the language of cassubian literature and the question of a literary standard

The Language of Cassubian Literature and the Question of a Literary StandardAuthor(s): Gerald StoneSource: The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 50, No. 121 (Oct., 1972), pp. 521-529Published by: the Modern Humanities Research Association and University College London, School ofSlavonic and East European StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4206617 .

Accessed: 13/06/2014 18:17

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Modern Humanities Research Association and University College London, School of Slavonic and EastEuropean Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Slavonic andEast European Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.134 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 18:17:57 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mhra

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucl

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucl

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4206617?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


The Language

of Cassubian

Literature and the Question

of

a Literary

Standard

GERALD STONE

There has been a great deal of discussion as to whether the Cassu?

bian dialects1 constitute a separate Slavonic language, distinct from

Polish, or whether they are to be classified as a special group of

Polish dialects. This is a question which has occupied the minds of

linguists and others for over a century,2 owing both to the intrinsic

linguistic interest and to the political significance of the Cassubian

situation. The political question has often been seen in the terms

formulated by Peter Brock:

The Kashub 'question' resolves itself into a twofold query. Can the Kashub tongue be considered a separate language and consequently can the Kashubs be regarded as a separate nationality, or are they to be counted simply as speakers of a Polish dialect and members of the Polish nation?3

This query assumes that it is possible to distinguish between a dia?

lect and a language. If the assumption is that it is possible to make

this distinction on linguistic grounds alone, then it is false. In fact it

is doubtful whether defining the difference between a language and

a dialect is a real problem at all. As Einar Haugen, describing this as

'one of the old problems of linguistics', said at the Sociolinguistics Conference held at the University of California, Los Angeles, in

1964:

It may be a pseudo-problem, because we are using terms that are

essentially popular in meaning and trying to give them some kind of scientific relevance.4

Gerald Stone is a Fellow of Hertford College, Oxford. [This paper is to be presented to the VHth International Congress of Slavists, Warsaw, August 1973]. 1 The words Kashub and Kashubian are sometimes used in English, as well as Cassu? bian. I prefer the latter, particularly in view of the status given it by its use in Fr. Lorentz, Adam Fischer and Tadeusz Lehr-Splawinski, The Cassubian Civilization, London, 1935, the best work on the subject in English. 2 For the history of the discussion see Ewa Kaminska and Jadwiga Palkowska, Z historii badan nad gwarami kaszubskimi, Gdansk, 1958; Odbitka z Rocznika Gdaftskiego XV/XVI, .956/1957- 3 Peter Brock, 'Florjan Cenova and the Kashub Question', (East European Quarterly, II, Boulder, Colorado, 1968, p. 261). 4 Einar Haugen, in the discussion following John J. Gumperz's paper 'On the Ethno? logy of Linguistic Change', (Sociolinguistics, Proceedings of the UCLA Sociolinguistics Conference, 1964, ed. William Bright, The Hague-Paris, 1966, p. 47).



522 GERALD STONE

Similarly M. A. K. Halliday, on the problem of defining 'a language'

says: 'there are as many definitions as there are possible criteria'.5

The fact remains however that these 'essentially popular' terms and

the concomitant distinction between them are in popular use, and

this attudinal distinction is essential to the concept of the language

community.6 The distinction itself may be a fiction from the lin?

guistic point of view, but that people do make this distinction is a

sociolinguistic fact.

The language/dialect question, with particular reference to the

development of new standard languages, has also been dealt with by Heinz Kloss,7 who proposes that the term 'a language' be applied on

the basis of either disparity (Abstand) or cultivation (Ausbau). An

Abstandssprache is one which is 'in its substance and its linguistic body

(Sprachkorper) so different from every other standard language that

because of this objective disparity it is not admissible to regard it and

describe it as a mere dialect.. .'8 Ausbausprachen are those which 'if

they had not become literary languages with standardised dominant

forms would count only as dialects'.9 Kloss also set up degrees of

cultivation (Ausbau) enabling us to decide whether or not a dialect

has been thereby raised to the status of a language.10 But it is of

course still not possible to establish degrees of disparity (Abstand). Two branches of sociolinguistics to which the study of Cassubian

may have something to contribute are language planning and institu?

tional linguistics. The former has been most recently defined as 'the

establishment of goals, policies and procedures for a language com?

munity',11 and the latter is described as being 'concerned with what

tongues people?communities or individuals?use under what condi?

tions .. .'12 The two are often closely interrelated. For example, the

development and control of standard languages, which are part of

language planning, are often dependent on institutional factors. The

Cassubian situation provides us with evidence of this.

The likelihood of the emergence of a new standard language in?

creases in proportion to the extent to which the vernacular on which

6 M. A. K. Halliday, 'The Users and Uses of Language', Readings in the Sociology of Lan? guage, ed. Joshua A. Fishman, The Hague-Paris, 1968, p. 140.

? Ibid. 7 Heinz Kloss, Die Entwicklung neuer germanischer Kultursprachen von 1800 bis 1950, Munich,

1952; id., 'Die deutsche Sprache im Kreise der nahverwandten Sprachen und Halb- sprachen', Sprache und Gesellschaft: Beitrdge zur soziolinguistischen Beschreibung der deutschen Gegenwartssprache, Dusseldorf, 1971, pp. 258-78. 8 Kloss, 'Die deutsche Sprache ...', p. 262.

^ Ibid. 10 Ibid., pp. 262-4. 11 Einar Haugen, 'Language Planning, Theory and Practice', Actes du Xe Congrte Inter-

nationa Ides Linguistes. Bucarest, 98 aout-2 septembre 1967, ed. A. Graur, Bucharest, 1969, pp. 701-11 (701).

12 J. Ellis, 'Some Lines of Research in Sociolinguistics', ibid., p. 565.



LANGUAGE OF CASSUBIAN LITERATURE 523

it is based has a distinct identity, that is to say the extent to which it

differs or, what is more important, is believed or felt by its speakers to differ from the standard language currently in use. There is wide?

spread belief among laymen, both in the Cassubian region and in

other parts of Poland, that Cassubian is very different from both

standard Polish and its local varieties. Other Poles have great diffi?

culty in understanding Cassubians speaking Cassubian. The practical

problem of communication is the main raison d'Stre of Aleksander

Labuda's Slowniczek kaszubski, a Cassubian-Polish and Polish-

Cassubian dictionary intended to assist teachers from other parts of

Poland working in the Cassubian region.13 The foreword, by two

distinguished dialectologists,14 contains the following passage:

... rich experience and the already fairly long history of Polish ele?

mentary schools and of Polish officialdom and offices generally in Cassu- bia speak of serious linguistic difficulties which have to be overcome by officials and particularly teachers from outside the Cassubian region . . . who do not have an active command of the dialect and sometimes do not even understand it. Young teachers from Central Poland are

helpless when faced with children who have brought from home only a

knowledge of their native dialect and who have not yet encountered

literary Polish. The inability of the teacher and children to understand each other makes difficult for the child its first, most difficult period of

getting used to school, and on the other hand retards the process of the teacher becoming assimilated into the village whose life he is sometimes

entering for many years.15

In view of the difficulties described here it is scarcely surprising that Cassubian is popularly regarded as a separate language. The fact that speakers of Cassubian do look on it in this way is also re?

ferred to here and the phrase 'a specific kind of bilingualism' is

used.16 At the same time it is emphasised that 'for the linguist there is not the slightest doubt of the close links of Cassubian with the Polish dialects' and the genetic position is stated.17

Another essential issue in the evolution of standard languages is that of prestige. The latter is correlated with the distribution of social dialects and functional dialects (registers). Cassubian is not only more distinct from standard Polish than the local varieties used in other parts of Poland but it also has higher social status. It is used at all levels of society, though both the functional distribution and the

prestige relationship of Cassubian and standard Polish vary accord?

ing to the social status of the users. A pattern commonly encountered

13 Aleksander Labuda, Slowniczek kaszubski, Warsaw, i960. 14 Hanna Popowska-Taborska and Zuzanna Topolinska. 15 Ibid., pp. 10-11. i? Ibid., p. 8. 17 Ibid.



524 GERALD STONE

in European speech communities is that in which the distribution of

standard and non-standard speech is mainly socially determined.

Another pattern is that in which the distribution is mainly functional.

(There is of course some overlap.) The conclusion I have drawn on

the basis of personal observation and interviews with Cassubian in?

formants (all intellectuals)18 is that the Cassubian speech community

belongs to the type in which the distribution is mainly functional. In

fact, the situation here corresponds in many respects to that which

C. A. Ferguson calls 'diglossia'. In Ferguson's description the abbre?

viation H ('high') is used for the 'superposed variety' (i.e. the variety which 'is not the primary, "native" variety for the speakers in ques? tion but may be learned in addition to this')19 and the abbreviation

L ('low') for the regional varieties. In the case of our subject of study Cassubian is L and standard Polish is H.

Cassubian is used as a spoken means of communication by all

classes. Broadly speaking, the functional distinction is formal (H): non-formal (L). Most (perhaps nearly all) Cassubian intellectuals

speak Cassubian to each other in non-formal situations. Its use ex?

presses solidarity. Not only is Cassubian, as a whole, very different from standard

Polish and its local varieties in other parts of Poland; it is also highly diversified itself. Not only do other Poles have difficulty in conversing with Cassubians; the differences between the various Cassubian dia?

lects are themselves great enough to cause real problems of com?

munication. Standard Polish is so different from the Cassubian

dialects that it exerts little unifying influence. In fact, fragmentation of Cassubian has even increased in the present century.20 The speech of intellectuals is undoubtedly different from that of peasants and

fishermen, but it too is based on local dialects. It is therefore not

surprising that intellectuals do have some difficulty when one parti? cipant in a conversation comes from the north of Cassubian territory and another from the south. The fact that they do manage to com?

municate, however, suggests that some kind of compromise between varieties may be made?the kind of compromise that occurs during the emergence of a new standard language. This remains to be in?

vestigated.

18 I am especially grateful to Professor Andrzej Bukowski, Edmund Kaminski, Leon Roppel, the Rev. Bernard Sychta, and Jan Trepczyk. Conversations with members of the team producing the Cassubian Dialect Atlas under the direction of Professor Zdzislaw Stieber have also been of great value to me. At the University of Gdansk I benefited from a consultation with Dr Hubert Gornowicz. The opinions expressed in this paper are of course my own responsibility. 19 C. A. Ferguson, 'Diglossia', (Word, XV, New York, 1959, pp. 325-40), reprinted in Language and Social Context, ed. Pier Paolo Giglioli, Harmondsworth, 1972, pp. 233-4. 20 See Zdzislaw Stieber, 'Stosunek kaszubszczyzny do dialekt6w Polski ladowej', Kon-

ferencja Pomorska (1954), Warsaw, 1956, pp. 37-48.




On the matter of prestige, it should be added that this is itself

socially variable: outside the intelligentsia the prestige of Cassubian

among Cassubian speakers falls markedly.21 I have so far dealt with the place in society of spoken Cassubian

and my conclusion is that it possesses two of the features characteris? tic of the spoken forms of standard languages, viz. identity and pres? tige, but lacks another of these features, viz. unity.

We now come to the question of the use of Cassubian in writing. Here too there is lack of unity. The Cassubians are of course not re?

garded officially as a minority, and the use of Cassubian in print does not have special state support. Nevertheless it does appear in print, both in journals and in separate titles. A very high proportion of Cassubian publications are in verse, and the functional range covered by prose is limited. The journal Pomerania, published by the directorate of the ZrZ^zenie Kaszubsko-Pomorskie in Gdansk,22 con? tains regular items in Cassubian, but these constitute only a small

part of the total contents. The functional bounds of Cassubian prose are probably stretched furthest by Jan Trepczyk in his regular con? tribution Domocy ndrcek (A Homely Corner) which has included an

obituary, a report on the Cassubian film Kaszebe,2* and discussions of

linguistic matters, among other examples of non-fiction. The monthly literary journal Litery, also published in Gdansk, carries articles on Cassubian subjects in standard Polish and, occasionally, poems in Cassubian.

Cassubian secular literature has a tradition going back to Florian

Ceynowa (1817-81).24 Its language, however, has never achieved more than a marginal stage of standardisation. Each writer has gone his own way, using his own dialect as the basis of his written lan?

guage. There have been marked tendencies towards standardisation of spelling, but otherwise there is relatively little evidence of com?

promise between the various regional varieties used in writing or of standardisation. Nevertheless, a few weak tendencies of this kind are discernible in Cassubian writing and there are also a few linguistic works whose object or effect was to prescribe and codify a possible standard.

Ceynowa's writings are based closely on his native dialect of

Slawoszyno (about 16 km to the north-west of Puck) and it appears

21 The position is complex. Some information is provided by Bernard Sychta, 'Ka- szubskie grupy regionalne i lokalne, ich nazwy i wzajemny stosunek do siebie', Rocznik GdaAski, XVII/XVIII, Gdansk, i960, p. 224-5. 22 Until 1970 the title was Biuletyn Z^zeszenia Kaszubsko-Pomorskiego. 23 This film, which had its premiere in 1971, is itself an interesting instance of the ex? tension of the functions of Cassubian.

24 The best survey of Cassubian literature from Ceynowa up to 1939 (and of the regionalist movement generally) is Andrzej Bukowski, Regionalizm kaszubski: Ruch nan- kowy> literacki i kulturalny, Poznan, 1950.



526 GERALD STONE

unlikely that he took much, if any, account of other dialects.25 The

first attempt to unite features of several dialects in a work of literature

was made by Hieronim Derdowski (1852-1902) in his long narrative

poem 0 panu Czorlinscim, co do Pucka po sece jachol (About Mr Czor-

linksi who Went to Puck for a Net) published in Toruri in 1880. His

efforts resulted in the inclusion of a few forms which had no basis in the spoken language and there are a number of inconsistencies, but there is no doubt that he incorporated features both from his native dialect of Wiele, in the extreme south of Cassubian territory, and from dialects spoken further north.26 Further steps in the direction of unification and standardisation were taken by Aleksander Majkow- ski (1876-1938), who came from Koscierzyna, to the north of Wiele but still in the south Cassubian dialect-area. His language however contains features from other regions.27

In 1908 Majkowski founded the journal Gryf, published in Kos?

cierzyna, which contained both articles in standard Polish on Cassubian subjects and fables in Cassubian. Gryf was the organ of the Ruch mlodokaszubski (The Young Cassubian Movement), which was

frequently accused of having separatist aims but denied these accusations. The question of language standardisation was discussed in its columns. In the early numbers it was acknowledged that, what? ever the genetic relationship with Polish, Cassubian was bound to retain the role of a dialect vis-a-vis standard Polish, and that its func? tions in writing should not exceed certain bounds.28 At the same time contributors were preoccupied with the possibility of unification and

standardisation, particularly for spelling, and in 19io the Polish

(non-Cassubian) dialectologist Kazimierz Nitsch informed readers that a unified literary language would require grammatical stan? dardisation as well as an orthography.20 The desirability of gram? matical standardisation was however disputed by Friedrich Lorentz, a German, who was soon to become the best known of all Cassubian

specialists. He said that Cassubian literature could only be like that of Plattdeutsch, in which every writer used his own dialect, and that each Cassubian writer should write the forms he used in speech.30

On 26 September 1910 in Koscierzyna a meeting of the Young Cassubians took place at which the foundations were laid for certain

25 Cf. Lorentz, Fischer and Lehr-Splawinski, op. cit., p. 16, and Fryderyk Lorentz, Gramatyka Pomorska, I, Wroclaw, 1958, pp. 47-8. 26 Hanna Popowska, 'Poemat H. Derdowskiego 0 pana Czorlifiscim, co do Pucka po sece jachol jako proba stworzenia kaszubskiego jezyka literackiego', (Jizyk Polski, XXXVIII, Cracow, 1958, pp. 21-7). 27 Fryderyk Lorentz, op. cit., p. 49. 28 Cf. editorial article, Gryf Koscierzyna, 1908, p. 2, and 'Ruch mlodokaszubski' (unsigned), ibid., 1909, p. 198. 29 Kazimierz Nitsch, 'W sprawie pisowni kaszubskiej', ibid., 19io, p. 6.

30 Dr F. Lorentz, 'W sprawie pisowni kaszubskiej', ibid., pp. 76.




spelling conventions.31 In 1911 however Lorentz published his

'Zarys ogolnej pisowni i skladni pomorsko-kaszubskiej', which

offered a more elaborate orthography and a partly normative mor?

phology. It is significant that he distinguished between forms to be

regarded as standard and as dialectal. He had evidently changed his

ground since his pronouncement on the subject the previous year, for

although he still maintained that each writer should write as he

spoke, he now appeared at least to visualise the possibility of stan?

dardisation in the future.32

In 1919 Lorentz's Kaschubische Grammatik was published in Danzig

(now Gdarisk). In the foreword he stated that it was based on prin?

ciples worked out by him in collaboration with Majkowski and Wos

Budzysz (Jan Karnowski) in 1911, which had then served as the basis

for his 'Zarys'. In a few respects, however, he had found it necessary to change the orthography making it closer to that of Ceynowa. By now, of course, Lorentz was completely in favour of grammatical standardisation. He described his work as setting up 'a norm freed of

the accidental features and peculiarities of the dialects, and thus

standing above the dialects'. The words and forms given (he claims) result from the comparison of the various dialects, and only those

syntactic features have been selected which are common to all or

most of them.33 Apart from Ceynowa's %ares do Grammatikji Kasebsko-

Slovjnskje Move, published in Poznan in 1879, and Lorentz's own

'Zarys5, the Kaschubische Grammatik is the only published normative

grammar of Cassubian.

By the 1930s Lorentz was optimistic about the adoption of stan?

dardisation in literature. He wrote: 'Hitherto every Cassubian

writer has made it a practice to use the forms known to him from his

native dialect. It seems, however, that the recognition of a definite standard is to be expected in the immediate future.'34 He also ob? served that in the journals Przyjaciel Ludu Kaszubskiego, Gryf Kaszub-

ski, and Bene e buten there had been a tendency to return to the lan?

guage of Ceynowa.35 In particular, he referred to the masc, and neut,

gen. sg. ending -ho. Of the journals in question I have so far been able to gain access only to Bene e buten, in which the morpheme -ehoj-eho does indeed appear consistently throughout in both adjectives and

pronouns, e.g.jeho, chterneho,jedneho, przeszUho. It is thus evident that

31 'Pisownia kaszubska', (unsigned), ibid., 1911, pp. 33-6. 32 Dr F. Lorentz, 'Zarys ogolnej pisowni i skladni pomorsko-kaszubskiej', ibid., pp. 161? 186.

33 Dr F. Lorentz, Kaschubische Grammatik, Danzig, 1919, p. i. 34 Lorentz, Fischer and Lehr-Splawinski, op. cit., p. 17. 35 On the political significance and management of Przyjaciel Ludu Kaszubskiego and Gryf Kaszubski (which are also relevant to the language question) see Andrzej Bukowski, op. cit., pp. 298-9 and 291 respectively. Cf. footnote 46.



528 GERALD STONE

there was a definite editorial policy of uniformity in this respect in

Bene e buten. So far as I have been able to ascertain, none of those who

contributed to or edited these journals came from the small region

(Slawoszyno and Sulicice)36 where gen. in -eho is found, though

Alojzy Budzisz (i 874-1934), who produced much of the copy for

Bene e buten, came from Swiecino, about 6 km south of Slawoszyno. It would seem therefore that the selection of this variant was a

deliberate language planning decision based on the undoubted

authority of Ceynowa as the founder of Cassubian literature. Who

made the decision is a matter for speculation, but it is interesting that

Lorentz's Kaschubische Grammatik gives only the two variants -evw,

-egos,37 these being representative of the vast majority of Cassubian

dialects.

A tendency towards archaism is not uncommon in the evolution of

new standard languages. It is a means of establishing tradition. This

tendency is and has been present in the language of Cassubian

literature. The example of the variant -eho is a case in point. An atti?

tude contributing to this tendency was expressed by Lewiathan

(Kamil Julian Kantak) in Gryf in 1912, when he suggested that Cassubian neologisms might be provided by using old texts contain?

ing Cassubian words and by using Polabian.38 The archaic nature of

certain forms used in two literary works published in 1956 has been

commented on by Zuzanna Topoliriska.39 One archaic type is that of unmetathesised forms like warna 'crow' (standard Polish wrona). Some of these forms (including warna) have been found by recent

fieldwork to be still in use in speech.40 Others appear to have dis?

appeared from the vernacular, but this does not prevent them being used in literature. The words gard 'town' and barn 'weapon', for

example, are used by Alojzy Nagel (born 1930 in Kielno),41 though they are not attested by Sychta.42 It is unlikely that parmin 'ray' and skarnio 'temple' (as part of the human body) survive with these

meanings in the vernacular, but they too have been used in recent literature.43 Tradition undoubtedly plays a role here: parmin 'ray' and skarnio 'temple' are both attested in Majkowski's %ece i przigode

36 Fryderyk Lorentz, op. cit., p. 924. 37 I have retained in all cases the spelling given in the sources. 38 Lewiathan, 'Kaszubszczyzna jako jezyk literacki', (Gryf, 1912, p. 185). 39 Zuzanna Topolinska, 'Gwara kaszubska w literaturze', J$zyk Polski, XXXVI,

Cracow, 1956, pp. 382-7, which reviews Pi?tow Tona and Staszkow Jan, Nasze strone, Warsaw, 1956, and Franciszek Sedzicki, Jestem Kaszubq, Warsaw, 1956. ?0 Ibid., p. 383. 41 Alojzy Nagel, Cassubia Fidelis, Gdansk, 1971, pp. 23 and 27 (gard), and pp. 7, 9 and 26 (barA). 42 Bernard Sychta, Slownik gwar kaszubskich na tie kultury ludowej, I, A-6, Wroclaw- Warsaw-Cracow, 1967. 43 Topolinska, 'Gwara kaszubska...', p. 383. Also attested in Nagel, op. cit., p. 79 (parmin), and pp. 8 and 14 (skarniS).




Remusa.u By producing a greater number of variants archaism

actually operates against unification: bron andpromien are also in use

in the work of contemporary Cassubian poets.45 It is possible that

there is a stylistic distinction, of course.

Although there were definite tendencies towards standardisation

in the language of certain publications in the late 1920s and the

1930s, accompanied by a certain amount of language planning, the

journals in which these tendencies were present probably had little

following,46 and the influence of the prescriptive works written by Lorentz appears to have been slight. In the revival of Cassubian

literature which began with the publication of Nasze strone and

Jestem Kaszubq in 195647 the question of grammatical standardisa?

tion does not seem to have been raised. In spelling however some

progress has taken place, and there are now two main types: that

used by Leon Roppel in his editions published in the series Biblio-

teczka Kaszubska and elsewhere, and that used in Pomerania. The

need for greater unity in spelling is still felt.48

44 Jan Starza (Aleksander Majkowski), %eci i przigode Remusa, in Gryf, 1922, p. 60 (par? min) and p. 57 (skarnio). 45 Nagel, op. cit., p. 12 (broA), and Staszkow Jan (Jan Piepka), Stojedna chwilka, Gdynia, 1961, pp. 44, 50 and 54 (promieA). 46 Przyjaciel Ludu Kaszubskiego (1928-9) was financed by German banks and firms in Gdansk and circulated free of charge (Bukowski, op. cit., p. 298). Gryf Kaszubski only sur? vived for twelve issues (1931-2). The life of Bene e buten was even shorter (four issues). Attempts at standardisation were also made in Zrzesz KaszebskS (1935-9) (Bukowski, op. cit., p. 292). 47 See note 39 above.

48 Most recently expressed in a resolution of the meeting of writers held on Lake Osu- szyno, near Koscierzyna, 1-2 October 1971, reported in Jozef Borzyszkowski,'I spotkanie tworcow literatury kaszubsko-pomorskiej', (Pomerania, 5/VIII, 1971, p. 26).



the language of cassubian literature and the question of a literary standard

Documents