Page 1ERIKA RIMKUTĖ
Vytautas Magnus University
ORCID id: orcid.org/0000–0003–0858–8593
Research areas: corpus linguistics, computational linguistics, automatic morphological analysis, automatic syntactic analysis, language culture, morphemics, fixed word combinations.
DOI: doi.org/10.35321/all88–16
Rita Miliūnaitė
ĮVAIRUOJANTYS IR NAUJI LIETUVIŲ KALBOS REIŠKINIAI XXI A. PRADŽIOJE: SISTEMATIKA IR POKYČIŲ KRYPTYS
Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language, 2022, 721 pp. DOI doi.org/10.35321/e-pub.42.lietuvių-kalbos-pokyčiai ISBN 978-609-411-322–2
At the end of 2022, the Institute of the Lithuanian Language published Rita Miliūnaitė’s monograph Variegated and New Phenomena of the Lithuanian Language at the Beginning of the 21st Century: Systematics and Directions of Change. This review will examine the book.
The author of the monograph continues her systematic research into language variation. According to R. Miliūnaitė, “research into language variation encompasses many theoretical and practical aspects: the identity of variants, their classification, functioning in usage, mutual competition, language change, their relationship with language norms, language planning, and other similar issues.” (p. 9). This research direction is welcome, since it preserves the idea emphasized in R. Miliūnaitė’s works of various kinds that language should be changed (codified) through variants; moreover, apart from R. Miliūnaitė’s works, theoretical and practical (or partly theoretical and partly practical) research on variation is not abundant. Therefore, this monograph is a publication greatly needed by both theoreticians and practitioners interested in language standardization.
Recenzijos / Reviews
309
Page 2ERIKA RIMKUTĖ
As stated in the preface (p. 9), “this book presents readers with a systematic approach to the variable layer of contemporary public Lithuanian usage.” It is also “an attempt to look at the immeasurable expanses of Lithuanian usage and grasp the most important reference points that would allow us to understand how the standard Lithuanian language used in public and its norms function and change at the beginning of the 21st century.” (p. 9). On page 11, R. Miliūnaitė clearly presents the essence of her monograph and, at the same time, its theoretical and practical value: “the classification presented can serve as a basis for making the codification of standard Lithuanian more systematic and more focused, and for assessing the tendencies in the use not of isolated language phenomena, but of larger systemic groups of them. This makes it possible, from the perspective of time, to reconsider the content of language recommendations more consistently and assess their impact on the development of the norms of standard Lithuanian; looking more broadly, it also makes it possible to reflect on the meaning and value of standard language as a variety in today’s changing world.”
A few words about the structure of the monograph follow. The structure of the book is clear and logical. The lists of illustrations and tables provided at the beginning of the book help the reader understand the structure better (the monograph contains many diagrams and tables compiled by the author, advertisements, screenshots, and similar material taken from public usage; admittedly, the quality of some of them is not particularly good and the image is blurred, e.g., pp. 179, 181, 185, 190, 387, and many other places), as does the clearly compiled and informative table of contents. In the preface (p. 10), the author herself presents the structure and essence of the book as follows: “the monograph is conceived so that, in examining the phenomenon of the changing standard language of today, it proceeds from the most concrete phenomena of usage and their changes toward more general matters—the dynamics of standard language as one of the varieties of the national language, with the aim of revealing the relationship and directions of these micro- and macrochanges.”
As is customary in scholarly works, the monograph begins with an Introduction, in which the necessary elements are presented: the aim, object, relevance, novelty, and so on. This section also discusses the most important terms: standard language, substandard, variation, language norm, and codification; the research methodology is presented as well. Next, the first part of the monograph, “Creating a Systematics of Variable and New Language Phenomena,” presents all the normative publications created for the Lithuanian language and various resources (admittedly, not all of them publicly accessible). This can be regarded as one of the monograph’s advantages, since it can also be considered a guide to the standardization work of contemporary Lithuanian (including that of somewhat earlier years): it explains in detail what can be found where and how one publication differs from another. This part then devotes considerable attention to the Compendium of Variable and New Language Phenomena (hereafter, the Compendium): it explains what data have been classified and how, presents the structure of the Compendium in great detail, and concludes by emphasizing the Compendium’s theoretical value and the possibilities of its practical application.
310
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVIII
Page 3Rita Miliūnaitė. Įvairuojantys ir nauji lietuvių kalbos reiškiniai XXI a. pradžioje: sistematika ir pokyčių kryptys
The second part of the monograph is fairly traditional (which does not mean that it is uninteresting or lacking in value): following the customary language levels (lexicon, word structure, morphology, and syntax) and the classification customary in normative publications, it discusses language norms, their changes, variation, and usage tendencies. The relevant subsections of this part explain why and how language units vary; some examples are presented in great detail, while others are provided as illustrative examples of the respective subtopic. It should be praised, however, that the book contains no shortage of well-chosen examples from which one can understand how the language is changing, what causes uncertainty, and what awaits further research.
The third part of the book, “The Dynamics of Standard Language and Its Phenomena,” proved the most interesting (and probably it can be said, the most valuable). Here one can find explanations of where standard Lithuanian is heading, what determines this, and how these tendencies resemble the development of other standard languages. It must be acknowledged that works of Lithuanian linguistics lack a scientifically grounded analysis of changes in the standard language and a perspective based on the experience of other languages. Considerable attention will be devoted to this part below, with many quotations provided so that those who may not find time to read the entire monograph discussed here can form as comprehensive a picture as possible.
The monograph concludes with summary conclusions, lists of sources and literature, and a detailed summary in English. Both the work itself and the bibliography show that it draws on many works by foreign and Lithuanian authors. It can be said that the author is well acquainted with her research field and can therefore present a fairly objective picture of standard Lithuanian in the context of other European languages.
As might be expected, the language of the monograph is clear, logical, and correct. The text is smooth and easy to read. Only a few proofreading errors slipped through, e.g., on p. 139 in the following sentence: “For example, among all new words, ND records about 30 percent of loan neologisms with roots borrowed from English, and considerably fewer (in descending order)—from French, Italian, Japanese, Russian, Spanish, and Arabic (some of them undoubtedly also entered through the English (emphasis by the author—E. R.) language […]”
Next, the monograph’s most important features will be discussed, along with several passages that require revision or invite discussion. One important advantage of this monograph is its desire to describe language variants systematically (not without reason, the word systematicity is also mentioned in the book’s title), since one often encounters situations in which certain language norms do not fully comply with the principle of systematicity, making them difficult to apply in practice and to explain to others how and why they should be applied.
In general, the monograph’s advantage can be presented on the basis of the aim formulated by the author herself in the Introduction (p. 22): “The aim of the research is to create a methodological basis for the quantitative and qualitative analysis of the most characteristic variable phenomena of standard Lithuanian usage and to provide a systematic compendium of these phenomena,”
Recenzijos / Reviews
311
Page 4ERIKA RIMKUTĖ
to identify the most important tendencies and directions of change in standard-language usage.” It should be emphasized that the author succeeded in achieving the goal she set. Thus, the publication emphasizes methodology and systematicity. The monograph devotes considerable attention to explaining the structure of the Compendium and the classification of the phenomena presented in it.
The value of the Compendium discussed in the monograph is best illustrated by the following excerpt from p. 129 of the book under review: “The compilation and supplementation of the Compendium essentially constitute a systematic recording of the types of ĮNKR1 functioning in contemporary usage and their concrete expression. This is a necessary condition and point of departure for further research into variation in the standard language. In other words, the Compendium is needed in order to study changes and tendencies in usage. Without a point of reference, without knowing the state of usage and codification, it is impossible to determine the changes themselves, and it is more difficult to recognize new phenomena. Thus, the Compendium of ĮNKR is a methodological tool for measuring changes in usage and for seeing their nature more clearly: whether it is a new change, a transformation of an existing phenomenon, or an isolated or systemic change.”
It should be emphasized that in the monograph “a linguistic rather than a sociolinguistic approach to language variation has been chosen” (p. 24). On the one hand, this is a traditional approach to language norms; on the other hand, as the author herself writes below (p. 24): “the sociolinguistic aspect is not entirely bypassed in the monograph either: it is important for understanding the general context of relations between society and language that determines the dynamics of standard languages.” This statement can be agreed with, since especially in the third part of the monograph one can also find a sociolinguistic aspect of language analysis, that is, how standard-language development proceeds in the post-standardization period.
Although the author probably did not intend this, it can be said that the book can also be used as study material, since it presents the most important systematized definitions, introduces sources relevant to language standardization, discusses numerous cases of standardization at different language levels, and provides relevant examples.
From a historical perspective, R. Miliūnaitė’s overview of normative publications may prove useful. Particular attention is devoted to discussing Language Practice Guidelines (both editions), but this is understandable, since this publication is a book devoted to discussing the norms of contemporary Lithuanian (from the 1970s–1980s onward), and many other publications or recommendations were prepared on its basis; a considerable portion of the language norms currently in force derives from this publication (of course, many norms approved earlier are also still relevant). The publication is presented objectively, and inconsistencies are not concealed, but given the circumstances of its compilation, such shortcomings are understandable.
As another argument that the Compendium can also be used for teaching and learning purposes, one may mention this thought of R. Miliūnaitė: “Having compiled the Compendium of ĮNKR, I see the areas of language phenomena that vary most markedly and where the standard of the language
¹ In the monograph, this abbreviation denotes variable and new language phenomena.
312
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVII
Page 5Rita Miliūnaitė. Įvairuojantys ir nauji lietuvių kalbos reiškiniai XXI a. pradžioje: sistematika ir pokyčių kryptys
standard is not strong. These data can be used to teach standard language, strengthening the implementation of the norms themselves and revealing the nuances of normative variants, rather than applying the outdated method of correcting errors.” (p. 27).
It is questionable whether it was worth including an obsolete language phenomenon, such as iš kalno in the sense ‘in advance’, or highly atypical dialectal cases in the contemporary language, such as prie with the instrumental (prie vokiečiais). Of course, one may object to the reviewer’s opinion and argue that the Compendium should include all nonstandard and variable cases identified to date (it should be emphasized that, when some cases are discussed in greater detail in the text, no attention is devoted to such rare, atypical cases). But the question arises: how long will various contemporary compendia and normative publications continue to mention what is no longer relevant in the present-day language? After all, such cases were recorded in publications issued earlier; if necessary, they can be found there, and there is therefore no need to repeat them in new works.
The author faces an unenviable situation when she wants to discuss a phenomenon that provokes much debate, e.g., the word sekantis discussed on pp. 187–190. A great deal of information is provided: several Lithuanian dictionaries, normative publications, and a Russian dictionary are compared. All this information clearly shows readers that “it is obvious that these meanings of the verb sekti and the meanings of the participle sekantis, corresponding to the Russian meanings ‘наступающий, появляющийся непосредственно вслед за кем, чем–л., ближайший по очереди’ and ‘вот такой, именно такой, который следует далее’, are not the result of the natural development of the Lithuanian language” (p. 190). It is also described that the meaning of sekantis was presented rather inconsistently in Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian and Language Practice Guidelines. And this entire discussion concludes with the following statement: “To define the norms of variants of the meaning of this type of word more clearly, an exceptionally thorough analysis of usage data is necessary; it would make it possible to considerably refine dictionary definitions of word meanings” (p. 190). Yet it seems that there is no shortage of discussion on this issue, and on p. 187 the author herself lists the following works devoted to the topic: “Vosylytė 1978: 48–50; Jakaitienė 1986: 104; Adomėnas 1995: 3–4; Kniūkšta 2008: 236–244; Razauskas 2008: 224–235.” So perhaps what is simply lacking is a decision by language standardizers (although the time for one has long been ripe) on what to do with the meaning of sekantis ‘other, next, forthcoming’? This is not a reproach directed at R. Miliūnaitė, since it goes without saying that the author is not required to resolve a disputed case in this monograph; it is simply an illustration of a language phenomenon that has not been clearly described in normative publications for many years. Language users who consult only normative publications—say, DLKŽ and the language advice on the portal https://ekalba.lt/ (rather than this monograph or articles devoted to this topic)—have no clear information on whether sekantis may be used in the contemporary language in the sense ‘other, next, forthcoming’.
The author can be praised for ending the subsection on semantic calques with the following summary paragraph: “the criterion of semantic motivation is one of the
Recenzijos / Reviews
313
Page 6ERIKA RIMKUTĖ
principles of codification—systematicity—expressed. In order to apply it when deciding questions of norms, one must rely on precisely examined and compared semantic structures of the members forming the variants. However, as some examples showed, Lithuanian lexicographic sources are not always reliable in this respect. Moreover, this criterion alone is insufficient, since it may conflict with other principles and criteria (purity, distinctiveness, the tradition of standardization, and so on). Therefore, each standardizer may understand the interaction of these criteria differently, and subjectivity arises here (because of age, linguistic experience, professional training, attitudes toward innovations, and so on).” (p. 198). Thus it is clear that language standardizers have had, and will continue to have, ever more work to do in deciding how to treat meanings of contemporary Lithuanian words that have been used for some time or are newly spreading, most often as a result of the influence of other languages.
The monograph provides examples of new phraseological units and rhetorical phrases (e.g., and so on; and no; period; no, I didn’t hear). Naturally, one would like there to be even more of them, because in normative sources (regardless of whether they have been digitized) it is almost impossible to find information about new, especially fixed, language units. One is left to try one’s luck in finding such data in some article, review, or similar source. Thus, as has already been mentioned more than once, this monograph is also very useful as a practical source for those working with the Lithuanian language.
The chapter “Word Structure Phenomena” is valuable for language practitioners because, as is known, a Language Advice booklet devoted to word structure has not yet been prepared. Nonstandard word-structure phenomena are listed in one place only in the List of Language Errors; they can also be found in the Compendium. The author also presents new language facts emerging from the Neologism Database or other sources, for example, she discusses in considerable detail tendencies in the use of derivatives with the suffix -ietis, tendencies to create new formations with the unchanged ending of the second component, and so on.
This chapter was somewhat surprising because slang words with the suffixes -(i)akas, (e.g., mobiliakas, nauj akas), -ovas (e.g., stiliovas), -kė (e.g., labdarkė), and others, mostly originating in Russian, are still relevant. On the other hand, there is no need for great surprise, because, as R. Miliūnaitė states, the language used in public usage is becoming more colloquial, and words that previously occurred only in private spoken language are therefore being used. Thus, it can be concluded that “in general, the continued creation of new formations with slang endings shows that the influence of Russian, which existed in Lithuanian during the Soviet period, is still perceptible.” (p. 272).
The chapter on word structure also discusses several fairly new or atypical word-formation devices: prefixoids, suffixoids, and apparent morphemes
314
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVIII
Page 7Rita Miliūnaitė. Įvairuojantys ir nauji lietuvių kalbos reiškiniai XXI a. pradžioje: sistematika ir pokyčių kryptys
(splinters—intermediate parts of a word between affixes and roots)² and others. The book does not present all the formations found, but their large number (mostly from the Neologism Database) allows certain generalizations to be made about new tendencies in word formation. This chapter concludes with important generalizations, presented in subsection 2.2.7, “General Directions of Changes Related to Word Structure.”
Somewhat more information was expected in subsection 2.3, devoted to morphology. Of course, it presents more data than the normative publications issued so far, including quite a few examples from the media and other sources, but the subsections devoted to specific grammatical categories often end with sentences such as these:
“Thus, in the case of abstract nouns, the boundary between the norm and its violations has become blurred in usage. The appropriateness of using plural forms in this way shows that there is a need to review and refine a codification lagging behind these changes, since the abstractness of a noun alone is no longer a reliable criterion for distinguishing norm from non-norm.” (p. 343, on number).
“A thorough comparative analysis of the expression of sentences in which an action in the past, relevant to the moment of speaking, is expressed should show whether compound forms are retreating from usage or whether competition with simple forms is strong. However, as in other cases involving the use of nonlexicalized grammatical forms, it would be difficult to collect a quantitatively representative sample of examples.” (p. 352, on tenses).
Subsection 2.3.1.1.3, “Various Morphological Forms” (pp. 374–375), is extremely concise. According to R. Miliūnaitė, this is a small group consisting of isolated variations involving different parts of speech. It includes the use of collective numerals to express a non-collective quantity and causative verbs (e.g., pasuti: pasi-siūdinti, apgyvendinti: apgyventi). The entire subsection ends with this sentence: “These variations function in usage, but because of their rarity no more pronounced changes have been observed.” (p. 375). It remains unclear whether this is normative or non-normative usage and what recommendations could be given when choosing one form or another.
One must agree with R. Miliūnaitė that morphological cases are much more difficult to collect than lexical, word-formation, or lexicalized forms, but the impression arises
² There are debatable and not entirely precise cases in the interpretation of formations; for example, in table 30 on p. 324, the word atostogos is presented as a loanword—a source of apparent morphemes. One can agree that this word is the basis for forming the neologisms darbotogos, ornitoslogos and others, but the word itself can hardly be considered a loanword. It is true that on p. 325 the author writes: “It would not be surprising if, as blends increased in Lithuanian, native apparent morphemes also gradually began to emerge. For example, the blend darbotogos became widespread, and new words began to be created or translated on its model. The ND records three more (already mentioned): autostogos, ornitos togos, sportostogos [accessed 2022–07–13]. Thus, it can be said that the splinter -stogos is taking shape in Lithuanian.” Consequently, atostogos is not considered a loanword here.
Recenzijos / Reviews
315
Page 8ERIKA RIMKUTĖ
that over the course of 20–30 years almost no new changes in morphological norms have emerged. Naturally, one can be glad that the backbone of the Lithuanian language—the system of morphology—remains unchanged and has not been overly influenced by other languages. On the other hand, one cannot help wondering whether shifts in this area have simply not been recorded or noticed.
In all subsections devoted to discussing the norms of a particular language level, a summary table of the Šavadas is provided at the beginning. It indicates the source of the norm, possible variations, the basis of variation, and concrete examples. In other words, readers are first given a complete overview of what can vary and how, and then more examples are provided beneath these tables, some of them commented on in greater detail. The text is structured in exactly the same way in the syntax section. Those familiar with the norms governing cases and prepositions probably do not even need to be reminded how many rules discuss this usage. It is questionable whether the author made the right choice in presenting all the systematized information from the Šavadas about cases and prepositions at once, rather than dividing it according to syntactic function or a particular case/preposition, since the table devoted to case norms runs from pages 393 to 454, while the compendium of prepositions extends from pages 477 to 549. There is no doubt that such tables provide important information³, but in the monograph one wants more interpretation, explanation, and commentary on varying norms, rather than a complete possible overview. Perhaps these tables should have been provided at the end of the monograph as appendices, or the text should have been structured differently.
In the part of the monograph devoted to syntactic norms, the large number of examples is conspicuous in some places (fewer could have been provided; after all, it is impossible to present all the cases collected), while only a short paragraph is devoted to discussing some more complex cases. For example, pp. 474–475 discuss grammaticalization, more precisely, the postpositioning of the instrumental and locative, but not a single example with a broader context is provided. These cases are discussed less in normative publications than, say, double cases, and therefore should be analyzed in greater detail. On the other hand, one must agree that the large number of examples provided for some cases helps one better understand the codified and actual norm and illustrates shifts in the norm. As in the other chapters, here too R. Miliūnaitė’s
³ Sometimes such information is quite technical—this is understandable in order to maintain a consistent classification system, but it is partly excessive for the reader; cf. p. 402: here, as two separate entries (because one falls under the classification “S gen. 5.1.1” and the other under “S gen. 5.1.2”), cases expressing purpose are presented: vykti vizito, lankytis vizito, although their usage is very similar, so they could have been summarized as a single case with two examples (as is done elsewhere, where the words differ; cf. on the same page the rule “S gen. 4.2 see S acc. 5.1” for expressing place with some adverbs of manner: the principal example provided is [Prasmego] kiaurai žemę: žemės. Several similarly used words are also listed below: įkypai, įstrižai, išilgai and others.).
316
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVII
Page 9Rita Miliūnaitė. Įvairuojantys ir nauji lietuvių kalbos reiškiniai XXI a. pradžioje: sistematika ir pokyčių kryptys
comments, in discussing cases that often fall into a gray area and about which there is not much information in normative publications, are particularly valuable.
The monograph takes into account the latest linguistic challenges; for example, it discusses aspects of gender-sensitive language. On page 337, it states that “The increasing use (excessive usage) of feminine-gender forms is encouraged by the category of grammatical gender in the Lithuanian language, recorded in public usage at the end of the 20th century and mistakenly understood due to the spreading ideologies of feminism and genderism, in an effort to restrict the use of masculine-gender forms and to refuse to acknowledge that these forms also perform a generalizing function.” It is further noted (p. 338) that such forms often appear unnatural because they are associated “not with the development of the language system, but with the promoted ideological position.”
It is also mentioned that language change is determined by the results produced by automatic translation or automatic language-generation programs. In addition, the section on word formation describes tendencies for feminine- or masculine-gender nouns to be formed atypically (see subsection 2.2.3). Page 474 discusses the influence of social networks in using the nominative instead of the vocative; that is, when addressing a person who has a social-network account, their first name and/or surname is automatically displayed in the nominative case.
That R. Miliūnaitė, in discussing language norms and phenomena displaying variation, covers a broad range is illustrated, for instance, by the aštuonkoralo example (see pp. 305–306). This is a compound word formed in a not entirely typical way; according to the author, it may have arisen as a result of automatic translation. Thus, when discussing the word-formation tendencies of Lithuanian neologisms, it is sometimes necessary (and in the future will be even more necessary) to take even such technological matters into account. As the scholar states, “[i]n general, the impact of machine translation on the Lithuanian language has scarcely been studied, so the translation of atypical compounds would be an interesting area of research. There is an abundance of data in various types of (culinary, sports, fashion, science-popularization, etc.) internet portals that are automatically translated into many languages (usually without a publication date).” (p. 306).
The syntax section discusses cases that have emerged fairly recently in usage and are sometimes not even included in prescriptive publications. For example, subsection 2.4.8, “Word Order,” devotes considerable attention to media headlines and other examples in which word order creates ambiguities. The sentence/headline may seem correct and therefore not violate language norms, but, because of the influence of other languages, poorly perceived syntactic relations, and disrupted information structure, it makes the text more difficult to understand. More cases discussed only rather briefly in prescriptive publications can also be found, e.g., the agreement of the words modelis, sopranas, žvaigždė with adjectives (all these words denote famous persons, who may be either men or women); the spread of participial adverbial forms as easier to use than participles (because they do not need to agree with the subject), the use of personal sentences instead of impersonal ones, and so on. These phenomena undoubtedly require more extensive research, but
Recenzijos / Reviews
317
Page 10ERIKA RIMKUTĖ
R. Miliūnaitė’s monograph offers guidelines for those language units that will require greater attention in the future.
As already mentioned, the third part of the monograph, “The Dynamics of the Standard Language and Its Phenomena,” proved the most interesting; it analyzes the direction in which the standard Lithuanian language is moving and what determines these changes. This part of the monograph discusses “the most characteristic changes and innovations at two levels of public usage – mikroly gmens and makroly gmens” (p. 614). It states that “the processes of language development that once took several centuries, while standard languages were forming in different countries, are now beginning to synchronize, driven and influenced by the democratization of societies and the expansion of the internet”; and that external factors (internetization, ideologies, etc.) have a major impact on public usage. Consequently, “[t]raditional lexis is changing: attempts are made consciously to restrict the use of certain words, and new ideologically marked lexis is introduced. Efforts are also made to change grammar purposefully (for example, the use of words having grammatical gender); new supposedly ‘gender-sensitive’ grammatical forms are being created, and so on.” (pp. 614–615).
Subsection 3.2, “Directions of Change in the Structure of the Standard Lithuanian Language,” deserves particular attention. In it, the author of the monograph seeks answers to the following questions: how the limits of variation in the standard language are changing; which linguistic phenomena cause difficulties for users; how the evaluation of linguistic phenomena is justified and how it changes; how the equivalents provided are changing; and what examples are used to illustrate the recommendations (see pp. 618–619).
Several important conclusions of this chapter make it possible to understand the current state of the language and attitudes toward the standard language, and help predict how the further development of the standard language may unfold (pp. 619–641):
• a marked change in codification is taking place – the liberalization of codified standard-language norms;
• changes in usage do not arise by themselves; they are encouraged by language users and by social reality itself, which is changing;
• public usage of Lithuanian is supplemented by linguistic units of various levels arriving from other languages; borrowed root and derivational morphemes (international prefixes, suffixoids, and prefixoids) are increasing, as are pseudo-morphemes separated from borrowed or translated hybrids;
• an increasing number of English quotations are inserted into Lithuanian texts – both individual morphologically unadapted words and entire expressions;
• new word meanings and grammatical changes (especially in government) have begun to appear; these are considerably encouraged by translations of administrative texts (legal acts and the like) from English;
• variation that functioned intensively for a certain period subsides (either spontaneously or as a result of the conscious regulation of standard-language norms), and after some time
318
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVIII
Page 11Rita Miliūnaitė. Įvairuojantys ir nauji lietuvių kalbos reiškiniai XXI a. pradžioje: sistematika ir pokyčių kryptys
becomes lively again, e.g., the translated construction šiai dienai used to express a time limit (and its variations);
• at the beginning of the 21st century, language changes are partly losing their localization. The expansion of the internet and social networks is creating a large, relatively synchronously operating linguistic environment in which innovations, regardless of language boundaries, spread incomparably faster and more widely than in the pre-internet era;
• the lexicon reflects words designating climate change and ecological issues; another layer of the new 21st-century lexicon is connected with the ideologies of political correctness, feminism, and genderism;
• competition among varying grammatical (morphological and syntactic) phenomena has intensified;
• through translation, both international and native-origin words acquire new meanings, often characteristic of English; these (less frequently) have no common semes at all or (more frequently) have at least one common seme but no common sememes;
• alongside them, variations in word meanings formed under the influence of Russian continue to live on, and all this diversity makes the semantic layer of standard Lithuanian unstable, while words with a more universal semantic scope, taking the place of more specific words, level lexical means of expression and eliminate semantic nuances;
• the universalization of expressive means (and consequently the leveling of meanings, functions, and nuances) can also be seen in word formation;
• at the syntactic level, various case and prepositional-usage variations formed under the influence of Russian continue to exist; the distinctions in expressing part and whole characteristic of Lithuanian sentences continue to be leveled; the norms governing the use of adverbial participles are particularly unstable; subordinate clauses replace participial, half-participial, and adverbial-participial adverbials; information structure is disregarded, and word order in the sentence acquires features characteristic of English word order;
• public usage is becoming more popular in character and is undergoing jargonization: substandard elements enter public usage, and the standard language and its informal styles lose their homogeneity. This happens partly because of the hybridization of different genres, since the media often quote or republish content by social-network authors, which is written in an informal style;
• elements of nonstandard varieties spread as the actual norm and aspire to become part of standard-language norms bearing a stylistic (for example, colloquial-style) connotation; the penetration of slang into the informal style of the standard language is especially noticeable, displacing the traditional expressive means of the standard language;
• the use of phenomena characteristic of less formal styles (especially colloquial language) in neutral texts.
Recenzijos / Reviews
319
Page 12ERIKA RIMKUTĖ
R. Miliūnaitė answers the question of concern to everyone—where standard languages are heading—rather optimistically: standard languages are not disappearing; only their form is changing. It is important that “the standard language is being replaced by such language (usage) standards whose establishment depends no longer primarily on the choices of the authorities and elite, but on the opinions and decisions of unofficial social groups” (p. 642).
The monograph states that the 21st century is a period of post-standardization. The features of this period can be illustrated by the following ideas from the book under discussion: important characteristics of this period are the dethronement of old authorities and the rise of new influencers. This period is also characterized by fragmentation and the disappearance of boundaries in everything; the needs of the individual and human rights become especially important. “In late modernity, as society became individualized, the social forces that defined what the language standard was changed completely. These powers passed from the ruling class and the authorities of politics, science, and religion to individuals. Democratization destroys the power of the elites and encourages social forces ‘from below’ to express themselves; consequently, the language of the ‘lower classes’ comes to the fore. The importance of standard languages whose nature is ideological (reflecting the domination of the economic, social, and political elite of the linguistic community) begins to be questioned: in a modern democratic society composed of different linguistic communities, there is no longer a place for a unified (homogeneous) standard language; it is no longer an aspiration […]. On the other hand, although globalization levels nations, their cultures, and languages, it also causes opposing processes that encourage linguistic diversity and the preservation of individuality and linguistic (as well as cultural in general) identity. Internetization changes the customary environments in which languages function, transforms languages, and creates new forms of them.” (pp. 643–644).
Thus, as follows from the preceding statements, standard languages change. Another question to which we find an answer in R. Miliūnaitė’s monograph is whether all standard languages change in the same way. One can probably sense that the changes differ. According to the scholar, “traditional European standard languages are losing stability – at the level of form, functions, and linguistic attitudes alike. […] However, differences also exist, and they depend greatly on the historical context. For example, in Iceland, France, and Denmark the ideology of the standard language is strong, so changes occur not in the direction of weakening this ideology, but at the level of standard-language usage (increasing variation) […]. The post-standardization processes of Eastern European countries arrived somewhat late and are taking place on a smaller scale. The reason is the long-lasting political dependence of these countries, which suppressed the development of democratization […].” (p. 644).
The discussion of changes in the Lithuanian language continues; on pp. 647–648 it is stated that “as the standard language spread through the education system and the media, a new intermediate layer has already formed – the substandard of the Lithuanian language, or bendroji lietuvių kalba. What is its relationship with the standard language? Today one can say that written
320
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVIII
Page 13Rita Miliūnaitė. Įvairuojantys ir nauji lietuvių kalbos reiškiniai XXI a. pradžioje: sistematika ir pokyčių kryptys
standard Lithuanian functions where it is created and managed (edited) by specially trained people. If an unedited informal-style text is published publicly (in the media, on social networks, and so on), the likelihood that it is a substandard does not decrease [...].” “Marked phenomena of a lower variety lose their markedness in neutral public language, and variation becomes a means of creating such a feature. Under these circumstances, the norms of standard Lithuanian also become unstable; their variation increases, and this is a consequence of the pressure of actual usage (essentially, one may say, of the substandard), and in some cases of a codification strategy.”
The following idea in subsection 3.3.3.3, “The Dynamics of Codification,” is important (p. 649): “Two types of codification are possible, depending on the history of the development of the standard language and on the nature of standard-language regulation (more specifically, on the (non)existence of a state language policy). One type of codification is based primarily on actual usage, and standard-language norms are established solely according to what functions within it. The second type of codification is oriented not only toward usage, but also toward the language system and the tradition of standardization. The latter type is especially characteristic of younger standard languages, including standard Lithuanian. [...] In the theory and practice of the codification of standard Lithuanian, moderate variation and the stylistic and functional distribution of variants (but not equally at all language levels) are recognized as a possibility for the norm to change, so that codification does not become detached from usage and the needs of standard-language users.”
As the author states, efforts have been made in the codification of Lithuanian in the 21st century to take functional features into account and mark them more consistently in language norms, so that the norms would be more variable and therefore more acceptable to a larger part of society. Despite such good intentions, nonstandard variants are increasing in public usage; therefore, the conclusion is drawn “that in Lithuanian the influence of codification on public usage is decreasing. Users of public language pay increasingly less attention to it, and there is an increasing tendency toward the second type of codification, with some language specialists attempting to elevate the criterion of usage almost to the status of the sole criterion. The variation of usage in the 21st century cannot fail to affect the standard-language system itself and the codification of norms. Phenomena that were previously outside it are being legitimized in the standard language (for example, derivational models symbolically represented by the derivatives klasiokas, -ė; ansambl ietis, -ė, etc.).” (p. 649). Thus, “the increase in variation and the detachment of codification from the language used by the majority of language users are characteristic signs of the destandardization of contemporary standard Lithuanian” (p. 649).
The ideas presented on page 651 concerning the influence of ideologies on the prestige and development of language deserve agreement. R. Miliūnaitė states that “together with the democratization of society, the liberal language ideology that has emerged views the traditional standard-language variety as imposed on the majority of society, thus discriminating against linguistic minorities and marginalized groups and posing a threat to the individual’s
Recenzijos / Reviews
321
Page 14ERIKA RIMKUTĖ
freedom and individuality [...].” In Lithuania, this model has operated since 2010 and seeks to establish a spontaneously developing substandard, which does not shape the actual norm but adopts it together with all its chaotically functioning manifestations. “By accusing the standard-language ideology of authoritarianism, the liberal language ideology itself seeks the foundations of its power among politicians, media professionals, new opinion-formers (influencers), and also within the education system; thus it seeks to influence those sectors of society on which the prestige and functioning of the standard language depend most, and to instill a critical attitude toward the standard variety. In Lithuania, an attempt is being made to instill the idea that the prestigious language variety is no longer the traditional standard language but the substandard capital-city – Vilnius – language [...], yet this relies on rather contradictory studies of linguistic attitudes [...]; an attempt is being made to restructure language on the assumption that it will change reality, without understanding that real social and psychological problems of life (violence, inequality, and so on) cannot be solved without changing people’s own thinking, behavior, and mutual relations” (pp. 651–652).
Subsection 3.3.4.1 discusses demotization. This is the popularization and coarsening of the standard language. At the demotization stage, it is acknowledged that a prestigious language variety—the standard language—is necessary, but the assessment of what that standard language should be changes. “Usually, the status of the formerly non-prestigious variety is elevated” (p. 656), while the functions of the standard language are narrowed. “As a result of demotization, a contradiction arises between traditional norms established by authorities, which educational institutions must follow, and actual usage [...]. Lithuania is no exception. Studies of linguistic attitudes show that teachers, especially teachers of Lithuanian, encounter two kinds of norms: codified norms, which they must teach, and actual norms, which influence students mainly outside school. The growing gap between codified and actual norms reduces motivation to learn and makes the learning process more difficult. The same can be said of professional news presenters and language editors working in the spoken media, who maneuver between codified and actual (‘popular,’ i.e. belonging to the substandard) norms.” (p. 657).
One manifestation of demotization is restandardization, that is, standardization taking place anew and resembling the process of creating a standard language; in this case, however, the standard language already exists, and a new set of norms or functions is introduced into circulation. “In restandardization, language norms are not imposed ‘from above’ but are based on research into actual usage and the linguistic behavior of language users.” (p. 657). Sometimes restandardization is called an intermediate or transitional state from one stage of standard-language development to another, that is, temporary variation in which variants enter standard-language usage “from below,” or a stage of language planning (i.e. not spontaneous development but conscious language regulation), when a new standard-language variety is created that is intended to transform
322
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVII
Page 15Rita Miliūnaitė. Įvairuojantys ir nauji lietuvių kalbos reiškiniai XXI a. pradžioje: sistematika ir pokyčių kryptys
the traditional standard language, which no longer meets society’s needs, and to consciously change language forms, functions, and linguistic behavior (p. 658).
The monograph goes on to discuss whether any substandard has become established in public usage in Lithuania. According to the author, if a substandard is not codified (or is codified negatively), there is no basis for treating it as a substitute for the standard language; but where texts are not edited, the substandard spreads, its features increase, and they also become more common in public usage (p. 662). Because of the recency of standard Lithuanian, the social groups that should disseminate its norms and promote the standard-language model often do not themselves learn it properly; consequently, they do not understand the codified norms or language as a system. It may be argued that some native speakers essentially learn not the standard language but the substandard (p. 663); users of the language do not accept some codified norms, do not understand them, and sometimes even mock them, calling them an artificial language invented by linguists (p. 665).
The concluding remarks on changes in the standard language and the establishment of the substandard on page 671 read as follows: “[i]n public space, the ‘voice of the people’ also begins to make itself heard—the language users who, in the pre-internet era, had few opportunities to reach a broad audience; they may conditionally be called public commentators on life. From the beginning of the 21st century, they flooded internet forums, article comment sections, social networks, and video-content channels. These two groups of society are connected by immaturity, ignorance, superficiality, vulgarity, obscenity, and public displays of intimacy. At the same time, the popular, ‘lower-class’ language expressing these components comes to the fore, and the social restriction on public lexis disappears.” Nevertheless, it is questionable whether the linguistic and personal characteristics of all persons appearing in the public sphere can be generalized in this way (that there are many such persons must be acknowledged); for example, Andrius Tapinas quite often presents his opinion publicly, clearly expresses his position, but presumably none of the characteristics listed in the preceding quotation is typical of him.
The question of what would happen if some substandard in Lithuania were nevertheless equated with the standard language can be answered with the following passage from R. Miliūnaitė’s monograph: “if the substandard (including the ‘Vilnius language’) were to become identified with the prestigious standard language and an attempt were made to legitimize it as a new standard variety replacing the traditional standard language (the case of restandardization). Such a substandardized (restandardized) standard language would lose its systematicity; it would become impossible to teach and learn it consistently. On the other hand, it is obvious that the standard language can survive and be used only if its variable component of norms (unlike the core of norms) is not preserved unchanged for decades.” (p. 664).
It is worth mentioning what characterizes the change of standard Lithuanian and distinguishes it from that of certain other European standard languages (see pp. 666–667 for more detail). At the beginning of the 21st century, standard Lithuanian was already in the period of post-standardization, but
Recenzijos / Reviews
323
Page 16ERIKA RIMKUTĖ
it entered it while still relatively young, having been codified by Jonas Jablonskis at the very beginning of the 20th century. “A little over a hundred years of codification and dissemination of its norms has not yet been sufficient for these norms to become firmly established at all levels among the educated sections of society; consequently, its dynamics have not yet acquired a clear direction.” “Unlike some European languages, Lithuanian existed for many centuries under strong pressure from other languages, constantly affected by language contact. During the 50 years of Soviet occupation, the norms of standard Lithuanian likewise could not develop naturally, because they experienced substantial influence from Russian. Consequently, variation in the usage of the standard language is also heterogeneous: there are foreign elements that fall outside the system and norms of Lithuanian as a whole. At the end of the 20th and beginning of the 21st century, standard Lithuanian has not yet rid itself of the consequences of Russification; at the same time, it is experiencing convergence with new linguistic systems (in many cases with English) and with other varieties of Lithuanian itself (regionalects and the substandard).”
The author states that, because research into the development of standard Lithuanian and linguistic attitudes began relatively recently and remains limited in Lithuania, it would currently be imprudent to categorize the nature of the dynamics of standard Lithuanian without qualification, although usage monitoring and studies of linguistic attitudes show that changes are occurring at the structural, language-regulation, and language-ideology levels. “In the current period of the development of standard Lithuanian, the growing gap between the codified and actual norm can be explained as the formation of a substandard—the intermediate layer between regiolects and the standard language.” In Lithuania, efforts are being made to accelerate changes in language ideologies unnaturally: negative attitudes are being formed in the public sphere both toward the ideology of the standard language and the norms of the traditional standard language, and toward its supervisory institutions and the language policy pursued by the state.
The final subsection of the third part of the book ends with a rather optimistic statement: “Researchers of changes in European standard languages note that, in many cases, society’s linguistic attitudes show that the standard varieties themselves are undoubtedly necessary. The general tendency of change is more often visible not at the level of standard-language ideology but at the level of language structure (usage). For standard Lithuanian, the idea is particularly important that in the global world community, the chances of languages with few speakers to survive, develop, and revive are greater if that language has a standard variety [...]. Therefore, even in the period of post-standardization, the functioning and change of standard Lithuanian must not be left to develop spontaneously.” (p. 668).
In the concluding word of the monograph (p. 680), R. Miliūnaitė states that one should not ask whether a standard language (which we must specifically learn) is necessary, but rather ask what kind of standard language we should create so that it would be a convenient and attractive tool of communication uniting society. Both the author of the monograph and the author of this review leave readers themselves to answer this question.
324
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVIII
Page 17Rita Miliūnaitė. Įvairuojantys ir nauji lietuvių kalbos reiškiniai XXI a. pradžioje: sistematika ir pokyčių kryptys
In summary, it can be said that this monograph is an excellent and valuable scholarly work, needed by language users—both theoreticians and practitioners. Although in several places in the review it is stated that more information was desired, that language norms should have been presented more clearly, and that varying language phenomena should have been explained better, these observations are nevertheless essentially addressed to the compilers of normative publications (among them, of course, the author of the monograph under review), presumably for future discussions on how language norms should be presented so that they are convenient and clear for users. It is understandable that in a single publication—even one of such considerable length (721 p.!)—one cannot expect to find all the desired answers. All the more so because some language norms may raise more questions for some users, while others may raise more questions for others. The discussion points expressed here may perhaps encourage certain studies and draw the attention of language norm-setters to what information Lithuanian language users lack, whether it has been described clearly enough, and whether it is easy to find.
Submitted on 17 February 2023.
E R I K A R I M K U T Ė
Vytautas Magnus University
23–216 Vlado Putvinskio St., LT-44243 Kaunas, Lithuania
[email protected]
Recenzijos / Reviews
325
