MINDAGAS STROCKIS

Vilnius University

Research areas: classical philology, digital philology, the history of Lithuanian accentology.

DOI

Rita Miliūnaitė

LANGUAGE NORMS AND THEIR SELF-REGULATION IN THE INTERNET COMMUNITY

MONOGRAPH

Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2018, 512 p. ISBN 978-609-411-219-5

Rita Miliūnaitė’s monograph is the fruit of more than ten years of research involving the observation and analysis of Lithuanian language use on the internet. Anyone who has likewise followed Lithuanian language use in information technologies throughout that period (even without research purposes, simply out of personal interest) could confirm this.

In brief, the monograph addresses the following question: there is a tendency to claim that electronic media are harmful to the correctness of Lithuanian, its spelling, traditions, and related aspects; is the situation really so bad? Do information technologies also give rise to any positive phenomena? The material assembled in the monograph demonstrates that certain processes of language self-regulation operate on the internet, even in anonymous comments: reviews written in incorrect language (both anonymous and signed) receive negative assessments from readers, are rejected and ridiculed, and sometimes are met with remarkably apt and competent corrections. Interest in language issues and their discussion also exist online, especially in discussions and various internet groups, among other formats.

The interesting material in this monograph is presented in three parts. The first part is close to what we might call a history of the issue and a review of research; the second part is devoted mainly to public statements and discussions in recent years

Straipsniai / Articles

283

MINDAUGAS STROCKIS

in Lithuania about so-called language ideologies, but it also contains material related to the history of the question; the third part is the author’s report on observing language on the internet, devoted to the aforementioned phenomenon of self-regulation, which usually manifests itself in so-called replies (i.e., remarks by internet commenters about errors in Lithuanian).

The historical and theoretical overview of the question presented in the monograph is long and thorough: it offers a theoretical introduction (one might say, encyclopedic in nature, with various interesting details) to language planning, standardization, prescriptivism and descriptivism, the development of standard languages, normative linguistics, and so on; it explains the subtle differences and nuances of meaning among these concepts. The second part, on language ideologies, is also detailed and comprehensive. It discusses various questions, from the formation of standard languages to the disputes between language liberals and language planners taking place in Lithuania today, among other things. If someone were to argue that some of the facts mentioned there are ephemeral and unlikely to have lasting value, one could reasonably reply that data found on the internet are not eternal, and that collecting, organizing, and reviewing them in this way is in itself a valuable document of the era.

The author considers the main reason why the language of the internet is moving away from the forms established in twentieth-century books to be so-called de-standardization, and the aforementioned processes of self-regulation to be a reaction against de-standardization (p. 14). This naturally raises the need to explain what language standardization was. The author argues that language standardization was created by the normative attitudes that flourished in eighteenth-century Europe (p. 20 and elsewhere; sometimes their origins are also traced to the sixteenth century, p. 185). The reviewer might add that the attitudes of that period were also shaped by the fact that the classical languages (Latin and Ancient Greek), then regarded as important, were highly standardized; nevertheless, the centralized education systems in nineteenth-century empires did the most to standardize modern European languages. For example, as late as the seventeenth century, it was thought that various details of spelling, which everyone was expected to know, were more the responsibility of the printing-house compositor and proofreader than of the author; later, it was decided that they should be taught in schools—that is, they became compulsory for everyone, and it was no longer conceivable that things could be otherwise².

¹ For example, a printing-house proofreader’s manual published in 1608 shows that whether words are written together or separately, and the use of capital letters (in German), are matters for the printer (pp. 24–26), while manuscript authors are urged to add diacritical marks to their own texts (in Latin) to make the printer’s work easier (p. 33). Source: Hornschuch Hieronymus 1608: Ὀρθοτονογραφία, Hoc est: Instructio operas typographicas correcturis [...]. Lipsiae.

² Consider, for example, the recurring debates about the “correct” length of the Lithuanian dash or the shape of quotation marks. With the advent of computers, every writer became, as it were, the compositor in their own printing house, so these typographical debates sometimes reach comically pedantic heights,

284

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXX

Rita Miliūnaitė

Language Norms and Their Interaction in the Internet Community.

The monograph begins its history of the question with the early modern period; ancient languages are not discussed in the monograph because they had a considerable degree of standardization and other features attributed to modern languages (for example, the term koinē mentioned in the monograph comes from the Ancient Greek word κοινή, and the existence of the word also indicates the existence of the phenomenon). Incidentally, the standardization of ancient languages proceeded somewhat differently from that of modern languages: there were no modern language academies, commissions, or councils in Attica, but standardization processes took place through the education of the time; the greatest influence came from the works of classical authors, whose language was considered exemplary and worthy of emulation. Ancient languages remained very important in Europe until the nineteenth century, and this also influenced thinking about the standardization of new languages. The history of Sanskrit, too, would have provided much interesting material for those interested in language standardization (its very name means “perfected” or “put in order,” and the oldest prescriptive work on Sanskrit was composed in the middle of the first millennium BCE). Of course, modern Lithuanian, and especially its use on the internet, probably did not require the matters discussed in the monograph to be covered; nevertheless, it is impossible to avoid the legacy of classical Antiquity altogether: on p. 91, it is acknowledged that “the conception of language norms composed of two components [i.e., the real and the codified] developed in Europe from the time of Antiquity.”

The monograph mentions the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century dates on pp. 75 and 184–185, when academies for some of today’s European languages were founded. The Lithuanian Language Commission, established in 1961, is considered the equivalent of these academies in Lithuania, mutatis mutandis (p. 76). It could be added here that a Terminology Commission also existed in Lithuania during the interwar period (1921–1926), with President Antanas Smetona and other notable figures among its members; this institution is mentioned in the monograph only in footnote 45 on p. 76, and perhaps deserves more extensive mention.

Dar kita vertus, net ir Danieliaus Kleino Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos (1653) pratarmėje įskaičius galima rasti nors ir lakoniškai išreikštų, bet iš esmės tokių pat kalbos standardizavimo idėjų, kuriomis vadovavosi ir to meto Vakarų Europos akademijų kūrėjai, pavyzdžiui: Ergo. Excolamus unam aliquam Dialectum, quae communissima, omniumque optima esse censetur („Taigi ištobulinkime kurią nors vieną tarmę, kuri visų yra laikoma bendriausia ir geriausia“). Vadinasi, ir lietuvių kalbos, ir kitų kalbų standardizavimo ištakos yra kiek senesnės, nei galėtų susidaryti įspūdis iš monografijoje paminėtų datų.

Unfortunately, as everyone knows, linguists are often ridiculed in our time. The monograph mentions this and essentially acknowledges that the negative attitude toward some neologisms coined by linguists or other proposals, as well as the resulting

for example, whether a footnote number should come before or after a comma, or whether the letter i with an acute accent should also have a dot beneath the accent, or not.

Recenzijos / Reviews

285

MINDAUGAS STROCKIS

the derision by linguists may have been provoked by the linguists’ own ill-considered decisions. The famous “šnygčio” case is depicted on the book’s cover. It is also discussed in the text: “Šnygis has only put it into people’s heads that as soon as an article appears on the internet with a headline containing the taboo word for dog, it is certain that commenters will not refrain from replying to it” (p. 394). Although the author of the monograph does not say so entirely explicitly, we can see how the causes of that word war and ways of resolving it begin to emerge from the material presented: even if a proposed word seems suitable according to all the formal criteria of linguistics (in this case, perhaps it is not even proposed for use, but is perceived by many as having been used), if most language users find it unacceptable, it would be wise to consider whether it is worth insisting on its adoption, lest the harm caused by the initiative (loss of trust, ridicule, diminished authority of “linguists”) outweigh the benefit gained (formal correctness at work, or the like). Although, as noted, this idea is not stated directly in the monograph, reading it gives the impression that sometimes it is implicit between the lines—and that is excellent.

It is also worth noting that ridicule of poor decisions by linguists is an older phenomenon in Lithuanian culture than the beginning of the 21st century. For example, Stasys Dabušis (1889–1974), a member of the interwar Terminology Commission mentioned above, may have been the first folkloric prototype of the “eccentric linguist,” having coined unsuccessful neologisms that became part of folk humor mocking “linguistic” matters. Although the monograph mentions the contemporary mocking words “kalbinai,” “kalbšiai,” and others several times (especially p. 228), it is interesting to recall that the word from the Smetona era corresponding to today’s “kalbinis” was “kalbatais” (p. 228, footnote 142). It seems that not only love of the Lithuanian language (sometimes painful and full of arguments), but also the ridicule readily directed at a “kalbinai” or “kalbataisai” is a longstanding phenomenon in Lithuanian culture.

Nevertheless, although there were linguists’ proposals that provoked ridicule both in Smetona’s time and today, society’s overall attitude toward linguistic correctness is not so negative. This monograph demonstrates that through various collected data. A few quotations: “Although public interest in language does not wane, it may even be increasing” (p. 14); “language norms are regulated by language users themselves ‘from below,’ rather than imposed ‘from above’” (p. 23); “[internet commenters] sometimes surpass professional authors of online media articles in their feel for language and their ability to notice subtle nuances in the expressive resources of Lithuanian” (p. 449). All these claims by the author are convincingly supported by quotations from actual internet comments. It is true that internet respondents themselves sometimes, regrettably, do not apply such standards to themselves and, while scolding others for making mistakes, use various linguistic monstrosities themselves (as if this were some linguistic equivalent of pounding one’s fist on the table); examples of this can also be found in the monograph.

Finally, the author concludes that interest in the correctness of Lithuanian online is not diminishing. The reviewer can confirm this from personal observation.

286

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXX

Rita Miliūnaitė

Language Norms and Their Self-Regulation in the Internet Community.

to confirm. The Lithuanian language has strong vitality, healthy processes of self-regulation are at work, and this monograph demonstrates this convincingly.

The monograph also acknowledges that some obvious shortcomings, such as the failure to use diacritical marks, have simple, technical causes: “The ‘šepasis’ script became established online and still persists for several reasons. People write without diacritics out of a habit acquired when electronic communication devices (mobile phones, email, and so on) could not support Lithuanian characters, while some users of those devices (more often mobile phones) are still unable to adapt them to the technical possibilities now available” (p. 333). In short, it all began with the limitations of early devices and later became a kind of cultural habit. One could add that Lithuanian stress marks are still at the stage that other standard orthographic diacritics, such as ogoneks, have already passed through: although the technical capacity to use them now exists, convenient keyboards and a cultural habit are lacking. For example, the examples cited on p. 364 of the monograph show stress marked with capital letters, and no one objects—even though it is in principle already possible to type pitch-accent marks even on phones (there are simply no convenient keyboards, and, of course, no habit or everyday need).

Among other apt observations, the monograph acknowledges that the term language culture is essentially a product of the Eastern Bloc (p. 34), one that is very difficult to translate into Western European languages (as anyone who has ever translated diploma supplements into English knows, from before they were translated centrally). The author’s choice to use the term normative linguistics is therefore very welcome.

The monograph is comprehensive, well-founded, and valuable; it contains a meticulous ten-year study, apt insights, and a valuable document of its era. Most importantly, it presents well-supported conclusions: “Does linguistic correctness online, viewed entirely objectively, have any meaning and practical benefit? Apparently, yes. The impact of the internet community on the quality of media work is acknowledged by media professionals themselves” (p. 438).

So how should we address the question of correct Lithuanian usage, both online and in life? Striking insights are found in the monograph itself; perhaps they could even have been emphasized more. Let us consider these quotations: “In English-language electronic discourse, it is usually those for whom English is not a native language who berate themselves for using it incorrectly, because this internet lingua franca is globally regarded as a form of cultural capital” (p. 127, emphasis added in the quotation). “David Crystal [a prominent British linguist] is surprised that English-language textbooks are still selling very well, and that people care about the same things they cared about 250 years ago” (p. 183, emphasis added in the quotation).

This reveals that Lithuanian linguistic correctness will flourish most when it becomes a “form of cultural capital.” The data collected in the monograph

Recenzijos / Reviews

287

MINDAUGAS STROCKIS

shows that gradually it does indeed become so, although at times it is shaken by disputes between language specialists and prescriptivists or by outsiders’ comments on certain linguistic proposals. Perhaps contemporary linguists (and the author of this review is himself one of them, a former member of the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language), like their predecessors, the Smetona-era linguists, occasionally forget to look at themselves from the outside. Nevertheless, a little authority, some moderation and tolerance, a little more wisdom in distinguishing important matters from unimportant ones, fewer scoldings and more interesting explanations will eventually put everything right. If we act wisely, calmly but resolutely remedying technical shortcomings in unergonomic keyboards and occasionally putting a stop to some unpolished snowball, all will be well, and Lithuanian-language textbooks will continue to sell very well for many centuries to come. Rita Miliūnaitė’s monograph is excellent proof of this.

Received on 26 May 2019.

MINDAUGAS STROCKIS

Vilnius University

5 Universiteto St., LT-01131 Vilnius, Lithuania

[email protected]

288

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXX