RITA MILIŪNAITĖ

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

THE STANDARD LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE POST-STANDARDIZATION OF EUROPEAN LANGUAGES

Sometimes people ask me why I speak so articulately and correctly when I’m not at work, and whether I can’t just speak normally. I can hardly do that anymore, but perhaps that isn’t such a bad thing.

Radio and television journalist Aistė Plaipaitė¹

KEYWORDS: standard language, standardization, post-standardization, destandardization, demotization, sociolinguistics, language ideologies.

ABSTRACT

The article examines the position of the standard Lithuanian language during the post-standardization period of European languages. Drawing on the key features used to characterize a standard language, which together constitute the paradigm of standardness (commonality across society, homogeneity of norms, stable codification, and prestige in society), it offers theoretical insights that could enable one or another model of dynamics characteristic of European standard languages (destandardization, demotization, etc.) to be applied to standard Lithuanian. The concept of a substandard—a variety intermediate between regiolects and the standard language—is brought into focus; it may help explain the dynamics of contemporary standard Lithuanian, including changes in usage and language attitudes.

INTRODUCTION

Over the long period, lasting for centuries, during which European standard languages were created—that is, standardized²—the understanding took shape that the language best suited to the general affairs of public administration, education, culture, mass communication, and other domains was

¹The broader context of this linguistic attitude (Laimius Strazinskas, Aistė Plaipaitė: “Radio is my first love, while television is still a challenge.” Savaitė, 2019 07 25, no. 30, pp. 30–31):

– You have received the “Defender of the Language” award and been named the best radio journalist. Did you learn the things that led to your success while working, or did you acquire them in childhood?

– When it comes to language, one of my grandmothers was very particular and would correct me from an early age if, for example, I mis-stressed the words “Raseiniai” or “Kėdainiai.” She worked in a library, read a lot herself, taught me to read very early, and would point out my language mistakes. I was interested in Lithuanian at school and while studying journalism at university. Practical work honed my pronunciation and shaped the way I speak today.

² Dėl termino standartizacija žr. Miliūnaitė (2017: 1–33).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351–7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Bendrinė lietuvių kalba Europos kalbų postandartizacijos kontekste | 2

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.10

is a standard variety, generally regulated to a greater or lesser extent deliberately—that is, a language with a normalized form. It is argued that European culture is a culture of standard languages (Vogl 2012: 12). Standard languages were most often formed and strongly supported primarily in written form—in books and, later, in the media—so it is paradoxical that today the media are associated with increasing variation in usage and the destandardization of standard languages (cf. Geeaerts 2001: 281–291; Coupland, Kristiansen 2011: 12–14; Androutsopoulos 2014: 3–48; Nevinskaitė 2019: 83–100).

Public spoken and written Lithuanian usage is also changing and becoming noticeably more varied, from the news media to social media. These changes point to an ever-widening gap between actual norms and the codification of standard-language norms, and raise the question: is Standard Lithuanian entering a new stage of development, or is some other variety beginning to take its place in public life? Scholars in various European countries who study the development of standard languages and their interaction with changes taking place within particular speech communities and around the world began asking similar questions even earlier than in Lithuania, at the end of the 20th century.

Political, social, and economic factors—globalization, democratization, and the spread of the internet, as well as migration in various directions—have a noticeable impact on European languages and their standard varieties, prompting concern about threats to the normativity and homogeneity of these varieties (see Ghyselen et al. 2016: 75–76). In seeking similarities and differences in the development of European standard languages, one often-cited case, particularly characteristic of Italian, is the emergence of new standard varieties that are closer to spoken language than the traditional standard variety (Berruto 2017: 31–60; Cerruti et al. 2017: 3–28). According to these optimistic forecasts, one standard is simply being replaced by another, in a process known as restandardization; standard languages are therefore not disappearing, but merely changing form. It is argued that the standard language is being replaced by language-use standards whose ascendancy depends less on the choices of authorities and elites and more on the opinions and decisions of informal social groups (cf. Coupland, Kristiansen 2011: 27–28).

Pessimistic forecasts proclaim that standard languages have no future at all in contemporary societies. According to the German sociologist Ulrich Beck, they have been affected by zombification: like other concepts of modernity (social class, marriage, religion), the standard language has become zombie-like and, although already dead, continues to structure society’s thinking and actions (for a fuller discussion, see Deumert 2010: 258–260).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351–7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Bendrinė lietuvių kalba Europos kalbų postandartizacijos kontekste | 3

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.10

The aim of the article is to highlight the main directions of change in European standard languages and to compare how these processes are unfolding in Lithuania and the extent to which they correspond to general models of the dynamics of European standard languages. The objectives are: 1) to review the causes and features of change in European standard languages during the post-standardization period; 2) to discuss models of the dynamics of European standard languages; 3) to describe the most important features of change in Standard Lithuanian; 4) to define the theoretical possibilities for applying models of the dynamics of European standard languages to Standard Lithuanian. The research methods used are analytical, descriptive, and comparative.

1. THE PARADIGM OF STANDARDNESS IN EUROPEAN STANDARD LANGUAGES DURING THE POST-STANDARDIZATION PERIOD

Changes in language as a social phenomenon are closely connected with what is happening in the society that uses that language. Empirical studies can show what language use is like, which language varieties characterize people from different social strata and living in different places, and what their language attitudes are. Models of dynamics explain which processes occur and how. All this encourages us to seek the causes of change and predict future directions of development. Where language policy is pursued vigorously, it may also be necessary to adjust its strategy.

1.1. Changes in European Languages and Their Causes

The formation and rise of standard languages are determined above all by social, economic, and cultural circumstances, and often by political ones as well. Therefore, a broader historical and social context is important when discussing language change. Historically, the development of European standard languages was largely connected with national liberation movements and the formation of states, although it was neither identical nor entirely synchronous across different countries, and depended on power relations between countries and, within them, between social classes. Yet the overall pattern of development was similar: European standard languages emerged and developed more or less in accordance with Einar Haugen’s well-known model of standard-language standardization (Haugen 1966: 933). In view of the diversity of standard-language development, this model was subsequently refined on numerous occasions, and it was even recognized that the standardization process can recur cyclically (Deumert, Vandenbussche 2003: 10).

Two aspects of the standardization of standard languages are noted. First, the rise (elevation) of a standard language to the status of a national standard means that other varieties acquire lower status and less prestige. Second, the emergence of a standard variety naturally

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351–7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Bendrinė lietuvių kalba Europos kalbų postandartizacijos kontekste | 4

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.10

is grounded in economic, social, political, geographical, and historical circumstances and is associated with social needs such as the centralization of state administration (see Hernández-Campoy, Villena-Ponsoda 2009: 181–204).

In temporal terms, an early period is distinguished (standard languages that formed from the fifteenth–sixteenth to the nineteenth century and became languages of international communication, such as English, French, German, Spanish, etc.); a middle period (standard languages that formed from the late eighteenth–nineteenth century to the early twentieth century, such as Lithuanian, Latvian, Czech, Croatian, Belarusian, Estonian, etc.); and a late period (standard Moldavian, Macedonian, and Sami languages, which formed in the mid- to late twentieth century) (for more detail, see Vogl 2012: 22–26; Miliūnaitė 2018: 184–186 and the literature cited there).

As can be seen, Standard Lithuanian belongs to the middle period of formation; its norms were codified by Jonas Jablonskis only at the very beginning of the twentieth century. By the mid-twentieth century, standard languages in many European countries had already become established, spread throughout society, and influenced dialects: in some places dialects began to disappear, while elsewhere, for social and economic reasons (migration to larger urban centers), they transformed into larger formations—regiolects. At that time, instead of reaching maturity, Standard Lithuanian had to withstand Russification, and its norms could not develop naturally during the 50 years of Soviet occupation³.

European standard languages entered the twenty-first century at different levels of standardization: some were already established among the educated strata of society, while others were still relatively young and therefore generally subject to greater regulation at the state level. At that time, changes began in standard languages that may be assigned to a new period—the post-standardization period. It essentially coincides with the period of late modernity or, in the term coined by Polish sociologist Zygmunt Bauman, liquid modernity, whose central feature is global contemporary society, living under conditions shaped by a highly developed global economy and an information revolution. Important features of this period include the dethroning of old authorities and the rise of new influencers. Their power generally lies not in maturity of character, strength of thought, or the generation of ideas, but rather in the ability to manipulate public opinion. This period is also characterized by fragmentation and the dissolution of all boundaries; the needs of the individual and human rights become particularly salient. The norms by which people judge one another’s behavior become less strict, and behavior that does not conform to them is justified by external factors and mitigating circumstances; moreover, people

³ By the way, when discussing standardization in Lithuania, it should be emphasized that the development of the norms of Standard Lithuanian and the functioning of the Lithuanian language more generally—much as with Latvian, its closest relative—have historically been, and continue to be, strongly influenced by unequal language contact. Therefore, it is not always appropriate here to automatically apply sociolinguistic axioms formulated by foreign researchers for languages that develop naturally (on this point, see Coupland, Kristiansen 2011: 17).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Bendrinė lietuvių kalba Europos kalbų postandartizacijos kontekste | 5

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.10

are no longer constrained by rules established in advance; they are free to define their own rules and norms according to circumstances (cf. Odendaal 2013: 183–187).

Sociolingvistų darbuose (žr. Coupland, Kristiansen 2011: 27) konstatuojama, kad vėlyvosios modernybės laikotarpiu, visuomenei individualizuojantis, socialinės jėgos, kurios apibrėždavo, kas yra kalbos standartas, visiškai pasikeitė. Iš valdančiosios klasės, politikos, mokslo ir religijos veikėjų – autoritetų – šios galios pereina individams. Demokratizacija naikina viršūnių galią ir skatina reikštis socialines jėgas „iš apačios“, todėl į viešumą iškyla „apačių“ kalba. Pradedama abejoti bendrinių kalbų, kurių prigimtis yra ideologinė (atliepianti ekonominio, socialinio ir politinio kalbinės bendruomenės elito viešpatavimą), svarbumu: modernioje demokratinėje visuomenėje, sudarytoje iš skirtingų kalbinių bendruomenių, nebėra vietos unifikuotai (vienalytei) bendrinei kalbai, ji nebėra siekiamybė (Coupland, Kristiansen 2011: 27–33; Odendaal 2013: 186). Kita vertus, nors globalizacija niveliuoja tautas, jų kultūras ir kalbas, bet kartu sukelia ir priešingus procesus, skatinančius kalbų įvairovę ir individualumo, kalbinės (kaip ir apskritai kultūrinės) tapatybės išlaikymą. Internetizacija keičia įprastas kalbų funkcionavimo terpes, transformuoja kalbas ir kuria naujus jų pavidalus.

What all European languages have in common is that the position of dialects is changing markedly: in some places they are disappearing or even nearing extinction, while elsewhere they are developing into regiolects. The old standard is also changing, and traditional European standard languages are losing their stability—at the levels of form, function, and language attitudes alike. All this linguistic diversity creates confusion in schools when languages are taught (Odendaal 2013: 187). There are, however, also differences that depend greatly on historical context. For example, in Iceland, France, and Denmark, the ideology of the standard language is strong, so change is occurring not in the direction of a weakening of this ideology but at the level of standard-language use (increasing variation) (cf. Ghyselen et al. 2016: 78).

It should be noted that the processes of post-standardization of the standard languages of Eastern European countries began somewhat later and are taking place on a smaller scale. This is due to the long-standing political dependence of these countries, which had stifled the development of democratization (see Kristiansen 2016: 94).

1.2. Aspects of the Study of Standard-Language Dynamics

In view of the marked changes taking place in European languages, it is unsurprising that researchers of European languages, particularly over the past decade, have shown great interest in the development of standard languages and changes in their relationship with non-standard varieties, and have investigated these varieties at both theoretical and empirical levels

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Bendrinė lietuvių kalba Europos kalbų poststandartizacijos kontekste | 6

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.10

convergence (cf. German—Auer, Spiekermann 2011; Dutch—Grondelaers, Van Hout 2011; Italian—Berruto 2017; Norwegian—Sandøy 2011; Finnish—Nuolijärvi, Vaattovaara 2011, etc.). What might serve as common points of reference and criteria for measuring these changes?

First, it is important to remember that, despite similarities among the factors driving language change, speech communities may differ radically in their conceptions and functions of social class, gender, community ties, norms, and prestige; therefore, each period in the development of a particular language and each speech community must be studied with these differences in mind (cf. Bergs 2012: 96; Smakman, Barasa 2016: 24–25).

Studies of standard languages most often highlight five aspects (cf. Smakman, Barasa 2016: 23; Miliūnaitė 2018: 45–70):

▪ historical approach (formation and development),

▪ geographical approach (relationship with other varieties of the same language),

▪ structural approach (norms, variants),

▪ norm-oriented approach (degree of codification of the standard variety),

▪ sociolinguistic approach (language ideologies, public attitudes, status, prestige).

These aspects are best suited to describing the established standard languages of monolingual, politically and linguistically stable societies as a natural continuum of dialects (Smakman, Barasa 2016: 23). In contemporary multilingual societies, sociolinguists are revisiting the concept of the standard language and the criteria for defining it, arguing that the stages of standardization described by Einar Haugen are no longer sufficient for describing the current dynamics of standard languages: phenomena characteristic of the post-standardization period extend beyond Haugen’s model (Coupland, Kristiansen 2011: 11).

In examining the scale of changes during the post-standardization period of European standard languages, questions are also raised as to whether standard languages (in both written and spoken forms), especially in large cities, are losing ground to non-standard varieties that were formerly of lower status and lacked prestige; and whether the ideological systems that sustained the relationship between the standard language and other varieties are losing their power or are merely being restructured. Structural and sociolinguistic studies of variation rely on quantitative analysis of corpus data and can therefore reveal specific changes. At the same time, it is acknowledged that when discussing changes in language attitudes (for example, determining whether people really spoke in the past

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351–7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Bendrinė lietuvių kalba Europos kalbų postandardizacijos kontekste | 7

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.10

(that it is more normative, or that in the past they evaluated the standard variety differently) is much more difficult (Ghyselen et al. 2016: 85).

1.3. The paradigm of the standardness of standard languages

The model of the dynamics of European standard languages, as far as can be discerned from the many works on this topic, is most often developed from the essential characteristic of a standard language—standardness. Traditionally, three or four features of standardness are distinguished (cf. Auer, Spiekermann 2011: 164; Grondelaers et al. 2016: 119):

1) commonality throughout the entire territory in which non-standard varieties (dialects) are spoken,

2) prestige (use in official public situations and in the education system),

3) homogeneity of expressive resources,

4) codification.

Having examined and summarized the features of standardness described in various sources, a paradigm of standardness and research questions can be proposed for studying the dynamics of European standard languages (see Table 1).

TABLE 1. The paradigm of standardness and questions for investigation

Paradigm of standardnessQuestions1.The relationship between the standard language and other varietiesHow is the relationship between the standard language and other varieties of the national language changing?2.VariationIs variation in public usage (especially in the media) increasing or decreasing?3.Codification strategyHow is the nature of the codification of standard-language norms changing?4.Language ideologiesHow are the ideology of the standard language and the prestige of this variety in society changing?

The proposed paradigm of standardness can serve as a point of departure for examining the dynamics of the standard language when, according to Haugen’s model of standardization, the standard language has reached the highest stage of development or is close to it. The components of this paradigm are closely interconnected, and their interaction raises a broader question: what is the relationship between changes in usage and changes in language ideologies? All the components mentioned above are discussed briefly and separately below.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Bendrinė lietuvių kalba Europos kalbų postandartizacijos kontekste | 8

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.10

1.3.1. The relationship of the standard language to other varieties.

The standardness of the standard language, especially its spoken form, reaches its maximum when the standard language covers the entire language area, that is, when dialect speakers recognize the standard language as a variety for official public speech, even if they may not themselves be fully competent in using it (Auer, Spiekermann 2011: 164). When changes begin (destandardization), some regions may develop a new standard or be left without any standard at all if, for some reason, they withdraw from the functioning standard variety.

When discussing the stratification of languages, that is, their division into varieties, and the relationships among different varieties, the term substandard is sometimes used. This is a variety accorded lower status than the standard (standard language), whose features the speech community considers inferior to those assigned to the prestigious variety along three dimensions of variation: diatopy (i.e. geographical variation—dialects), diastraty (social variation—sociolects), and diaphasy (variation according to communicative situation—functional varieties) (cf. Berruto 2017: 32—adapted from E. Coseriu; Kardelis 2016: 7). In German sociolinguistics, substandard often denotes a spoken variety close to the standard pole, somewhat influenced by regional variants, but many of its features are neither regional variants nor phenomena of the standard language (see Stoeckle, Svenstrup 2011: 87).

In developing models of the dynamics of standard languages, the concept of substandard makes it possible to refer collectively to various non-standard varieties, especially those that emerge as an intermediate layer between the standard language and dialects (regional variants). A variety described in a similar way is sometimes called a common language, emphasizing that this variety is intended for interregional and supraregional communication, but has no official status and is not subject to the dimension of correctness–incorrectness (cf. Bartsch 1985: 41).

Could we speak of an established substandard in Lithuania? Most likely, yes. In Lithuania in the 21st century, not only the dialects themselves are changing at the interface between dialects and the standard language; for social and economic reasons, as noted, regiolects are taking shape. Theoretically, one could assume that at this interface, as the standard language spreads through the education system and the media, a new intermediate layer has already emerged—the Lithuanian substandard, or common Lithuanian. What is its relationship to the standard language? Today, one can say that written Standard Lithuanian functions where it is created and managed (edited) by specially trained people. If an unedited, informal text is published publicly (in the media, on social networks, and so on), there is a considerable likelihood that it is substandard

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Bendrinė lietuvių kalba Europos kalbų postandartizacijos kontekste | 9

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.10

(for more on this, see section 2.2). The functional boundaries of spoken Standard Lithuanian are even narrower⁴, since, given the relative youth of Standard Lithuanian, there are not yet (and cannot yet be) many speakers who have received special training in standard pronunciation, especially among those who live in a dialectal environment (or come from one).

1.3.2. Variation. One of the most important principles of standardness is to reduce internal variation in the standard language (i.e. in its expressive resources), establish standard-language norms with as little variation as possible, and eliminate doublets belonging to different levels of language. It is often said that the goal of standardness is homogeneous norms (Auer, Spiekermann 2011: 164), although this is not entirely true in the case of Lithuanian (see section 1.3.3 for more detail).

Changes taking place in society make language varieties open; linguistic phenomena migrate between them, and the result of public language can no longer always be defined as the realization of any one particular variety or as an expression of a specific functional style. In studying usage data, researchers determine whether the heterogeneity of expressive resources is increasing in situations that are usually characterized by standard-language norms (Ghyselen et al. 2016: 83). Marked features of lower varieties lose their markedness in neutral public language, and variation becomes a means of constructing such an identity. Under these circumstances, the norms of Standard Lithuanian also become unstable, their variation increases, and this is the result of pressure from actual usage (in essence, one could say, the substandard) and, at times, of the codification strategy.

1.3.3. Codification. Codification is a means of legally establishing standard-language norms in writing. In some countries it is carried out by specialized institutions or agencies, while codified norms are recorded in dictionaries, grammars, and language-advice guides. Standardness is characterized by codification that increases at the beginning of the development of a standard variety and later becomes stable. As the language changes, codification may be revised; its strategy depends on the language policy of the particular country. In the poststandardization period, it is observed that standard-language norms generally become pluricentric, that is, a single center dictating language norms disappears (Coupland, Kristiansen 2011: 30; Ammon 2015: 53).

⁴ For example, one could not claim that, say, the spoken language used in sessions of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania is entirely standard.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351–7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Bendrinė lietuvių kalba Europos kalbų postandartizacijos kontekste | 10

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.10

Two possible types of codification depend on the history of the development of the standard language and the nature of standard-language regulation (more specifically, on the (non-)existence of state language policy). One type of codification relies primarily on actual usage, and standard-language norms are established solely on the basis of what is in use. The second type of codification is oriented not only towards usage, but also towards the language system and the tradition of language planning. The latter type is particularly characteristic of younger standard languages, and thus also of Standard Lithuanian. Its system of norms was created on the basis of a single dialect in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, since an elite speaking a standard variety had not yet emerged at that time. The importance of the tradition of language planning is explained by the aim of stabilizing norms. The motto of this article also illustrates the characteristic case of Standard Lithuanian as a learned rather than an acquired language.

In the theory and practice of the codification of Standard Lithuanian, moderate variation and the stylistic and functional distribution of variants (though not equally across all language levels) are recognized as a way for the norm to change, so that codification does not become detached from usage and the needs of standard-language users (see Miliūnaitė 2009). For example, since the beginning of the twenty-first century, efforts have been made to mark so-called functional features more consistently in the codification of Standard Lithuanian (including cases of stylistic distribution), thereby documenting (codifying) the variation of the norm. However, it must be acknowledged that in Lithuanian the influence of codification on public usage is declining, public language users pay ever less attention to it, and there is an increasing tendency towards the second type of codification, with some language specialists seeking to elevate the criterion of usage to virtually the only one.

1.3.4. Language ideologies, prestige. The language ideologies prevailing in society—the totality of linguistic attitudes towards language, its varieties, or the use of other languages—determine which language or variety, or which varieties, will be prestigious, most supported, and aspired to. Standardness means that the status of the standard language is strong; members of society who know the standard language are generally considered more intelligent, powerful, and authoritative (Auer, Spiekermann 2011: 164). The standardness of the standard variety grows and its status strengthens along with its official prestige, which depends first and foremost on the extent to which the ruling classes support the standard language at the state level.

The ideology of the standard language is upheld by the perception that in modern societies it is the most appropriate language variety, needed for people to communicate with the authorities and with the state administrative and legal systems; the standard language is used in high-level intellectual,

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Bendrinė lietuvių kalba Europos kalbų postandartizacijos kontekste | 11

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.10

professional activity, the economy, technology, and the education system; it is a means of transmitting knowledge and information, developing skills, sustaining a reading culture, public communication, translation from other languages, and national media (Odendaal 2013: 188). It is sometimes noted that the standard variety is also generally the language of the highest authorities, for example, of parliamentary sessions (Smakman, Barasa 2016: 23). In Europe, each country’s standard language is often regarded as a symbol of national identity, national unity, solidarity, and prestige (Auer, Spiekermann 2011: 164; Leonard, Árnason 2011: 91–96; Odendaal 2013: 188).

During the post-standardization period, as noted, the balance of power among the social forces that dictate language norms is changing. Like Haugen’s model of standardization, the theoretical model of social forces that determine what constitutes a language standard, developed by Ulrich Ammon in the late twentieth century (see Ammon 2015: 53–67), no longer fully corresponds to reality, since it reflects the dissemination of standard-language norms “from above.” U. Ammon considers language experts, codifiers of language norms, authorities on language norms (professional knowledge disseminators, journalists, teachers, editors), model speakers, and authors of texts to be the social forces that sustain the ideology of the standard language and create, disseminate, or impose language norms.

The liberal language ideology that emerged with the democratization of society views the traditional standard-language variety as imposed on the majority of society, and thus as discriminating against linguistic minorities and marginalized groups and posing a threat to personal freedom (see Odendaal 2013: 183–203). By elevating “popular” language authorities, liberal language ideology helps a “more democratic” version of the standard language gain ground in public usage—often a spontaneously developing substandard, which does not shape the actual norm but adopts it. While accusing the ideology of the standard language of authoritarianism, liberal language ideology itself sometimes seeks sources of power among politicians, media professionals, new social opinion-makers (influencers), and also within the education system; it thus seeks to influence those sectors of society on which the prestige and functioning of the standard language depend most, and to instill a critical attitude towards the standard variety. In Lithuania, an attempt is being made to establish not the traditional standard language but the substandard speech of the capital, Vilnius, as the prestigious language variety (see Vaicekauskienė, Čičirkaitė 2011: 57–76), but this is based on rather

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351–7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Bendrinė lietuvių kalba Europos kalbų postandartizacijos kontekste | 12

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.10

controversial studies of language attitudes⁵. It should also be borne in mind that some proponents of liberal language ideology go even further—by diminishing the prestige of the Lithuanian language, for a decade they have consistently been fostering positive attitudes towards the use of English as a second language in Lithuania⁶. On the other hand, studies of Lithuanian language varieties (variation) from the perspective of perceptual dialectology show that the image of the standard language held by young people in Lithuania is associated not only with Vilnius, but also with other major cities, and above all with education (Aliūkaitė et al. 2017: 285–286).

Thus, the question of changing language ideologies and the prestige of the standard language is particularly important when discussing the dynamics of the development of standard languages.

2. MODELS OF THE DYNAMICS OF EUROPEAN STANDARD LANGUAGES IN THE POST-STANDARDIZATION PERIOD

Considering the four-component standard(…)

⁵ Dėl tokių tyrimų vertinimo plg. Pupkis (2019). Beje, suomių sociolingvistų tyrimai atskleidė, kad, nepaisant to, jog visuomenės kalbinės nuostatos rodo esant destandartizacijos požymių, dauguma suomių, ypač vyresnio amžiaus, vis dar nori, kad sakytinėje žiniasklaidoje žinių ir kitose aktualijų laidose būtų kalbama bendrine kalba. Skirtingų Suomijos vietų dialektologinės studijos parodė, kad sostinės Helsinkio regionas dažniau suvokiamas kaip miesto slengo, o ne kaip bendrinės kalbos centras; jame gyvenantys žmonės apibūdinami kaip arogantiški, pasipūtę ir nedraugiški (Nuolijärvi, Vaattovaara 2011: 69–70).

⁶A characteristic example from the most widely read online news outlet: “<...>how helpless the Lithuanian language is compared with English, which can say everything briefly, in monosyllabic and disyllabic words, gets by practically without cases, is precise and also sounds beautiful in songs, and, moreover, is not regulated by any commissions” (Andrius Užkalnis. Užkalnis’s food review is bought for 4,000 euros, or by another means. delfi.lt, 2019-12-08. Available online: https://www.delfi.lt/maistas/laukines-zasys/uzkalnio-maisto-apzvalga-perkama-uz-4000-euru-arba-dar-vienu-budu.d?id=82990773).

⁷For example, Italians tend to speak of informalization accompanying post-standardization processes, i.e. the movement of the standard language towards free, colloquial, and regional varieties, and of dehomogenization (the coexistence of the traditional standard language and a new standard that is less codified and regionally variable) (Cerruti et al. 2017: 3).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Bendrinė lietuvių kalba Europos kalbų postandardizacijos kontekste | 13

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.10

TABLE 2. Changes in the standardness paradigm according to models of European language dynamics

Standardness paradigm

Questions

Post-standardization

Destandardization

Demotization

1.

Relationship of the standard language to other varieties

How is the relationship of the standard language to other varieties of the national language changing?

Democratization allows other varieties (dialects, regiolects, substandard varieties, etc.) to enter the public sphere; the standard language begins to compete with them and loses some functions within the linguistic community.

There is no longer a need for a single variety shared by the entire linguistic community. Several varieties function in parallel.

Restandardization takes place, and a formerly non-prestigious variety, or one in the process of emerging, takes the place of the traditional standard language.

2.

Variation

Is the variability of public usage (especially in the media) increasing or decreasing?

Variability is increasing; the norm is becoming polycentric.

Variability is increasing, and horizontal and vertical migration of variants can be observed. Features of the informal (spoken) style are entering formal usage and the written form of the language.

3.

Codification strategy

How is the nature of the codification of standard-language norms changing?

With no single center for regulating standard-language norms, the role of codification is diminishing.

Increasing numbers of formerly nonstandard variants are being positively codified, taking actual usage patterns into account; codified norms are becoming increasingly variable.

4.

Language ideologies

How are the ideology of the standard language and the prestige of this variety in society changing?

The ideology of the standard language is weakening; the standard language is losing its official prestige and its distinctive value in society. Several varieties are being recognized as equal.

The ideology of the standard language persists: this variety retains its prestige, but ideas about what it should be like are changing.

As the scholarly works on this topic show, when examining the dynamics of standard languages, the following caveats should be borne in mind:

there is no established term, so the same or similar models are sometimes referred to by different names;

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351–7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Bendrinė lietuvių kalba Europos kalbų postandartizacijos kontekste | 14

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.10

▪ since the discussion concerns the dynamics of contemporary languages, the process is constantly changing, so the distinguishing features of the dynamics models are not always clear;

▪ various patterns of interaction between models are possible in the standard languages of different countries;

▪ these models are simplified because they do not take account of the different manifestations of language (spoken and written), whose dynamics may point to opposing trends.

The dynamics of European standard languages are viewed in different ways. Some authors suggest that, in late modernity, two alternative scenarios for the development of standard languages are possible: destandartizacija and demotizacija. The latter scenario is said to be more widespread in European countries (Coupland, Kristiansen 2011: 28). German sociolinguists argue that destandartizacija and demotizacija do not rule each other out. These models may function alongside one another at the same time, and this need not indicate opposing directions in the development of standard languages (see Auer, Spiekermann 2011: 162).

The most characteristic models of dynamics in European standard languages and their more specific manifestations are discussed in greater detail below.

2.1. Demotization → restandardization

The term demotizacija (German Demotisierung < from Greek demōs ‘people’) was coined in 1997 by German linguist Klaus J. Mattheier to refer to the spread of literacy among the educated social classes in the early modern period. In late modernity, the term denotes the vernacularization of the standard language. In demotization, the ideology of the standard language remains unchanged, since the need for such a prestigious variety is acknowledged. Thus, society’s linguistic attitudes do not change in this respect, but evaluations of ways of speaking do change—what this standard variety ought to be. Usually, the status of a formerly non-prestigious variety is elevated. An example of this model of standard-language dynamics is Danish public spoken language, in which young people regard the Copenhagen vernacular (of the working class), formerly associated with low status, more positively than traditional high Copenhagen pronunciation or other local accents (Coupland, Kristiansen 2011: 25–26). There is, however, one qualification. A low-status (demotic) vernacular is elevated to a higher status not absolutely, but only in certain circumstances of the communicative act; moreover, this is a process that takes decades (since the 1960s), rather than occurring quickly (see Kristiansen 2016: 96–97). Traditional high Copenhagen pronunciation is associated with recognized (authoritative) institutions, while the demotic vernacular

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Bendrinė lietuvių kalba Europos kalbų postandartizacijos kontekste | 15

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.10

is associated with the individual speaker’s dynamism: such a speaker is described as active, down-to-earth, confidence-inspiring, interesting, and a successful media personality (Coupland, Kristiansen 2011: 28–30). Since demotization is directly related to the spread of the new media culture⁸ and the opening of public space to the voice of society, it is argued that the media are both an ideological tool for creating a new standard of language competence and a means of disseminating that standard. These processes are also evident in Lithuania (see Nevinskaitė 2019: 83–100).

Thus, in the case of demotization (at least initially), the simultaneous existence of several prestigious varieties is acknowledged, with their prestige depending on the circumstances of communication (social contexts). Demotization can therefore be viewed as a partial lowering of the traditional standard language’s status and a narrowing of its functions, as another variety takes over some of those functions and its high status. Such polycentricity of norms is associated with destandardization (cf. Coupland, Kristiansen 2011: 30), which shows that destandardization and demotization are not necessarily alternative models for the development of standard languages. Contemporary Standard German is cited as an example of demotization. The spoken standard, which was formerly taught at school alongside the written standard, became a variety with which many Germans grew up. Now, promoted by the media, the spoken standard has become accessible to everyone and has separated from the written standard (Auer, Spiekermann 2011: 166–174).

Demotization gives rise to a tension between traditional norms set by authorities, which educational institutions are required to follow, and actual usage (Auer, Spiekermann 2011: 162). This can also be observed in Lithuania. Studies of linguistic attitudes show that teachers, especially Lithuanian-language teachers, face two sets of norms: codified norms, which they are expected to teach, and actual norms, which influence students mainly outside school. The widening gap between codified and actual norms reduces motivation to learn and makes the learning process more difficult. The same can be said of professional news presenters and language editors working in spoken media, who negotiate between codified and actual (“vernacular”) norms when the two do not coincide.

One manifestation of ongoing demotization may be restandardization—standardization occurring anew. This resembles the process by which a standard language is formed, except that in restandardization the standard language already exists, and a new set of norms or functions is brought into circulation (Odendaal 2013: 189). In other words, the course of restandardization is the opposite

⁸ It is no coincidence that the primary, positively connoted meaning of the word kultūra, denoting the form of material and spiritual values created by human beings and society, is extended in new media—that is, neutralized (cf. new kultūros contexts: patyčių kultūra, neapykantos kultūra, and so on).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351–7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Bendrinė lietuvių kalba Europos kalbų postandartizacijos kontekste | 16

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.10

standardization—it seeks not to reject unsuitable means of expression and set social groups apart, but to broaden the boundaries of acceptability for linguistic phenomena. In restandardization, language norms are not imposed “from above”; rather, they are grounded in the study of actual usage and the linguistic behaviour of language users. Thus, restandardization is called the democratization of the standard and is most often a response to a social problem or to changes experienced by specific social groups.

Restandardization, as a manifestation of a model of standard-language dynamics, does not have a uniform conception. Sometimes it is described as an intermediate, transitional state from one stage in the development of the standard language to another, i.e. temporary variation as variants “from below” make their way into standard-language usage (Auer, Spiekermann 2011: 165). As mentioned, Italians widely use the term restandardization to designate the process underway since the 1980s: as the traditional standard language interacts with colloquial, informal and regional varieties, former substandard features are absorbed into domains of standard-language use, and the result is a new standard, i.e. the new Italian standard language, which exists alongside the traditional standard variety (Cerruti et al. 2017: 3–28). In other words, forms and structures already present in the substandard of Italian, as well as innovations arising under the influence of English, lose their markedness as features of low, colloquial varieties and enter the usage of educated people and written language, and partly that of the media (Berruto 2017: 31).

Sometimes restandardization refers to a stage in language planning (i.e. not spontaneous development but the deliberate regulation of language) in which a new standard-language variety is created to transform the traditional standard language, which no longer meets society’s needs, and to change language forms, functions and linguistic behaviour through conscious effort (cf. Odendaal 2013: 183–203).

2.2. Destandardization → substandardization

Standardization means the separation and differentiation of distinct language varieties and the elevation of one of them, whereas destandardization means the convergence of these varieties and the leveling of their status. Democratization opens the way for other language varieties, alongside the standard language, to enter the public sphere; internetization creates tools and access for anyone wishing to express an opinion publicly. Destandardization means that the previously established standard language structurally fragments and loses its official, overt prestige—its ideology weakens (Auer, Spiekermann 2011: 162–164). Public usage

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351–7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Bendrinė lietuvių kalba Europos kalbų postანდartizacijos kontekste | 17

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.10

becomes increasingly variable, and forms that were previously nonstandard (for example, those used by the working class) are elevated to the status of alternative standard forms.

With no single idealized language variety for society as a whole to orient itself toward, language attitudes change radically: people free themselves from negative experiences such as ridicule, mockery, discrimination and social exclusion, which resulted from insufficient command of the prestigious variety (cf. Coupland, Kristiansen 2011: 29). Although it is often argued that destandardization is virtually absent in Europe because the need for the variety best suited to public life persists (Coupland, Kristiansen 2011: 29), manifestations of a weakening standard-language ideology can nevertheless be found, as norms become multicentric (created and disseminated not from a single centre of power). This model of dynamics is particularly associated with increased migration and is characteristic of multilingual and multicultural countries, where adopting a single agreed standard (especially in spoken form, including pronunciation) would hardly be possible.

Why does a society that expresses itself in public not necessarily orient itself toward the standard language? The range of expressive resources in the standard variety is, by design, better suited to neutral or official usage. Electronic communication is intended mainly for informal interaction, which leads to the choice of other expressive resources with stylistic and functional connotations. Moreover, during the period of standardization, the majority of society used the standard language passively—that is, they received it through public channels but did not produce it. When the need to express oneself actively in public arose, the variety commonly used for this purpose was often the familiar everyday (colloquial) variety, which until then had had lower status.

Norwegian is cited as a characteristic example of destandardization in Europe. In Norway, dialects have high status even in official situations, and the prevailing language ideology supports regional ways of speaking (for more, see Sandøy 2011: 119–126).

Substandardization may be regarded as a certain manifestation of democratization—the interaction of the substandard with the standard variety—although, apparently, clearer criteria defining this process have yet to emerge. For example, Dutch scholars disagree on whether substandardization of the standard language is taking place in the Netherlands (with the substandard displacing the standard language), or whether increasing variability and greater freedom in norms merely represent an expansion of standard-language norms to include regional and social features (Grondelaers, Van Hout 2011: 117). If the substandard gains ground alongside the standard variety and begins to compete with it, one can say that its spread contributes to the process of destandardization.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351–7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Bendrinė lietuvių kalba Europos kalbų postandartizacijos kontekste | 18

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.10

To explain the processes taking place in Lithuania, the concept of substandard is quite useful (see Fig. 2): it makes it possible to name the result of more than a century of interaction between dialects (and, at the beginning of the 21st century, regiolects) and the standard language, as well as other languages.

FIG. 2. The substandard of Lithuanian as an intermediate layer between regiolects and the standard language, also depicted with the influence of other languages⁹

In public, informal written usage (electronic communication on social networks, blogs, etc.), many widespread nonstandard variants are recorded, whose nonstandard status users are usually unaware of, and which they use as neutral means of expression. The substandard has no codification or defined system of norms, but the linguistic phenomena belonging to it are universal, extending beyond regiolects and shared across public usage, though at a lower level than standard-language norms.

In Lithuania, one may ask whether this substandard, as in the Netherlands, is expanding and occupying some domains formerly belonging to standard-language usage, or whether the standard language itself is acquiring new features, adopting some of them from the substandard. In other words, whether what today

⁹ Peter Auer has drawn similar cones to explain diachronically the relations between dialects and the standard language in European languages (see Auer 2005: 9–28). The regiolect map was used in Fig. 2 with the authors’ permission (Geržotaitė, Mikulėnienė 2014). The cone construction and the urban koine points are the work of the author of this article.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351–7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Bendrinė lietuvių kalba Europos kalbų postandartizacijos kontekste | 19

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.10

is called spoken “Vilnius speech,” what is used in the written media and spoken in sessions of the Seimas, a colloquial style of the standard language or a substandard functioning outside the standard language¹⁰?

In the first case, if the standard language is no longer recognized as a prestigious variety, we would speak of destandardization; in the second, if the standard language acquires new features, of demotization. This question can be answered by drawing on an essential feature of standard-language norms: their codification. Thus, as long as the features of the substandard are not codified (or are negatively codified), there is no basis for considering them standard-language norms. The substandard spreads in areas of usage where standard-language norms are not explicitly upheld (the text is not edited).

It should be noted, however, that there is a tendency to codify some substandard variants as standard-language norms. For example, in recent years the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language has approved stress variants previously not considered standard asmeniškas, –a, visuomeniškas, –a (alongside ãsmẽniškas, –a, visúomeniškas, –a); word-formation variants with the suffix –iokas, –ė (klasiokas, –ė, grupiokas, –ė, kambariokas, –ė), previously regarded as foreign, and liberalized punctuation, among other changes. This accords with the general features of standard-language dynamics in the post-standardization period: in some cases codification becomes less strict, and the codified norm becomes more variable.

However, the paradox in the case of Lithuanian is that, because the standard language is relatively young, those strata of society that should be disseminating its norms and spreading the standard-language model often fail to learn it properly themselves¹¹. For example, having failed to acquire the standard language’s stress system, people wonder why that system requires borrowed proper nouns—first names, surnames, and so on—to be stressed according to the rules of Lithuanian when speaking the standard language—Natašà, Nebraškà). Those who know the standard language do not ask this question at all—the system operates automatically. Most of society, however, is oriented not toward the intended norm but toward the actual norm

¹⁰ Given the novelty and complexity of the processes under discussion, Giedrius Subačius’s article (admittedly, not a scholarly one) is surprising: it views these processes quite one-sidedly and simplistically, without drawing on any research, and sums everything up as demotization (also called demotization, demotization), or “the expansion of the standard language” (Subačius 2019: 8–11).

¹¹ G. Subačius seems to be a great optimist, claiming in the aforementioned article: “It is difficult to say when the majority (more than half) of native Lithuanian speakers learned to speak the standard language—perhaps around 1970–1980? Only once the majority had learned to speak the standard language could one say that the spoken standard language had been accepted by society and had become dominant in Lithuania.” (Subačius 2019: 9). The system of standard pronunciation and stress (not individual elements) is usually adopted only by specialists (for example, some professionals in spoken media). The spoken standard language (its phonetic form) that the author has in mind is, in this case, most likely the substandard after all.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351–7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Bendrinė lietuvių kalba Europos kalbų postandartizacijos kontekste | 20

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.10

and uses and adopts it. The actual norm in public usage differs markedly from the codified norm; therefore, if the school does not instill command of the standard language, this is acquired from the environment: essentially, native speakers learn not the standard language but the substandard.

Here are several characteristic examples of the substandard at different levels—the actual public norm (but one negatively codified or not codified as a standard-language norm):

▪ retracted stress (e.g., Spinòza, Obãma, Kanãda) or a shift to another accent paradigm due to the neutralization of pitch accents (griežtùs, baltùs, vienùs, su žmonà);

▪ nonstandard borrowings (e.g., durnas, –a, biškį, jo (colloq. “yes”), OK (colloq. “good”));

▪ slang elements (e.g., bele(n)kas, išdurti (colloq. “to deceive”));

▪ nonstandard word meanings (e.g., gautis (colloq. “to turn out, work out”), perspjauti “to outdo, surpass”));

▪ calques (e.g., išsireikšti, išsireiškimas, kažkas (kažkur...) tai);

▪ nonstandard grammatical forms (e.g., du tūkstantis pirmais metais, trys rinkimai, penki metai, mėgiamas, –a—the latter has long since spread in public usage beyond dialectal boundaries);

▪ nonstandard syntax (e.g., šiai dienai (to indicate a time limit or point in time), kad su followed by an infinitive to express purpose).

The distinctive feature of Lithuania is that public usage is penetrated not only by regional forms but also by unsystematic elements foreign to the Lithuanian language, which exist in the substandard layer. This makes usage even more variable. This circumstance prompts the question of what would happen if the substandard (including “Vilnius speech”) began to be identified with the prestigious standard language and were to be legitimized as a new standard variety replacing the traditional standard language (a case of restandardization). Such a substandardized (restandardized) standard language would lose its systematic character, making it impossible to teach and learn consistently. On the other hand, it is clear that a standard language can survive and be used only if its variable component (unlike the core of its norms) is not kept frozen for decades.

***

The cases of substandardization and restandardization discussed above show that these manifestations of the dynamics of standard languages can develop into one another and can function in parallel. This depends on the sociolinguistic situation of each language.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351–7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Bendrinė lietuvių kalba Europos kalbų postandartizacijos kontekste | 21

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.10

The features of the dynamics of Standard Lithuanian can still be discussed only tentatively and largely hypothetically (see Table 3).

TABLE 3. Features of the dynamics of Standard Lithuanian

Standardization paradigm

Features of the dynamics of Standard Lithuanian

1.

The relationship between the standard language and other varieties

In some domains, particularly the media, another variety (the substandard) is taking the place of the standard language. Public domains are undergoing marked informalization (the elevation of lower-ranking language, more characteristic of private communication, to a higher level—that is, the incursion of spoken-language elements into the public sphere). Traditional standard language persists where it is monitored and maintained: in written texts, such as legal and administrative documents, and also, in part, in the systems of science and education (for example, in edited books and textbooks).

2.

Variation

A clear increase in variation (dehomogenization), and vertical and horizontal migration of variants.

3.

Codification strategy

The “top-down” codification of Standard Lithuanian norms remains important for formal styles, where language is subject to deliberate monitoring, while in informal styles codification is taken into account less and less. As codification is reviewed, the substantial variation in standard-language norms is documented, norms are liberalized, and an increasing number of substandard features are codified positively.

4.

Language ideologies

Traditional standard language (in both written and spoken form) is not always considered the most prestigious variety. Users of the language reject some codified norms, do not understand them, and sometimes even mock them, calling them an artificial language invented by linguists. Alongside the traditional standard-language ideology, a liberal language ideology that supports substandardization emerged in the second decade of the 21st century.

It is clear that the post-standardization period can be said to involve manifestations of the destandardization of Standard Lithuanian (as the prestige of traditional standard language declines¹²), and also

¹² However, it must be acknowledged that some members of the public continue to have fairly strong expectations regarding the use of correct standard language, for example, in online media (for more, see Miliūnaitė 2018).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Bendrinė lietuvių kalba Europos kalbų postandartizacijos kontekste | 22

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.10

the substandardization of areas of public use whose language is no longer specially monitored. Whether the substandard will become the new standard and whether we will be able to call this entire development restandardization is still too early to judge. Moreover, it cannot be ruled out that written standard language is tending to develop more according to the model of demotization, while spoken language, despite attempts to present it as “the Vilnius language aspiring to prestige”¹³, is tending to follow the model of destandardization. This assumption can be supported by the fact that the traditional standard-language norm is maintained in edited domains of standard written language and taught in schools, while in unedited domains of standard written language use this norm also remains a point of reference, only “diluted” with elements of the substandard (especially in vocabulary). The situation is different with public spoken language. Since there is no single, clearly defined, actually functioning norm for standard spoken language (we can speak of isolated manifestations of one, where standard-language pronunciation and stress are learned specifically, mainly for professional purposes), public standard spoken language is strongly influenced by the substandard, while regiolects remain more or less strong; conditions are therefore quite favorable for destandardization.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

For various external reasons (globalization, the democratization of society, the spread of the internet, and increased migration), standard Lithuanian, like other European standard languages, is experiencing a period of post-standardization at the beginning of the 21st century. The traditional conception of standard language is changing, variation in usage is increasing, and societal linguistic attitudes and language ideologies are shifting. Several aspects of this development are noteworthy.

1. The dynamics of standard languages can be described and compared on the basis of the standardness paradigm, which consists of four components: the relationship of standard language to other varieties, variation, codification strategy, and language ideologies.

2. Several factors are important to the processes of change in standard Lithuanian and distinguish it from some other European standard languages.

2.1. Although by the beginning of the 21st century standard Lithuanian had already begun to move away from its traditional state of standardization, it entered the post-standardization period while still quite young, having been codified by Jonas

¹³ Cf.: “<...> the media shape perceptions of what standard Lithuanian is. Although broadcasters, especially the public broadcaster, officially adhere to the standard-language norm, research shows that the language heard on air is in fact closer to (though not identical with) Vilnius speech. <...> Since pronunciation closer to standard language is characteristic of newsreaders and hosts of serious programs, it is likely that, as perceptions of the newsreader’s role change and more entertainment content emerges, the prestige of Vilnius speech will continue to grow.” (Nevinskaitė 2019: 97).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351–7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Bendrinė lietuvių kalba Europos kalbų postandartizacijos kontekste | 23

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.10

at the very beginning of the 20th century by Jablonskis. A little over a hundred years of codifying and disseminating its norms has not been enough for those norms to become firmly established at all levels among the educated strata of society; consequently, the dynamics have not yet acquired a clear direction.

2.2. Unlike many other European languages, Lithuanian existed for centuries under strong pressure from other languages and was continually affected by language contact. The norms of standard Lithuanian were also unable to develop naturally during the 50 years of Soviet occupation, as they were strongly influenced by Russian. Variation in the use of standard language is therefore heterogeneous: the variation paradigm also contains foreign elements that fall outside Lithuanian as a whole, its system, and its norm.

At the end of the 20th and the beginning of the 21st century, standard Lithuanian has not yet shed the effects of Russification; at the same time, it is experiencing convergence with new linguistic systems (in many cases, English) and with other varieties of Lithuanian itself (regional dialects and the substandard). Variation is spreading both horizontally (within the varieties themselves) and vertically (as variants migrate from one variety to another).

3. Research on the development of standard Lithuanian and linguistic attitudes in Lithuania remains limited (there is more research on variation—from the perspective of perceptual dialectology—and on linguistic attitudes than on usage), covers a short period, and almost rules out the possibility of assessing change. Although usage monitoring and studies of linguistic attitudes indicate changes at the structural, language-regulatory, and language-ideological levels, given their findings and the multidirectional factors involved, it would not yet be prudent to categorize the nature of the dynamics of standard Lithuanian without qualification. There have been attempts to fit the changes underway to the model of demotization, but that model does not encompass all the processes taking place simultaneously.

4. In the current period of development of standard Lithuanian, the growing gap between the codified norm and actual usage can be explained as the formation of a substandard—a layer intermediate between regiolects and standard language. Substandard is a concept that has so far received almost no attention in Lithuanian linguistics, but it may help explain the dynamics of standard Lithuanian today.

5. With regard to changes in language ideologies, it is noteworthy that this development is being unnaturally accelerated by the formation in the public sphere of negative attitudes both toward the norms of traditional standard language and toward its language-regulation institutions and the state’s language policy

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Bendrinė lietuvių kalba Europos kalbų postandartizacijos kontekste | 24

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.10

of politics, and in the past decade also more generally about the Lithuanian language, extolling the advantages of English. This gives rise to two kinds of public discontent: with the ideology of the standard language, allegedly impeding language progress, and with the drastic statements made by some sociolinguists and influencers, behind which lies an effort to take over the centers of power in language policy and to liberalize attitudes toward standard-language norms and their oversight.

6. Researchers of changes in European standard languages note that, in many cases, public linguistic attitudes indicate that the need for the standard varieties themselves is not in doubt. The general tendency toward change is more often apparent at the level of language structure (usage) than at the level of standard-language ideology. For the Lithuanian standard language, the idea is especially important that, in the global world community, languages with relatively few speakers have greater opportunities to survive, develop, and be revitalized if they have a standard variety (Odendaal 2013: 188). Therefore, even in the post-standardization period, the functioning and change of the Lithuanian standard language must not be left to develop unchecked.

LITERATŪRA

Aliūkaitė D., Mikulėnienė D., Čepaitienė A., Geržotaitė L. 2017: Kalbos variantiškumas ir jo vertinimas perceptyviosios dialektologijos požiūriu: variantų ir vietų vaizdiniai. Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla.

Ammon U. 2015: On the Social Forces that Determine what is Standard in a Language – With a Look at The norms of Non-standard Language Varieties. – Bulletin VALS–ASLA, 3, 53–67.

Androutsopoulos 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.

Auer 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.

Auer P., Spiekermann 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.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351–7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Bendrinė lietuvių kalba Europos kalbų postandartizacijos kontekste | 25

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.10

Bartsch R. 1985: The Influence of Language Standardization on Linguistic Norms. – Studia Linguistica 39(1), 23–50.

Bergs A. 2012: The Uniformitarian Principle and the Risk of Anachronisms in Language and Social History. – The Handbook of Historical Sociolinguistics. J. M. Hernández-Campoy, J. C. Conde-Silvestre (eds.). Wiley-Blackwell, 80–98.

Berruto 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.

Cerruti M., Crocco C., Marzo S. 2017: On the Developement of a New Standard Norm in Italian. – 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, 3–28.

Coupland N., Kristiansen 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.

Deumert A. 2010: Imbodela Zamakhumsha – Reflections on Standardization and Destandardization. – Multilingua 29, 343–264.

Deumert A., Vandenbussche 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).

Geeaerts 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. Geburtstag gewidmet. A. Lehr, M. Kammerer, K. P. Konerding, A. Storrer, W. Wolski, C. Thimm (eds.). Berlin / New York: Walter de Gruyter, 281–291.

Ghyselen A.S., Delarue S., Lybaert Ch. 2016: Studying Standard Language Dynamics in Europe. – Taal en Tongval 68 (2), 75–91.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Bendrinė lietuvių kalba Europos kalbų postandardizacijos kontekste | 26

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.10

Grondelaers S., Van Hout R. 2011. The Standard Language Situation in the Netherlands. – Standard Languages and Language Standards in a Changing Europe. T. Kristiansen, N. Coupland (eds.). Oslo: Novus Press, 113–118.

Haugen E. 1966: Dialect, Language, Nation. – American Anthropologist, New Series 68(4), 922–935. Prieiga internete: https://alogro.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/haugen_1_d_n.pdf (žiūrėta 2019 11 20).

Hernández-Campoy J. M., Villena-Ponsoda J. A. 2009: Standardness and Non-standardness in Spain: Dialect Attrition and Revitalization of Regional Dialects of Spanish. – International Journal of the Sociology of Language 196–197, 181–204.

Kardelis V. 2016: Septyni lietuvių dialektologijos žingsniai. – Lietuvių kalba 10. Prieiga internete: www.lietuviukalba.lt.

Kristiansen T. 2016: Contemporary Standard Language Change: Weakening or Strenghtening? – Taal en Tongval68 (2), 93–117.

Leonard S. P., Árnason K. 2011: Language Ideology and Standardisation in Iceland. – Standard Languages and Language Standards in a Changing Europe. T. Kristiansen, N. Coupland (eds.). Oslo: Novus Press, 91–96.

Miliūnaitė R. 2009: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos vartosenos variantai. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

Miliūnaitė R. 2017: Dėl terminų standartizacija, norminimas ir kodifikacija santykio dabartinėje norminamojoje kalbotyroje. – Bendrinė kalba 90, 1–33. Prieiga internete: http://www.bendrinekalba.lt/Straipsniai/90/Miliunaite_BK_90_straipsnis.pdf.

Miliūnaitė R. 2018. Kalbos normos ir jų savireguliacija interneto bendruomenėje [Language Norms and their Self-Regulation in the Internet Community]. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

Nevinskaitė L. 2019: Nes taip kalba žurnalistai: kaip radijas ir TV veikia lietuvių kalbos pokyčius. – Darbai ir dienos 71, 83–100.

Nuolijärvi P., Vaattovaara J. 2011. De-standardisation in Progress in Finnish Society? – Standard Languages and Language Standards in a Changing Europe. T. Kristiansen, N. Coupland (eds.). Oslo: Novus Press, p. 67–74.

Odendaal G. 2013: Restandardisation Defined as Democratising Language Planning. – Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics Plus 42, 183–203. Doi: 10.5842/42-0-165.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351–7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Bendrinė lietuvių kalba Europos kalbų postandardizacijos kontekste | 27

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.10

Pupkis A. 2019: Ypatingoji Vilniaus miesto tartis – fikcija ar tikrovė? – delfi.lt, rugsėjo 5 d. Prieiga internete: https://www.delfi.lt/miestai/vilnius/ypatingoji-vilniaus-miesto-tartis-fikcija-ar-tikrove.d?id=82170237 (žiūrėta 2019 11 20).

Ruettei T., Ehretij K., Szmrecsanyi B. 2016: A Lectometric Analysis of Aggregated Lexical Variation in Written Standard English with Semantic Vector Space Models. – International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 21 (1), 48–79.

Sandøy H. 2011: Language Culture in Norway: A tradition of Questioning Standard Language Norms. – Standard Languages and Language Standards in a Changing Europe. T. Kristiansen, N. Coupland (eds.). Oslo: Novus Press, 119–126.

Smakman D., Barasa S.N. 2016: Defining 'Standard': Towards a Cross-cultural Definition of the Language Norm. – Prescription and Tradition in Language. Establishing Standards across Time and Space. I. Tieken-Boon van Ostade, C. Percy (eds.). Bristol/Buffalo, NY/Toronto: Multilingual Matters, 23–38.

Stoeckle P., Svenstrup Ch. H. 2011: Language Variation and (De-) standardisation Processes in Germany. – Standard Languages and Language Standards in a Changing Europe. T. Kristiansen, N. Coupland (eds.). Oslo: Novus Press, 83–90.

Subačius G. 2019: Bendrinės lietuvių kalbos demotikavimo etapas. – Kultūros barai 5, 8–11.

Vaicekauskienė L., Čičirkaitė R. 2011: Vilniaus klausimas bendrinės lietuvių kalbos sampratose: metalingvistinių vilniečių komentarų tyrimas. – Darbai ir dienos 56, 57–76.

Vogl U. 2012: Multilingualism in a Standard Language Culture. – Standard Languages and Multilingualism in European History (Multilingualism and Diversity Management). M. Hüning, U. Vogl, M. Olivier (eds.). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1–44.

Gauta 2019 12 09

Priimta 2019 12 30

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Bendrinė lietuvių kalba Europos kalbų postandartizacijos kontekste | 28

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.10

STANDARD LITHUANIAN IN THE CONTEXT OF POST-STANDARDIZATION OF EUROPEAN LANGUAGES

Summary

During the past few decades, the European languages and their standard varieties have experienced significant changes. The reasons of these changes (due to the political, social, economic, cultural development of European countries) are common: globalization, democratization and internetization, as well as different intensity and directions of migration.

Unsurprisingly, researchers of the European languages show considerable interest in the development of standard languages and changes in their relationship with non–standard varieties. There are a lot of theoretical and empirical studies of the convergence processes of these varieties.

Standard language is usually defined by the following attributes: commonality to society as a whole, homogeneity of norms, stable codification and prestige. Thus the scope of issues related to the dynamics of standard languages is broad:

1) changing relation with other varieties of the national language,

2) increasing or decreasing variability of public usage (especially mass-media),

3) changing the nature of the codification of standard language norms,

4) changing the ideology and prestige of the standard language,

5) relation between changes in usage and language ideologies.

The European standard languages are experiencing two-fold (structural and ideological) changes in different degree. In the level of usage variability and colloquialization increases, in the level of language ideology prestige of the standard language weakens or a new standard forms. According to these changes various models of the post-standardization period of standard languages are being developed, such as destandardisation, demotization, restandardisation, ect. At the same time, it should be taken into account the fact that “specific nature of these language dynamics differs from nation to nation, dependent on the (historical) context” (Ghyselen et al. 2016).

The development of standard Lithuanian has several specific features. First, its norms could not develop naturally within 50 years of Soviet occupation as they experienced a

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Bendrinė lietuvių kalba Europos kalbų postandartizacijos kontekste | 29

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.10

significant impact of the Russian language and currently they are influenced by the English language and its growing prestige. Second, standard Lithuanian entered the post-standardisation process rather young in comparison with some other European standard languages (it was codified by Jonas Jablonskis in the very beginning of the 20th century). During the current development period, the gap between codified norms and real usage is growing and it can be treated as the formation of a substandard variety – an intermediate layer between regiolects and standard language. The concept of substandard was almost not being employed until now in the Lithuanian linguistics, but it can help to explain current dynamics of standard Lithuanian.Studies in this field in Lithuania are still rather fragmented and it would not be reasonable to categorize the dynamics of standard Lithuanian according to one concrete model. Although there are attempts to adapt the ongoing changes to the demotization model (when the standard language ideology stays intact and the usage becomes more and more informalized), this does not include all processes that are currently in progress.

KEYWORDS: standard language, standardization, post-standardization, destandardization, demotisation, sociolinguistics, language ideologies.

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ

Lietuvių kalbos institutas

Petro Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius

[email protected]

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204