ukrainian) and East-Ukrainian (Dnieper
Ukrainian) practice). In the context of the current political and military
confrontation, the situation has turned into the acute verbal conflict
(Yavorska). Sociologists consider the part of Ukrainian citizens people with
the split national and linguistic identity (Masenko “Mova i suspil’stvo: postkolonial’nyy vymir”;
Kalashnyk). The communicative power of Russian and Ukrainian languages remains
non-equilibrium in the Eastern and Western areas of Ukraine[11]. Both
in conditions of relative “stateness” of the period of Ukrainization and in conditions
of stateness, the influence of the Russian language on the Ukrainian has been
the main stimulus for purism. The attitude of the collective of
speakers to the process of the nationalization and purification of their
language from various dangerous elements (the Czechization of
the Czech and the Ukrainization of the Ukrainian language) is also different.
The attitude of the Czech society towards the process of norming the Czech
language according to the Czech samples was definitely positive (the process of
purism of the 19th century was defined by scientists as prestigious). In the 20–30-s, the situation in the Ukrainian
society was determined much by influences of the Eastern and Western
traditions. In the modern society, it still seems to be far from a positive one
(see Bezkorovayna). Periodicals
played an important role in shaping the process of Czech purism. The opinions
of both moderate and aggressive purists (F. Bílý, J. Vlček,
J. Zubatý, V. Ertl, J. Haller) for a long time (20-30-s of the
20th century) appeared on the pages of the journal Naše řeč,
which was founded in 1916. After the collapse of Ukrainization, Ukrainian
periodicals which consistently carried puristic opinions attained the status of
exile. The popular science monthly journal "Рідна мова",
the chief editor of which was I. Ohienko, was published in Warsaw in 1933-1939.
It was sharply criticized by the authors of "Linguistics" (Kiev).
Among its authors were H. Ilnytskyi, І. Svencickyi, І. Кovalyk,
D. Badrivskyi, B. Kobylanskyi. The journal “Слово на сторожі”, edited
by Y. Rudnytskyi, has been published in Canada (Winnipeg) since 1964. Cut
off from their immediate readers, the named Ukrainian-language periodicals have
not affected the deepening of puristic trends on the territory of Soviet
Ukraine. Last,
but the most important issue is the precise delimitation of the native elements of the language and the foreign language impacts. After purists
had tried to remove all the real and imaginary germanisms from the Czech
language, Czech linguists made several more or less successful attempts to
collect and systematize the list of the language means which, in their opinion,
were alien to the Czech language (kazimluvy
‘faulty expressions’): Brus
jazyka českého (1894), Rukověť správné češtiny (F. Bartoš, 1891), Rukověť
mateřského jazyka (J. Haller, 1940)[12]. However,
the complex of these practical materials has never been known to a wide public.
M. Jelínek, who was the most reputable specialist in Czech purism, worked
on the systematization of words, idioms, and syntax constructions, on removing
of which purists insisted. He promised to shortly release these materials in
the lexicographical format. According to purists, the glossary of foreign
language units will promote the deeper comprehension of the phenomenon of
purism within the historical development of the Czech literary language. In
contemporary Ukrainian linguistics, the critical, well-reasoned, and multilevel
classification of the foreign language elements has not been done yet (see Dzis;
Horodenska; Serbenska “Ekolohiya ukrayins’koho slova“;
Karavanskyi; Selihej “Puryzm v ukrayinskiy movi”, “Puryzm u terminolohiyi…“). The
phenomenon of Czech purism which greatly influenced the development of puristic
processes in other Slavic languages is qualified by researchers as generally
successful. However, the history of Czech purism is connected both to the
positive and the negative influences of it on the purification of the language
from germanisms. On the edge of millennia, this multidimensional vision of the
purism development can become instructive for the societies which choose purism
as a way to rescue their languages. 5. The
history of Czech purism: achievements and miscalculations 5.1. The
general periodization The
history of Czech purism consists of 9 stages, not counting several attempts to
“liven up” the process of purism which were not notably successful (Weingart).
M. Jelínek has sensibly offered to divide the last stage of Czech purism
(see M. Weingart) which is connected to the activity of the journal “Naše
řeč” into two separate periods (Jelínek “Purismus“).
In the context of our research, three stages of Czech purism are of substantial
importance. They are the period of the Czech national revival (the end of the
18th – the first half of the 19th century), the end of the 19th century, and
the 20–30-s of the 20th century (the
works of J. Zubatý, V. Ertl, and the works of J. Haller
(see Naše řeč)). 5.2. The
period of the Czech national revival The
defeat of the Bohemian revolt against the Habsburgs at the White Mountain
(1620) and the subsequent Thirty Years’ War resulted not only in the relative
loss of the Czech state independence, but also in
the domination of the policy of germanization of the social life and removal
the Czech language out. Only at the end of the 18th century, the situation with
the Czech language has started to radically change. This period lasted until
the first half of the 19th century and got the name of the Czech national
revival. The Czech language and culture became the core of the revival. The
main task of this process was to rise the Czech literary language
up to the proper European level, to make it the language of well-educated
people, and to stimulate the growth of the national self-consciousness. The
senior generation of Czech revival activists who were oriented on the
stabilization of the grammatical system of the language was headed by
J. Dobrovský. The younger generation who worked both on expanding the
functions of the Czech language and forming the poetic and scientific language
was headed by J. Jungmann. The absence of means for the expression of new
concepts resulted in powerful processes of neologization. For reasons of saving
the Slavic background of the Czech language, borrowings from the other Slavic
languages (Polish, Serbian/Croatian,
Russian) were taken. These borrowings were not considered “alien” (záměr ‘intention’, výraz ‘expression’,
povšechný ‘general’ (from Polish), průmysl ‘industry’, záliv ‘gulf’, slovesnost ‘literature’, obrazný ‘figurative’ (from Russian)).
At that time, both common Czech words zeměpis
‘geography’, cestopis ‘travelogue’, tvarosloví ‘morphology’, vzduch ‘air’ and words which are
uncommon to modern native speakers (dušesloví
‘psychology’) were formed. Processes
of distancing from German influences took place without the reliable scientific
substantiation. A large number of neologisms were formed both on the basis of
native language samples and as unsystematic calques which were incomprehensible
to a Czech native speaker (slovotění –
etymology, nosočistoplena –
handkerchief, břinkoklapka – grand piano, klapkobřinkostroj, prstobřinkoklap,
libozněna – piano, skokotnosta –
dance teacher, knihovtipnik –
student, věživice – pyramid, citoň – nose, vyzřela – glasses, zelenochrupka
– salad, etc.). The process of calque was not considered the disruption of
the language purity. Conversely, it was understood as the confirmation of
expressive possibilities of the language (despite the fact that the process of
compounding is the German word-formative model, and is not productive in Slavic
languages). However, numerous neologisms and borrowings (which were adapted to
the Czech language), in particular those noted in later writings
and dictionaries[13]
of the professor of zoology and mineralogy J. S. Presl
are known today (tuleň ‘seal’, mrož ‘walrus’, bobr ‘beaver’, daněk ‘fallow
deer’, kolibřík ‘hummingbird’, lenochod ‘sloth’, plameňák ‘flamingo’, hliník
‘aluminium’, draslík ‘potassium’, pupen ‘sprout’), even though some of
them did not fix terminologically (barvík,
solík, chaluzík, řeponoska, plavnoruk). The
uncontrollable process of neologization was stopped by J. Dobrovský who
gave the detailed description of Czech word-formation types and analyzed the
so-called “dilettantish” neologization (Dobrovský “Die Bildsamkeit der slawischen Sprache…“) which had the
powerful puristic motivation in the period of the Czech national revival
(fighting against germanisms was considered the confirmation of the
self-sufficiency of the Czech language). At the same time, the trend to replace
Greek-Latin international terms by Czech ones was observed. It was the
returning to puristic ideas of the Baroque period, but the old mistakes were
not remade due to the huge authority of Dobrovský. Dobrovský was not the proponent
of the mandatory replacement of international terms by the native. In 1779, he
wrote: “Let us be cautious about looking for new words. There is nothing worse
for the language than inventing” (Dobrovský „Böhmische Litteratur auf das Jahr“).
Dobrovský insisted that words which were previously accepted by the entire
nation should not be deprived of the “citizenship” and replaced by artificial
ones (Dobrovský „Litterarisches
Magazin von Böhmen und Märhen“). However, Dobrovský did not
approve the words událost ‘event’ and určiti ‘determine’ which were later
accepted by the language. At
the end of the 19th century, the spread of puristic practices began to hamper
the penetration of the Czech language to the scientific communication. The
well-established international terms which were removed by purists were
returned to the Czech language (milomudrctví,
libomudrctví – filosofie, rozumnický – logický, dovtípilka
– metonymie).
At his times, J. Jungmann understood
the unviability of those Czech substitutes. The
words like milomudrctví, libomudrctví, or
rozumnický were not registered in his
Czech-German dictionary (Jungmann “Slovník česko-německý“).
At the end of the 19th century, the fight was confined to everything being German, even
though a number of those were already established in the Czech literary
language. It was the fight against compounds (as they were
German samples (e.g. bleskurychlý (Germ. blitzschenell) → rychlý jazko blesk), word-formative
types (the creation of nouns with prefixes proti-,
bez-), numerous
syntactic germanisms (voněti
po čem (germ. nach etwas riechen) → voněti čím), and German
borrowings. Language constructions that
had signs of the German mediation in borrowing from Medieval Latin were offered
to be replaced: držeti slovo (Germ. Wort halten, Lat. promissum tenere – tenir parole) → dostáti slovu, v slově státi). In fact, many
words and expressions which, according to purists, had to be removed from the
Czech language belonged to the European cultural and linguistic heritage (stůj co stůj → za žádnou cenu ‘on no
account’; slovo, jméno, pojmenování →
výraz ‘expression’; spoléhat si na
koho → počítati s kým ‘to rely on somebody’). The abstract
names like žebrání ‘beggary’, lámání ‘breaking’, onemocnění ‘disease’ were not that much accepted. The
biggest mistake of Czech purists of the period of the national revival was the
lack of agreed-upon and precise rules which could identify language tools as
being right or wrong. Many of their proposals were dilettantish and unviable.
Although there was much of excessive amateur purism, it was moderate purism,
which helped much to fill a huge number of white spots in expressive
capabilities of the Czech language. Overall, Czech purism of the 19th century
not only became institutional, but was also rated prestigious. 5.3. The
end of the 19th – the beginning of the 20th century At
the end of the 19th – the beginning of the 20th century normative principles
which were established during the period of the national revival were not
observed any more. The older norm of the literary language and
its historical contituity became the
measure of correctness. Germanisms were replaced by archaic Old Czech,
dialectal, other Slavic words, or words which were
artificially created. However, aggressive anti-German puristic interventions in
the Czech language were hampered by the authority of J. Gebauer. He was
able to prove that a significant number of language means which were considered
germanisms were used before the Baroque period, and the proposals to replace
them often contradicted to the Czech etymology. By promoting the historical
principle, he drew attention to the rootedness of a number of language means
and proved that they were the result of the natural language development. He
was also opposed to including “moravisms”[14] in the
literary language. But, at the same time, J. Gebauer treated purists
indulgently, since they acted for the sake of the high purpose and tried to
improve the expressive potential of the language. However, in many cases, they
went too far and suggested the substitutes which violated the correct and
stabilized language form, and thus the unity of the literary language (Listy
filologické 217). The
process of purism of the end of the 19th century was more an aggressive than a
moderate action. All the real and imaginary germanisms were removed (Matice
česká). German purism with its fight against Gallicisms became the model for
puristic interventions. In contrary to ideas of the Czech national revival,
purists saw the threat to the identity of the Czech language in Slavic
borrowings, primarily in Polish and Russian ones (Jelínek “Purismus“ 547). With the weakening of the
Czech-German bilingualism, at the end of the 19th century, the process of
purism began to decline. J. Zubatý and V. Ertl considered this
process dilettantish. They believed that it brought more harm than good, and
weakened the language norm to the critical point. Purists of that time were too
suspicious, and saw German influences everywhere. By declaring some words,
phrases, and syntactic constructions to be “unnecessary”, they assisted to the
impoverishment of the Czech language. For example, the expressions jeden druhého (podporuje) ‘to support
each other’, jeden druhému (slibuje) ‘to
promise each other’ have no relation to German, but they were offered to be
replaced with druh druha – the
archaism which disappeared from the language in the 15th century.
J. Zubatý proved that they were not germanisms, but units of the common
Indo-European heritage. Expressions of that type were present in the Czech
language from the 14th century. The modal verb musiti ‘must’ was also considered germanism, and was offered to be
replaced with jest mi + infinitive.
J. Zubatý insisted that constructions of that type make sentences archaic.
At one time, purists insisted on removing the word jeden ‘one’ from the expression jeden
z nejbohatších lidí ‘one of the richest people’, which was a nonsense, as
it was the native Czech language element. V. Ertl believed purists of the
end of the 19th century to act without regard to the historical development of
the Czech language. 5.4. The
20–30-s of the 20th century. The
journal Naše řeč The
establishment of the journal Naše řeč (1916), the purpose of which was to care
about the language culture, did not cause the new wave of purism. The new wave
of purism rose after the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the
establishment of the Czechoslovak Republic in 1918. Therefore, the language
received new opportunities for its development and functioning. The powerful
desire to break free from the Austrian way of life and culture (the so-called odrakoušení ‘de-Austrianization’) was characteristic for this period. This
patriotic process was supported by the journal Naše řeč. However, the process
of purism was kept within reasonable limits thanks to its editors
J. Zubatý and V. Ertl, though they were not deprived of puristic
viewpoints. The further period which was connected to the puristic work of J. Haller was
significantly different. So, the offer of M. Jelínek to split the period
of the 20–30-s of the 20th century
into two separate stages of purism was completely justified. 5.4.1. The
activity of J. Zubatý and V. Ertl J. Zubatý
and V. Ertl belonged to the historical school. They continued to follow
the tradition established by J. Gebauer and made attempts to regulate the
language due to the criteria of the historical consistency and continuity.
J. Zubatý and V. Ertl performed against borrowings which both violated
the language system (according to the ordinary understanding of “the spirit of
the language” of that time) and did not adapt to the language system
completely. They preferred language tools, the historical consistency of which
was confirmed. They were also opposed to the artificial “revival” of archaisms,
terms, and neologisms which were not based on the norms of the literary
language. Both scientists were trying to save the Czech language from the
process of the excessive borrowing. They believed that “a foreign word is a
foreign body in the language organism”. They insisted that the occurrence of
new borrowings should be motivated, and existing borrowings should be analyzed
according to the rules of their adaptation to the language and customization to
the needs of native speakers. “You cannot remove the tree from the rock which
it grew into. That is how you sometimes cannot remove the borrowing which
became an integral part of the language and acquired the status of native in
the souls of native speakers” (Naše řeč 1922:
2). V. Ertl compared some ideas of purists to the hypochondriac
disorder (a state in which a person continuously worries about their health
without having any reason to do so). He tried to define the term “germanisms”,
to outline the limits of the concept, and to clearly identify their features
(1928). He insisted that only those germanisms which were contrary to the
spirit of the language should be removed. He especially emphasized the lack of
the coherence in approaches of purists to the ways of the purification of the
language. He insisted that all the germanisms could not be measured by the same
yardstick, and they could not be assumed to be an enemy without taking into
account the nature and results of language contacts. On
the one hand, J. Zubatý and V. Ertl questioned the activity of
purists, on the other, they approved many puristic restrictions and
recommendations, and added to them a number of new (see their negative
viewpoint on the expressions obhospodaření
‘management’, bezdůvodný ‘groundless’, bezvýsledný ‘fruitless’, stávající (zákony) ‘valid (laws)’, přijíti na řadu ‘it is turn for’, nejvyšší čas ‘it is high time’, doručit ‘deliver’). However,
J. Zubatý was opposed to publishing papers of an aggressively puristic
nature. He paid the special attention to the reasonable “rehabilitation” of
those language tools which were removed by purists due to the suspection of
“the German spirit” (the pronoun ten ‘this’,
the cardinal number jeden ‘one’, the
modal verb muset ‘must’). The idea of
the functional theory of the language and culture which was developed by the
Prague linguistic circle (PLC) from 1926 was traced both in the works of
V. Ertl and J. Zubatý. 5.4.2. The
puristic activity of J. Haller Members
of the PLC considered the chief editor of the journal Naše řeč J. Haller
(beginning the year 1931) the prototype of the purist.
However, J. Galler not only did not take into consideration the reasonable
achievements of J. Zubatý and V. Ertl, but, on the contrary,
developed the weaknesses of their theory. In the name of the fight for the
language purification, he proposed to remove a lot of language means which were
“suspected” of being German. He certainly considered the origin of the word the
criterion of the purity of the language. Purists led by J. Haller often
referred to activities of aggressive purists of the end of the 19th century.
They constantly added new prohibitions and lists of words which were enemy to
the Czech language and culture. In terms of the ethnographic purism, the common
speech became the benchmark of the language purity. The new wave of fighting
against germanisms and borrowings broke out in Haller’s times. Purists believed
that the language was infested with germanisms. They did not want to admit
that, in some cases, German borrowings enriched the Czech language.
J. Haller considered the journal Naše řeč “the language police”. He
believed that the puristic intervention in the language was justified and
directive. The
categorical assessment of the Haller’s work as an excessively radical by
members of the PLC and R. Jakobson was unchangeable for a long time. At
the beginning of the 21st century, J. Chromý (Chromý) tried to justify the
Haller’s puristic activity by indicating a number of clever thoughts which were
not noticed by members of the Prague Linguistic Circle. Haller’s thoughts on
the aesthetic perception of the word were of definite value. According to
J. Haller, the semantic accuracy of language units and the level of
necessity of their usage provide the background for understanding the purity of
the language. J. Haller approved both germanisms and compounds in case the
Czech language had no exact match (míti
čas ‘to have time’, míti smůlu ‘to
have bad luck’). He included “the language instinct” (the ability of native
speakers to assess the language accuracy) among the criteria of the language
purity and correctness. In his fight for the purity of the language, he tried
to combine his own vision of purism with the functional linguistic approach. 5.4.3. Czech
purism and the Prague linguistic circle At
the beginning of 1932, the Prague linguistic circle (PLC) (R. Jakobson,
V. Mathesius, B. Havránek, J. Mukařovský) organized the course
of lectures, in which they critically assessed the excessively linear and
mechanical puristic viewpoint. Their assessment was based on the new theory of
the literary language and language culture which was based on the theoretical
consideration of the use of language means, deep knowledge of the material and
subtle sense of the language. With
the arrival of the structuralism and functionalism approaches and the
synchronous dynamic approach to the language development (taking into account
the immanent language development), purism was rejected. Members of the PLC
insisted that we could not interfere in the language development without
considering the internal balance of the language system. This explains the fact
that some foreign influences become deeply rooted in the language we use, and
the other do not become established. Puristic approaches have an external
character and involve the interference in the internal laws of the language
development. They break the relative balance of the language system and
structure. Criteria of the linguistic correctness cannot be established without
taking into account the current linguistic situation and comprehensive study of
current norms of the literary language. It is not necessary to remove the
rooted (stabilized) language phenomena. However, the special attention should
be paid to “livening up” the old (obsolete) language means. This involves a
thorough, comprehensive, and impartial study of each individual language
phenomena in all its interrelationships and interactions. Germanisms should be
viewed from the functional perspective, and efforts of linguists should be
aimed to replace the one-sided historicism with the synchronous approach to the
study of linguistic phenomena and systematic look at the language. Members of
the PLC considered the excessive preference of the regularity another typical
feature of purism. V. Mathesius
emphasized the principle of the flexible stability of the language, due to
which the language “is always open for changes”. However, it is important to
take into account the synchronous character of the literary language. It has to
meet the requirement of being a tool which ensures the communication need of
its users. And if this is so, then why should “the already stabilized”
expressions of the German origin be removed? They enrich the language, extend
expressive possibilities of synonymic series, and open the path to the
diversity of expressive tints of the meaning. Moreover, in many cases, they are
not germanisms, but europeisms or words of the common Indo-European origin
(Mathesius). B. Havránek
emphasized that purists did not pay enough attention to the diversity of
communicative functions: “variants which are available in the language could
potentially perform different communicative functions, and they are worth
leaving them the right to be alive. We should not “judge” language tools
without considering their functionality, as a significant number of germanisms
and words “suspected” of the German origin came from Latin. B. Havránek
has asked the question which is relevant until today: to what extent has the
linguist a right to interfere in the norms of the literary language? He believed
that possibilities here were limited: the linguist might only change the
nomenclature of terminology systems (the term is always an artificial
formation), define the stylistic differentiation of language tools, and improve
the culture of their use by critically analyzing the specific language
implementations. In regard to the terminology, he recommended to give the
preference to literary expressions, to consider the less familiar
word-formation models, and not to be afraid to borrow the most successful and
stabilized international expressions from other languages. “The main thing here
is to coordinate the semantic characteristics of terms in different languages”
(Havránek). R. Jakobson
was the most passionate critic of purism (1932). He was strongly opposed to the
fight against germanisms. He wrote: “historical linguistics emphasizes that all
the cultural languages were subjected to the process of hybridization, each
cultural language was formed in the close connection with other languages which
were sources of its verbal and expressive enrichment” (Jakobson 92).
The German language not only had the positive influence on the development of
Czech, but also enriched it with europeisms. That was how the European
community and European way of thinking appeared. According to R. Jakobson,
the purists’ approach to the language purification was often unreasonable,
mechanical, and mindless. The offered substitutes did not always express the
needed semantic and emotional meanings. They did not always have the appropriate
functional and stylistic features as well. The Czech language lost much because
of the process of purism. Methods used by purists were often unacceptable and
made the language poorer. Their “confiscation activities” completely
destabilized the literary norm. In his discussion with purists,
R. Jakobson gave the valuable opinion about the attitude of the collective
of speakers to their language as its essential component (1932). The
PLC established the fundamental principles of the language culture which related
directly to purism. 1. The criterion of the purity of the language is not
the result of previous periods of its development. The language culture is
synchronous, and it is not the subject of historical linguistics. 2. The
concept of the purity of the language is too vague, and it cannot serve as the
criterion. This puristic criterion should be replaced with the criterion of the
systematic linguistic interdependence. The assessment of language types and
elements requires the structural criterion which is based on mutual relations
of the phenomena with other elements of the language system. 3. The care about
the purity of the language has to consider different communicative functions of
the language. In the assessment of the correctness, one cannot rely on one
functional style only. The functional criterion has to be systematically
applied. Here,
the attitude to purism was formulated clearly and unambiguously. When “got
caught” in the new language and linguistic coordinate system, purism
transformed from the stimulus of the language development to its brake.
However, the general assessment of Czech purism cannot be unambiguous. It went
through a difficult path of the ups and downs, failures and attempts,
achievements and miscalculations. It was both powerful and powerless. However,
in general, one cannot deny its leading role in the revival of the Czech
language. Numerous language expressions which, at one time, were suggested to
replace the removed ones as well as numerous words and phrases which were prohibited
have become an integral part of the contemporary Czech language. Taking into
account the poor state of the Czech literary language of
the end of the 18th century, one can only imagine how “sweaty and bloody” the
renaissance of the Czech language was. The phenomenon of the Czech purism
guides us to the question: how negative or how positive the influence of the
German language on the Czech was. Can it be assessed unambiguously? Obviously
not. At one time, the liberation of the Czech language from the powerful
influence of German was greatly justified, but it was German purism, which
became the strong stimulus for the Czech one. Thanks to German samples, the
Czech language could make up for the time lost in the period of Baroque[15], which brought
out its expressive possibilities at the European level. The
German language and language tradition have never been an absolute “enemy” to
the Czech. The neutralization of aggressive manifestations of the Czech purism
took place within the heated (but moderated) discussions involving the most
reputable linguists. In their course, the objective, unbiased, and responsible
attitude of scholars to their language was formed. 5.4.4. Contemporary
Czech linguists. Assessment of purism from
the contemporary point of view According
to contemporary linguists who are trying to understand the phenomenon of the
Czech purism, the end of the discussion of 1932 can be understood as the
confrontation between the faded romanticism and new rationalist approach of the
time. However, F. Daneš considers the approach of the PLC to understanding
the Czech purism excessively rationalist. He believes that they did not pay
enough attention to the sensible thoughts of purists of the time, in particular
those concerning the attitude of native speakers to their language. In his
opinion, both the attitude of native speakers to their language and their
attitude to the foreign language and culture are substantial constituents of
the language. Purism is stronger in less-numerous linguistic groups which are
influenced by the strong “neighbour”. When the confrontation between them
occurs, the question of the linguistic interaction becomes of significant
importance. The small nation usually seeks balance. On the one hand, it looks
for the strong ally, on the other, it tries hard to protect the language from
the influence of the ally’s one. This becomes a rich soil for the seed of the
puristic attitude to the language (Daneš
318). Summing up the history of Czech purism, the authors of
the latest paper "Purism" published in the "New encyclopedic
dictionary of the Czech language" M. Jelínek and M. Krčmová
(Jelínek, Krčmová 1521–1524) highlight both the protective functions of
purism in the history of the Czech literary language and its apologetics. Czech
purism was highly intended to stop the destruction of the system of the Czech
literary language by languages that, in different periods, acquired the status
of dominant. However, good intentions often brought more harm than good.
Although, we should admit that a number of units proposed by purists not only
became deeply rooted in the literary language, but also “live” in it until
today. Thanks to the use of German samples, purists raised the prestige of the
literary language and proved that the expressive possibilities of the Czech
literary language are not inferior in comparison to the expressive
possibilities of other languages (Jelínek “Germanismy v
novodobé spisovné češtině“). The activity of
purists should be analyzed comprehensively, critically and impartially (Kraus;
Stich; Jelínek “Purismus“), without labelling. Among purists were both
philologists with relatively good knowledge of the language system and obvious
dilettantes as well as the puristic substitutes were either successful or
unviable. In general, modern linguistics assesses purism as the unproductive
principle of the language culture (Сhylová). From the perspective of linguistic theory and its
application (practice), we can assume that puristic practices are a thing of
the past – say M. Jelínek and M. Krčmová (Jelínek, Krčmová 1522). However, debunking of purism on
the theoretical level does not mean that its ideas are forgotten. They proved
to be very viable, the traces of purism are still traced nowadays (comp. the
reproduction of foreign terms in the modern Czech terminology (window – okno; computer –
počítač; display, monitor – obrazovka, etc.). The evidence of this are the puristic trends in the Czech
school practice of the end of the 20th century (Сhylová), a common critical
attitude of modern speakers to borrowings that was found out by
J. Svobodová and I. Adámková (Svobodová Adámková) as well as the
constant debate on these issues in modern Czech media (Veselý). With
the spread of globalization processes and tectonic shifts on the map of Europe,
many nations have currently started feeling the menace hanging over their
languages. Therefore, the deep and dispassionate analysis of Czech purism as
well as of its failures and achievements can become extremely beneficial. Nowadays, Ukrainian linguists state that "it
became evident that the legacy of [Ukrainian] purists, which was rejected in
the 1930s, can significantly affect the normalization processes in the modern
literary language" (Skopenko). However, it would be very useful to analyze
these processes in projection on the trends and the nature of miscalculations
of Czech purism, which should be deeply and fully comprehended and taken into
consideration.
[1] Preparation and edition
of the publication were made with the financial support provided by the
Ministry of Education, Youth and Physical Education of the Czech Republic in
the year 2016. The publication was supported within the framework of the
Institutional Development Plan of the Philosophy Faculty of Palacky University
in Olomouc.
[2] The autor gratefuls to Tetiana
Arkhangelska, PhD for proof-reading this article. The autor would also like to
thank the two anonymous reviewers for their suggestions, comments and critical
remark.
[3] Ukrainization was the party’s
policy within the USSR which was aimed at the
political promoting and implementing elements of the Ukrainian language and Ukrainian
culture in different spheres of the social life. The Russian language was
replaced by the Ukrainian language in administration, education, and culture.
However, the process of Ukrainization lasted for too short time. It didn’t
manage to gain the scale or reach its logical conclusion. It was not able to
cover the entire territory of Ukraine or form the socially and culturally
integrated, consolidated nation. In the early 30-s, the process of
Ukrainization was collapsed, its leaders were repressed.
[4] Comp. examples of
calquing podhotoviti se, Germ. sich unterferfigen, (ferting – hotový, unter – pod), slovozpyt,
Germ. wortforschung, etc. Czech
purists copied the German purists’ approach (the original words anonym/anonymní (coming from the Greek
word an+onyma) were replaced by the words namenlos,
ungenannt in German and by the word bezejmenný
in the Czech language; Export/export
(from the Latin word exportare) – Germ. ausfuhr,
Czech vývoz; similarly, Parallel/paralelní – Germ. gleichlaufend, Czech rovnoběžný; Semester/semestr – Germ. halbjahr,
Czech pololetí, polouletí).
[5] For example, the
word-formative model with the suffix -los
(-without) was considered German and
it was replaced by the model with the suffix -ne (Germ. fraglos – nesporný, lateinlos –
nelatinský), etc.
[6] Comp. Russ. ассимиляция –
уподобление, Ukr. асиміляція,
привподоба; Russ. парашютист
– Ukr. парашутист, плахтостриб, also Ukr. normative наладчик, перебіжчик
with the suffix of the Russian origin -чик, etc.
[7] The differences in
understanding of purism and processes of nationalization (ethnicization) of the
Ukrainian language (see Ohnheiser) resulted in forming the integrated slogan
“purification of the language from Russian borrowings”, including surzhyk (Dzis;
Horodenska; Serbenska “Ekolohiya ukrayins’koho slova“; Karavanskyi; Ponomariv; Gaudio).
[8] Among 222 terms which
were borrowed from the other Slavic languages and introduced to the dictionary
of Jungmann (Jungmann 1834-1839), 75% (167 units, e.g., názva, úvaha, výraz) were the terms of the Polish origin and 24%
(53 units) were the terms of the Russian one (dějství, Russ. действие, dvousložný, Russ. двусложный, opyt, Russ. опыт) (Liličová; Orłośová).
[9] For example, the word наклад instead of тираж (the word тиражувати remained
unchanged), число instead of номер (нумерувати, нумерація – without changes), речник instead of прес-секретар
(with a wider meaning in Polish), потяг
instead of поїзд, etc.
[10] According to the results of the
sociological questioning of residents of Kyiv (2000), 53% of respondents always
communicate in Russian, moreover, 30% of them, the absolute majority of whom
come from outside of Ukraine, are the principal opponents of Ukrainization. The
rest of respondents (50-55%), though they freely communicate in Russian, have a
favourable attitude towards the revival of the Ukrainian language and
strengthening the Ukrainian stateness. At the same time, 62.2% of residents of Kyiv consider Ukrainian their
native language (Masenko “Mova i suspil’stvo: postkolonial’nyy vymir”, “Ukrayins’kyy puryzm: mif chy real’nist“). The
updated data come from the survey conducted in 2015 by the Democratic
Initiatives Foundation in all regions of Ukraine: in the western regions
(Galicia), 93% of respondents communicate with their families in Ukrainian, 7%
of respondents communicate in Ukrainian and Russian, 0% of respondents
communicate entirely in Russian. In the Donbass region, 0.3% of respondents
communicate entirely in Ukrainian, and 61% of respondents communicate entirely
in Russian. In Kyiv, 18% of residents communicate with their families entirely
in Ukrainian. In general, 32% of Ukrainians communicate entirely in Ukrainian (Pantsuk, Pyabtsuk 213).
[11] In the 30–80-s of the 20th century,
the set of communicative functions of the Ukrainian language was considerably
unequal to Russian. As the legacy of the Soviet era, the displacement of the
Ukrainian language by Russian, in particular in industrial centers of the
eastern, southern, and, partly, central regions of Ukraine has become one of
the powerful stimuli for the dominance of the Russian language over Ukrainian.
Moreover, it remains an obstacle for the implementation of the functions of the
Ukrainian language as the state one until today (see Zahnitko,
Kurdeyko).
[12] In spite of the fact
that the year 1932 is considered the turning point in the activity of Czech
purism, we should remember that the manifestations of purism were inertly
traced in the language and school practice until the beginning of World War II.
At the beginning of the 20th century, J. Haller collected and systematized the
incorrect or “suspicious” language tools as well as tried to add them to the
correct ones. He managed to publish the first part of his work (the letters A-K
volume) only in 1940; the second part was not published due to the German
occupation.
[13] of the second quarter of the 19th
century.
[14] Regional language means
typical for Moravia as a part of the territory of the Czech lands.
[15] This period was called “the
deterioration” by J. Dobrovský (Dobrovský „Geschichte
der böhmischen Sprache und Literatur“); J. Jungmann called it “the critical period of the Czech language and literature
development” (Jungmann „Historie literatury české…“), however, nowadays, linguists insist
on reestimating the purists‘ activity of this period (Stich 49–56).
References.
Akhmanova, Olga. Slovar’ lingvisticheskikh terminov. Moskva: Sovetskaya encyklopediya,
1966. Print. Akulenko, Viktor. “Voprosy izucheniya
leksicheskikh internacionalizmov i processov ikh obrazovanija“. Voprosy social’noj lingvistiki.
Leningrad, 1969. 58–69. Print. Azhnyuk, Bohdan. “Ukrajins’ka
mova v Novomu Sviti“. Ukrayins’ka
mova. Opole 1999. 228–270. Print. Bezkorovayna, Halyna. “Мova chy ‘yazyk’?“ Ukrayina moloda. №074, 27.05.2016. Print. Daneš, František. “Dialektické tendence ve vývoji spisovných jazyků“.
Jazyk a text. Výbor z lingvistického díla F. Daneše I, část 2,
Praha: Univerzita Karlova, 1999. 249–263. Print. Dobrovský,
Josef. Böhmische Litteratur auf das Jahr. IV Stűcke. Prag, 1779. Print. Dobrovský,
Josef. Litterarisches Magazin von Böhmen
und Märhen. III Stűcke. Prag, 1787. Print. Dobrovský,
Josef. Geschichte der böhmischen Sprache
und Literatur. Prag, 1792. Print. Dobrovský,
Josef. Die Bildsamkeit der slawischen Sprache
an der Bildung der Substantive und Adjektive in der böhmischen Sprache
dargestellt. Prag,
1799. Print. Dzis,
Ruslana. “Purystychni tendenciji u procesi normuvannya
ukrayins’koyi movy“. Diss. Chernivtsi: National U, 2008. Abstract.
Print. Engelhardt,
Gerhard. “Český a německý
purismus na konci 19. století“, Naše řeč 84
(2001). 235–244. Print. Ertl, Václav. “O germanismech“. Časové úvahy o naší mateřštině. Sbírka přednášek a rozprav, řada I, Praha, 1928. 25–41. Print. Gaudio, Salvatore, Del. “Ukrainsko-russkaya smeshannaya rech’ “surzhyk” v sisteme vzaimodejstviya
ukrainskogo i russkogo jayzkov“. Slověne 2 (2015). 214–246.
Print. Havránek. Bohuslav. “Úkoly spisovného jazyka a jeho kultura”. Spisovná čeština a jazyková kultura. Praha, 1932, 1–24. Print. Horodenska, Kateryna. Ukrayins’ke
slovo u vymirakh s’ohodennya. Kyyiv: KMM, 2014. Print. Chromý, Jan. “Jiří Haller – osobnost české lingvistiky“. Naše řeč 89 (2006). 234–241. Print. Chýlová, Helena. Purismus 20. století z hlediska jazykové výchovy. Diss. Plzeň: Západočeská univerzita v Plzni, 2012. Isaievych,
Jaroslav. “Movnyy kod kul‘tury”. Istoriya ukrayins’koyi kul’tury, 2. Kyyiv: Naukova dumka, 189–205. Print. Jakobson, Roman. “O dnešním brusičství českém”. Spisovná čeština a jazyková kultura, Praha, 1932. 85–122. Print. Jelínek,
Milan. “Germanismy v novodobé spisovné češtině“. Přednášky a besedy z XXXI. běhu LŠSS,
Brno 1997. 30–44. Print. Jelínek,
Milan. “Novodobý český jazykový purismus a jeho překonání“, in: Kritický sborník 1 (1999/2000). 43–64. Print. Jelínek, Milan, “Purismus“. Kapitoly z dějin české jazykovědné bohemistiky. Praha: Academia, 2007. 540–572. Print. Jelínek, Milan, and Marie
Krčmová. “Purismus“. Nový
encyklopedický slovník češtiny, II, Brno: Masarykova univerzita,
2017. 1521–1524. Print. Jungmann,
Josef. Slovník česko-německý (5 dílů)
unter Mitwirkung von Jakub Josef Dominik Malý, Prag, 1834–1839. Print. Jungmann,
Josef. Historie literatury české. Aneb: Saustawný přehled
spisů českých s krátkau historií národu, oswícení a jazyka, Praha,
1849. Print. Kalashnyk,
Vologymyr. “Ukrayins’ko-rosiys’ka dvomovnist’: uchora y s‘ohodni“. Mova, kul’tura, samoidentytchnist’. Kyyiv: VADEKS, 2013. 78–84. Print. Karavanskyj,
Svyatoslav. Poshuk ukrayins’koho slova, abo Borot’ba za nacional’ne “Ja”. Kyyiv: Vydavnychyy centr „Akademiya“, 2011. Print. Kraus,
Jiří. “K problematice
jazykového purismu“. Jazyk a kultura
vyjadřování, Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 1998, 91–96. Print. Kravchenko,
Evdokiya, and Nataliya Koltakova. “Ukrayins’kyy
linhvopuryzm i kul’tura movy na yevropeys’komu tli “. Linhvistychni studiyi 14 (2006), Donetsk. 79–86. Print. Liličová,
Galina. “Ruské
lexikální prvky v českém básnickém jazyce počátku XIX století“. Slovanské spisovné jazyky v době obrození, Praha, 1974. 181–186. Listy filologické 21 (1894). Masenko,
Larysa. Mova i suspil’stvo: postkolonial’nyy vymir. Kyyiv: Vydavnychyy
dim ”KM Akademiya”, 2004. Print. Masenko,
Larysa.“Ukrayins’kyy puryzm: mif chy real’nist“, Dyvoslovo
7 (2009). 48–51. Print. Masenko,
Larysa.“Dynamika movnykh zmin u postradan’s’komu Kyyevi“. Mova, kul’tura, samoidentytchist’. Kyyiv: VADEKS, 2013, 28–39. Print. Mathesius, Vilém. “O potřebě stability ve spisovném jazyce“. Spisovná čeština a jazyková kultura, Praha, 1932. 14–31. Print. Moyseienko, Viktor.“Do pytnna pro ches’ko-ukrayins’ki zvyazky u druhiy polovyni ХІХ stolittya v haluzi special’noyi ta naukovoyi terminolohiyi“. Zapysky Naukovoho tovarystva im. T. Shevchenka. Praci filolohichnoyi sekciyi ССХХІХ (1995). L’viv. 342–361. Print. Moser,
Mikhael. New Contributions to the History
of the Ukrainian Language, Edmonton – Toronto, 2016. Print. Moser,
Mikhael. Prychynky do istoriyi ukrayins’koyi
movy. Vinnytsa: Nova knyha, 2011. Print. Mychalstuk, Oksana. “Etnomovna
samoidentyfikaciya ta vybir movy“. Mova, kul’tura, samoidentytchist’. Kyiv: VADEKS, 2013. 85–91. Print. Ohnheiser, Ingeborg. “Ekolingvistika i
tendencii razvitiya sovremennych slavyanskich jazykov“. Języky słowiańskie w perspektywie
ekolingwistycznej, Opole, 2003. 9–34. Orłośová, Tereza. “Josef Jungmann
a slovanské výpůjčky z oblasti vědecké terminologie“. Slovanské spisovné jazyky v době
obrození, Praha: Univerzita Karlova, 1974. 187–193. Pantsuk, Mayi, and Mykola
Ryabtsuk. “Nacional’no-hromadyans’ki identychnosti ta cinnisni oriyentaciyi
meshkanciv Halychyny“, Naukovi zapysky Instytutu politychnych i
etnoinacional’nych doslidzhen‘ im. I.F.Kurbasa NAN Ukrayiny 2 (2016). 201–251. Print. Pasemko, Iryna. “Linhvopuryzm i suchasni movy“. Dyvoslovo 12 (2000). 17–19.
Print. Ponomariv,
Oleksandr. Kul’tura slova:
Movnostylistychni porady. Kyyiv: Lybid’, 2011. Print. Seliheyi, Pylyp. “Puryzm u terminolohiyi:
ukrajins’kyy dosvid na yevropeys’komu tli“, Movoznavstvo
1 (2008). 49–66. Print. Seliheyi, Pylyp. “Puryzm v ukrayinskiy movi“. Ukrayinski visti 23 (1711), 1996. Print. Serbenska, Kateryna. “Vzayemyny
ukrayins’koyi ta pol’s’koyi mov u procesi formuvannya
administratyvno-jurydychnoyi terminolohiyi druhoyi polovyny ХІХ st.“. Leksyka ukrayins’koyi movy v yiyi
zvyazkach z susidnimy slovyans’kymy i neslovyans’kymy movamy. Uzhorod,
1982. 141–142. Print. Serbenska, Kateryna. Ekolohiya ukrayins’koho slova. Praktychnyy slovnyk-dovidnyk. L’viv: Vydavnychyy centr LNU, 2003. Print. Skopnenko, Oleksandr. “Zasadz kodyfikaciyi v ukrayins’kiy ta bilorus’kiy literaturnykh movakh (20-і – pochatok 30-kh. rr. XX st.)“.
Movoznavstvo 2–3 (2010). 168–175. Print. Shevelev, Juryi. ”Puryzm v ukrayinskiy movi“. Ukrajinski visti, 5.04.1966. Print. Shevelev, Juryi, Ukrayins’ka mova v pershiy polovyni dvadcyatoho stolittya (1900-1941): Stan i status .Kyyiv, 1998. Print. Shevelev, Juryi. Portrety ukrayins’kych movoynavciv. Kyyiv: Vydavnychyy dim “KM Akademiya”, 2002. Print. Stich, Alexandr. “Česká spisovnost-nespisovnost –
kořeny a přítomnost (Naše postoje k češtině 17. a 18. století) “. Spisovná čeština a jazyková kultura 1993. Praha, 1995. 49–56. Svobodová,
Jana, and Ilona Adámková. Fenomén spisovnosti v současné české jazykové
situaci. Ostrava: Ostravská univerzita, 2011. Print. Taranenko, Oleksandr. “Suchasni
tendenciyi do perehlyadu normatyvnykh zasad ukrayinskoyi movy i yavyshche
purzymu (v mezhah imennyh hramatychnykh katehoriy)“. Movoznavstvo 1 (2005). 44–61. Print. Taranaenko,
Oleksandr. “Suchasni tendenciyi do perehlyadu normatyvnykh zasad ukrayinskoyi
movy i yavyshche purzymu (na zahal’noslovyans’komu tli)”. Movoznavstvo 2–3 (2008).
159–189. Print. Thomas, George. Linguistic purism, London, New York, 1991.
Print. Tkachenko,
Vladimir. “Teoreticheskiye i prakticheskiye aspekty kal’kirovaniya“. Jazykovyye situacii i vzaimodeystviye jazykov. Kyyiv: Naukova dumka, 1989. 178–191. Print. Vedenov, M. Norma i reč, Sofiya, 1986. Print. Weingart, Miloš. “O zásadách českého brusičství“. Český jazyk v přítomnosti, Praha, 1934. 22–36. Print. Veselý,
Josef. “Pohled na
národní obrození ve střízlivém stavu“. Český rozhlas,
647. schůzka, 11. 05. 2014. Print. Wexler, Paul. Purism and Language: a Study in Modern Ukrainian and Belorussian Natoinalism (1840–1967),
Bloomigton, 1974. Print. Zhuravlev, Vladimir. “Sociolingvisticheskiy aspekt istorii literaturnych jayzkov”. Vlijanije social’nych faktorov na funkcionirovaniye i razvitiye jazykov. Moskva: Nauka, 1984. 84–109. Print. Zahnitko, Anatoliy, and Kurdeyko. “Movna sytuaciya Donechchyny: typolohiynyy i sociolinhvistychnyy vymiry“. Mova, kul’tura, samoidentytchist’. Kyyiv: VADEKS, 2013. 49–66. Zubatý Josef. “Musiti“, Naše řeč. Listy pro vzdělávání a tříbení
jazyka českého 6 (1922). 1–10. Print. Yavorska, Halyna. “Movni konflikty: shtuchni chy
real’ni?“. Mova, kul’tura, samoidentychnist’. Kyiv: VADEKS, 2013. 67–77. List of Abbreviations BSE 21. Bol’shaya sovetskaya encyklopediya. T. 21, Moskva: Sovetskaya encyklopediya, 1975. Print. UME. Ukrayins’ka mova. Encyklopediya. 2-e vydannya. Kyyiv: Ukrayins’ka encyklopediya im. M. P. Bazhana, 2004. Print. PLC = Prague linguistic circle.
Надійшла до
редакції 4 вересня 2018 року.
|