Bendrinė lietuvių kalba Europos kalbų postandartizacijos kontekste

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 RITA MILIŪNAITĖ Lietuvių kalbos institutas LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE IN EUROPEAN LANGUAGES IN THE CONTEXT OF POST-STANDARDISATION I am sometimes asked why I speak so eloquently and correctly outside of work, or why I can’t speak normally. I can't really do it anymore, but maybe it's not so bad. Radio and television journalist Aistė Plaipaitė 1 KEY WORDS: common language, standardization, poststandardization, destandardization, demotivation, sociolinguistics, language ideologies. ANNOTATION The article examines the situation of the common Lithuanian language in the period of post-standardization of European languages. Based on the most important characteristics of the common language, which form the paradigm of standardization (commonness to the whole society, homogeneity of norms, stable codification and prestige in society), theoretical insights are presented that would allow the common Lithuanian language to adapt one or another dynamic model (destandardization, demotification, etc.) characteristic of European common languages. The concept of intermediate variant between regiolects and common language – substantivar – is updated, which can help explain the dynamics of modern common Lithuanian language – changes in usage and linguistic attitudes. INTRODUCTION During the long, centuries-long process of standardization of common European languages, it became clear that the language of the public administration, education, 2 culture, public information and other common affairs was the most suitable. 1 A broader context of this linguistic attitude (Laimius Stražinskas, Aistė Plaipaitė: “Radio – my first love, and television – still a challenge”, Savaitė, 25 July 2019, no. 30, pp. 30–31): – You have won the “Language purist” award, becoming the best radio journalist. Did you learn things that led to success while working or when you were a child? – Speaking of language, one of my grandmothers was very annoying and always corrected me from a young age if, for example, I spelled the word “Raseiniai” or “Kėdainiai” incorrectly. She worked in the library, she read a lot, very early and taught me to read and gave comments on the language. Lithuanian language was interesting to me in school and when I studied journalism at university. Work practice educated the dialect and formed the present speech. 2 Dėl termino standartizacija žr. Miliūnaitė (2017: 1–33). Rita Miliūnaitė. Common Lithuanian Language in the Context of Post-Standardization of European Languages | 2 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.10 BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 a variant is a generic, usually deliberately more or less regulated, i.e. to have a standardized form, language. It is argued that European culture is a culture of common languages (Vogl 2012: 12). Common ka bo’s were mostly formed and were strongly supported first in written form – in books and later in the media, so it is paradoxical that today the media are associated with increasing variability of usage and destandardization of common languages (cf. Geeaerts 2001: 281–291; Coupland, Kristiansen 2011: 12–14; Androutsopoulos 2014: 3–48; Nevinskaitė 2019: 83–100). The public oral and written use of the Lithuanian language is also changing and varied – from the media to social media. These changes show an ever-increasing gap between the real norms and the codification of the common language norms and raise the question: is the common Lithuanian language moving into a new stage of development, or is its place in the public space being occupied by some other variant? Similar questions were raised even earlier than in Lithuania, at the end of the 20th century, by scholars from various European countries who study the development of common languages and their interaction with changes taking place in a specific linguistic community and around the world. Political, social and economic factors – globalisation, democratisation and internetisation, as well as migration in all directions – have a noticeable influence on European languages and their common variants, and therefore there is concern about the risk of normization and homogenization of these variants (see Ghyselen et al. panašumų ir skirtumų, dažnai minimas atvejis, ypač būdingas italų kalbai: kuriasi naũjos 2016: 75–76). In the search for a common variant of the development of European common languages, closer to the spoken language than the traditional common language variant (Berruto 2017: 31–60; Cerruti et al. 2017: 3–28). According to these optimistic forecasts, one standard is simply replaced by another, the so-called re-standardization is taking place, so (vartojimo) standartais, kurių įsigalėjimas labiau priklauso jau ne nuo valdžios ir elito common qualities do not disappear, only their form changes. It is argued that common language is changed by such language choices, rather than by the opinions and decisions of informal social groups (see Coupland, Kristiansen 2011: 27–28). Pessimistic forecasts proclaim that in today’s societies, common ka bo has no future at all. According to the German sociologist Ulrich Beck, they have been zombified: like other concepts of modernity (social class, marriage, religion), common language has become zombie-like and, although already dead, still structures society’s thinking and actions (see Deumert 2010: 258–260). Rita Miliūnaitė. Common Lithuanian Language in the Context of Post-Standardization of European Languages | 3 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.10 BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 Straipsnio tikslas – išryškinti esmines Europos bendrinių kalbų pokyčių kryptis ir to compare how these processes take place in Lithuania and how they correspond to the general models of the dynamics of common European languages. 1) to review the causes and signs of changes in common European languages in the post-standardization period; 2) to discuss the dynamic models of common European languages; 3) describe the most important changes in the common Lithuanian language; 4) to define the theoretical possibilities of applying the dynamic models of common European languages to the common Lithuanian language. The research methods used are analytical, descriptive and comparative. 1. PARADIGMA OF EUROPEAN COMMON LANGUAGE STANDARDIZATION During the post-certification period The evolution of a language as a social phenomenon is closely linked to what is happening in the society that uses it. Empirical research can show what is the usage, what language is typical of people from different social strata, living in different places, what are their language preferences. Dynamic models explain what processes and how they occur. All this encourages to look for the causes of changes and to predict further development directions. Where there is a strong language policy line, it is necessary to adjust the strategy of this policy. 1.1. Changes in European languages and their causes The formation and emergence of common languages is particularly determined by social, economic, cultural and often political circumstances. Therefore, the broader historical and social context is important when it comes to language change. Historically, the development of common European languages was mainly related to national liberation movements and the formation of states, but in different countries it was neither identical nor completely synchronous and depended on power relations between different countries and within countries – between social classes. However, the pattern of development itself was similar: the common languages of Europe developed more or less according to the well-known model of standardization of common kalbų raidos įvairovę, šis modelis vėliau buvo ne kartą tobulinamas ir net pripažinta, kad languages by Einar Haugen (Haugen 1966: 933). In general, the process of standardization can be cyclical (Deumert, Vandenbussche 2003: 10). In terms of standardization of common languages, two bendrinės kalbõs iškilimas (iškėlimas) iki nacionalinio standarto reiškia, kad kitos ãtmainos sides of this process are noted. One, acquires a lower status and less prestige. Secondly, the Rita Miliūnaitė. Common Lithuanian Language in the Context of Post-Standardization of European Languages | 4 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.10 BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 emergence of the common variant is naturally based on economic, social, political, geographical and historical circumstances and is related to such social needs as the administration of the centralizavimas (žr. Hernández-Campoy, Villena-Ponsoda 2009: 181–204). state. In terms of time, the early period (English, French, German, Spanish, etc. common languages that developed from the 15th–16th to the 19th centuries and became languages of international communication), the middle period (Lithuanian, Latvian, Czech, Croatian, Belarusian, Estonian, etc. common languages that developed from the 18th–late 19th centuries to the early 20th century) and the late period (Moldovan, Macedonian, Sami common languages that developed in the mid–late 20th centuries) are distinguished (for more details see Vogl 2012: 22–26; Miliūnaitė 2018: 184–186 and the literature cited there). The common Lithuanian language, as it appears, belongs to the middle period of formation; its norms were codified by John Jablonski only at the very beginning of the 20th century. By the middle of the 20th century, common languages had already become established in many European countries, spreading in society and affecting dialects: in some cases dialects began to disappear, in others, for social and economic reasons (migration to larger centres), they transformed into larger formations – regiolects. Instead of reaching maturity, the common Lithuanian language had to endure russification, and its norms could not develop 3 naturally during the 50 years of Soviet occupation. The common languages of Europe entered the 21st century with varying levels of standardization: some are already established in the educated strata of society, others are still relatively young and therefore generally more regulated at the state level. At that time, changes in common languages began, which can be attributed to a new period – post-standardization. It essentially coincides with the period of late modernity, or, in the words of the Polish sociologist Zygmunt Bauman, such modernity, whose axis is the global modern society living in the conditions of a high-level global economy and information revolution. Important features of this period are the dethronement of old authorities and the rise of new influences. Their power is usually not the maturity of the personality and the power of thought, the generation of ideas, but rather the ability to manipulate public opinion. Also, this period is ribų nykimas; ypač aktualu tampa individo poreikiai, žmogaus teisės. Normos, pagal kurias žmonės vertina vienas kito elgesį, darosi ne tokios griežtos, o jų neatitinkantis elgesys characterized by fragmentation, all justified by external factors and mitigating circumstances; even more – people 3 By the way, when speaking about standardization in Lithuania, it should be emphasized that the development of the Lithuanian common language norms and the functioning of the Lithuanian language in general – similarly to the Latvian language, which is closest in origin – have historically been and still are greatly influenced by unequal language contacts. Therefore, it is not always appropriate to automatically transfer the sociolinguistic axioms formulated by foreign researchers to naturally existing languages (see Coupland, Kristiansen 2011: 17). Rita Miliūnaitė. Common Lithuanian Language in the Context of Post-Standardization of European Languages | 5 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.10 BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 are no longer bound by pre-established rules, they are free to define their own rules and norms according to the circumstances (see Odendaal 2013: 183–187). Sociolinguistic studies (see Coupland, Kristiansen 2011: 27) state that in the period of late modernity, as society individualized, the social forces that defined the language standard completely changed. From the ruling class, the actors of politics, science and religion – the authorities – these powers pass to the individuals. Democratization destroys the power of the top and encourages the expression of social forces “from below”, therefore the “bottom” language emerges into public. The importance of common languages, whose nature is ideological (reflecting the economic, social and political domination of the elite of the linguistic community), is being questioned: in a modern democratic society composed of different linguistic communities, there is no longer room for a unified (homogeneous) common language, it is no longer an aim (Coupland, Kristiansen 2011: 27–33; Odendaal 2013: 186). On the other hand, although globalization levelles nations, their cultures and languages, it also causes opposite processes, promoting linguistic diversity and the preservation of individuality, linguistic (as well as cultural) identity. Internetization is changing the usual mediums of language functioning, transforming languages and creating new forms of them. Common to all European languages is that the situation of dialects is changing dramatically: in some places they are disappearing or even ending up disappearing, elsewhere they become regional dialects. The old standard is also changing, the traditional common European languages are losing stability – both in terms of form, functions and linguistic preference. All this linguistic diversity creates confusion in schools when teaching languages (Odendaal 2013: 187). However, there are also differences that depend heavily on the historical context. For example, in Iceland, France and Denmark, the ideology of the common language is strong, so changes are not taking place in the direction of weakening this ideology, but at the level of common language usage (increasing variability) (cf. Ghyselen et al. 2016: 78). It should be noted that the post-standardization processes in the common languages of Eastern European countries have reached them somewhat late and are not taking place on such a large scale. The reason for this is the long-standing political dependence of these countries, which had suppressed the development of democratization (see. Kristiansen 2016: 94). 1.2. Aspects of the study of common language dynamics In view of the above-mentioned dramatic changes in European languages, it is not surprising that European linguists, especially in the last decade, have shown great interest in the evolution of common languages and the change in their relationship with non-common variants, and have studied the theoretical and empirical aspects of these variants. RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Bendrinė lietuvių kalba Europos kalbų postandartizacijos kontekste | 6 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.10 BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 convergence (see German – Auer, Spiekermann 2011; Dutch – Grondelaers, Van Hout 2011; Italian – Berruto 2017; Norwegian – Sandøy 2011; Finnish – Nuolijärvi, Vaattovaara 2011 and others). What could be the common reference points and criteria for measuring these changes? First of all, it is important to remember that, despite the similarity of the determinants of language change, linguistic communities can differ radically in their social class, gender, community ties, norms, prestige concepts and functions, and therefore each period of a particular language’s development and each linguistic community must be studied in this light (see Bergs 2012: 96; Smakman, Barasa 2016: 24–25). Five aspects are most commonly highlighted in common language studies (see Smakman, Barasa 2016: 23; Miliūnaitė 2018: 45–70): ▪ historical approach (formation and development), ▪ geographical approach (relationship with other variants of the same language), ▪ structural approach (normes, variants), ▪ normative approach (degree of codification of the general variant), ▪ sociolinguistic approach (language ideologies, social attitudes, status, prestige). These aspects are the best way to describe the established common languages of politically and linguistically stable monolingual societies as a natural continuity of dialects (Smakman, Barasa 2016: 23). In modern multilingual societies, sociolinguists are returning to the concept of common language, its definition criteria, and argue that the stages of standardization described by Einar Haugen are no longer sufficient to describe the current dynamics of common languages: the phenomena characteristic of the post-standardization period go beyond the Haugen model (Coupland, Kristiansen 2011: 11). Explaining the extent of the changes in the post-standardization period of the common languages of Europe, it also raises the question whether common ka bo (both written and spoken forms), especially in large cities, are losing their positions, giving way to non-common, formerly inferior, unprestiged variants; whether the ideological systems that supported the relationship between the common language and other variants are losing their power, or are merely being restructured. Structural and sociolinguistic variability studies are based on quantitative analysis of textbook data and thus can show specific changes. At the same time, however, it is acknowledged that talking about changes in linguistic attitudes (for example, to determine whether people really Rita Miliūnaitė. Common Lithuanian Language in the Context of Post-Standardization of European Languages | 7 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.10 BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 spoke more normatively in the past or that they viewed the common variant differently in the past) is much more difficult (Ghyselen et al. 2016: 85). 1.3. Bendrinių kalbų standartiškumo paradigma The model of the dynamics of European common languages, as far as it can be seen in the numerous works on this topic, is usually created by resisting the essential feature of common language – standardization. Traditionally, three or four characteristics of standardization are distinguished (cf. Auer, Spiekermann 2011: 164; Grondelaers et al. 2016: 119): 1) commonality for the entire territory in which non-common variants (dialects) exist, 2) prestige (use in official public situations, in the education system), 3) homogeneity of means of expression, 4) codification. After analyzing and summarizing the standardization characteristics described in various sources, a standardization paradigm and research questions can be proposed for the study of the dynamics of common European languages (see Table 1). TABLE 1. Standardization Paradigm and Research Issues Standardization Issues 2. Variability Increase or decrease in public consumption (especially in the media) 4. Variability 1. Relationship of the common language How the relationship these variants change with of the common language with other variants of the language? of the paradigm of language ideology? other national languages changes 3. How does the ideology of the common nature? prestige in society? language change and how do The presented paradigm of standardization may be the starting point of the dynamics of common language, when, according to Haugen’s model of standardization, common language has raidos būvį arba yra netoli jo. Šios paradigmos dėmenys tarpusavyje labai susiję, ir jų sąveika reached its peak. Below, all of the above points are briefly discussed separately. Rita Miliūnaitė. Common Lithuanian Language in the Context of Post-Standardization of European Languages | 8 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.10 BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 1.3.1. The relationship of the common language with other variants. The standardization of the common language, especially its verbal form, becomes maximum if the common language covers the entire area of the language, i.e. dialect speakers recognize the common language as a variant of official public speaking, even though they may not be quite competent to use it themselves (Auer, Spiekermann 2011: 164). When changes (destandardization) begin, some regions may create a new standard or remain without any if for some reason they depart from the functioning common variant. The term substantivart is sometimes used to refer to the stratification of languages, i.e. their division into varieties, and the relationships between different varieties. This is less than kalbą) vertinama atmaina, kurios ypatybes kalbinė bendruomenė laiko žemesnėmis už tas, kurios priskiriamos prestižinei atmainai pagal tris varijavimo matmenis: diatopiją (t. y. standard (general geographic variation – dialects), diastracy (social variation – sociolects) and diaphasia (variation according to communication situation – functional lects) (cf. Berruto 2017: 32 – taken from E. Coseriu; Kardelis 2016: 7). In German sociolinguistics, substantivart is often referred to as a verbal variant, close to the standard pole, somewhat influenced by regional variants, but many of its features are neither regional variants nor general language phenomena (see Substantivar). Stoeckle, Svenstrup 2011: 87). In developing models of the dynamics of common languages, the concept of substantivart allows to generalize the various non-common varieties, especially those that form as an intermediate layer between the common language and dialects (regional variants). Sometimes a similarly described variant is referred to as a common language, emphasizing that this variant is intended for interregional and supraregional communication, but has no official status and regularity-irregularity dimension (cf. Bartsch 1985: 41). Is it possible to talk about a substantial standard in Lithuania? Probably so. In Lithuania, in the 21st century, at the intersection of dialects and common language, not only dialects change – for social and economic reasons, as mentioned, regiolects are forming. Theoretically, it could be assumed that at that junction, with the spread of the common language through the education system and the media, a new intermediate layer – the Lithuanian language substantial, or common Lithuanian language – has already formed. What is its relation to the common language? Today, it can be said that the written common Lithuanian language functions where it is created and edited by specially trained people. If an unedited free-style text is published publicly (in the media, social networks, etc.), there is a good chance that it is substantiated Rita Miliūnaitė. Common Lithuanian Language in the Context of Post-Standardization of European Languages | 9 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.10 BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 (see section 2.2 for details). The limits of the functioning of the verbal common language are even narrower, because there are not (and cannot be) many speakers of the common dialect 4 who have specially learned it, especially those who live in (or come from) a dialect environment, because of the youth of the common Lithuanian language. 1.3.2. Variability. One of the most important principles of standardization is to reduce the vidinį bendrinės kalbos (t. y. jos raiškos priemonių) variantiškumą, nustatyti kuo mažiau varied norms of the common language, by rejecting duplicates belonging to different language classes. It is often said that the aim of standardization is homogeneous norms Spiekermann 2011: 164), nors lietuvių kalbos atveju tai nėra visai tiesa (plačiau žr. 1.3.3 (Auer, section). Changes taking place in society open up language variants, linguistic phenomena migrate within them, and the result of public language can no longer always be defined as the realization of a single variant or the expression of a specific functional style. The study of usage data determines whether the heterogeneity of means of expression does not increase in situations that are usually characterized by general language norms (Ghyselen et al. 2016: 83). The significant phenomena of the lower variant lose their significance in the neutral public language, and variantity becomes a means of creating such an identity. In such circumstances, the general norms of the Lithuanian language also become unstable, their variability increases, and this is the result of the pressure of real usage (in essence, we can say – substantive), and sometimes also of the strategy of codification. 1.3.3. Codification. Codification is a method of establishing written norms of common language. In some countries, it is carried out by special institutions or agencies, and the codified norms are recorded in dictionaries, grammar, language advice guides. Standardization is characterized by a gradually increasing and then stable codification of the general variant. As languages change, it can be revised; its strategy depends on the language policy of a particular country. During the period of post-standardization, it is observed that the general language norm becomes multicentric, i.e. one language norm dictating center disappears (Coupland, Kristiansen 2011: 30; Ammon 2015: 53). 4 For example, it would not be possible to say that, say, the spoken language of the Lithuanian Seimas is completely generic. Rita Miliūnaitė. Common Lithuanian Language in the Context of Post-Standardization of European Languages | 16 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.10 BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 standartizacijai – siekiama ne atmesti netinkamas raiškos priemones ir atriboti socialines groups, but to expand the boundaries of acceptability of language phenomena. In the case of restandardization, language norms are not imposed “from above”, but are based on the study of actual usage and language behaviour of language users. Restandardization is therefore called democratization of the standard and is usually a response to a social problem or to changes experienced by specific social groups. Restandardization, as a manifestation of the general language dynamics model, has no uniform concept. It is sometimes called an intermediate, transitional state from one stage of the development of the common language to another, i.e. a temporary variation, in which variants penetrate into the common language usage “from below” (Auer, Spiekermann 2011: 165). As mentioned, the term restandartization is widely used by Italians to describe a process that has bendrinei kalbai sąveikaujant su šnekamosios, laisvosios ir regioninės kalbos atmainomis, been taking place since the 1980s: the traditional features of the former substantivart are absorbed into the areas of common language use, and the result of all this is a new standard, i.e. the new Italian common language, which exists in parallel with the traditional common variant (Cerruti et al. 2017: 3–28). In other words, the forms and structures of language that already exist in the substantive of Italian, as well as the innovations that have arisen from English, lose their significance as elements of the lower, spoken variant and pass into the usage and written language of educated people, partly into the media (Berruto 2017: 31). Sometimes restandardization is referred to as the stage of language planning (i.e., not spontaneous development, but conscious language regulation), when a new variant of common language is created, which has to transform the traditional common language that no longer meets the needs of society and by conscious efforts to change language forms, functions and linguistic behaviour (cf. Odendaal 2013: 183–203). Standardization means the separation of different variants of a language, the separation of one of them, and destandardization means the convergence of those variants, the equalization of their status. Democratization opens the way to the public to come alongside the common language and other variants of language, internetization creates tools and access to all those who want to express their opinion publicly. Destandardization means that the common language that has been established until now is structurally fragmented and loses its official, open prestige – its ideology is weakened (Auer, Spiekermann 2011: 162–164). Public use RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Bendrinė lietuvių kalba Europos kalbų postandartizacijos kontekste | 17 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.10 BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 becomes more and more variant, formerly non-normative forms (e.g., the working class) are promoted to alternative normative forms. Without one idealised language variant that the whole society would be oriented towards, linguistic attitudes are radically changing: they are guided by such negative things as ridicule, mockery, discrimination, social exclusion, which were caused by insufficient proficiency in the prestigious variant (cf. Coupland, Kristiansen 2011: 29). Although it is often claimed that destandardization is not at all present in Europe, because the need for the most suitable variant for public life remains (Coupland, Kristiansen 2011: 29), certain manifestations of the weakening ideology of the common language, when the norm becomes multicentric (created and spread from more than one center of power), can be found. This pattern of dynamics is particularly relevant to increased migration and is typical of multilingual and multicultural countries, where adopting one agreed standard (especially of the verbal forms, including the pronunciation) would hardly be possible. Why does the publicly expressing society not necessarily focus on the common language? The arsenal of means of expression of the common variant is more suitable for neutral or official use. Electronic communication is mainly intended for free communication, and this leads to the choice of different, stylistically and functionally connoted means of expression. In addition, during the period of standardization, the common language was used passively by the majority of the public, i.e., only accepted through public channels, but not created. When there is a need to actively express oneself in public, the usual everyday (verbal) variant, which until then had a lower status, is often used for this purpose. A typical example of destandardization in Europe is given in Norwegian. In Norway, dialects have a strong status even in official situations, and the prevailing language ideology supports regional dialects (see Sandøy 2011: 119–126). A certain manifestation of demoticization can be considered as substancdartization – the interaction of substancdart with the general variant, but clearer criteria defining this process seem not yet to have crystallized. For example, Dutch scholars disagree on whether the substantivization of the common language is taking place in the Netherlands (when the common language is being pushed by the substantivization) or whether the increasing variability and freedom of norms only means the extension of the norms of the common language to regional and social features (Grondelaers, Van Hout 2011: 117). If the substantial variant becomes dominant alongside the general variant and starts to compete with it, its spread can be said to contribute to the process of destandardization. Rita Miliūnaitė. Common Lithuanian Language in the Context of Post-Standardization of European Languages | 18 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.10 BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 To explain the processes taking place in Lithuania, the concept of substantivart is quite useful (see Figure 2): it allows to identify the more than a century-long dialect (and at regiolektų) sąveikos su bendrine kalba bei kitomis kalbomis rezultatą. the beginning of the 21st century – 2 PAV. Substantial structure of Lithuanian language as an intermediate layer between regional dialects and common language, affected by other languages 9 In public free written usage (electronic social network communication, blogs, etc.) there are many widespread non-normative variants, whose non-normativity users usually do not feel and use them as neutral means of expression. The substandard has no codification and no defined system of norms, but the language phenomena belonging to it are universal, rising above the regional dialects, common to public use, only of a lower level than the norms of the general language. In Lithuania, the question can be raised whether this substantive, as in the Netherlands, is expanding, occupying some areas belonging to the common language, or whether the common language itself acquires new features, taking over some of them from the substantive. In other words, whether what today 9 Similar cones have been drawn by Peter Auer in his diachronic interpretation of the relationship between the dialects of European languages and the common language (see Auer 2005: 9–28). For the 2nd picture, with the authors’ permission, the regiolect map was used (Geržotaitė, Mikulėnienė 2014). The cone construct and the city footpoints are the authors of this article. Rita Miliūnaitė. Common Lithuanian Language in the Context of Post-Standardization of European Languages | 19 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.10 BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 What is called the verbal “Vilnius language”, what is used in the written media, what is spoken in the Seimas meetings, is it a free style of common language or a substantive style that functions outside the common language? 10 Pirmuoju atveju, jeigu bendrinė kalba nebepripažįstama kaip prestižinė atmaina, we would talk about destandardization, and secondly, if the common language acquires new features, about de-standardization. In answering this question, one can rely on the essential feature of common language norms – their codification. Until the substantive features are not codified (or codified negatively), there is no basis for considering them as the norm of the general language. In those areas of usage where general language norms are not specifically supported (text is not edited), substantivart spreads. It is true that there is a tendency to codify some substantivar variants as the norm of the common language. For example, in recent years, the State Lithuanian Language Commission has approved previously unacceptable variants of pronunciation asmẽniškas, -a, skyrybą, etc. This visuomẽniškas, -a (greta ãsmeniškas, -a, visúomeniškas, -a); žodžių darybos variantus su svetima laikyta priesaga -iokas, -ė (klasiokas, -ė, grupiokas, -ė, kambariokas, -ė), liberalizavusi corresponds to the general characteristics of the dynamics of common language in the post-standardization period: the severity of codification weakens in some cases, the codified norm becomes more variant. However, in the case of Lithuanian, the paradox is that because of the youth of the common language, those layers of society that should be the disseminators of its norms and spread the standard of common language, often do not learn it properly themselves. For example, not 11 having adopted the common language pronunciation system, people wonder why this system requires borrowed real words – names, surnames, etc., when speaking in common language, to be pronounced according to the laws of the Lithuanian language – Natašà, Nebraskà). For those who speak a common language, this question does not arise at all – the system works automatically. However, the majority of society is not oriented to the target, but to the real rate 10 Considering the novelty and complexity of the processes discussed, Giedrius Subačius’ article (not scientific, in fact) is surprising. It looks at these processes in a rather one-sided and simplistic way, without any research, and summarizes everything as demotivation (also called demotication, demotization), “expansion of the common language” (Subačius 2019: 8–11). 11 G. Subačius seems to be a great optimist, stating in the aforementioned article: “It is difficult to say when the majority (more than half) of native-speaking Lithuanians learned to speak a common language, perhaps around 1970–1980? Only after a great deal of learning to speak common language can be said that the common spoken language has been accepted by society, has become dominant in Lithuania.” (Subačius 2019: 9). The general system of consonants and pronunciation (not individual elements) is usually only taken over by specialists (for example, some spoken media professionals). The general spoken language (its phonological form) intended by the author is substandartas. Rita Miliūnaitė. Common Lithuanian Language in the Context of Post-Standardization of European Languages | 20 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.10 BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 probably still present in this case and is used and adopted. The real norm in public usage is noticeably different from the codified one, so if the school does not introduce general language skills, they are formed by the environment: a native speaker basically learns substantive language rather than general language. negatively Štai keletas būdingų įvairių lygmenų substandarto – realiõsios viešosios normos (bet codified or not codified as the norm of general language) examples: ▪ retracting accent (e.g. Spinòza, Obãma, Kanãda) or transition to another accent dėl priegaidžių niveliacijos (griežtùs, baltùs, vienùs, su žmonà); ▪ non-normative debts (e.g., durnas, -a, biškį, jo (r. “yes”), OK (r. “well”)); ▪ slang elements (e.g., bele(n)kas), pervert („r. deceive“)); ▪ non-normative (translational) meanings of words (e.g. gautis (r. “to do, to leave”), perspūti “to overtake, to surpass”)); ▪ values (e.g. express, expression, something (somewhere...) this); ▪ non-normative grammatical forms (e.g. two thousand in the first year, three elections, five years, mėgiamas, -a – the latter has long spread in public usage beyond dialectal boundaries); ▪ non-normative syntax (e.g., to indicate the present day (time limit or moment), to indicate the purpose with the communicative). The peculiarity of Lithuania is that in addition to regional, non-systematic, foreign to the Lithuanian language elements, which exist in the substantive layer, penetrate into public usage. This makes the use even more varied. This circumstance dictates the answer to the question what would happen if substantive (together with “Vilnius language”) were to be identified with a prestigious common language and tried to be legitimized as a new common variant that would replace the traditional common language (the case of restandardization). Such a substantivized (restandardized) common language would lose its systematic character, and it would be impossible to teach and learn it consistently. On the other hand, it is obvious that a common language can survive and be used only if the changing part of its norm (unlike the core of norms) is not preserved for decades. *** From the discussed cases of substantivization and restandartization it is clear that these expressions of the dynamics of common languages can grow into one another, can function in parallel. It depends on the sociolinguistic situation of each language. Rita Miliūnaitė. Common Lithuanian in the Context of Post-Standardization of European Languages | 21 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.10 BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 The characteristics of the general dynamics of Lithuanian language can be discussed not very tangibly, but more hypothetically (see table 3). TABLE 3. Common Lithuanian language dynamics features in the standardized-Lithuanian language dynamics features system (e.g., in edited where it is maintained and maintained: in written language texts – law, books and textbook-2. The obvious increase of variantity of common Lithuanian language norms remains important for official styles, where language is specially cared for, while codification is less and less taken into account in free styles. When viewing the codification, a large elementų skverbimasis į viešumą). (dehomogenization), lysis, positive codification of more and more administrative documents, as well as partly in the variability of the norms substantivarto the decade emerges the ideology of liberal language, supporting the mo paradigm in liuose). vertical and horizontal migration of variants. phenomena. substance standardisation. The common language is of the colloquial language in science and education, the norms of the replaced in some areas, especially in the media, by a language relationship of libera-greta traditional colloquial language ideology in the second half of the Traditional common language (both in written and spoken form) is not accepted by the users of the language, they do not understand it, sometimes even mock it, call it an ideologijos artificial language invented by linguists. Obviously, in the period of ne visada laikoma prestižiškiausia kalba. Dalies kodifikuotų post-standardization, we can speak both about the manifestations of destandardization of the common Lithuanian language (with the decline of the another variant (substandard). Traditional colloquial language remains 21st century 3. Codifications The strategy of the “top-down” codification prestige of the traditional common language) and about 12 12 However, it must be acknowledged that the expectations of a part of the public regarding the correct use of common language, for example in the internet media, remain quite strong (see Miliūnaitė 2018 for more details). RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Bendrinė lietuvių kalba Europos kalbų postandartizacijos kontekste | 22 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.10 BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 the substantivization of areas of public usage where the language is no longer specifically supervised. It is too early to decide whether the substantial standard will become the new standard and whether we can call this development restandardization. Furthermore, the assumption cannot be ruled out that the written common language tends to develop more according to the model of demotification, and the spoken language, despite the attempts to present it as a “pretentious 13 Vilnius language”, according to the model of destandardization. This assumption can be justified by the fact that in the areas of general written language that are subject to editing, the standard of traditional general language is maintained and is taught in school, while in the areas of use of general written language that are not subject to editing, this standard is also used, but it is “disclosed” by elements of substantive art (especially lexicon). It is different with the public spoken language. Since there is no single, clearly functioning standard of the common spoken language (we can talk about its individual manifestations, when the pronunciation and pronunciation of the common language are specifically learned mainly for professional needs), the common public spoken language is strongly influenced by substantivart, and the regiolects remain more or less strong, the conditions for destandardization are quite favorable. GENERAL REMARKS For various external reasons (globalization, democratization of society, internetization, increasing migration) the common Lithuanian language, like other common European languages, is experiencing a period of post-standardization at the beginning of the 21st century. The traditional conception of common language is changing, the variety of usage is increasing, the linguistic attitudes of society and language ideologies are changing. Several aspects of this development are noteworthy. The dynamics of common languages can be described and compared based on the standardization paradigm, which consists of four components: the relationship of the common language with other variants, variantity, codification strategy, and language ideologies. There are several factors that are important for the processes of general language change in Lithuanian, which distinguish it from some other common languages in Europe. 2.1 Although the common Lithuanian language of the beginning of the 21st century has already moved out of the state of traditional standardization, it entered the period of post-standardization when it was still relatively young, in the 13 E.g.: "<...> the media forms the understanding of what is the standard Lithuanian language. Although broadcasters, especially public broadcasters, officially adhere to the common language standard, research shows that the air language is in fact closer (but not identical) to Vilnius language. <...> Since the pronunciation closer to the common language is typical of the speakers and serious program hosts, it is likely that the changing perception of the role of the speaker and the emergence of more pramoginio turinio vilnietiškosios kalbos prestižas augs ir toliau.“ (Nevinskaitė 2019: 97). Rita Miliūnaitė. Common Lithuanian Language in the Context of Post-Standardization of European Languages | 23 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.10 BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 Jablonski codified it at the very beginning of the 20th century. Just over a hundred years of codification and dissemination of its norms was not yet enough time for these norms to be stablely established in all levels of educated strata of society, and therefore the dynamics has not yet acquired a clear direction. 2.2 Unlike many other European languages, Lithuanian has survived for centuries under strong pressure from other languages, being constantly subjected to linguistic contact. The general norms of Lithuanian language could not develop naturally during the 50 years of Soviet occupation, because they were strongly influenced by Russian language. Therefore, the variantity of the general language usage is also heterogeneous: in the variantity paradigm there are also foreign elements that emerge from the system and norm of the Lithuanian language as a whole. The common Lithuanian language of the late 20th – early 21st centuries has not yet been freed from the effects of russification, while it is experiencing convergence with new linguistic systems (in most cases with English) and with other variants of the Lithuanian language itself (regional dialects and substantive dialects). Variation spreads both horizontally (within varieties) and vertically (variants migrate from one variety to another). 3. Studies of the general development of the Lithuanian language and linguistic attitudes in Lithuania are still scarce (there are more studies of variantity – from the point of view of perceptive dialectology – and linguistic attitudes than of usage), covering a short period of time įvertinimo galimybę. Nors vartosenos stebėsena ir kalbinių nuostatų tyrimai rodo pokyčių and almost eliminating changes at both the structural, language regulation, and language ideologies levels. However, based on them and taking into account multi-directional factors, it would not be prudent to categorize the nature of the general dynamics of the Lithuanian language without reservations. There are attempts to tighten the ongoing changes to the demotification model, but it does not include all simultaneous procesų. During the current period of the development of the common Lithuanian language, the increasing gap between the codified and the real norm can be interpreted as the formation of substantivart – an intermediate layer between the regional dialects and the common language. Substandard is a concept that has been almost obsolete in Lithuanian linguistics, but it can help to explain the dynamics of today’s common Lithuanian language. With regard to the changes in language ideologies, it should be noted that this development is aimed at unnaturally accelerating, forming negative attitudes in the public space both regarding the norms of the traditional common language, and regarding its supervisory institutions and the language implemented by the state. Rita Miliūnaitė. The common Lithuanian language in the context of post-standardization of doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.10 BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 European languages | 24 Lithuanian language in general, highlighting the advantages of English. This is causing twofold public dissatisfaction: the ideology of the common language, which is supposed to hinder the progress of the language, and the drastic statements of some sociolinguists and influential persons, behind which lies the desire to take over the power centers of language policy and liberalize the approach to the norms of the common language and their supervision. 6. European researchers on the evolution of common languages note that in many cases the linguistic attitudes of the public indicate without doubt the necessity of the common variants themselves. The general tendency of changes is often seen not at the level of general language ideology, but at the level of language structure (usage). The idea that a language with few speakers in the global world community has greater chances of survival, development and rebirth if it has a common variant is particularly important for the Lithuanian common language (Odendaal 2013: 188). Therefore, even in the period of post-standardization, the functioning and change of the common Lithuanian language should not be left to its own course. LITERATŪRA A l i ū k a i t ė D . , M ik u lė ni e n ė D ., Č e p a it i e n ė A ., G e r ž o t a i t ė L . 2017: Kalbos variantiškumas ir jo vertinimas perceptyviosios dialektologijos požiūriu: variantų ir vietų vaizdiniai. Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. A mm o n U . 2015: On the Social Forces that Determine what is Standard in a Language – With a Look at Thenorms of Non-standard Language Varieties. – Bulletin VALS–ASLA, 3, 53–67. A n d rou ts op o u l os J . 2014: Mediatization and Sociolinguistic Change. Key Concepts, Research Traditions, Open Issues. – Mediatization and Sociolinguistic Change. Linguae & Litterae 36. J. Androutsopoulos (ed.). Berlin, Boston: Walter de Gruyter, 3–48.A u e r P. 2005: Europe’s Sociolinguistic Unity, or: A Typology of European Dialect / Standard Constellations. – Perspectives on Variation. Sociolinguistic, Historical, Comparative. N. Delbecque, J. van der Auwera, D. Geeraerts (eds.). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 7–42. A ue r P . , Sp ie k e rm a n n H . 2011: Demotisation of the Standard Variety or Destandardisation? The Changing Status of German in Late Modernity (with special reference to south-western Germany). – Standard Languages and Language Standards in a Changing Europe. T. Kristiansen, N. Coupland (eds.). Oslo: Novus Press, 161–176. RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Bendrinė lietuvių kalba Europos kalbų postandartizacijos kontekste | 25 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.10 BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 B a r t sc h R . 1985: The Influence of Language Standardization on Linguistic Norms. – Studia Linguistica 39(1), 23–50. B e r g s A . 2012: The Uniformitarian Principle and the Risk of Anachronisms in Language and Social History. – The Handbook of Historical Sociolinguistics. J. M. HernándezCampoy, J. C. Conde-Silvestre (eds.). Wiley-Blackwell, 80–98. B e r r u t o G . 2017: What is Changing in Italian Today? Phenomena of Restandardization in Syntax and Morphology: An Overview. – Towards a New Standard: Theoretical and empirical Studies on the Restandardization of Italian. M. Cerruti, C. Crocco, S. Marzo (eds.). Walter de Gruyter Inc., Boston / Berlin, 31–60. C e r r u t i M . , C r o c c o C ., M a r z o S . 2017: On the Developement of a New Standard Norm in Italian. – Towards a New Standard: Theoretical and Empyrical Studies on the Restandardization of Italian. M. Cerruti, C. Crocco, S.Marzo (eds.). Walter de Gruyter Inc., Boston / Berlin, 3–28. C o u p l a n d N . , K r i s t ia n s e n T . 2011: SLICE: Critical Perspectives on Language (De)standardization. – Standard Languages and Language Standards in a Changing Europe. T. Kristiansen, N. Coupland (eds.). Oslo: Novus Press, 161–176. D eu m e r t A . 2010: Imbodela Zamakhumsha – Reflections on Standardization and Destandardization. – Multilingua 29, 343–264. D eu m e r t A . , V a nd e n b u s s c he W . 2003: Standard Languages: Taxonomies and Histories. – Germanic Standardizations. Past to Present. A. Deumert, W. Vandenbussche (eds.). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1–14. Geržotaitė L., Mikulėnienė D. 2014: Geolektų ir regiolektų formavimasis Lietuvoje: žemėlapis ir komentarai. – XXI a. pradžios lietuvių tarmės: geolingvistinis ir sociolingvistinis tyrimas (žemėlapiai ir jų komentarai), sud. D. Mikulėnienė, V. Meiliūnaitė. Vilnius: Briedis, XIII žemėlapis ir komentaras (sp. įklija). G e e a e r ts D . 2001: Everyday Language in the Media: The Case of Belgian Duch Soap Series. Sprache im Alltag. Beiträge zu neuen Perspektiven in der Linguistik. Herbert Ernst Wiegand zum 65. Geburstag gewidmet. A. Lehr, M. Kammerer, K. P. Konerding, A. Storrer, W. Wolski, C. Thimm (eds.). Berlin / New York: Walter de Gruyter, 281–291. G h ys el e n A .S . , D e l a r u e S ., L yb a e rt C h . 2016: Studying Standard Language Dynamics in Europe. – Taal en Tongval 68 (2), 75–91.