„Bendrinės kalbos“ samprata Lietuvos Respublikos teisės aktuose ir kalbos politikos kontekste

BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 DAIVA VAIŠNIENĖ Lietuvos edukologijos universitetas BENDRINĖS KALBOS SAMPRATA LIETUVOS RESPUBLIKOS KEY WORDS: state language, language policy, common language, standard language, language correctness. The article discusses the terms used in the legislation of the Republic of Lithuania and language policy documents (language policy guidelines, decisions of the State Lithuanian Language Commission) that define the status and functions of the Lithuanian language (state language, common language, regular language, etc.), their definitions and peculiarities of usage. The main focus is on the concept, functionality and context of use of the term common language. The definitions of this term given in various sources (dictionaries of terms, the term bank of the Republic of Lithuania, etc.) are reviewed, the relationships with other concepts determining the status and functions of the language are discussed. INTRODUCTION Systematics and accuracy of definitions are highlighted as one of the most important logical requirements of a good term. When evaluating these characteristics of terms, the unambiguity and semantic definition of terms are taken into account, the scientific validity of the logical ir daugmaž vienodą įvardijimą (Gaivenis 2014: 211, dar žr. 236–237). Vis dėlto Kazimieras Gaivenis, aptardamas gero termino bruožus, atkreipia dėmesį, kad praktiniame terminų relationships of terms. Uniqueness and definition of meaning are not easily achieved in the work of standardization, and even terms that have existed for a long time can be understood and used in varying ways by specialists in that field (Gaivenis 2014: 206–207). These terminological kartais kalbos norminimo, viešųjų užrašų kalbos ar svetimvardžių rašybos diskusijų kyla ne tik shortcomings are not avoided in the field of language policy – due to the evaluation of the language phenomenon, but also due to the different understanding of the object under išankstinėms nuostatoms didelę įtaką daro ir pagrindinių kalbos politikos sąvokų turinio DAIVA VAIŠNIENĖ. Bendrinės kalbos samprata Lietuvos Respublikos teisės aktuose ir kalbos politikos discussion. It must be admitted that the negative linguistic stereotypes in society or context | 2 __________________________________________________________________________________________ BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 ambiguity, and irresponsible use of terms without clear definitions (for different 1 interpretations of several language policy terms, see Valotka 2015). There are not many works 2 of conceptual system and terminology analysis in the field of language policy, which would talk about the definitions of terms, the peculiarities of their spread or hierarchical relationships (more often the choice of more suitable term equivalents is discussed). There is also a lack of precise definitions of concepts when examining more complicated issues of language law – the State Language Act (hereinafter – SLA) was adopted in 1995, and at that time it was not yet 3 customary to discuss concepts separately in the law itself. Thus, terms in the field of language policy are not yet clearly and systematically defined in any legislative instrument. It is true that the terms with definitions are provided in the draft Constitutional Law on the State Language (hereinafter – DCLSL), which has been discussed and updated for more than a decade, but has not yet been adopted. It is also important that more than before the functions (for example, related to the status of Lithuanian as an official language of the European Union, digital technologies), therefore does not regulate and does not identify with these areas dvidešimtmetį priimtas VKĮ neaprėpia kai kurių dabartinių lietuvių kalbos vartojimo sričių ir susijusių reiškinių. The VKI does not mention the term common language, which is the most important language variant in public life. Academic and public discussions about the functions of different language variants, their relationship to issues of regularity, identity or individual expression are even more confusing and controversial if there is no agreement on the definition of the term common language and the scope of its use. According to Arnold Pirochkine, “many people – not only ordinary people, but also graduated philologists – have a rather inaccurate understanding of common language” (Pirochkine 2011). This insight is complemented by newer research – the real content of the concept of common language is perceived by the subjects of the study in a ambiguous way (Aliūkaitė 2011: 216) or common language becomes a language understood as common language. Do dialects also form 1 Pavyzdžiui, svarstoma, ar valstybinės kalbos sąvoka apima ir tarmes (plg. „valstybinė yra lietuvių part of the Lithuanian language as a state language? Generally speaking, yes. Separately – as if not” (Daujotytė 2013). Such hesitation is probably also influenced by public debate, language policy goals, the aim of opposing kuriose teikiama deskriptyvi bendrinės kalbos paskirties interpretacija, paviršutiniškai suprantami valstybinės common language to dialects or other language variants (cf. Vaicekauskienė 2010: 166; Vaicekauskienė, Sausverde 2012). This creates a conflictual discourse, imposing the identification of Lithuanian language only with the common language and developing the image of aggressive dominance of the common language. 2 The undefined concept of the term “public records” has led to a decision in a legal dispute concerning public records in other languages. In case N-62-2354-11 “Regarding the decision of the Vilnius District Administrative Court of 25 October 2010 in the case of administrative infringement of D. G.” it is stated that the definition of public signs is not disclosed in the State Language Act or in the implementing acts, therefore it is not possible to unequivocally state that the non-state language route and bus fleet name signs on buses correspond to the public signs mentioned in Article 17 (1) of the State Language Act. Although the State Lithuanian Language Commission has considered the term public records and has included its definition in the Terms Bank, the question of its legal status has not been fully resolved until the Constitutional Law on the State Language, which would provide this term with a definition, is adopted. 3 Plg. Cidzikaitė 2002; Valotka 2015. DAIVA VAIŠNIENĖ. Bendrinės kalbos samprata Lietuvos Respublikos teisės aktuose ir kalbos politikos contexte | 3 __________________________________________________________________________________________ BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 localized code, applicable in the system of regional variants (Aliūkaitė, Merkytė-Švarcienė 2012: 172). In the cloudy waters of different terms or undefined concepts that denote the same or very similar thing, it is easy to drown the essential features of the phenomenon, bringing to the surface the side effects, to interpret the content of the concepts biasedly, to adapt it to 4 convenient ideologies, to identify common language with normative language, if necessary, and in other cases to use the same term to refer only to the universal, understandable to all and used by all variant of language. the status and essential characteristics of usage, which have been Šiame straipsnyje keliamas klausimas, ar kalbotyros terminai, nusakantys kalbos included in the legislation and other language policy documents, are clear and unambiguous, or the system of equally used terms formed with the related word language, the peculiarities of suprantami. Straipsnio tikslas – aptarti teisės aktuose ir kalbos politikos dokumentuose distribution and usage by legislators and language specialists. More attention is paid to the concept, functionality and context of use of the term common language. The definitions of this term given in various sources (dictionaries of terms, the term bank of the Republic of Lithuania) are reviewed, the relationships with other concepts determining the status and 5 functions of the language are discussed. According to the explanation given by Pranas Skardzis, who in 1927 began to use the term common language, it would be possible to distinguish two essential characteristics of the concept of common language: 6 1. communicational, or universal usage, characteristic (“it is a common means of communication, oral and written, for all Lithuanians to communicate with each other in common cultural 4 Perhaps a clear and unambiguous definition of what constitutes the content of the notion of common language and who is obliged to adhere to language norms could resolve even the ideologically fueled debate between descriptivists and prescriptivists as to whether “Lithuanian common spoken and written language is the ‘ideal language’ that all Lithuanians should aspire to” (Vaicekauskienė 2010: 166), or whether the ability to speak correctly is “specific linguistic competence, specific linguistic capital”, which “just like other types of capital – financial, cultural, social – is unevenly distributed among various social groups” (Baločkaitė 2014). 5 This article was based mainly on terminological sources and legislation, and therefore did not aim to present and evaluate all the variety of definitions of common language given in linguistic works. 6 “The Lithuanian language used today, as its structure and development show, is indeed best described as common or general. It is a common means of communication and intercommunication for all Lithuanians, a language used orally and in writing for common cultural and civil affairs, which does not coincide with any Lithuanian dialect at all. This language, originating from the spoken language of people, is deliberately cultivated, treated so that it best suits general use; it's a cultural language." (Skardžius 1997: 635). This quote is from the 1974 publication “Common and literary language”, published in the magazine Aidai (No. 8, p. 345– in context | 4 350). DAIVA VAIŠNIENĖ. Bendrinės kalbos samprata Lietuvos Respublikos teisės aktuose ir kalbos politikos __________________________________________________________________________________________ BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 and the language used in civil affairs”) 7 distinguishes common language as a language variant from dialects („does not coincide with 8 any Lithuanian dialect at all”) and from all other language variants. 2) The codifcation, or regularity, feature (“a language derived from the spoken language of people, deliberately cultivated, treated so that it best suits common use; this is a cultural language”) emphasizes the normative nature of common language. would be given preference Iš P. Skardžiaus teikiamos apibrėžties būtų sudėtinga pasakyti, kuriam iš šių požymių if the most important feature of the general language had to be chosen. Another when 9 Lithuanian common language has just begun to live as a codified structure, at the same time vertus, vargu ar toks klausimas galėjo kilti dvidešimtojo amžiaus pirmaisiais dešimtmečiais, is being completed, managed and implemented. Although the basis of the western Altay (Kaunas) dialect was chosen, when describing the common language in grammar and other normative works, it was necessary to rediscover and define the internal connections of language phenomena, to fill the gaps in the system. 10 Therefore, it was necessary to establish clear rules and norms distinguishing between the common language and other variants of the language, as well as to begin the universal dissemination of the standardized language, first of all by enshrining the use of this language in the legislation governing 11 education. Although the de facto common language acquired its cultural form in the interwar period and distinguished the main areas of its use, the term itself had no legal basis and was not used in legislation. 7 The character of universality is also emphasized by Petras Jonikas, who says that a common language is “a language that is dedicated to the affairs of the cultural and civilized life of the whole nation” (Jonikas 1972: 2). 8 It is important to note that this provision did not completely oppose the common language with dialects. A. Salys was particularly displeased with the separation of the common language from the living language of people – the dialect should become a support for linguistic thinking and be linked to the teaching of the common language, thus reviving the linguistic feeling of the enlightened community and raising the proficiency of the written language (Salys 1979: 15–16). 9 One can agree that it was important for P. Skardžius to emphasize the commonality of language – as a state-unifying aspect (Smetonienė, Smetona, Valotka 2016: 6), yet it is also emphasized that the communicational purpose of language is inseparable from the quality of language, which helps to understand “how and what we need to write or say, if we want others to understand us without difficulty”. (Skardžius 1997: 52). Plg. Peter Auer characterizes the standard language by three complementary characteristics: (a) used by users in more than one language region; b) valued as a prestigious language variety (H-variety) and used for writing; (c) is the subject of codification and development (Auer 2005: 8). 10 According to A. Salis, “the task of creating a common language here is to find or create a balance: what is missing is to be created, and what is not needed is to be thrown away” (Salys 1979: 13). 11 The aim was to prepare society for the adoption of a common language (see Smetonienė 2014). Visuotinis lietuvių kalbos vartojimas reglamentuojamas 1922 m. priimtame Pradžios mokyklų įstatyme, o kodifikuotos, taisyklingos kalbos reikalavimai nustatomi teikiant nuorodas į norminamuosius leidinius, pavyzdžiui, Pradžios mokslo departamentas prašo pradžios mokyklose remtis Jono Jablonskio gramatika: „Departamentas yra patyręs, kad lietuvių pradedamosiose mokyklose vartojama nepakankamai vienoda rašyba, tūlose mokyklose ir Departamentas prašo visus pradedamųjų nepakankamai taisyklinga kalba. Pašalinti šitoms mūsų švetimo [švietimo] ydoms Pradžios Mokslo mokyklų mokytojus ir mokytojas kaip oficijaliuose raštuose, taip mokymo reikalais tesekti tomis kalbos taisyklėmis ir rašyba, kurios yra išdėstytos P. K r i a u š a i č i o i r kontekste | 5 R y g i š k i ų J o n o L i e t u v o s k a l b o s g r a m a t i k o j e (Vilniuje, 1919 metai, Lietuvių Mokslo Daugijos [Draugijas] leidiny).’ (1919) 8. DAIVA VAIŠNIENĖ. Bendrinės kalbos samprata Lietuvos Respublikos teisės aktuose ir kalbos politikos __________________________________________________________________________________________ BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 During the Soviet period, the term literary language was proposed and introduced according to the tradition of Russian linguistics, but this term never established itself in Lithuania. The 12 common language proposed by Pranas Skardžius has been returned to linguistics since the 1960s (Piročkinas 2011; Pupkis 2005: 43). The general use of the term has been established gradually: in the 1990 Kalbotyros terminų žodynas (hereinafter – KTŽ) both terms are presented as synonyms, but the hierarchical relationship between them is still visible, giving priority to literary language – from the article common language, which is defined as a national literary language having written and spoken forms (KTŽ 1990: 37), a reference is provided to a much more detailed description of the concept in the article literary language. The latter indicates that the literary language that has become a national language and acquired a spoken form is often referred to as the term common language, and some linguists use this term in all cases instead of the term literary language (KTŽ 1990: 119). Since the CLJ was the only systematic source of terminology for linguistics for quite a long time, it probably led to the definition and spread of terms used for the purposes of emerging language policy. It can be assumed that of the two characteristics of the common language raised by P. Skardzis, the authors of the KTŽ, choosing the national language formulated in the definitions of 13 both terms, highlight the universality of the language as more important. The normative characteristic is more clearly indicated only in the detailed definition of literary language: “the exemplary, normalized, standard language of a nation or people” (KTŽ 1990: 119). It should be noted that the latter definition also uses the word combination standard language, although it is not raised as a separate term, but is directly related to the English equivalent of common (also literary) language, standard language, referred to in the CAT. Another structural aspect of the concept of general language could be the normative language. In the dictionary, this word combination is used to define the norm (KTZ 1990: 134). 14 In the Lithuanian Language Encyclopedia published in 1999, only the term common language (literary language is described as a substitute for the Soviet occupation period (LKE 1999: 386). When defining the concept („more or less standardized language for the needs of the writings of the whole nation and the public life and culture of people“ (LKE 1999: 87)) we return to P. 12 For the term, see Criticism. Pupkis 2005: 42–43. 13 The KTŽ defines it as “the common language of a nation, as one of the distinctive features of that nation” (KTŽ 1991: 128). 14 “Normal language (including literary language) often allows certain variants (synonyms), it is not strict in all cases” (KTŽ 1990: 134). By the way, such a formulation could also mean that the concepts of normative language and literary language are not exactly identical. DAIVA VAIŠNIENĖ. Bendrinės kalbos samprata Lietuvos Respublikos teisės aktuose ir kalbos politikos kontekste | 6 __________________________________________________________________________________________ BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 The functional separation of language used for “general cultural and civilizational matters of life” is described by Skardź, and the normative focus of the concept is described rather 15 succinctly. In the Lithuanian terminology bank, two definitions of common language from the later period can be found: 1) a more general concept of common language from the field of education and science, indicating that it is "a universally used language variant, more or less standardized, characterized by the highest prestige, the highest social status in the linguistic community, used as a language of writing, public life, education, culture, media, literature, educated strata of society. <...> Common language variants are taught in schools, as foreign languages, to non-native speakers” (LTŽ 2012). More important in the definition is the provision that this language variant is universally used, and the normative element of the concept, seems, is not absolute, repeating the part of the definition given in the Lithuanian Language Encyclopedia (i.e., “more or less normalized”); 2) from the Terms Bank of the language policy area, the definition of common Lithuanian language provided in the draft of the VKKĮ is indicated – “correct, written or common language use ‘for the purposes of public life’ based on the norms of the Lithuanian language sakytinė lietuvių kalba, skirta viešojo gyvenimo reikmėms“. Pastarojoje apibrėžtyje labiau pabrėžiamas taisyklingumas ir normiškumas, o vartojimo aprėptį rodo abstrakčiau nusakoma vocabulary, grammar, spelling and punctuation. 16 Thus, the duality of the definition of common language proposed by P. Skardzis, only more ambiguity pabrėžiant kurį vieną iš dviejų požymių, išlaikomas ir vėlesniuose šaltiniuose. Matyt, vengiant in the State Language Act adopted in 1995, the term common language is not used at all, and in other legislative acts the functions of the universal and / or standardized language variant nusakomos papildant taisyklingumo ar normiškumo nuorodomis žodžių junginius lietuvių kalba ir valstybinė kalba, taip šioms sąvokoms pridedant bendrinei kalbai būdingų požymių 17 . LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE AND STATE LANGUAGE Lietuvos Respublikos Konstitucijos nuostata „valstybinė kalba – lietuvių kalba“ connects these two concepts in a relation of identity in cases of language use 15 For more on the evolution of the term and definition, see Smetonienė, Smetona, Valotka 2016: 7–8. 16 Similarly, the essence of common language has been defined by Aleksas Girdenis: “Common (literary) language is the language of the public life of a nation (writing, school, literature, mass communications)” (Girdenis 2000: 316). Aldonas Pupkis emphasizes the functional areas – language is “used to satisfy the needs of the whole nation for communication, thinking, political, economic and cultural life, to express national identity and representation” (Pupkis 2005: 30). 17 In the opinion of P. Skardžius, the common language, having in mind its regularity, should be more conveniently and accurately called Lithuanian language, “in which they [Lithuanians] not only communicate with each other, but also express their characteristic features” (Skardžius 1997: 54, 113). DAIVA VAIŠNIENĖ. Bendrinės kalbos samprata Lietuvos Respublikos teisės aktuose ir kalbos politikos contexts | 7 __________________________________________________________________________________________ BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 in Lithuanian public life. In the State Language Act, which establishes the status of the state language, the word combinations state language and Lithuanian language are usually used synonymously. However, the overall picture of the legislation governing the use of language highlights the signs of semantic differentiation of these terms. The term state language in legislation refers to the status of the Lithuanian language (see Article 14 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania), and the word combination Lithuanian language, extended by descriptive words, is usually used in provisions relating to the correctness and standardization of the language. In other words, the subjects of general usage (status) are quite purposefully separated from codification and dissemination: in the first case, we are talking about the status and use of the state language, and in the second – about the subject of education, the relationship is not discussed in more detail in the legislation, therefore it must lietuvių kalbos norminę vartoseną ir pan. 18 Tiesa, valstybinės kalbos ir lietuvių kalbos sąvokų be recognized that one or another term The term state language (defined in the term bank of the Republic of pasirinkimas yra labiau intuityvus negu grįstas kokiais objektyviais kriterijais. Lithuania as the internal official and public communication language of the country, whose exclusive status is legalized in the state laws (LTŽ 2012)) is the main one in the State Language Act. Only three articles, which deal with compliance with language norms and the requirements of correct language, mention the Lithuanian language: 1) 19 “Article 16. The names of all enterprises, institutions and organisations operating in the Republic of Lithuania shall be made in accordance with the Lithuanian language norms [...]”; (2) ‘Article 19. The State takes care of the prestige of the correct Lithuanian language, creates conditions for protecting language norms <...>“; (3) ‘Article 22. Lithuanian public information media (press, television, radio, etc.) and all publishers of books and other publications are obliged to observe the correct norms of the Lithuanian language.” What stands out is the wording of Article 21, which establishes the language proficiency requirements for education, public administration and other fields of work, combining the requirements of regularity and the status reference: “the requirements of proper state language proficiency are included in the regulations for the certification of civil servants, educators, public information media and publishing workers […].” This spread in the use of terms shows that the arguments of Irena Smetona, Antanas Smetona and Audrius Valotka to abandon the term state language (claiming that it was used to refer to schools where Lithuanian is no longer needed and remained only in the title of the State Language Act (Smetonienė, Smetona, Valotka 2016: 11)) are not justified. It should be noted that the term is also used in other 18 legislative acts (primarily in the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania), and it would also be difficult to describe the function of the language used for public administration (in other words, the state) without this term. kalba buvo mokoma kaip valstybės kalba, o suvienodinus programas ir įvedus vieną egzaminą, terminas tapęs 19 The Lithuanian Language Encyclopedia provides a less general definition: “a language officially used in public life of the state, in schools, in the press and other media, in state institutions and in business writings” (LKE 1999: 683). DAIVA VAIŠNIENĖ. Bendrinės kalbos samprata Lietuvos Respublikos teisės aktuose ir kalbos politikos contexts | 8 __________________________________________________________________________________________ BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 In other laws, the term defining the status of the language is also used most often, for example, in the provisions of the Education Act of the Republic of Lithuania relating to educational 20 objectives or the right to acquire education in the state language. In this law, Lithuanian is mentioned as a subject of study in Lithuanian and foreign educational institutions (Article 25: Lithuanianistic education and the possibility of learning Lithuanian), and when discussing the correctness and normativity of language, the word correct Lithuanian is used: “Article 49. <...> 2. The teacher must: <...> 2) cultivate strong moral, civic, national and patriotic attitudes of pupils, respect for parents, guarantee the development of the pupils’ personal powers to protect their cultural identity, communicate educational content in an understandable and clear, correct Lithuanian language, when the legislation provides that the relevant educational content is transmitted in Lithuanian language.” The aspect of the state language status is emphasised in the Consumer Rights Protection Act (Article 16 states that “the quality guarantee must be in the state language”). This term is also used in Chapter XXV of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Republic of Lithuania, which deals with penalties for non-compliance with the decisions of the State Lithuanian Language Commission on the use and correctness of the state language and the instructions of the officials of the State Language Inspection on the use of the state language. Article 3.282 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania, which regulates the language of civil status records, states that “civil status records shall be recorded in Lithuanian”. Article 9 of the Civil Service Act, which establishes the requirements for recruitment to civil servant positions, that a person who is recruited to civil servant positions must “know the Lithuanian state language”, can be considered as redundant, since Lithuanian is the only state language. 21 It is interesting to compare the tendency and distribution of terms used to define the status, functions, etc. of a language with those used in the basic language-related legislation of other countries, especially those with a similar history of language policy and social development. 20 The Education Act also mentions the term mother tongue, usually used to refer to individuals, the article kuriems valstybinė kalba nėra gimtoji. Kai kur toks valstybinės ir gimtosios kalbos atskyrimas (pavyzdžiui, 30 establishes the right to education in the state and mother tongue) is not clear and logical, because for many citizens the state language is the mother tongue. 21 In implementing legislation – government decrees, orders of ministers, heads of institutions – the choice of terms usually corresponds to the discussed tendencies. Provisions indicating the state language are usually related to the requirements of language proficiency and use (e.g. in the Decree No. 553 of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania of 19 May 2010 “On the approval of the description of the procedure for the processing of complaints received by the regulator of the rail transport market”); Order No. EV-77 of the Chief State Labour Inspector of the Republic of Lithuania of 23 June 2017 “On the Approval of the Description of the Procedure for the Organization and Execution of the Verification of Knowledge on Occupational Safety and Health Issues in the State Labour Inspectorate”), while Lithuanian is more often mentioned as the language of instruction or translation. DAIVA VAIŠNIENĖ. Bendrinės kalbos samprata Lietuvos Respublikos teisės aktuose ir kalbos politikos contexts | 9 __________________________________________________________________________________________ BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 In the Latvian Republic's State Language Act (1999), the term state (state) language (valsts valoda) prevails. The word combination Latvian language (latviešu valoda) is used less frequently – when denoting the state status of this language (art. 1), when referring to specific requirements of language usage, correctness (art. 23) or standardization issues (e.g. spelling of personal names art. 19) and scientific research (art. 24). More often, the state language is mentioned in the Education, Higher Education, Immigration laws, and, for example, the Citizenship Act speaks only of Latvian, with the exception of the text of the citizen’s oath, which promises to strengthen Latvian as the state language. In the Language Act of the Republic of Estonia (2011), the term state language (riigikeel) appears only once, describing the status of Estonian. Other articles simply deal with the provisions for the use of Estonian (eesti keel). Estonia seems to be continuing the tradition of Scandinavian countries, whose national languages do not have the status of official languages, to use the name of the language itself without additional status indications, and to describe the essential administrative or other functions of the language when necessary. For example, the Language Act of the Republic of Finland (2003) uses the term that best corresponds to the term national language (Finnish: kansalliskieli / Swedish: nationalspråk). The Language Act of the Kingdom of Sweden (2009) refers to Swedish as the main language (huvudspråk) and also states that it is the official language of the European Union (official language). The Law of the Republic of Slovenia on the Public Use of the Slovenian Language (2004) uses the term official language (uradni jezik), with the same status in some municipalities for minority languages – Italian and Hungarian. The Polish Language Act also refers only to Polish (język polski) (the term administrative language (język urzędowy) is also used to indicate the area of use of the language). 22 The Act on the State Language of the Slovak Republic (1995) consistently uses the term state language (štátny jazyk). Incidentally, although the term generic or similar is not used directly, Article 11 of this law states that in most areas of use of the state language, the state language should be understood as codified and thus subject to the criteria of correctness. From the cases discussed, it can be assumed that the terms used in the legislation and the choice of the legislators to emphasize the importance of language status or not to emphasize it indicate not only legal but also political or social dispositions related to the establishment of language status in society, as well as traditions of language management and regulation. So if the use of language 22 The term state language, język państwowy, was used in a decree adopted in 1945 regulating the use of the language in state and local government bodies (see Decree of 30 November 1945 on the state language and the language of office of government and local government administrative authorities). DAIVA VAIŠNIENĖ. Bendrinės kalbos samprata Lietuvos Respublikos teisės aktuose ir kalbos politikos context | 16 __________________________________________________________________________________________ BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 D. G. in the administrative infringement proceedings”. Online access: Order No. EV-77 of http://eteismai.lt/byla/12488001392033/N-62-2354-11 (žiūrėta 2017 05 24). the Chief State Labour Inspector of the Republic of Lithuania of 23 June 2017 “On the verification of knowledge on occupational safety and health issues” Online access: valstybinėje darbo inspekcijoje organizavimo ir vykdymo tvarkos aprašo patvirtinimo“. https://www.etar.lt/portal/lt/legalAct/f4e2658057e311e7846ef01bfffb9b64 (accessed 2015 12 03). Decree of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania No. 1407 of 12 November 2003 “On the Approval of the Provisions of the Register of Legal Entities”. Retrieved 2015-12-03. https://www.etar.lt/portal/lt/legalAct/TAR.9E302593CE80/MwWFezpYlh (accessed 2015-12-03). Decree of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania No. 553 of 19 May 2010 “On the approval of the description of the procedure for the processing of complaints received by the rail transport market regulator”. Retrieved 2015-03-03. https://www.etar.lt/portal/lt/legalAct/TAR.35260B69187F/usrRRrZiNO (accessed 2015-03-03). LKE 2008: Encyclopedia of Lithuanian Language. Compiled by Kazys Morkūnas, edited by Vytautas Ambrazas. Amendment 2 and supplement. 1st edition, Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopedia Publishing. LTŽ 2012: Ramonienė M., Brazauskienė J., Burneikaitė N., Daugmaudytė J., Kontutytė E., Pribušauskaitė J. 2012: Dictionary of Lingvodidactic Terms, Vilnius: Vilnius University Press. Pilsonības likums (Law on Citizenship of the Republic of Latvia). Accessed online: http://likumi.lv/ta/id/57512-pilsonibas-likums (accessed 2015 10 29). Språklag (Language Act of the Kingdom of Sweden). Online access: https://lagen.nu/2009:600 (Accessed 29 October 2015). Guidelines of the State Language Policy 2003-2008 (approved by the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania by Decision No. IX-1595 of 3 June 2003). Accessed: http://www.vlkk.lt/kalbos-politika/lietuvos-kalbos-politikos-gaires/valstybineskalbos-politikos-2003-2008-m-gaires (accessed 2015 11 02). Decision No. 60 of the State Lithuanian Language Commission to the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania of 19 June 1997 "On spelling and punctuation of the Lithuanian language". Retrieved 2017-06-26. https://www.eseimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/TAIS.41265 (accessed 2017-06-26). Decision No. N-10(99) of the State Lithuanian Language Commission of 28 October 2004 “On the name of the single currency of the European Union in Lithuanian”. Access on the Internet: DAIVA VAIŠNIENĖ. Bendrinės kalbos samprata Lietuvos Respublikos teisės aktuose ir kalbos politikos kontekste | 17 __________________________________________________________________________________________ BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 http://www.vlkk.lt/vlkk-nutarimai/nutarimai/del-europos-sajungos-vienodos-valiutos-pavadinimo-lietuvių-kalboje (accessed 2017 06 26). Valsts valodas likums (Law on the State Language of the Republic of Latvia). Retrieved 2015-10-29. http://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=14740. Ustawa z dnia 7 października 1999 r. o języku polskim (Law of 7 October 1999 on the Polish language). Accessed on: http://isap.sejm.gov.pl/DetailsServlet?id=WDU19990900999 (accessed 2015 11 02). Zákon Národnej rady Slovenskej republiky o štátnom jazyku Slovenskej republiky (Act of the National Council of the Slovak Republic on the State Language of the Slovak Republic). Accessed online: http://www.zakonypreludi.sk/zz/1995-270 (accessed 2015 10 29). Zakon o javni rabi slovenščine (ZJRS) (Act of the Republic of Slovenia on the Public Use of the Slovenian Language). Accessed on: http://www.uradni-list.si/1/objava.jsp?urlurid=20043841 (accessed 2015 10 29). Received 04/10/2017 Adopted 08/12/2017 DAIVA VAIŠNIENĖ Lietuvos edukologijos universitetas Department of Lithuanian Linguistics and T. Ševčenkos g. 31, LT-03111 Vilnius, Lithuania [email protected] DAIVA VAIŠNIENĖ. Bendrinės kalbos samprata Lietuvos Respublikos teisės aktuose ir kalbos politikos Communication in Context | 18 __________________________________________________________________________________________ BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 THE CONCEPT OF STANDARD LANGUAGE IN THE LEGISLATION OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA AND IN THE CONTEXT OF LANGUAGE POLICY S u m m a ry The publication raises the issue of whether the linguistic terms that describe the status of language and its key usage characteristics are used in the legislation and other languagepolicy documents clearly and unambiguously, whether the legislators and the general public understand them equally. The goal of the article is to discuss a system of the terms that include the related word language and that are used in the legislation and language-policy documents, as well as their dissemination and usage features. A lot of attention is paid to the concept of standard language, its functionality and usage context. The definitions of this term (provided in glossaries, the Term Bank of the Republic of Lithuania) are reviewed, also its relationship with other concepts describing the status and functions of a language is discussed. Pranas Skardžius, the author of the term bendrinė kalba (standard language), distinguished two features of it: 1) The communicative, or commonly used, feature separates standard language as a language branch from all other language branches (in the broad sense, the full set of all regional, social, and functional variants); 2) The communicative, or commonly used, feature separates standard feature emphasises the prescriptive nature of standard language (vs. dialects, jargon, etc.). The language as a language branch from all other language branches (in the broad sense, the full set of all regional, social, and functional variants); 3) The communicative, or commonly used, feature include the standard language term at all, therefore its ambivalence is avoided. Other separates standard language as a language branch from all other language branches (in the broad sense, the full set of all regional, social, and functional variants); 4) The communicative, or commonly used, feature separates standard language as a language branch from all other language branches (in the broad sense, the full set of all regional, social, and functional variants); 5) The communicative, or commonly used, feature separates standard language as a language branch from all other language branches (in the broad sense, the full set of all regional, social, and functional variants). 2) The codification, or correctness, binary of Skardžius' definition, only emphasizing one of the features a little more, is also preserved in later sources: glossaries, encyclopedias. The Law on State Language does not legislation indicating codified language usually uses a clearer and more specific definition correct Lithuanian language which more accurately reflects the codification feature of the concept of standard language. The term standartinė kalba (standard language) has not yet taken root in Lithuania but the relationship between the concepts of standard and national (or commonly used) language are more and more discussed, including whether we need to distinguish codified language from commonly used language variant (standartinė kalba vs. bendrinė kalba). The duality of the term used in both senses may be an obstacle when communicating. Several solutions are proposed to emphasise the aspect of codification: to accept the newly proposed kontekste | 19 DAIVA VAIŠNIENĖ. Bendrinės kalbos samprata Lietuvos Respublikos teisės aktuose ir kalbos politikos __________________________________________________________________________________________ BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 The term standard language, to work around the issue by using descriptive word combinations, or to apply a less often used concept of codified language (norms of language) for this purpose. KEYWORDS: official language, language policy, standard language, correctness.