Viešosios kalbos kokybės samprata Lietuvos Respublikos valstybinės kalbos įstatyme

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ Institute of the Lithuanian Language ORCID id: orcid.org/0000-0002-2292-1818 RESEARCH AREAS: language policy, prescriptive linguistics, sociolinguistics, neology, language technologies. DOI: doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2023.96.01 THE CONCEPT OF PUBLIC LANGUAGE QUALITY IN THE LAW ON THE STATE LANGUAGE OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA KEYWORDS: language policy, public language, language correctness, language functionality, language quality. ABSTRACT The article examines one aspect of the Law on the State Language of the Republic of Lithuania and its subsequent drafts: it seeks to determine how legal provisions on the quality of public language are formulated in this law, which was included in the list of constitutional laws in 2012, and how the concept of this notion has changed over time. The aspect under examination is symptomatic of the long and somewhat inconsistent legislative history of the Law on the State Language from 1995 to the present day. The article discusses two components of public language quality—language correctness and functionality—and reveals their relationship to various domains of public language use. It shows how the boundaries of these domains are defined differently in various drafts of the Law on the State Language, and how exceptions and qualifications are formulated. It discusses the concept of functional expediency proposed in one of the 2023 drafts of the Law on the State Language, whose substance in some cases provides an exception to the requirement of correctness in public language. Four of the most characteristic cases in which standard language norms may be disregarded for reasons of functional expediency are identified, and the question of how this should be reflected in the legal provisions of the law is raised for discussion. ABSTRACT The article addresses one aspect of the Law on the State Language of the Republic of Lithuania and its subsequent drafts, aiming to determine how this law, which made the list of constitutional laws in 2012, formulates the legal provisions with RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Viešosios kalbos kokybės samprata Lietuvos Respublikos valstybinės kalbos įstatyme 9 regard to the quality of public language, and how the concept of this term has changed over time. The aspect in question symptomatically reflects the long and sometimes chequered evolution of the Law on the State Language from 1995 to these days. The article trains the spotlight on two elements of the quality of public language: the correctness and the functionality of language, revealing the correlation between the two and the various spheres of usage of public language. It shows how different drafts of the Law on the State Language provide different definitions of the boundaries of those spheres, and the clauses and reservations formulated therein. Furthermore, it covers the term ‘functional purpose’ embedded in a 2023 draft, its contents anchoring in some cases a caveat for the requirement of the correctness of public language. The article also identifies the four most characteristic cases when the norms of the standard language can be disregarded for the sake of the functional purpose, and puts the question of how this should be reflected in the provisions of the law up for debate. INTRODUCTION Globalization, the processes of democratization in Eastern European societies that began in the late twentieth century, the development of the internet and information technologies—including the later breakthrough in artificial intelligence technologies—as well as ongoing waves of global migration create changing conditions for languages to function. Consequently, various language policy issues are receiving increased attention, particularly those related to the use of state languages. There is a need to rethink the role of languages in contemporary multilingual and multicultural societies, taking into account the diversity of their varieties and forms. Why is language politically important in a state? It can be said to be an engine of the state’s development: language shapes political positions, creates spiritual, moral, and intellectual content, and serves as a means of state administration and of integrating and fostering cohesion in civil society. Thus, the language policy pursued by a state is one of the instruments of state development. In the Republic of Lithuania, the use of the state language is regulated by the State Language Law, adopted in 1995 and still in force (hereinafter, the SLL)1. It specifies the provision of Article 14 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania that the state language is Lithuanian, and establishes “the use of the state language in public life, the protection and oversight of the state language, and liability for violations of the State Language Law” (SLL 1995, Art. 1). Some provisions of this law no longer fully correspond to the changing realities of the state’s political, economic, social, and cultural life, so it is understandable that there is a need to review the SLL. There have been several such attempts over nearly three decades; however, because of various political vicissitudes, no new draft of this law has yet completed all the necessary procedures in the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania to replace the SLL adopted in 1995 (hereinafter, SLL 1995). 1This statement is correct while the article is being prepared for publication, but the situation may change at any time, since two new alternative SLL bills were registered in the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania in 2023. 10 BENDRINĖ KALBA | 96 One important provision of this law concerns the quality of public language. The aim of the article is to determine why and how the understanding of public-language quality has changed in SLL bills, and what difficulties arise in defining it. The main research sources are SLL 1995 and seven SLL bills that were considered between 2006 and 2023 in the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, its committees, and working groups of language institutions. The article also draws on experience and personal notes accumulated since 2012 while examining these bills and submitting proposals to policymakers at the institutional level. One of the important provisions of this law concerns the quality of public language. The aim of the article is to determine why and how the concept of public language quality has changed in the drafts of the Law on the State Language (LSTL), and what difficulties arise in defining it. The main research sources are seven drafts of the LSTL that were in circulation in the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, its committees, and working groups of language institutions in 1995 and from 2006 to 2023. The study also draws on experience and personal notes accumulated since 2012 while examining these drafts and submitting proposals to politicians at the institutional level. The article foregrounds the concept of language quality, which is rarely used in language-policy discourse, and also discusses the content of the concepts of public language and language correctness and functionality. Accordingly, the following objectives are set: 1) to describe the issues surrounding public language quality and its place in language policy; 2) to examine the concept of public language quality (correctness and functionality) presented in the 1995 LSTL and subsequent drafts, and to identify changes in its content; 3) to assess the appropriateness of the concepts of language correctness and functionality in the LSTL drafts. A qualitative (analytical) research method is applied to contextualize and interpret the concepts of public language quality and language correctness, as well as functionality, and to define their theoretical perspective in the Law on the State Language; comparative analysis of the statutory texts is also used to highlight the provisions on public language quality in different LSTL drafts. However, the article does not address the practical implementation of the examined provisions on public language quality in the state language. The specific monitoring of public language quality—that is, activities based on measures for managing the state language—depends to a great extent on the language oversight system operating in the country and would require a separate study. The first section reveals the quality of public language, RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Viešosios kalbos kokybės samprata Lietuvos Respublikos valstybinės kalbos įstatyme 11 as an object of the SLL, its place in the context of language policy, and the issues in this field are described. In the second and third parts, the aspect of public language quality in the 1995 SLL and subsequent drafts is examined by showing how the concepts of language correctness and functionality have changed. 1. THE ISSUE OF PUBLIC LANGUAGE QUALITY IN THE CONTEXT OF LANGUAGE POLICY The concept of public language is important to language policy as an object of the SLL because, as the opposite of private language, it marks a boundary (though one that is not always understood in the same way) between regulated domains of state-language use and those left entirely to self-regulation. The Australian writer, screenwriter, politicians’ adviser, and speechwriter Don Watson writes that public language is not the language we use to address our loved ones, letter carriers, children, or animals (Watson 2003: 1–2). It is the language of public life—the official language of political and business leaders, civil servants, and the education system; that is, the language of power and influence. In documents on the language policy of the Republic of Lithuania, the content of this concept is usually conveyed by listing the areas of social activity in which public language is used. Svarstant vieną iš VKĮ projektų (VKĮp 2022), pasiūlyta į vartojamų sąvokų sąrašą įtraukti ir apibrėžti sąvoką viešojo gyvenimo sritis, nes pačiame dokumente ji vartojama, tačiau nėra nusakytas jos turinys, t. y. neaišku, ką apima VKĮ kaip reguliavimo objektą. Tai pasidarė ypač aktualu pastaruoju metu, kai viešumoje (pavyzdžiui, socialiniuose tinkluose ir kitomis elektroninės komunikacijos formomis) ėmė funkcionuoti ne tik bendrinė kalba, bet ir kitos kalbos atmainos. Siūlymas buvo toks (jis į pataisytą VKĮp 2023a ir įtrauktas): The domain of public life is an area of social activity in which the state language is used. The domains of public life are considered to include: legislation and law enforcement, public administration (the activities of institutions, establishments, enterprises, and organizations operating in the Republic of Lithuania), public information, education, science, culture, public services (consumer service and information), and employment relations. Thus, in language policy, the content of the concept public language is currently narrower than “all language used publicly.” Language used publicly on social networks and in other forms of electronic communication falls within the scope of language-policy regulation insofar as it relates to the public interest, 12 BENDRINĖ KALBA | 96 public information. The latter concept is also defined in SLL draft 2023a with reference to the Law on the Provision of Information to the Public of the Republic of Lithuania (VIĮ 1996), and its essence is captured by several features: it is information provided by disseminators with a certain status, publicly accessible, and intended for the public as a subject: Public information is publicly disseminated spoken and written information that is communicated to the public by all institutions, establishments, enterprises, and organizations operating in the Republic of Lithuania, or by public information disseminators. The concept language quality has not yet become an established term in Lithuania; it is used rather rarely and has no clearly defined content. When discussing the relationship between public language and the norms of the standard language, the terms correctness, normativity and the like are used more often; however, as will become clear, they no longer encompass everything needed to describe this relationship amid the diversity of language varieties and forms functioning publicly in the early 21st century. 1.1. Components of language policy under changing conditions of language functioning Works in sociolinguistics generally indicate that language planning, on which language policy is based, comprises four components, according to the scope of language functioning and its relationship with society: language status, language structure (the system and usage, English language corpus), language teaching, and language prestige (for more, see Baldauf 2006: 147–170; Miliūnaitė 2010: 233–238). Various language policy documents are also prepared with these considerations in mind (cf. Gairės 2018). In a particular country, these documents seek to regulate relations between languages, changes in the structure of the standard variety, which usually forms the basis of the state language (codifying norms), establish conditions for teaching the state language, and foster public linguistic attitudes favourable to it. In addition, a system for overseeing the state language may be established, enabling monitoring of how language policy aims and objectives are implemented, as well as continuous observation and assessment of the state of the state language’s status and the quality of public language. Over the past decade, language policy and oversight of the state language in Lithuania have increasingly focused on the functioning of the state language, that is, issues of its status, rather than on the quality of public language. Why? Even if we were to say that the standard Lithuanian language is already quite mature, in any case, its codification of norms is not a finite process, because of changing usage and the attitudes of language users, which are shaped by various extralinguistic conditions; it is therefore always relevant. However, new political and sociolinguistic factors are currently indeed prompting greater concern for the status of the state language. RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Viešosios kalbos kokybės samprata Lietuvos Respublikos valstybinės kalbos įstatyme 13 First, interaction between languages has intensified. English has a strong influence both on various areas of social activity and on individual language users. Moreover, the number of immigrants who speak a variety of languages is growing in Lithuania—economic migrants, political migrants, and war refugees alike—giving rise to various issues concerning the use and teaching of the state language that need to be addressed. Questions concerning Lithuanian citizens who speak other languages are also being raised more actively (teaching their mother tongues, and the use of personal and place names). Second, the sociolinguistic situation in Lithuania is affected by the broader European context of standard languages, which are currently experiencing a period of post-standardisation (for more, see Miliūnaitė 2022: 641–644). Since 1995, the spread of the internet and social networks has made it possible for large numbers of people to express themselves publicly, and the resulting public and private internet usage has greatly transformed the public information space. The standard language, which had previously predominated in public, now has to share this space with other varieties, especially the substandard (for the term, see Miliūnaitė 2022: 29–30). Unedited language has created diversity in public language, although previously this had been characteristic only of private communication (Heuman 2022: 53). Third, self-expression has become particularly important, and this is one reason for the increase in new linguistic phenomena and motivated violations of norms. At the same time, public usage shows that proficiency in the standard language is weakening. Fourth, a new factor is rapidly gaining importance: the internet contains increasing numbers of texts produced by non-natural means (information generated by machine translation or by chatbots based on artificial intelligence, and so on), the quality of which in Lithuanian is still far from satisfactory. Fifth, the system for overseeing the state language in Lithuania is becoming more liberal. As early as 2019, administrative penalties for violations of public-language correctness were officially abolished, and the List of Major Language Errors lost its official status (though the list itself was not abolished). Responsibility for the quality of public language was transferred to language users themselves, that is, partial self-regulation was left in place: state-authorised institutions codify the norms of the standard language, including terminology, and issue language recommendations, with the expectation that the public will follow them in certain areas of public-language use. Although the general- Fifth, the system for overseeing the state language in Lithuania is becoming more liberal. As early as 2019, administrative penalties for violations of public-language correctness were officially abolished, and the status of the List of Major Language Errors was revoked (though not the list of errors itself). Responsibility for the quality of public language was transferred to language users themselves, that is, left to partial self-regulation: state-authorized institutions codify the norms of the standard language, including terminology, and provide language recommendations; it is expected that the public will follow them in certain areas of public-language use. Although general- 14 BENDRINĖ KALBA | 96 Self-regulation of language norms in Lithuania is fairly weak (for more detail, see Miliūnaitė 2018); as in other countries, part of society accepts the ideology of standard language, recognizing that a civilized society needs a consciously regulated language variety to perform many public-language functions. As a result of all these changes, public usage is becoming highly variable and the norm multicentric, once again raising the question of public-language quality. Correct and functional standard language underpins the coordinated work of all institutions, facilitates public communication, forms the basis of quality education, and is a marker of society’s culture. Accordingly, the quality of public language is not overlooked in the Law on the State Language (LSL) or in its subsequent drafts. 1.2. The Law on the State Language and its versions Changes in society and public life require that the LSL adopted in 1995 be brought into line with new needs. Over three decades, numerous working groups have been formed, numerous improved drafts of this law and revised versions of those drafts have been prepared (2006, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2021, 2022, 2023), yet so far none of the drafts has been approved by the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania. In 2012, the LSL was included in the list of constitutional laws as one of nine laws intended to regulate particularly important social relations and thereby ensure their stability (List 2012). In addition, Article 69 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania stipulates that “constitutional laws of the Republic of Lithuania shall be adopted if more than half of all members of the Seimas vote for them, and amended by a majority of no less than 3/5 of all members of the Seimas.” This means that the importance and legal force of the LSL increased, while the possibility of making subsequent changes to it once adopted decreased. Thus, the LSL must cover all areas of language policy and establish the essential provisions governing the functioning of the state language. The main components of the LSL and its subsequent improvement drafts are establishing Lithuanian’s status as the state language in all spheres of public life, including the education system; ensuring the quality of public language (first and foremost, its correctness); providing for responsibility for compliance with the law; and establishing a system for monitoring its implementation. Over time, it was almost exclusively the content of these components that changed somewhat, was supplemented, and was made more specific. RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Viešosios kalbos kokybės samprata Lietuvos Respublikos valstybinės kalbos įstatyme 15 2. THE CONCEPT OF CORRECTNESS In various legal acts concerning the use, standardization, and supervision of the Lithuanian state language, including the 1995 LSL, language correctness is designated as a legal norm; however, the content of this concept (more precisely, the concept of correct language) is defined in only some versions of the drafts. Correctness is most often linked indirectly to compliance with the provisions of resolutions of the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language (hereinafter, the VLKK) and other sources of codification, which establish positive or negative codification. In other words, language phenomena are considered correct if they are recognized as standard-language norms, and incorrect if they are recognized as violations of standard-language norms (including those listed in the List of Major Language Errors, which, as mentioned, has not been abolished; only its legal status changed in 2019). Thus, language correctness is understood as a derivative concept whose content and development are determined by sources of standard-language norms and their violations: normative dictionaries, grammars, collections of spelling and punctuation rules, language recommendations, and the like (for more detail, see Miliūnaitė 2019: 125–126). How exactly are provisions on language correctness formulated in the LSL and its subsequent versions, and what components shape the content of the concept of correctness? 2.1. The 1995 Law on the State Language Five articles of Chapter IX. Correctness of the State Language of the 1995 State Language Law formally address language correctness. They attempted to cover various aspects of correctness, distinguished on more than one logical basis, but the scope is broader still. 1) It is stated how the state creates conditions for the correct functioning of the Lithuanian language: Article 19. The state promotes the prestige of correct Lithuanian, creates conditions for safeguarding language norms, personal names, place names, dialects, and written monuments of the language, ensures the material basis for the functioning of the state language, gives comprehensive support, as a priority field of science, to research into the Lithuanian language and to scientific institutions that study it, and supports the publication of books on Lithuanian language science and practice. 2) An institution specifically entrusted with responsibility for the state language and the language norms that form the basis of correctness is identified: 16 BENDRINĖ KALBA | 96 Article 20. The State Commission of the Lithuanian Language determines the direction and tasks of state-language stewardship and approves language norms. 3) It is stated whose public language, and in which areas of public activity, must be correct: Article 21. Requirements for proficiency in correct state language are included in the attestation regulations for civil servants, educators, employees of public information media, and publishing staff, and are applied in light of qualifications and positions held. Article 22. Lithuanian public information media (the press, television, radio, etc.) and all publishers of books and other publications must comply with the standards of correct Lithuanian. Article 23. All public signs must be correct. Article 19 identifies the sociolinguistic aspect of correct language: the aspiration for correct language to be prestigious, that is, most highly valued and sought after by society. The 1995 State Language Law (VKĮ 1995) provides no broader explanations of what constitutes correct language, let alone any qualifications or exceptions allowing the requirements of correctness to be disregarded in public language. Article 20 merely states that language standards are approved by the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language (VLKK). Thus, the proposed provision is that the Commission's decisions should guide what is considered correct language, and that the state must create conditions for safeguarding these standards (Article 19). 2.2. Draft of the 2006 New Version of the State Language Law The first significant step toward updating the provisions of the 1995 State Language Law was the draft of a new version of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on the State Language, prepared by a working group of qualified lawyers and linguists assembled specifically for this task and registered in 2006—the 2006 draft State Language Law. Over time, a practice became established in the lawmaking of restored independent Lithuania of including definitions of the key terms used in legal acts. This was already being done when drafts amending the 1995 State Language Law were prepared. The definitions of the following terms in Article 2 are important for the concept of correctness in the 2006 draft State Language Law: RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Viešosios kalbos kokybės samprata Lietuvos Respublikos valstybinės kalbos įstatyme 17 Standard Lithuanian is a codified linguistic system intended for the needs of public life and used as a prestigious variety of the Lithuanian language. A language norm is a linguistic fact and its spoken and written use that are generally recognized in accordance with established rules. Current sources of language norms are normative Lithuanian grammars, normative and approved dictionaries, resolutions of language institutions, and recommendations from language scholarship. Correct language is written or spoken language based on the rules of Lithuanian grammar, vocabulary, spelling, and punctuation, as well as other recognized sources of language norms. In the light of current perspectives, the definitions of the concepts presented have shortcomings. First, the standard language is considered a codified construct, with the existing codification in mind. This would be true, but codification is only a reflection of a particular period in the history of the standard language and generally, especially during dynamic periods of language development, lags behind actual norms. Thus, such a definition of the standard language presents a static state of this variety and does not reveal the possibility of further codification, although, in response to changes in usage, the standardization of the standard language is a continuous process (cf. the theory of language codification cycles, Takahashi 2020: 162–167). Second, general language norms are not distinguished from standard-language norms (VKĮ 1995 uses language norms by default to mean only those characteristic of the standard language), which is important because only standard-language norms are regulated by codification. Despite these shortcomings, the 2006 draft of the VKĮ was an important step toward specifying the concept of correctness. The concept of language correctness in VKĮp 2006 rests on several points. 1) Requirements of correctness apply to specific areas of public use of the Lithuanian language, listed in Article 20 of this draft law: Article 20. Correctness of the Lithuanian language The language of legal acts, other public documents and public information of state and municipal institutions and agencies, public information of private legal entities, names of Lithuanian legal entities being registered, periodicals, books and other publications, including electronic publications, teaching materials, public written and spoken information about goods and services, advertising, public signs, and radio and television programmes must be correct. Palyginti su VKĮ 1995, taisyklingumo reikalavimai išplėsti. Pagal VKĮ 1995 3 straipsnio nuostatą įstatymai ir kiti teisės aktai turi būti rašomi valstybine kalba, o VKĮp 2006 20 straipsnyje jiems, be to, ir kitiems valstybės ir savivaldybių institucijų bei įstaigų viešiesiems dokumentams, jau 18 BENDRINĖ KALBA | 96 a requirement of correctness is also imposed. Publications in electronic form, teaching materials, names of Lithuanian legal entities being registered, and texts from the rapidly expanding advertising industry at the time (spoken and written) were also added to the areas of public usage required to be correct. 2) Since VKĮp 2006 defines correct language as language based on rules and other recognized sources of norms, Article 19(1) states who establishes language norms: Article 19. Standardization of the Lithuanian language 1. The State Commission of the Lithuanian Language evaluates Lithuanian language norms and establishes the direction and objectives of the protection of the Lithuanian language, acting in accordance with this Law and the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language. 3) Article 19(2) of VKĮp 2006 expands the list of entities required to comply with the resolutions of the VLKK and, consequently, with the requirements for correct public language: Article 19. Standardization of the Lithuanian language <...> 2. Resolutions of the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language are binding on all legal and natural persons of the Republic of Lithuania. Thus, in VKĮp 2006, the requirement of correct public language in the defined areas also remains absolute: no exceptions are made for possible justified violations of norms, and the scope of the requirement of correctness itself—both in terms of areas of use and of entities—is expanded. It should be recalled that this draft never became a law in force. 2.3. 2011–2013 Drafts of the State Language Law In 2011, a new draft law amending the State Language Law was registered (State Language Law draft 2011). Article 2(1) refined the definition of the concept of standard Lithuanian. The modifier “standardized” was replaced by “correct”: 1. Standard Lithuanian is correct written or spoken Lithuanian, based on the norms of Lithuanian vocabulary, grammar, spelling and punctuation, and intended for the needs of public life. Together with the wording “based on norms” (more precisely, it would have been “grounded in norms”), this better reflected the possibility of the development of norms and changes in their codification RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Viešosios kalbos kokybės samprata Lietuvos Respublikos valstybinės kalbos įstatyme 19 over time. It may be assumed that, as a result of this amendment, there was no longer any reason to define the concept of correct language separately in the list of concepts in the State Language Law draft 2011, and it was therefore removed. The amendments to Article 20 were even more significant. The article was divided into two parts: Article 20. Correctness of the Lithuanian Language 1. The language of normative legal acts; other public documents and public information of state and municipal institutions and establishments; public information of private legal persons; periodical press, books and other publications, including electronic publications; teaching materials; public written and spoken information about goods, services and commissioned work; advertising; public signs; films and plays; the language, captions and subtitles of radio and television programme presenters and journalists; and the names of legal persons established in the Republic of Lithuania must be correct. 2. In the language of cinema, theatre, fiction and other fields of artistic creation, the provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article shall not apply where stylistically motivated. The principal amendments to Article 20, compared with the State Language Law draft 2006, were as follows: 1) two new areas of public language use were added—the language of films and plays; 2) the provision on the correctness of spoken media language was narrowed. The State Language Law draft 2006 proposed applying the correctness requirement to the language of radio and television programmes, whereas the State Language Law draft 2011 proposed applying it only to the language of radio and television programme presenters and journalists. Apparently, this took account of the fact that radio and television programmes in an informal style feature speakers from various social groups, who do not necessarily speak standard language and/or use various stylistically motivated linguistic expressive devices characteristic of the substandard variety, and whose language is not regulated by legal means. In addition, a new paragraph 2 was added to Article 20, defining when the correctness requirement does not apply to standard language. Thus, a new approach to the use of standard language emerged (for further discussion, see section 3 of the article to be published, The Concept of Functionality). Article 22 of the State Language Law draft 2011 also defined more precisely the functions of one of the language supervision bodies—the State Language Inspectorate—including the function of monitoring compliance with resolutions of the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language and other normative legal acts establishing requirements for the use and correctness of the state language. A year later, in mid-2012, the State Language Law draft 2011 began to be actively considered by the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language, just as its new term of office was beginning. Surviving drafts of comments show that it was proposed to expand the provisions of Article 20, which specifies the areas of public language whose language must be correct, by adding education and 20 BENDRINĖ KALBA | 96 the educational process. It was argued that Article 8 guarantees education in the Lithuanian language, and therefore every citizen or foreigner learning this language must have the right to receive a quality education, including a foundation in the prestigious variety of Lithuanian—the standard Lithuanian language: Article 8. Education 1. Every citizen of the Republic of Lithuania and every foreigner entitled to reside permanently or temporarily in the Republic of Lithuania is guaranteed education in the Lithuanian language and the opportunity to learn Lithuanian. Since, as noted in Section 1.2, the Law on the State Language was included in the list of constitutional laws in 2012, an updated version of the draft was prepared and registered in 2013. It differed little from VKĮp 2011 and was considered for a long time (until 2016) by both VLKK and Seimas committees. VKĮp 2013 also incorporated proposals refined during discussions of VKĮp 2011. Particularly important was the definition of the standard Lithuanian language in Article 2, supplemented with the characteristic of functionality: 1. Standard Lithuanian is correct and functional written or spoken Lithuanian based on the vocabulary, grammar, spelling, and punctuation norms of the Lithuanian language, intended for the needs of public life. It would probably be impossible to reconstruct and document precisely the entire process of proposals for VKĮp 2013 and its subsequent amendments, especially since it extended throughout the term of the Seimas then in office. It should be noted that during consideration, a proposal was made to amend the title of Article 20 by adding the word “functionality”; however, VKĮp 2013 did not take this into account. Later, in its letter to the Seimas dated 9 March 2015 (Letter 2015), VLKK repeated this proposal, and it was included in subsequent VKĮ drafts. In the same letter, VLKK also proposed replacing the term language norm with the more precise wording standard language norm. VKĮp 2013 was not adopted, as politicians disagreed over the spelling of the personal names of Lithuanian citizens and several other language policy issues relevant to national communities and related to the use of the state language. 2.4. Versions of the 2021–2023 Draft Law on the State Language After a longer break, in 2021, a draft initiated by Seimas member Dalia Asanavičiūtė was registered in the Legal Acts Information System (VKĮp 2021), followed in subsequent years by several more drafts based on comments and proposals from various institutions, including the Legal Department of the Office of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Viešosios kalbos kokybės samprata Lietuvos Respublikos valstybinės kalbos įstatyme 21 The versions of the draft law were VKĮp 20222 and VKĮp 2023a. It is probably worth examining only the provisions on the correctness of public language formulated in the latter, because the two earlier versions were not actively considered in the Seimas and became the basis for preparing VKĮp 2023a, which, like the alternative VKĮ 2023b, had not yet begun to be considered by the end of 2023. One of the many questions discussed by the working group was precisely the concept of public language quality. Article 19 of VKĮp 2023a addresses the correctness and functionality of language: Article 19. Correctness and functionality of the Lithuanian language The language of legal acts, documents, mass media, public signs, information about goods and services, teaching materials, and advertising must comply with the norms of Standard Lithuanian. This requirement does not apply where the norms of the standard language are not observed for reasons of functional appropriateness, or where terminological language is used. The first paragraph of this article presents a somewhat more condensed list, compared with previous drafts of the Law on the State Language, of the areas of public-language use to which correctness requirements apply; in essence, however, it broadly covers the same areas as those specified in the earlier drafts. What is new is that the concept of public language quality appears in Article 20(3) of Chapter IV. Protection of the Lithuanian Language: Article 20. Measures for the Protection of the Lithuanian Language By legal, financial, and organizational measures, the State ensures the protection of the Lithuanian language and creates conditions for it to function fully in all areas of public life: <...> 3) takes care of public language quality (correctness and functionality), and ensures that information about language resources and the norms of Standard Lithuanian is accessible to the public <...>. However, the concept is not explained further in the draft; it is only specified in parentheses as correctness and functionality. In 2023, an alternative draft, VKĮp 2023b—much more detailed than the earlier ones—was also registered in the Seimas, initiated by Seimas member Academician Professor Eugenijus 2 The Research Council of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language also submitted comments on VKĮp 2022, based on an assessment of the draft prepared by a working group specially established for this purpose (Conclusions 2023). At the request of the draft’s authors, a joint working group comprising representatives of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language, VLKK, and the State Language Inspectorate was established in April 2023 and prepared specific proposals for improving the draft. Most of these were taken into account, and a new version of the draft was registered in 2023 (VKĮp 2023a). 22 BENDRINĖ KALBA | 96 by Jovaiša and signed by more than 30 members of the Seimas. Examining this draft from the perspective of public language quality, it is apparent that some of its definitions (standard Lithuanian, language norm, correct language, etc.) and provisions have been transferred from VKĮp 2006; moreover, considerable attention is devoted to the use of proper names—personal names of citizens of the Republic of Lithuania and official and authentic geographical names. Article 18, which consists of three parts, is devoted to the correctness (and, essentially, also the functionality) of the Lithuanian language: Article 18. Correctness of the Lithuanian Language 1. The language of legal acts; other public documents and public information of state and municipal institutions and establishments; public information of private legal entities; names of Lithuanian legal entities subject to registration; periodicals, books and other publications, including electronic publications; teaching materials; public written and spoken information about goods and services; advertising; public signs; information in the press; radio and television broadcasts; and audiovisual works must be correct (that is, it must conform to the norms of the standard language). 2. The requirement established in paragraph 1 of this Article does not apply to the language of works of literature and art or to that of audiovisual broadcasts and works where the norms of standard Lithuanian are not observed for reasons of artistic expression. 3. The language of media, press publications and audiovisual works must be edited by qualified Lithuanian-language editors employed by legal entities responsible, in accordance with the procedure established by law, for the content of publicly disseminated information. As in earlier VKĮ drafts, paragraph 1 of this Article identifies the areas of public language use to which the requirement of correctness applies, while paragraph 2 sets out an exception for artistic expression (the wording is similar to VKĮp 2011). Paragraph 3 of this Article is entirely new: it identifies a means of ensuring the correctness of publicly disseminated information, namely the work of qualified Lithuanian-language editors. Article 20 assigns the VLKK the task of establishing requirements for the use of correct Lithuanian, while the State Language Inspectorate is tasked, among other things, with overseeing compliance with those requirements. Thus, alternative VKĮp 2023b provides for a coherent but effort-intensive system for implementing correct public language—from establishing requirements and ensuring their implementation to overseeing compliance. 3. THE CONCEPT OF FUNCTIONALITY In language studies, functionality means that language is a means that performs certain functions needed by its users (for more detail, see Nuyts 1989: 88–123). In language practice, language functionality essentially refers to two related things: RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Viešosios kalbos kokybės samprata Lietuvos Respublikos valstybinės kalbos įstatyme 23 1) language resources are used that serve the purpose and function of the text and the author’s intentions, i.e., the specific communicative situation; 2) the requirements of functional styles and stylistic appropriateness (style norms) are observed. 3.1. Introducing the Principle of Language Functionality into the VKĮ As the previous section of this article has shown, from 2011 onward the concept of language functionality was gradually introduced into VKĮ drafts, supplementing in substance one of the most important characteristics of standard language—correctness. The comments on the proposals noted that correctness is not the sole characteristic distinguishing standard language from other language varieties. Standard language must perform different functions in various spheres of public life (these are discussed separately in the law: the administration of the state and its institutions, science, public information, and other spheres). If language is correct but not functional, it may be unsuitable for the needs of public life. According to the Dictionary of International Words (TŽŽ 2013), the adjective functional means “performing an applied function well, meeting needs; useful, beneficial,” and thus allows a more flexible approach to some nonstandard language phenomena used for good reason in public language. As already mentioned in subsection 2.3, Article 20 of the VKĮp 2011 qualifies the requirement for correctness in public language in certain areas of language use with one exception: 2. In language used in cinema, theatre, fiction, and other areas of artistic creation, the provisions of paragraph 1 of this article shall not apply in cases that are stylistically motivated. In discussions of VKĮp 2011, the phrase “stylistically motivated cases” was widely criticized for its indeterminate content, which could be interpreted in many different ways; the provision in this paragraph of Article 20 itself was also seen as lacking specific criteria for determining whether a particular usage could be considered stylistically motivated. It is entirely understandable that not all those considering the matter found it acceptable to make style norms—which in many cases depend on context and are attributable to the subjectively perceived self-expression of text authors—an object of legislation. At the same time, no solution was found, and the exception for “stylistically motivated cases” was carried over from one draft to another. The list of areas of use to which this exception applied also changed. Around 2014, it was proposed that such areas should include 24 BENDRINĖ KALBA | 96 “the dialect press, books and other publications written in dialect, and dialect radio and television programmes or parts thereof”; however, this provision appeared only in paragraph 2 of Article 16 of VKĮp 2021: Article 16. Correctness and functionality of the Lithuanian language <...> 2. The provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article shall not apply to the language of cinema, theatre, fiction, and other areas of artistic creation, or to dialect in the press, books and other publications written in dialect, or dialect radio and television programmes or parts thereof. At the same time, it is evident that the phrase “stylistically motivated cases” no longer appears in Article 16(2) of the 2021 Draft State Language Law. This was noted in subsequent discussions, when the question was raised as to whether such a provision was too broad and whether, in the areas of public language use mentioned in this paragraph, unjustified violations of standard-language norms should be tolerated just as much as motivated non-standard expression. In other words, the wording of Article 16(2) of the 2021 Draft State Language Law could be understood to mean that the correctness provision does not apply at all to the specified areas of use. The exception for dialect use was removed from Article 17(2) of the 2022 Draft State Language Law, and instead of stylistic motivation, wording was introduced proposing that departures from standard-language norms be justified on the grounds of artistic expression: Article 17. Correctness and functionality of the Lithuanian language 1. The language of legal acts, documents, and public information must comply with the norms of standard Lithuanian. 2. This requirement shall not apply to the language of literary and artistic works where the norms of standard Lithuanian are not observed for the purposes of artistic expression. Jungtinė darbo grupė, rengdama siūlymus, kaip tobulinti VKĮp 2022, dėl šio straipsnio nuostatų daug diskutavo. Meninės raiškos kriterijus įvertintas kaip šiam įstatymui netinkamas, nes yra dar siauresnės apimties nei stilistinė motyvacija ir toks pat subjektyvus. Kaip parodyta 2.4 skelbiamojo straipsnio poskyryje, buvo pasiūlyta ne tik patikslinti viešosios kalbos sričių, kurioms taikomi taisyklingumo reikalavimai, sąrašą, bet ir pakeisti išlygos formuluotę: Article 19. Correctness and functionality of the Lithuanian language <...> This requirement does not apply when standard language norms are not observed for reasons of functional appropriateness or when a dialect is used. RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Viešosios kalbos kokybės samprata Lietuvos Respublikos valstybinės kalbos įstatyme 25 Thus, the concept of stylistic motivation and artistic expression has been replaced by that of functional appropriateness. It is not defined in VKIp 2023a, so a separate explanation is particularly necessary. 3.2. Functionality of language as a feature of contemporary public language The concept of functional appropriateness dates back to the period of the Prague Linguistic Circle, established in the 1920s, which developed the ideas of functional linguistics. Its members argued that the value of a linguistic unit depends on the communicative situation in which it is used. These ideas had considerable influence on those who codified the norms of standard Lithuanian in the interwar period and later3. To what extent can these ideas be applied in language practice today when justifying the choice of particular linguistic phenomena in public usage from among their full range of variation? First, one must bear in mind the radical changes in language use and in the interaction between languages over an entire century. At the beginning of the 21st century, when issues of human rights and individual identity have become particularly prominent, studies of language variation explain the diversity of linguistic phenomena not only as a reflection of society’s social diversity, but also as a social semiotic system in which linguistic resources are used to construct various social roles and identities (see Eckert 2012: 94). Thus, the appropriateness of using linguistic phenomena is now associated not only with the functions of language, but also with the individualization of linguistic expression. These two elements could form the content of an updated concept of functional appropriateness, or language functionality, which is needed when discussing the full diversity of usage varieties. Functional appropriateness means that, in light of the functions language performs, its means of expression are adapted in each case to the specific communication situation and the author’s linguistic intentions, and need not necessarily meet requirements of correctness. Second, the question of the interaction between correctness and functional appropriateness must be reconsidered. Are there defined criteria by which one can determine when a linguistic phenomenon is used appropriately, even though it is 3 Cf.: “<...> the importance of the criterion of correctness should not be exaggerated. It would be unwise, for example, to demand correctness in all dialogue in works of fiction, and sometimes even in the author’s own text, because <...> a certain well-motivated violation of norms is a characteristic feature of creative writing. However, purposefulness must also be considered in this case: failure to follow the rules must also be purposeful” (Girdenis, Pupkis 1978: 65; emphasis in original). 26 BENDRINĖ KALBA | 96 does not conform to the norms of standard language? In other words, is it possible always to determine objectively what function a linguistic phenomenon serves in a particular case and for what purpose the norms are breached? Considering contemporary public usage of Lithuanian, four prominent cases can be distinguished in which functional expediency takes precedence over correctness (cf. also Kniūkšta 1994: 10–14). Artistic expression. This is perhaps the clearest manifestation of functional expediency: the norms of standard language are disregarded in pursuit of various artistic aims (for example, in fiction to create individualized characterizations, or in advertising to attract buyers’ attention, target specific groups, and so on). For precisely this reason, artistic expression has appeared in more than one of the LSL projects examined. A characteristic contemporary example is the two-part collection of songs, which has become especially popular among young people, has circulated online since 2020, and was later supplemented and released on compact discs: Nykstančios lietuvių liaudies dainos [Disappearing Lithuanian Folk Songs], created by Lukas Šidlauskas, an author who goes by the pseudonym Šventinis bankuchenas. Two seemingly incompatible elements are masterfully blended into the genre of professionally performed folk songs: melodies of Lithuanian folk songs refined over centuries, performances on folk instruments, and English-language slang reflecting contemporary realities (see Figs. 1 and 2). FIG. 1. Nykstančių lietuvių liaudies dainų collection online and a listener’s comment. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfOyPMgV_c8. RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Viešosios kalbos kokybės samprata Lietuvos Respublikos valstybinės kalbos įstatyme 27 FIG. 2. Nykstančių lietuvių liaudies dainų collection song Ofisėli stiklainėli lyrics. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfOyPMgV_c8. The song lyrics alone do not make a particular impression, but nonstandard vocabulary, folk-style diminutives, and spelling errors deliberately introduced into the written lyrics to mimic contemporary electronic communication, together with the rich music, help create a gentle parody of traditional folk songs and, at the same time, a striking, memorable artistic effect; they thus undoubtedly serve an artistic-expression function. Characteristics of an era, social group, ideology, etc. This instance of functional expediency often occurs in fiction and can therefore also be classified as the artistic expression discussed above. However, in contemporary usage, especially in informal (non-informational) journalistic style and in advertising, nonstandard expressive means may also be used deliberately to highlight a linguistic feature characteristic of a particular era, social group, or aspect of life (see Fig. 3). In the first and second examples, the lexical loanwords kaldra, sietka are used deliberately, as are the authors’ metalinguistic comments or graphic non- 28 BENDRINĖ KALBA | 96 FIG. 3. Examples of media texts in which non-standard language phenomena are used for a reason The highlighting of the standard word shows that such language phenomena have been chosen deliberately. In the third example, the slang variant viarslinykas of the word verslininkas is used; over time, it has become a symbol of the modern-day unscrupulous businessman and imitates a non-Lithuanian accent. In the fourth example, the proper noun Rusija is written with a lowercase initial and a double zz (as a symbol of Russian fascism) for political reasons—emphasizing a condemnatory stance toward Russia’s war in Ukraine. These and similar non-standard phenomena are given meaning in particular texts as signs of various authorial intentions. Expression of the author’s individuality and identity. The widespread use of public electronic communication on social networks, as well as the presence of media genres with few constraints, allows members of diverse social groups to express themselves freely in public and to draw on a highly varied arsenal of linguistic expressive resources. However, it is not easy to determine when this constitutes personal self-expression and the creation of a distinctive identity through linguistic means, and when it is simply a lack of linguistic competence and an inability to navigate different linguistic situations, unless the criteria for motivated and unmotivated usage have been clearly established. Authenticity of the source (in quotations). This is one of the less frequently discussed cases of functional appropriateness. Some texts in current usage across various styles and genres are heterogeneous: they may contain quotations from other sources or similar insertions. Those quotations may include non-standard language phenomena (motivated or RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Viešosios kalbos kokybės samprata Lietuvos Respublikos valstybinės kalbos įstatyme 29 unmotivated), for example, norms characteristic of earlier periods, or unedited or stylistically meaningful violations of the norm; authors publishing texts in a standard-language context either have to leave them as they are or deliberately retain them to preserve the authenticity of the quoted sources. One of the more common cases is the republication on news portals of posts or quotations from social networks written in unedited language (where the language used is often not the standard language but a substandard variety). Once placed in a standard-language context (the media), such texts hover on the boundary between motivated and unmotivated non-standard usage. Quotations containing strongly motivated non-standard usage can be found in the media when the language of the quoted sources departs particularly markedly from standard-language norms. Fig. 4 presents two excerpts from transcripts of a conversation secretly recorded by the special services and published on a news portal. The individuals involved in a political corruption case, who had until then built up considerable reputations in public, meet in a restaurant, wait in vain for one member of their group, and discuss their relations with one another in language rife with slang and swear words. In reporting on the case and publishing the transcripts of the conversations, the news portal seeks to present them as authentically as possible. Thus, quotations in slang are inserted into a publicly available text written in the standard language. Metalinguistic comments (underlined in light blue in Fig. 4) show the editorial team’s own stance toward non-standard vocabulary and provide a rationale that allows the text to remain authentic, avoid shocking readers, and be understandable to them. FIG. 4. Secret recording of a conversation used in a political corruption case. Source: lrytas.lt, 2018-05-09. 30 BENDRINĖ KALBA | 96 The examples presented show that the need for motivated nonstandard usage is now evident and entirely understandable. Therefore, the State Language Law should not require correctness in public language everywhere and at all times. In contemporary society, the quality of public language is determined to a great extent by the functionality of linguistic phenomena, understood more broadly than merely as stylistic motivation and associated with the diverse linguistic intentions of text authors. How this provision on functional appropriateness should be conveyed in the legal language of the SLL remains problematic to this day and will most likely be the subject of further discussion. What should the relationship between correctness and functionality in public language be when these two categories come into conflict? It should be recalled that when public language serves the needs of society as a whole, the public interest in having a prestigious language variety that conforms to codified norms—that is, the standard language—must take priority. GENERAL CONCLUSION As the terms of the Lithuanian Parliament and the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language changed (while the State Language Inspectorate remained constant), the drafting of the Lithuanian Republic’s Law on the State Language—an important law for the state, added to the list of constitutional laws in 2012—continued for almost three decades. The legislative process itself was inconsistent and inefficient: as new drafters became involved, continuity in the legal logic of the documents was not always maintained (at times, earlier versions were revisited, although presumably they were revised for specific reasons). Nor is it always possible to trace the reasons why a particular legal provision was changed. Objective factors in the development of society and language have led to a change in how the quality of public language is understood in the draft Laws on the State Language of the Republic of Lithuania, compared with 1995. In the latest alternative drafts, registered in 2023, SLLd 2023a and SLLd 2023b, the quality of public language is defined in two respects, albeit using different formulations: a) in terms of correctness, and b) in terms of functionality. Over time, the drafts have also resolved the question of the domains in which the state language is used and, separately, the domains to which correctness requirements apply: SLLd 2023a explicitly lists them all, although the possibility remains that something may have been left out or that new domains or exceptions may emerge. RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Viešosios kalbos kokybės samprata Lietuvos Respublikos valstybinės kalbos įstatyme 31 Correctness in public language (essentially, in contexts where the standard variety is to be used) remains an important legal provision in the draft SLLs. The existence of a language standard is essential for the harmonious functioning of institutions, smooth public communication, quality education, and cultural continuity. Correctness in the SLL is defined by two parameters: a) the domains in which public language is used, and b) conformity with the codified norms of standard Lithuanian. At the current stage in the development of standard Lithuanian, the domains in which public language is used do not in themselves all determine whether the language used in them is correct. Accordingly, one of the latest SLL drafts specifically enumerates the domains directly associated with correctness: the language of legislation, documents, mass media, public signage, information about goods and services, teaching materials, and advertising. The content of codification (the sources of standard-language norms and the language rules and norms set out in them) is determined and/or approved, and the public is consulted on it, by institutions responsible for linguistic research and state-language supervision. Over time, the understanding of language functionality in normative linguistics and stylistics has changed somewhat. It is understood as the suitability of linguistic expressive means to particular communication situations; these situations, however, are now associated not only with language functions and functional styles, but also with the individualization of linguistic expression, the formation of personal identity, and self-expression. Functionality also encompasses motivated noncompliance with standard-language norms, characteristic of some domains of public-language use. Such cases, however, should be regarded as possible exceptions that must not disrupt public communication or destabilize standard-language norms. The most typical instances of functional appropriateness in contemporary Lithuanian usage (and thus exceptions relevant to the SLL, in which the requirements for correctness in public language may not apply) are: 1) artistic expression; 2) characteristics of an era, social group, ideology, and so forth; 3) expression of the author’s individuality and identity; 4) authenticity of the source (in quotations). The concept of language functionality has been used in SLL drafts since 2011, but it has not been defined. Initially, it was associated with the stylistic motivation of linguistic expressive means, later with artistic expression, and in one of the latest SLL drafts registered in 2023, with functional appropriateness. This should be taken into account when discussing provisions on public-language quality requirements in the SLL. The concept of language quality is not directly defined in the SLL drafts, but in this context it is implicit as the state of language characterized by its conformity 32 BENDRINĖ KALBA | 96 of standard language norms and the functions performed. This requires derivative documents: 1) codified sources of standard language norms; 2) further clarification of what functional expediency is and how it operates in current public usage. However, even with these in place, the possibility of subjectivity in identifying cases of justified non-compliance with norms cannot yet be ruled out. ŠALTINIAI Gairės 2018 – Valstybinės kalbos politikos 2018–2022 metų gairės. Patvirtinta Lietuvos Respublikos Seimo 2018 m. birželio 27 d. nutarimu Nr. XIII-1318. Prieiga internete: https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/cd0584707b6e11e89188e16a6495e98c?jfwid=-g0zrzjw17. Išvados 2023 – Lietuvių kalbos instituto Mokslo tarybos 2023 m. kovo 2 d. nutarimas dėl Lietuvos Respublikos valstybinės kalbos konstitucinio įstatymo 2022 m. projekto Nr. XIVP-880(2). Prieiga internete: http://lki.lt/pranesi-mas-apie-lietuviu-kalbos-instituto-mokslo-tarybos-nutarima-del-lietuvos-respublikos-valstybines-kalbos-konstitucinio-istatymo-2022-m-projekto-nr-xivp-8802/?fbclid=IwAR38Zxr3H0HrpUtT9E1gIUKZWAMG8WYSqLMdr5kPVzMpcN6ZHWGHGqNDPOA. Raštas 2015 – Valstybinės lietuvių kalbos komisijos raštas Lietuvos Respublikos Seimui „Dėl Lietuvos Respublikos valstybinės kalbos konstitucinio įstatymo projekto Nr. XIIP-558“. Registruotas 2015-03-09. Prieiga internete: https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAK/df804072c63811e48799bc57840226ce?jfwid=-117zm7fqs. Sąrašas 2012 – Lietuvos Respublikos konstitucinių įstatymų sąrašo konstitucinis įstatymas Nr. XI-1932. Patvirtinta Lietuvos Respublikos Seimo 2012 m. kovo 15 d. Prieiga internete: https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/TAIS.420310. VIĮ 1996 – Lietuvos Respublikos visuomenės informavimo įstatymas (1996 m. liepos 2 d., Nr. I-1418; galiojanti redakcija 2023-06-01–2023-12-31). Prieiga internete: https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/TAIS.29884/asr. VKĮ 1995 – Lietuvos Respublikos valstybinės kalbos įstatymas (1995 m. sausio 31 d. Nr. I-779; galiojanti redakcija 2022-07-03). Prieiga internete: https://www.e-tar.lt/portal/lt/legalAct/TAR.0B0253BB424C/NPmXwqqTim. VKĮp 2006 – Lietuvos Respublikos valstybinės kalbos įstatymo pakeitimo įstatymo projektas Nr. XP-1320. Lietuvos Respublikos valstybinės kalbos įstatymo nauja redakcija. Registruota 2006-04-24. Prieiga internete: https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAP/TAIS.274470?jfwid=wny8riqw6. VKĮp 2011 – Lietuvos Respublikos valstybinės kalbos įstatymo pakeitimo įstatymo projektas Nr. XP-1320(3). Registruota 2011-06-30. Prieiga internete: https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAP/TAIS.402981?jfwid=-wbkgqm837+. RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Viešosios kalbos kokybės samprata Lietuvos Respublikos valstybinės kalbos įstatyme 33 VKİp 2013 – Lietuvos Respublikos valstybinės kalbos konstitucinio įstatymo projektas Nr. XIIP-558. Registruota 2013-05-10. Prieiga internete: https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAP/TAIS.448209. VKİp 2021 – Lietuvos Respublikos valstybinės kalbos konstitucinio įstatymo projektas Nr. XIVP-880. Registruota 2021-09-27. Prieiga internete: https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAP/ca87b4701f6211ecad9fbbf5f006237b?positionInSearchResults=0&searchModelUUID=5274ac7b-ff9c-4d22-a01a-e26d6e5c55d8&fbclid=IwAR0vi5QTinTU4oEEOu4gXMHF iZq9WTBpKeSHfUiZltlea08KLkGW-ES7CZk. VKİp 2022 – Lietuvos Respublikos valstybinės kalbos konstitucinio įstatymo projektas Nr. XIVP-880(2). Registruota 2022-11-29. Prieiga internete: https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAP/68fa95406fe511ed8a47de53ff967b64?jfwid=-5y8jbzqe7. VKİp 2023a – Lietuvos Respublikos valstybinės kalbos konstitucinio įstatymo projektas Nr. XIVP-880(3). Registruota 2023-06-19. Prieiga internete: https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAP/0f73da300e7411ee9ac6bb8cb9c06455. VKİp 2023b – Lietuvos Respublikos valstybinės kalbos konstitucinio įstatymo projektas Nr. XIVP-2687. Registruota 2023-04-27. Prieiga internete: https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAP/97124620e4ee11eda305cb3bdf2af4d8?jfwid=huvlw9voh. LITERATŪRA Baldauf Richard B. J. 2006: Rearticulating the Case for Micro Language Planning in a Language Ecology Context. – Current Issues in Language Planning 7(2–3), 147–170. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2167/cilp092.0. Girdenis Aleksas, Pupkis Aldonas 1978: Bendrinės kalbos norminimo ir kodifikavimo principai. – Baltų kalbos ir jų tyrinėjimo metodai, Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas, 53–66. Eckert Penelope 2012: Three Waves of Variation Study: The Emergence of Meaning in the Study Sociolinguistic Variation. – Annual Review of Anthropology 41, 78–100. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-092611-145828. Heuman Anna 2022: Trivializing Language Correctness in an Online Metalinguistic Debate. – Language and Communication 82(3), 52–63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2021.11.007. Kniū kšta Pranas 1994: Apie nukrypimus nuo kalbos normų. – Kalbos kultūra 66, 5–18. Prieiga internete: http://www.bendrinekalba.lt/Straipsniai/66/Kniuksta_KK_66_straipsnis.pdf. 34 BENDRINĖ KALBA | 96 Miliūnaitė Rita 2010: Kalbos prestižas ir jo planavimas. – Kalbos kultūra 83, 231–256. Miliūnaitė Rita 2018: Kalbos normos ir jų savireguliacija interneto bendruomenėje, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Miliūnaitė Rita 2019: Lūžis valstybinės lietuvių kalbos normų priežiūros sistemoje. – Baltų filologija 28(1), 123–139. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22364/bf.28.1.04. Miliūnaitė Rita 2022: Įvairuojantys ir nauji lietuvių kalbos reiškiniai XXI a. pradžioje: sistematika ir pokyčių kryptys: elektroninis išteklius. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Prieiga internete: lki.lt/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Miliunaite_Ivairuojantys_ir_nauji_kalbos-reiskiniai.pdf. Nuyts Jan 1989: On the Functionality of Language. – IPrA Papers in Pragmatics 3(1), 88–128. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/iprapip.3.1.03nuy. Takahashi Hideaki 2020: Chapter 8. Processes of Language Codification: The Case of the Standardization of German Pronunciation. – A Language Management Approach to Language Problems: Integrating Macro and Micro Dimensions, eds. Goro Christoph Kimura, Lisa Fairbrother, Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 159–176. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/wlp.7.08tak. TŽŽ 2013: Tarptautinių žodžių žodynas, red. D. Svetikienė, Vilnius: Alma littera. Watson Don 2003: Death Sentence: The Decay of Public Language. Sydney: Knopf. Gauta 2023 11 30 Priimta 2023 12 20 RITA MILIŪNAITĖ THE CONCEPT OF THE QUALITY OF PUBLIC LANGUAGE IN THE LAW ON THE STATE LANGUAGE OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA Summary The article addresses one aspect of the Law on the State Language (LSL) of the Republic of Lithuania and its subsequent drafts, aiming to determine how this law, which made the list of constitutional laws in 2012, defines the legal provisions with regard to the quality of public language, and how these provisions evolved later on. Considering the processes of destandardisation of the European languages that have been gaining momentum over the past decade and realising the role the RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Viešosios kalbos kokybės samprata Lietuvos Respublikos valstybinės kalbos įstatyme 35 standard language plays in the life of the state, the article offers a number of reasons why it is still important not to leave the quality of public language up for self-regulation at this point of the evolutionary stage of the Lithuanian language, and why this provision should be enshrined in law. The article consists of a Foreword, three chapters, conclusions, and lists of sources and literature. Chapter one maps the quality of public language in the context of the policy on language, describing the problems pertaining to this field. Chapters two and three dissect the aspect of the quality of public language in the 1995 and subsequent drafts of the LSL by showcasing how the concept of language correctness and functionality evolved therein. With the legal provisions of the 1995 wording of the LSL, which is still in effect, as well as of its seven subsequent drafts addressed from said angle, the changes that have taken place in the process of law-making that covers a period of almost three decades are revealed. The 1995 LSL and the 2006 dLSL both only impose a requirement of the correctness of public language, while drafts that came later also contain a number of reservations as to when this requirement can be disregarded, referring to stylistic motivation, artistic expression, and functional purpose. Therefore, the article deals with two elements of the quality of public language: the correctness and the functionality of language, revealing the correlation between the two and the various spheres of usage of public language. It shows how different drafts of the LSL provide different definitions of the boundaries of the spheres of the usage of language that are subject to the requirements of correctness and functionality. It offers an in-depth analysis of the term of ‘functional purpose’ as proposed in one of the drafts from 2023, its contents introducing a broader reservation to the requirement of the correctness of public language compared to previous drafts of the LSL. Furthermore, the article identifies the four most characteristic cases when the norms of the standard language could be disregarded for the sake of functional purpose – these are (1) artistic expression; (2) period, social, ideological, and other characteristics; (3) the expression of the author’s individuality and identity; and (4) the legitimacy of the source (in citations). And finally, the article puts the question of how this should be reflected in the legal provisions of the LSL up for debate. KEYWORDS: language policy, public language, language correctness, language functionality, quality of language. RITA MILIŪNAITĖ Lietuvių kalbos institutas Petro Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius [email protected] 36 BENDRINĖ KALBA | 96 RITA MILIŪNAITĖ VIEŠOSIOS KALBOS KOKYBĖS SAMPRATA LIETUVOS RESPUBLIKOS VALSTYBINĖS KALBOS ĮSTATYME S a n t r a u k a Straipsnyje nagrinėjamas vienas Lietuvos Respublikos valstybinės kalbos įstatymo (toliau – VKĮ) ir vėlesnių jo projektų aspektas: siekiama nustatyti, kaip šiame įstatyme, kuris nuo 2012 m. yra įtrauktas į konstitucinių įstatymų sąrašą, nusakomos ir kaip vėliau keitėsi teisinės nuostatos dėl viešosios kalbos kokybės. Turint galvoje pastaruoju dešimtmečiu stiprėjančius Europos kalbų destandartizacijos procesus ir kartu suvokiant bendrinės kalbos vaidmenį valstybės gyvenime, pagrindžiama, kodėl šiuo lietuvių kalbos raidos etapu tebėra svarbu viešosios kalbos kokybės nepalikti savireguliacijai ir kodėl ši nuostata turi būti įtvirtinta įstatymu. Straipsnį sudaro Įvadas, trys dalys, apibendrinimas ir šaltinių bei literatūros sąrašai. Pirmoje dalyje atskleidžiama viešosios kalbos kokybės, kaip VKĮ objekto, vieta kalbos politikos kontekste, apibūdinama šios srities problematika. Antroje ir trečioje dalyse viešosios kalbos kokybės aspektas VKĮ 1995 ir vėlesniuose projektuose nagrinėjamas parodant, kaip juose keitėsi kalbos taisyklingumo ir funkcionalumo samprata. Minėtu aspektu nagrinėjant 1995 m. priimto ir iki šiol tebegaliojančio VKĮ, taip pat dar septy nių vėlesnių jo projektų teisines nuostatas, atskleidžiami beveik trijų dešimtmečių teisėkūros procese išryškėję tų nuostatų pokyčiai. VKĮ 1995 ir VKĮp 2006 keliamas tik viešosios kalbos taisyklingumo reikalavimas, o vėlesniuose projektuose atsiranda įvairių išlygų, kur šio reikalavimo gali būti nesilaikoma: stilistinė motyvacija, meninė raiška, funkcinis tikslingumas. Pati kalbos kokybės sąvoka nagrinėjamuose dokumentuose nėra tiesiogiai apibrėžta. Ji suvoktina kaip kalbos būvis, apibūdinamas pagal atitiktį bendrinės kalbos normoms ir atliekamoms funkcijoms. Taigi straipsnyje aptariami du viešosios kalbos kokybės dėmenys – kalbos taisyklingumas ir funkcionalumas. Atskleidžiamas jų ryšys su įvairiomis viešosios kalbos vartojimo sritimis. Parodoma, kaip VKĮ projektuose keitėsi požiūris į viešosios kalbos vartojimo sritis, kurioms turėtų būti taikomi taisyklingumo ir funkcionalumo reikalavimai. Išsamiau aptariama viename iš 2023 m. projektų siūloma funkcinio tikslingumo sąvoka, kurios turinys sudaro platesnę nei ankstesniuose VKĮ projektuose išlygą viešosios kalbos taisyklingumo reikalavimui. Skiriami keturi būdingiausi atvejai, kada bendrinės kalbos normų gali būti nepaisoma dėl funk RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Viešosios kalbos kokybės samprata Lietuvos Respublikos valstybinės kalbos įstatyme 37 cinio tikslingumo: 1) meninė raiška; 2) laikmečio, socialinės, ideologinės ir pan. charakteristikos; 3) autoriaus individualumo ir tapatybės raiška; 4) šaltinio autentiškumas (citatose). Tačiau šie atvejai suvoktini kaip išimtiniai, neturintys trikdyti viešosios komunikacijos ir destabilizuoti bendrinės kalbos normų. Keliamas diskusinis klausimas, kaip tai turėtų atsispindėti VKĮ teisinėse nuostatose. ESMINIAI ŽODŽIAI: kalbos politika, viešoji kalba, kalbos taisyklingumas, kalbos funkcionalumas, kalbos kokybė. RITA MILIŪNAITĖ Lietuvių kalbos institutas Petro Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius [email protected] 38 BENDRINĖ KALBA | 96