Archivum Lithuanicum

The epistolary legacy of Heinrich Lysius (Lith. Henrikas Lyzijus, 1670–1731) related to the affairs of the churches and schools of Prussian Lithuania provides insight into both, the then state of education and the efforts to introduce the Lithuanian language as a subject of compulsory primary education. The legacy of this theme is stored in several German memory institutions (now 8 letters are known) but the search for letters and documents must be continued. Their part containing data on the establishment of the educational system in Prussian Lithuania in 1710s–1720s is analysed here. The obligations of King Friedrich Wilhelm I to Lysius to establish a compulsory primary education system was also dictated by the continuous correspondence on education issues with Frederick Wilhelm I, the King of Prussia, and August Hermann Francke (1663– 1727), a professor at the University of Halle. Two letters by Lysius, which were written to Frederick Wilhelm I, the King of Prussia (1688–1740, ruled in 1713–1740), are kept in the Secret State Archives of the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation (Ger. Geheimes Staatsarchiv Preußischer Kulturbesitz; GStA PK), are significant as sources bearing evidence to the initial stage of the activities of the Lithuanian language seminar at the University of Königsberg in 1718–1721, which had been scarcely documented until now. The letter dated 27 October 1718 allows for the conclusion that in the winter semester of 1718 the seminar was not yet open: the facilities and resources had not been established, no educational activities took place, and only organisational preparatory actions were carried out. At that time, Lysius only sought to attract students (12–20) from Prussian Lithuania and to provide them with preferences: alumnate and convict. The letter dated 31 July 1722 bears evidence to the following facts relating to the activities of the seminar: (1) the seminar led by Lysius in Königsberg was conducted for at least two years and was started for a third year; (2) its activities terminated in 1721 not due to the lack of students or their inability to learn and not through the fault of Lysius; but rather as a result of organisational decisions of the King: the refusal to grant the post of the senior preacher of the chamber to Lysius and the termination of his powers to take care of churches and schools; (3) the seminar was conducted according to the principles set by Lysius; (4) the activities of the seminar were productive: it prepared a group of persons suitable for serving in Prussian Lithuania and three of them, when vacancies opened, began working in schools.

This article attempts to verify the historically set axioms associated with the lengthening of vowels in word endings and its origin that are still popular in the normative tradition of Lithuanian linguistics; first of all, it posits that language contact affects the duration of vowels of Lithuanian mother tongue speakers in Vilnius and that lengthening of vowels thus originates from Russian and Polish. The article compares the pronunciation of three groups of Vilnius residents: 1) Lithuanian (those who grew up in Lithuanian-speaking families), 2) bilingual (those who grew up in a family where only one of the parents was Lithuanian and both Lithuanian and Russian / P olish or another Slavic language were used) and 3) native Russian and Polish speakers. The formulated hypothesis is that if longer endings occur in the speech of native Lithuanian speakers because of the influence of Slavic languages, those respondents who grew up in bilingual families and spoke Lithuanian and Russian or Polish at home would produce a longer /i/ and /u/ than native Lithuanian speakers from monolingual Lithuanian families. After comparative analysis of the stressed vowel duration in endings produced by respondents of different ethnic and linguistic backgrounds, it became evident that language contact was not the reason why native Lithuanian speakers produce not only short, but also long vowel variants in word endings. The instrumental values of the vowel durations produced by respondents who grew up in bilingual families were not significantly different from those produced by those who grew up in families speaking only Lithuanian. Thus, this feature is the same in the speech of both groups of respondents. Furthermore, the instrumental values of the vowel durations produced by respondents from these two groups were significantly different from the values of the vowel durations produced by native Russian or Polish speakers when speaking Lithuanian. In conclusion, the investigation of the genesis of lengthening in the word ending has disproven the assertion that ending lengthening originated from intense language contact between Lithuanian and Russian, Polish, and other Slavic languages spoken by the ethnic minorities of Lithuania. It is clear that the Slavic languages, which are non-native for Lithuanians or one of the native languages for Vilnius residents from bilingual families, do not, on their own, influence the duration of stressed /i/ or /u/ in the word ending. If lengthening of these vowels spread because of intense language contact, the occurrence of these lengthened variants would not be as rare in Vilnius speech as it currently is. It is possible, however, that other types of language contact could explain the vowel lengthening in word endings. In future research, there are two potential hypotheses that could explain how language contact might have affected ending lengthening in the speech of Vilnius residents. They are both connected with lengthening by non-native Lithuanian speakers. One might wonder whether lengthening could have originated when the ancestors of Vilnius residents transitioned from speaking some Slavic language to speaking Lithuanian on an individual or family level at the end of the 19th century or in the first half of the 20th century. In this case, some Vilnius residents could have inherited lengthening as a mother tongue norm. It is also possible that lengthening in the ending originated as an indicator of an in-group member identity in the post-World War II period, especially among workers in the manufacturing industry. During that period, intense expansion of factories and russification took place and many blue-collar Russian and Russian-speaking workers settled in Vilnius. When speaking Lithuanian, they were probably producing longer vowel endings and this pronunciation could have become an internal code of the group.

This article presents an historical overview of ideas and practices of teaching mother tongue (L1, national, majority language) and literacy in Western Europe. The research is based on a focused analysis of secondary sources and aims to distinguish developmental stages of mother tongue education with their characteristic approaches to language and language didactics. The influence of modern language scholarship on language education at the end of the 20th century is discussed, including the teaching of language awareness. The theoretical framework for the research consists of Matthijssen’s theory of rationality, or valid knowledge in education, Englund’s concept of competing meta-discourses about education, as well as academic, developmental, communicative and utilitarian paradigms of mother tongue teaching conceptualised by Sawyer and Van den Ven (2006). A total of four stages of mother tongue education and literacy are singled out: elite literacy (classical Latin tradition); mass literacy (teaching of the national standard), new literacy (teaching of language as communication) and linguistic literacy (teaching scholarly knowledge about language). Recent projects aiming to include critical language awareness into teacher education and school curricula are discussed separately. At the end of the article, features of contemporary Lithuanian mother tongue education are presented and evaluated in light of current developments in the West. The question is raised to what extent the most recent changes in Western curricula have reached Lithuanian education. This part of the research is based on official Lithuanian education documents and data from the authors’ previous research. It has been shown that the communicative approach to language dominates Lithuanian mother tongue teaching, yet it is intertwined with the pre-scientific academic paradigm characteristic of language education from the early modern times. A critical approach to standard language ideology and teaching of linguistics and language awareness is lacking.

In the spring of 2019, historian Olga Mastianica-Stankevič found the previously unknown tome of Lithuanian grammar, Short Compendium of Lithuanian Grammar (Trumpas lietuviškos gramatikos konspektas), in the archive of Mečislovas Davainis-Silvestraitis in the Library of the Institute of Lithuanian Literature and Folklore. The hectographed grammar book has a small format of 185 × 115 mm, with 32 pages, and without any information concerning the author, place or date of publication. This grammar book is not included in Lithuanian Bibliography of 1862–1904. Short Compendium of Lithuanian Grammar is genetically related to Petras Avižonis’s Lithuanian grammar (1898 or 1899). These two works are similar in structure, the Lithuanian material presented, usage of Latin terms and alphabet. Short Compendium of Lithuanian Grammar is more concise than Lithuanian grammar by Avižonis, but it is not an abbreviated version. This can be seen from the paradigms of nouns, adjectives and verbs: in Short Compendium of Lithuanian Grammar there is usually one example provided, but in Lithuanian Grammar it is often not in the first but in the second position, thus understood as a variant of the norm. If the Short Compendium of Lithuanian Grammar was made by shortening Lithuanian Grammar, the order of the norm variants would probably coincide, i.e. the first variant of Lithuanian Grammar would remain in the same position in the Short Compendium of Lithuanian Grammar. This feature suggests that Short Compendium of Lithuanian Grammar reflects an earlier version of Avižonis’s grammar, not yet edited by Jonas Jablonskis. This is confirmed by an analysis of the use of nasal letters in both works. The Russian inserts and simplified accent system (two accents, gravis and acute) of Short Compendium of Lithuanian Grammar suggest that this work was prepared to teach Lithuanian to those who were proficient in Russian, perhaps students who lived St. Petersburg. Lithuanian Grammar by Avižonis was hectographed in late 1898 or the beginning of 1899. Short Compendium of Lithuanian Grammar was probably completed by the end of 1897, before the grammar of Avižonis was edited by Jablonskis.

The first book by Simonas Daukantas, PRASMĄ ŁOTINÛ KAŁBOS (Grammar of Latin), was published by St Petersburg publisher Christian Hintze in 1837 (in Lithuanian). Daukantas did not use the grapheme <I> in any of his Lithuanian manuscripts, only <J>. At that time, it was assumed that while setting the text, the typesetters would expand the single <J> grapheme into two—<I> and <J>. The tactics they applied in setting (interpreting) the grapheme <J> in Daukantas’s manuscript for Lithuanian words divides the text of the Grammar of Latin into four segments: (1) <J‑> (Jwardes) pp. 1–20; (2) <I‑ > (Iwardes) pp. 21–87;(3) <J‑> (Judum) pp. 88–94; (4) <I‑ > (Iungînes), and <J‑> (Jungînę) pp. 95–126(117). Judging by the three different styles of rendering and transforming <J‑>, there might have been at least three different typesetters involved in this work. Moreover, the typesetters not only rendered and transformed the capital <J‑> into two other capital letters, sometimes they also substituted <J‑> for the lowercase letters <i‑ or j‑>. The first and the third typesetter most probably exploited analogous tactics: the first typesetter in the first segment possibly both stayed with Daukantas’s <J‑> and transformed it into the lower case letter <j‑> (jems; he set neither <I‑ > nor <i‑>); the third typesetter in the fourth segment possibly split Daukantas’s <J‑> into <I‑ > and <J‑> interchangeably and likewise into <i‑> (iems) and <j‑> (jèms). The diversity in interpretations of Daukantas’s <J‑> in the Grammar of Latin, occasionally erroneous, leads to the assumption that Hintze’s typesetters in St Petersburg did not speak Lithuanian. There was no easy way for them to make informed choices about the expected graphemes. Printed outside of Lithuania, Daukantas’s Grammar of Latin suffered additional variation due to the ignorance of the typesetters. Latin words used by Daukantas also began with the capital <J‑> when needed (one surviving page of a Daukantas manuscript “Apsirikimai” [Errata] confirms this, e.g. Jnfinitivus). Throughout the entire book, the typesetters consistently transformed it into <I‑ > (Infinitivus)— this was the usual way of representing Latin spellings. This means that the typesetters were well aware of Latin printing conventions, in contrast to Lithuanian ones. The Errata of the Grammar of Latin were most probably set by two different typesetters as well—probably by the first and the second, since on p. 129 the letter <J‑> was always (6×) used, even in the Latin words (in contrast to the expectation), and on p. 130(119)— only <I‑ > (7×). In certain cases, the typesetters reversed the direction of substitution: they turned the lowercase letters into their upper case equivalents <i, j> → <I, J> (ISPAUSTE, PARSERGIEJEMAA). But since Daukantas made an obvious distinction in the lowercase letters <i> and <j>, it was not difficult for the typesetters to represent them rather accurately. They even used the capital grapheme <Î> (PÎRMOJE) with the circumflex diacritic, which was alien to Daukantas due to his preference for <J‑> that might never attract a circumflex. The typesetters must have interpreted <î> → <Î> themselves.

This article investigates the influence of Simonas Daukantas’s (1793–1864) book BUDĄ Senowęs- Lëtuwiû Kalnienû ĩr Ƶámajtiû (The Character of the Lithuanian Highlanders and Samogitians of the Old Times) (1845; hereafter Bd) on Jonas Mačiulis-Maironis’s (1869–1930) Apsakymai apie Lietuvos praeigą (Stories about Lithuania’s Past) (1891; hereafter ALP), which was reprinted in 1893 and 1906 as History of Lithuania. The fourth reprint in 1926 was titled Lithuania’s Past. Maironis’s work was popular and used as a textbook, so it had a significant impact on Lithuanian readers. Although the introduction “Užgyvenimo vieta” (“Place of residence”, p. 10) and chapters “Ukiszka vyresnybē” (“Heads of State”, pp. 18–19), “Pilēs ir miestai” (“Castles and Cities”, pp. 19–20), “Karionēs” (“Battles”, pp. 20–23), “Prekyba” (“Trade”, p. 23), “Namu gyvenimas” (“Home Life”, pp. 23–26) are obviously based on Daukantas’s Bd, the author never mentions this fact. Moreover, it seems that Maironis was influenced by Daukantas’s style, which he emulates, at times employing the elements of essay and poetry, or using long rhythmic sentences, which are sometimes reminiscent of hexameter and other times of Lithuanian folk song melodies and rhythms. Along with a significant part of Daukantas’s style and vocabulary, Maironis absorbed his dominant themes, motifs, personalities and places, images of daily life and nature. Maironis not only repeats all this in his ALP but also transfers them to his poem Lietuva (Lithuania).

At the beginning of the 19th century (probably, also in the 18th century), in Calvinist writing greater attention started to be paid to the needs of the addressee – they dared to deviate more from the Polish tradition, and translations solely very closely related to the Polish source were no longer prepared. This is demonstrated by the results of the studies of Seanas Katechizmas (hereinafter referred to as SK). 1. The Calvinist work Seanas Katechizmas (1803), which was prepared for the press by Mykolas Cerauskas, is not homogeneous. The quotes from the Bible, hymns and prayers (except one), with minimal amendments, were taken from the catechism and primer Pradžios pamokslas (hereinafter referred to as PP) of 1680, from which the alphabet and examples of syllables as well as numbers were also taken. SK’s foreword and one prayer (“Małda Rita untra” SK 29–30) were prepared by Mykolas Cerauskas himself, which is evidenced by his other work, Kozonis padekawonies, coinciding features of spelling and language of the texts. 2. The main text, catechism (i.e. teaching the truths of faith), is of a slightly different spelling, language, and content than the texts of PP and those prepared by Cerauskas. Therefore, it was not prepared by Cerauskas. However, similarly to Cerauskas, the anonymous author was from the area of eastern Aukštaičiai (probably, Panevėžys) area (as demonstrated by part of the phonetic features, including reduced verb forms), but from a dialect that is rather farther to the west (this is reflected by some of the nasal reflexes). Unlike Cerauskas, the author managed to better overcome the peculiarities of his native dialect and to adhere to the norms of the middle variant (however, it is also true that more accurate spelling tradition, <ea> writing and other, were not taken over). 3. It is highly likely that in the 18th century, a significantly revised manuscript version of the catechism and primer was prepared. It departed from previously existing Lithuanian and Polish Calvinist catechisms (“Who are you?” type of catechism order). It was simplified even more than PP and was adapted to teach children. The main texts of faith ‒ the Lord’s Prayer, the Confession of Faith, the Decalogue, and the description of the sacraments ‒ departed from the versions of the 17th century very little but their order of presentation and the introductory part of the catechism were different. The author of this manuscript was probably a Calvinist priest who worked in a parish school. There is a lack of data to determine whether more catechism versions were developed at that time. 4. Despite its unusual structure, its difference from the catechisms of the “Who are you?” type, the manuscript catechism was included in the SK work of the early 19th century and, with a minor addition and other existing SK texts, was replicated under the title of the Shorter Catechism (Trumpas Katechizmas) in 1860s.