DAIVA VAIŠNIENĖ

Lithuanian University of Educational Sciences

THE CONCEPT OF STANDARD LANGUAGE IN THE LEGISLATION OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA AND IN THE CONTEXT OF LANGUAGE POLICY

KEYWORDS: state language, language policy, standard language, standard language, linguistic correctness.

The article discusses the terms used in the legislation of the Republic of Lithuania and in language policy documents (language policy guidelines, resolutions of the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language) to describe the status and functions of the Lithuanian language (state language, standard language, correct language, etc.), their definitions, and usage features. Particular attention is given to the concept, functionality, and context of use of the term standard language. Definitions of this term provided in various sources (terminological dictionaries, the Terminology Bank of the Republic of Lithuania, etc.) are reviewed, and its relations with other concepts describing language status and functions are discussed.

INTRODUCTION

Systematicity and precision of definitions are identified as among the most important logical requirements for a good term. In evaluating these properties of terms, consideration is given to their unambiguity and semantic definiteness, the scientific validity of logical relations among terms, and a more or less uniform designation (Gaivenis 2014: 211, see also 236–237). Nevertheless, in discussing the characteristics of a good term, Kazimieras Gaivenis points out that in the practical work of terminological standardization, unambiguity and definiteness of meaning are difficult to achieve, and that even terms in use for a long time may be understood and used differently by specialists in the field (Gaivenis 2014: 206–207). The field of language policy is not exempt from these terminological shortcomings: discussions sometimes arise concerning language standardization, the language of public signage, or the spelling of foreign names not only because of differing evaluations of a linguistic phenomenon, but also because of differing understandings of the object under discussion. It must be acknowledged that the negative linguistic stereotypes and preconceived attitudes established in society are also strongly influenced by the content of the principal concepts of language policy

BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

DAIVA VAIŠNIENĖ. Bendrinės kalbos samprata Lietuvos Respublikos teisės aktuose ir kalbos politikos kontekste | 2

indefiniteness¹, as well as the irresponsible use of terms without clear definitions² (for differing interpretations of several language policy terms, cf. Valotka 2015).

There are few studies analyzing the conceptual system and terminology of language policy that address term definitions, their dissemination, or hierarchical relations (more often, the selection of more appropriate equivalents for terms is considered³). Precise definitions of concepts are also lacking in discussions of more complex language-law issues: the Law on the State Language (hereinafter, LSL) was adopted in 1995, when it was not yet customary to discuss concepts separately in the text of a law. Thus, to date, the terms in the field of language policy have not been clearly and systematically defined in any legal act. It is true that terms with definitions are provided in the draft Constitutional Law on the State Language (hereinafter, CLSL), which has been under consideration and revision for more than a decade but has still not been adopted. It is also important that the LSL, adopted more than twenty years ago, does not cover some current domains and functions of Lithuanian-language use (for example, those relating to Lithuanian’s status as an official language of the European Union and to digital technologies); consequently, it neither regulates nor names phenomena associated with these domains.

The term standard language, which denotes the language variety most important to public life, is not mentioned in the LSL at all. Academic and public discussions about the functions of different language varieties and their relationship to correctness, identity, or individual expression generate even greater confusion and opposition when there is no agreement on the definition of the concept standard language or on the scope of standard-language use. According to Arnoldas Piročkinas, “many people—not only ordinary people but also graduates in philology—have a rather imprecise understanding of standard language” (Piročkinas 2011). This observation is supplemented by more recent studies: the actual content of the concept of standard language is understood in varying ways by research participants (Aliūkaitė 2011: 216), or standard language becomes

¹ For example, it is debated whether the concept of the state language also encompasses dialects (cf. “the state language is Lithuanian, understood as the standard language. Does the statehood of Lithuanian also include dialects? Broadly speaking—yes. Separately—not quite” (Daujotytė 2013)). These doubts are probably also influenced by public discussions that offer a descriptive interpretation of the purpose of standard language, take a superficial view of the aims of state language policy, and seek to set standard language against dialects or other language varieties (cf. Vaicekauskienė 2010: 166; Vaicekauskienė, Sausverde 2012). This creates a conflictual discourse that imposes the identification of the Lithuanian language solely with standard language and promotes an image of the aggressive dominance of standard language.

² The undefined concept of the term “public signage” determined the outcome of a legal dispute concerning public signage in other languages. In case N-62-2354-11, “Regarding the ruling of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court of 25 October 2010 in the administrative offence case of D. G.,” it was established that public signage is not defined in either the Law on the State Language or its implementing acts; therefore, it cannot be stated unequivocally that route and bus depot name signs on buses that are not in the state language constitute the public signage referred to in Article 17, paragraph 1, of the Law on the State Language. Although the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language has considered the term public signage and included its definition in the Terminology Bank, the issue of its legal status has not been fully resolved until the Constitutional Law on the State Language, which would provide the term with a definition, is adopted.

³ Plg. Cidzikaitė 2002; Valotka 2015.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

DAIVA VAIŠNIENĖ. Bendrinės kalbos samprata Lietuvos Respublikos teisės aktuose ir kalbos politikos kontekste | 3

localized code, applicable in the system of regional varieties (Aliūkaitė, Merkytė-Švarcienė 2012: 172).

In the murky waters of different terms denoting the same or very similar things, or of undefined concepts, it is easy to drown out the essential features of a phenomenon, bringing secondary ones to the surface; to interpret the content of concepts in a biased way and adapt it to convenient ideologies⁴; and, when necessary, to equate the standard language with the normative language, while in other cases using the same term to refer only to a universal variety of language that everyone understands and uses.

This article asks whether linguistic terms describing the status of a language and the essential characteristics of its use, when incorporated into legal acts and other language policy documents, are clear and unambiguous, and whether they are understood in the same way by drafters of legal acts and language specialists. The article aims to discuss the system, dissemination, and usage patterns of terms used in legal acts and language policy documents and formed with the generic word language. Particular attention is given to the conception, functionality, and context of use of the term standard language. Definitions of this term provided in various sources (terminology dictionaries, the Terminology Bank of the Republic of Lithuania) are reviewed⁵, and its relations to other concepts describing language status and functions are discussed.

FEATURES AND DEFINITIONS OF THE CONCEPT STANDARD LANGUAGE

According to the explanation offered by Pranas Skardžius, who began using the term standard language in 1927⁶, two essential features of the concept of standard language can be distinguished:

1. The communicative, or universal-use, feature (“that is, it is a common means of communication among all Lithuanians, used orally and in writing for general cultural

⁴ Perhaps even the long-running, ideologically fueled debate between descriptivists and prescriptivists—whether “the standard spoken and written Lithuanian language is an ‘ideal language’ toward which all Lithuanians should strive” (Vaicekauskienė 2010: 166), or whether the ability to speak correctly is “a specific linguistic competence, specific linguistic capital” that, “like other forms of capital—financial, cultural, social—is unevenly distributed among different social groups” (Baločkaitė 2014)—could be resolved by a clear and unambiguous definition of what constitutes the content of the concept standard language and who should be required to observe language norms.

⁵ This article draws primarily on terminographic sources and legal acts; accordingly, it does not aim to present and assess the full range of definitions of standard language found in linguistic studies.

⁶ “As its structure and development show, the language now used universally by Lithuanians is in fact best called standard, or common. It is a common means of communication among all Lithuanians, a language used orally and in writing for general cultural and civilizational needs of life, which does not coincide with any one Lithuanian dialect <...>. This language, originating in people’s spoken language, is consciously cultivated and refined so as to be best suited to general use; it is a cultural language.” (Skardžius 1997: 635). This quotation is from the 1974 publication “Standard and Literary Language,” published in the journal Aidai (No. 8, pp. 345–350).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

DAIVA VAIŠNIENĖ. Bendrinės kalbos samprata Lietuvos Respublikos teisės aktuose ir kalbos politikos kontekste | 4

and the language used for the needs of civilization and life”⁷ distinguishes the standard language, as a variety of language, from dialects (“it does not coincide entirely with any one Lithuanian dialect”)⁸ and from all other language varieties.

2. The codificational, or correctness, feature (“a language originating in people’s spoken language, consciously cultivated and refined so that it is best suited to standard usage; that is, a cultural language”) emphasizes the normative character of the standard language.

P. Skardžius’s definition makes it difficult to say which of these features would be given priority if one had to choose the most important characteristic of the standard language⁹. On the other hand, it is unlikely that such a question could have arisen in the first decades of the twentieth century, when standard Lithuanian was only beginning to exist as a codifiable structure, while simultaneously being expanded, organized, and introduced. Although the Western Aukštaitian (Kaunas) dialect was chosen as its basis, describing the standard language in grammars and other normative works required rediscovering and defining the internal relationships among linguistic phenomena and filling gaps in the system¹⁰. Thus, clear rules and norms had to be established, specifying the differences between the standard language and other language varieties; the widespread dissemination of the standardized language also had to begin, first by enshrining its use in legal acts regulating education¹¹. Although de facto the standard language acquired its cultural form during the interwar period and its main domains of use emerged, the term itself had no legal basis and was not used in legal acts.

⁷ Petras Jonikas also emphasizes the feature of universality, saying that the standard language is “the language intended for the cultural and civilizational needs of the whole nation” (Jonikas 1972: 2).

⁸ It should be emphasized that this view did not at all set the standard language against dialects. A. Salys was instead indignant at the separation of the standard language from the living language of the people: the dialect should become a basis for linguistic thought and be connected with the teaching of the standard language, thereby enlivening the linguistic intuition of the educated classes and improving their command of written language (Salys 1979: 15–16).

⁹ We may agree that P. Skardžius considered it important to emphasize the commonality of language—as an aspect uniting the state (Smetonienė, Smetona, Valotka 2016: 6); nevertheless, he also stresses that the communicative purpose of language is inseparable from its quality, which helps people understand “how and what one should write or say if we want others to be able to understand us without difficulty.” (Skardžius 1997: 52). Cf. Peter Auer, who characterizes standard language through three complementary features: a) it is used by speakers from more than one linguistic region; b) it is regarded as a prestigious language variety (H-variety) and used for writing; c) it is an object of codification and elaboration (Auer 2005: 8).

¹⁰ According to A. Salys, “the task of creating a standard language here is to find or establish a balance: to create what is missing and discard what is unnecessary” (Salys 1979: 13).

¹¹ Taip siekta parengti visuomenę bendrinės kalbos priėmimui (plg. 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 nepakankamai taisyklinga kalba. Pašalinti šitoms mūsų švietimo [švietimo] ydoms Pradžios Mokslo Departamentas prašo visus pradedamųjų mokyklų mokytojus ir mokytojas kaip oficialiuose raštuose, taip mokymo reikalais tesekti tomis kalbos taisyklėmis ir rašyba, kurios yra išdėstytos P. Kriaušaičio ir Rygiškių Jono Lietuvos kalbos gramatikoje (Vilniuje, 1919 metai, Lietuvių Mokslo Daugijos [Draugijos] leidiny).“ (LVŽ 1919 8: 8).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

DAIVA VAIŠNIENĖ. Bendrinės kalbos samprata Lietuvos Respublikos teisės aktuose ir kalbos politikos kontekste | 5

During the Soviet period, following the Russian linguistic tradition, the term literary language was proposed and promoted, but this term never took root in Lithuania¹². Pranas Skardžius’s proposed term standard language began to be reintroduced into linguistic scholarship from the 1960s onward (Piročkinas 2011; Pupkis 2005: 43). The term’s general use was established gradually: in the Dictionary of Linguistic Terms published in 1990 (hereafter KTŽ), both terms are given as synonyms, although a hierarchical relationship between them is still discernible, with precedence given to the literary language: from the entry standard language, defined as a national literary language with written and spoken forms (KTŽ 1990: 37), a reference is given to the considerably more extensive description of the concept in the entry literary language. The latter states that a literary language that has become national and acquired a spoken form is often called standard language, and that some linguists use this term in all cases instead of the term literary language (KTŽ 1990: 119).

Since KTŽ remained for quite a long time the only systematic source on linguistic terminology, it most likely determined the definitions and dissemination of concepts used to meet the needs of the emerging language policy. It may be assumed that, by choosing the wording national language¹³ in the definitions of both terms, from among the two features of the standard language identified by P. Skardžius, the authors of KTŽ foreground precisely the language’s universality. The normative feature is stated more clearly only in the detailed definition of literary language: “an exemplary, standardized, standard language of a nation or people” (KTŽ 1990: 119).

It should be noted that the latter definition also uses the expression standard language, although it is not presented as a separate term; it is, however, directly related to the English equivalent of the standard (and also literary) language given in KTŽ, standard language. Another structural component of the concept of standard language could be normative language. In the dictionary, this expression is used in defining the norm (KTŽ 1990: 134)¹⁴.

In the Lithuanian Language Encyclopedia published in 1999, only the term standard language is given (literary language is described as a substitute from the period of Soviet occupation (LKE 1999: 386). The definition of the concept (“a more or less standardized language intended for the written works of the whole nation and for the needs of people’s public life and culture” (LKE 1999: 87)) returns to P.

¹² Termino kritiką žr. Pupkis 2005: 42–43.

¹³ KTŽ defines it as “the common language of a nation, one of the distinguishing features of that nation” (KTŽ 1991: 128).

¹⁴ “Normative language (including literary language) often allows certain variants (synonyms) and is not strict in every instance” (KTŽ 1990: 134). Incidentally, this formulation could also mean that the concepts normative language and literary language are not entirely identical.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

DAIVA VAIŠNIENĖ. Bendrinės kalbos samprata Lietuvos Respublikos teisės aktuose ir kalbos politikos kontekste | 6

The functional distinction of language used for Skardžius’s “general cultural and civilizational needs of life” is retained, while the normative component of the concept is described rather vaguely¹⁵.

Two definitions of standard language from a later period can be found in the Terminų bankas of the Republic of Lithuania: 1) a more general conception of standard language, provided by the field of education and science, which indicates that it is “a variety of language used universally, more or less standardized, distinguished by the highest prestige and the highest social status in the linguistic community, and used as the language of writing, public life, education, culture, mass media, literature, and the educated strata of society. <...> Standard language is taught in schools, and non-native speakers are taught it as a foreign language” (LTŽ 2012). The definition gives greater weight to the position that this variety of language is used universally, while the normative component of the concept, it seems, is not absolute, echoing a part of the definition provided in the Encyclopedia of the Lithuanian Language (i.e., “more or less standardized”); 2) in the field of language policy, the Terminų bankas gives the definition of standard Lithuanian proposed in the draft VVKĮ: “correct written or spoken Lithuanian, based on the norms of Lithuanian vocabulary, grammar, spelling, and punctuation, intended for the needs of public life.” The latter definition places greater emphasis on correctness and conformity to norms, while the scope of use is indicated more abstractly by the stated purpose of standard language, “for the needs of public life”¹⁶.

Thus, the duality of P. Skardžius’s proposed definition of standard language is retained in later sources, with greater emphasis placed on one or the other of the two features. Apparently to avoid this duality, the term standard language is not used at all in the Law on the State Language adopted in 1995; in other legal acts, the functions of a universally used and/or standardized variety of language are described by supplementing the phrases Lithuanian language and state language with references to correctness or conformity to norms, thus adding features characteristic of standard language to these concepts¹⁷.

LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE AND STATE LANGUAGE

The provision of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, “the state language is Lithuanian,” links these two concepts through a relationship of identity when language use is being discussed

¹⁵ Daugiau apie termino ir apibrėžties raidą žr. Smetonienė, Smetona, Valotka 2016: 7–8.

¹⁶ Aleksas Girdenis similarly described the essence of standard language: “Standard (literary) language is the language of a nation’s public life (writing, school, literature, and mass communication media)” (Girdenis 2000: 316). Aldonas Pupkis places greater emphasis on the functional domains: it is a language “used to meet the needs of communication, thought, and political, economic, and cultural life of the entire nation, and to express national identity and representation” (Pupkis 2005: 30).

¹⁷ In P. Skardžius’s view, standard language, with regard to its correctness, would more conveniently and precisely be called Lithuanian language, “which they [Lithuanians] use not only to communicate among themselves, but also to express their distinctive characteristics” (Skardžius 1997: 54, 113).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

DAIVA VAIŠNIENĖ. Bendrinės kalbos samprata Lietuvos Respublikos teisės aktuose ir kalbos politikos kontekste | 7

in public life in Lithuania. In the Law on the State Language, which establishes the status of the state language, the phrases state language and Lithuanian language themselves are most often used synonymously. Nevertheless, an overview of the legal acts regulating language use reveals signs of semantic differentiation between these terms. In legal acts, the phrase state language denotes the status of Lithuanian (cf. Article 14 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania), whereas the phrase Lithuanian language, when expanded with modifiers, is customarily used in provisions concerning the correctness and standardization of language. In other words, matters of universal use (status) are purposefully distinguished from codification and dissemination: the former concerns the status and use of the state language, while the latter concerns the subject taught in schools, the normative use of Lithuanian, and so on. ¹⁸ It is true that the relationship between the concepts state language and Lithuanian language is not discussed in greater detail in legal acts, so it must be acknowledged that the choice of one term or the other is more intuitive than based on any objective criteria.

The term state language (defined in the Terminų bankas of the Republic of Lithuania as the language of official and public communication within a country, whose distinctive status is established by state laws (LTŽ 2012)¹⁹) is predominant in the Law on the State Language. Lithuanian language is mentioned in only three articles, which address compliance with language norms and requirements for correct language: 1) “Article 16. The names of all enterprises, institutions, and organizations operating in the Republic of Lithuania shall be formed in accordance with the norms of the Lithuanian language <...>”; 2) “Article 19. The State shall foster the prestige of correct Lithuanian and create conditions for safeguarding language norms <...>”; 3) “Article 22. Lithuanian mass media (the press, television, radio, etc.) and all publishers of books and other publications must comply with the norms of correct Lithuanian.” The wording of Article 21 stands out: it sets language-proficiency requirements for employees in education, public administration, and other fields, and combines correctness requirements with a reference to status: “requirements for proficiency in correct state language shall be included in the attestation regulations for civil servants, teachers, and employees of mass media and publishing <...>.”

¹⁸ This distribution of term usage shows that the arguments of Irena Smetonienė, Antanas Smetona, and Audrius Valotka for abandoning the term state language (on the grounds that it was used in reference to schools where Lithuanian was taught as a state language, and that after curricula were unified and a single examination introduced the term became unnecessary and remained only in the title of the Law on the State Language (Smetonienė, Smetona, Valotka 2016: 11)) are unfounded. It should be noted that the term is also used in other legal acts (first and foremost, the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania); moreover, it would be difficult to describe the function of the language used for the needs of public administration (that is, the state) without this term.

¹⁹ The Encyclopedia of the Lithuanian Language offers a less generalized definition: “a language officially used in the public life of the state, in schools, the press and other media, state institutions, and official correspondence” (LKE 1999: 683).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

DAIVA VAIŠNIENĖ. Bendrinės kalbos samprata Lietuvos Respublikos teisės aktuose ir kalbos politikos kontekste | 8

In other laws, a term denoting language status is also most commonly used, for example, in provisions of the Law on Education of the Republic of Lithuania²⁰ relating to educational objectives or the right to receive an education in the state language. In this law, the Lithuanian language is mentioned as a subject taught in educational institutions in Lithuania and abroad (“Article 25. Lithuanian Education and the Opportunity to Learn the Lithuanian Language”), while the phrase correct Lithuanian is used in discussing matters of linguistic correctness and normativity: “Article 49. <...> 2. A teacher must: <...> 2) foster pupils’ strong moral, civic, national, and patriotic values and respect for their parents and their own cultural identity; ensure the development of pupils’ personal capacities; and convey the educational content understandably and clearly, in correct Lithuanian, where legal acts stipulate that the relevant educational content is to be conveyed in Lithuanian.”

The state-language status aspect is emphasized in the Law on Consumer Rights Protection (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 concerns penalties for failing to comply with resolutions of the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language on matters of state-language use and correctness, and with instructions issued by officials of the State Language Inspectorate concerning 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 entered in the Lithuanian language.” Article 9 of the Law on the Civil Service, which sets out the requirements for admission to civil-service positions, stipulates that a person appointed to a civil-service position must “know the state Lithuanian language”; this construction may be regarded as redundant, since Lithuanian is the only state language.²¹

It is interesting to compare the tendencies and patterns in the choice of terms—those denoting language status, functions, and the like—that are characteristic of the principal legal acts related to language use in other countries, especially those with a similar history of language policy and social development.

²⁰ The Law on Education also uses the term mother tongue, generally used when referring to people for whom the state language is not their mother tongue. In some cases, this distinction between the state language and the mother tongue (for example, Article 30 provides for the right to study in the state language and the mother tongue) is unclear and illogical, since for many citizens the state language is precisely their mother tongue.

²¹ In implementing legal acts—government resolutions and orders issued by ministers and heads of institutions—the choice of terms most often follows the tendencies discussed above. The state language is generally specified in provisions concerning language proficiency and use requirements (e.g., Government of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 553 of 19 May 2010, “On Approving the Description of the Procedure for Examining Complaints Received by the Railway Transport Market Regulator”; and Order No. EV-77 of 23 June 2017 of the Chief State Labour Inspector of the Republic of Lithuania, “On Approving the Description of the Procedure for Organizing and Conducting the Testing of Knowledge in Occupational Safety and Health at the State Labour Inspectorate”), whereas the Lithuanian language is more often mentioned as a language of instruction or translation.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

DAIVA VAIŠNIENĖ. Bendrinės kalbos samprata Lietuvos Respublikos teisės aktuose ir kalbos politikos kontekste | 9

Latvijos Respublikos valstybinės kalbos įstatyme (1999) vyrauja terminas valstybės (valstybinė) kalba (valsts valoda). Žodžių junginys latvių kalba (latviešu valoda) vartojamas rečiau – nusakant šios kalbos valstybinį statusą (1 str.), kalbant apie konkrečius kalbos vartosenos, taisyklingumo reikalavimus (23 str.) ar norminimo dalykus (pvz., asmenvardžių rašybą 19 str.) bei mokslo tyrimus (24 str.). Dažniau valstybinė kalba minima Švietimo, Aukštųjų mokyklų, Imigracijos įstatymuose, o, pavyzdžiui, Pilietybės įstatyme kalbama tik apie latvių kalbą, išskyrus piliečio priesaikos tekstą, kuriame pasižadama stiprinti latvių kaip valstybinę kalbą.

Estijos Respublikos kalbos įstatyme (2011) terminas valstybės kalba (riigikeel) pasirodo tik vieną kartą, nusakant estų kalbos statusą. Kituose straipsniuose kalbama tiesiog apie estų kalbos (eesti keel) vartojimo nuostatas. Regis, Estija pratęsia Skandinavijos valstybių, kurių nacionalinės kalbos neturi valstybinių kalbų statuso, tradiciją vartoti patį kalbos pavadinimą be papildomų statuso nuorodų, o prireikus nusakyti esmines administracines ar kitokias kalbos funkcijas. Pavyzdžiui, Suomijos Respublikos kalbos įstatyme (2003) vartojamas terminas, kurį tiksliausiai atitiktų terminas nacionalinė kalba (suomių kansalliskieli / švedų nationalspråk). Švedijos Karalystės kalbos įstatyme (2009) švedų kalba minima kaip pagrindinė kalba (huvudspråk), taip pat nurodoma, kad ji oficialioji Europos Sąjungos kalba (officiellt språk).

Slovėnijos Respublikos įstatyme dėl viešojo slovėnų kalbos vartojimo (2004) vartojamas oficialiosios kalbos (uradni jezik) terminas, tokį pat statusą kai kuriose savivaldybėse turi mažumų kalbos – italų ir vengrų. Lenkų kalbos įstatyme taip pat minima tik lenkų kalba (język polski²² (dar vartojamas terminas administracinė kalba (język urzędowy), nurodant kalbos vartojimo sritį). Įstatyme dėl valstybinės Slovakijos Respublikos kalbos (1995) nuosekliai vartojamas terminas valstybinė kalba (štátny jazyk). Beje, nors ir tiesiogiai nevartojamas bendrinės ar koks panašios reikšmės terminas, šio įstatymo vienuoliktasis straipsnis nurodo, kad daugumoje valstybinės kalbos vartojimo sričių valstybinė kalba turėtų būti suprantama kaip kodifikuota, taigi jai galioja taisyklingumo kriterijai.

The cases discussed suggest that the terms used in legal acts and lawmakers’ choices to emphasize or not emphasize the importance of language status reflect not only legal but also political and social attitudes concerning the establishment and entrenchment of language status in society, as well as traditions of language planning and regulation. Thus, if language use

²² The term for the state language, język państwowy, was used in a decree adopted in 1945 regulating language use in state and local government institutions (see Dekret z dnia 30 listopada 1945 r. o języku państwowym i języku urzędowania rządowych i samorządowych władz administracyjnych).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204

DAIVA VAIŠNIENĖ. Bendrinės kalbos samprata Lietuvos Respublikos teisės aktuose ir kalbos politikos kontekste | 10

The tradition of using the language for state purposes is longer, and linguistic identity more stable; accordingly, legislation more often refers to the name of the language itself rather than emphasizing its official status. Apparently, this is the principal reason why the laws of Lithuania (as well as Latvia and Slovakia) tend to use the status-emphasizing term official language rather than the neutral, nominative designation of the language²³. Although these concepts largely overlap in scope, analysis of the context nevertheless reveals a certain semantic distinction: the element of universal use and legal relations is more often expressed by the term official language, whereas requirements of correctness or the subject taught are described by the concept Lithuanian language. In describing the relationship between the standard and written (i.e., official, used in documents) language, P. Skardžius proposed leaving the official language aside, arguing that in Lithuania it was understood to serve every other purpose (Skardžius 1997: 35). Thus, it is precisely the phrase Lithuanian language (most often qualified and expanded, for example, as correct Lithuanian) that is customarily used in legislation to describe the codified language.

CORRECT LITHUANIAN AND THE STANDARD LANGUAGE

The Law on the State Language does not use the term standard language at all, thereby also avoiding the ambivalence of this concept arising from the interaction of the features discussed above—the communicative and the codificational. This is probably why other legal acts, when referring to the norm-governed language, most often choose the clearer and more specific designation correct Lithuanian, which more accurately corresponds to the codificational feature of the concept of the standard language. As mentioned in the previous section, the phrase correct (Lithuanian) language is used in the Law on the State Language and the Law on Education²⁴.

Another term indicating the requirement to use codified language, standard-language norms, is used in the Law on the Fundamentals of Legislation (“Article 14. 1. Draft legal acts shall be prepared in accordance with the norms of standard Lithuanian and legal terminology”), the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania (“Article 2.40. Formation of the name of a legal entity. <...> 2. The name of a legal entity must be formed in accordance with the norms of standard Lithuanian and may not consist solely of a generic word (or words) directly indicating the type of goods or services involved in its activities, or solely of a place name, or solely of another word that does not have a distinguishing

²³ In 1993, during consideration of the draft Law on the State Language, Aleksandras Vanagas proposed that the law could simply be called the Law on the Lithuanian Language (minutes No. 21 of the meeting of the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language under the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, held on 3 June 1993).

²⁴ Other legal acts may also specify special language requirements applicable to particular domains of use. For example, an order of the Minister of Education and Science of the Republic of Lithuania of 8 March 2017, No. V–149, “On the Approval of the Regulations for Doctoral Studies in Science,” provides that “The text of the dissertation shall be written in Lithuanian or, if the doctoral committee so approves, in another language. <...> The dissertation must be written in correct language.”

BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

DAIVA VAIŠNIENĖ. Bendrinės kalbos samprata Lietuvos Respublikos teisės aktuose ir kalbos politikos kontekste | 11

distinguishing feature”). The wording of this legal act was transferred to the Regulations of the Register of Legal Entities (“761. Having received the documents specified in point 76 of these Regulations, the Register administrator shall, in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Register Administration Rules, request advice from the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language on whether the name of the legal entity complies with the norms of standard Lithuanian”).

The term standard language is also used relatively rarely in implementing language-policy documents. The Guidelines for State Language Policy for 2003–2008 (approved by Resolution No. IX-1595 of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania of 3 June 2003) speak mainly about the state status of the language, while the standard language is mentioned in describing the relationship between the codified language variety and dialects, that is, in distinguishing the feature of universal usage. It is true that the term standard language occurs more frequently in resolutions of the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language, which deal directly with language standardization, for example, “On Lithuanian Spelling and Punctuation” (approved by Resolution No. 60 of 19 June 1997) and “On the Name of the Common Currency of the European Union in Lithuanian” (approved by Resolution No. N-10 (99) of 28 October 2004).

SUMMARY

In 2015, when considering proposals submitted for the draft Law on the State Language, the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language recommended that the concept general language²⁵ not be defined in the law itself, but that the more specific term, more suitable for a legal act and directly related to language codification, general-language norm be retained. In other words, the problem of defining and delimiting the term general language would continue to be a subject of academic deliberation on the interaction and normativity of language varieties, especially since discussions are again heating up over the relationship between the concepts of standard and general language, whether codified language should be distinguished from a variety of language in general use, and so on.²⁶

While scholarly deliberations continue, other terms or descriptive word combinations have to be used in legal acts. The selection of terms containing the generic word language and their distribution can be described in terms of the relationship between concepts (see Gaivenis 2015: 212).

²⁵ The arguments put forward by the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language were that “at the suggestion of the Seimas Legal Department, Article 18, paragraph 3, in which this concept is mentioned, should be moved to the preamble, where it would be more appropriate to use a more abstract concept—standardized language” (although, perhaps, general language is in fact broader in meaning than standardized (codified) language).

²⁶ For example, was “general language also a certain period in its [language’s] development, but it, as in other countries, has come to an end” (Smetonienė, Smetona, Valotka 2016: 8), and could the opposition between correctness and usage be resolved by establishing that “only standard language is being standardized. <...> It is an ideal to be pursued, which is unlikely ever to be attained” (Smetona 2014).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

DAIVA VAIŠNIENĖ. Bendrinės kalbos samprata Lietuvos Respublikos teisės aktuose ir kalbos politikos kontekste | 12

1. The concepts Lithuanian language and state language are used as equivalents (identical), but contextual differences should be taken into account: in legal acts, state language most often indicates the status of Lithuanian, whereas Lithuanian language is generally used in provisions concerning language teaching or dissemination.

2. The relationship between the concepts Lithuanian language and general language can be described as one of inclusion: general language is one of the varieties of Lithuanian. Depending on which aspect—communicative or codificational—is emphasized, the concept of general language can be understood more broadly or more narrowly.

3. If the communicative function of language (universal use and communication) is emphasized, the relationship between general language and correct Lithuanian, grounded in codification, is the most difficult to define. Understanding this relationship is a particularly important part of public education and communication, since understandings of general language vary not only in linguistic scholarship. For example, in the regions, younger people—especially those who are more educated and do not identify themselves with a dialect—call a variety of language that does not reflect the principal local dialect features general language. It may be assumed that this view is also shaped by the strict opposition general language: dialect established through Lithuanian-language education. In other words, speakers of this kind consider a variety of language that differs from the traditional dialect to be general language, a means of universal communication. It is doubtful whether the scientific term regiolect, which denotes such varieties, would be understood and accepted by the public.

The dualism of the term general language may hinder communication and acceptance of provisions defining the use of normative language. Possible solutions are: 1) to adopt the proposed term standard language (Smetonienė, Smetona, Valotka 2016); 2) to use descriptive word combinations or adapt for this purpose the less commonly used concept normative language (language norm).

LITERATŪRA

A l i ū k a i t ė D. 2011: Jaunųjų žemaičių raiškos idealai: sąmoningosios nuostatos. – Respectus Philologicus 20 (25), 209–220.

A l i ū k a i t ė D., V a l i k o n ė J. 2012: Bendrinės kalbos ir tarmės domenai. – Verbum 3, 7–20.

A l i ū k a i t ė D., M e r k y t ė-Š v a r c i e n ė E. 2012: Bendrinės kalbos regionai jaunųjų lietuvių kalbos bendruomenės narių požiūriu: kompetencija ir vaizdiniai. – Kalbos kultūra 85, 155–177.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204

DAIVA VAIŠNIENĖ. Bendrinės kalbos samprata Lietuvos Respublikos teisės aktuose ir kalbos politikos kontekste | 13

Auer P. 2005: Europe’s sociolinguistic unity, or: A typology of European dialect/standard constellations. – Perspectives on Variation – Sociolinguistic, Historical, Comparative. Sudarė Nicole Delbecque, Johan van der Auwera, Dirk Geeraerts, 7–42.

Baločkaitė R. 2014: Quo vadis, lietuvių kalba? – Šiaurės Atėnai. Prieiga internete: http://www.satenai.lt/2014/09/29/quo-vadis-lietuviu-kalba/ (žiūrėta 2015 09 01).

Cidz ikaitė

D. 2002: Anglų kalbos terminai common language, national language, literary language, King’s language, standard language ir jų lietuviški atitikmenys. – Archivum Lithuanicum 4, 273–282.

Daujotytė V. 2013: Poezijos ištarmės. – bernardinai.lt. Prieiga internete: http://www.bernardinai.lt/straipsnis/2013-06-19-viktorija-daujotyte-poezijos-istarmes/103001 (žiūrėta 2017 05 24).

Girdenis A. 2000: Kalbotyros darbai, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

Jonikas P. 1972: Lietuvių bendrinės rašomosios kalbos kūrimasis antrojoje XIX a. pusėje = The formation of written standard Lithuanian in the second half of the nineteenth century, Chicago, Ill.: Pedagoginis lituanistikos institutas.

LVŽ 1919: Laikinosios Vyriausybės žinios, 1919 m. liepos 1 d., Nr. 8. Prieiga internete: http://www.epaveldas.lt/object/recordDescription/LNB/C10000143886 (žiūrėta 2015 10 19).

Pupkis A. 2005: Kalbos kultūros studijos, Vilnius: Gimtas isn žodis.

Piročkinas A. Kas yra bendrinė kalba? – Lietuvos aidas, 2011 m. kovo 15 d. Prieiga internete: http://aidas.lt/lt/tautos-mokykla/article/1006-03-15-kas-yra-bendrine-kalba (žiūrėta 2015 10 23).

Salys A. 1979: Raštai I. Bendrinė kalba, Roma: Lietuvių katalikų mokslo akademija.

Skardžius P. 1997: Bendrinė ir literatūrinė kalba. – Rinktiniai raštai 2, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

Smetona A. 2014: Kalba nėra vyžota vertybė. – Universiteto žurnalistas, 2015 m. gegužės 7 d. Prieiga internete: http://www.universitetozurnalistas.kf.vu.lt/2015/05/kalba-nera-vyzota-vertybe/ (žiūrėta 2015 09 01).

Smetonienė I. 2014: Kalbos vieta valstybių politikoje: standartinių kalbų susikūrimas. – Parlamento studijos 16. Prieiga internete: http://www.parlamentostudijos.lt/Nr16/16_kalba_2.htm (žiūrėta 2015 10 29).

Smetonienė I., Smetona A., Valotka A. 2016: Dėl standartinės kalbos termino. – Lietuvių kalba 10, 1–14. Prieiga internete:

BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

DAIVA VAIŠNIENĖ. Bendrinės kalbos samprata Lietuvos Respublikos teisės aktuose ir kalbos politikos kontekste | 14

http://www.lietuviukalba.lt/index.php/lietuviu-kalba/article/view/217 (žiūrėta 2015 09 01).

T u m ė n a s S. 2007: Kalba ir tarmė: dvikalbystė ar tik lingvistinis dž iazas? – Acta humanitarica universitatis Saulensis 3, 142–153.

V a i c e k a u s k i e n ė L. Lietuvių kalbos norminimo šimtmetis. Daug ideologijų ir šiek tiek vartosenos. – Naujasis židinys–Aidai 5–6, 165–172.

V a i c e k a u s k i e n ė L., S a u s v e r d e E. 2012: Lietuvos tarmių rezervatas: socialiniai ir geografiniai tarmės mobilumo ribojimai tiesioginių tyrimų duomenimis. – Taikomoji kalbotyra (1). Prieiga internete: http://taikomojiikalbotyra.lt.azalija.serveriai.lt/1t/2012/12/lietuvos-tarmiu-rezervatas-socialiniai-ir-geografiniai-tarmes-mobilumo-ribojimai-tiesioginiu-tyrimu-duomenimis (žiūrėta 2017 05 24).

V a l o t k a A. 2015: Kalbos politikos ir kalbos planavimo terminai. – Parlamento studijos 18, 84–101.

ŠALTINIAI

Augstskolu likums (Latvijos Respublikos aukštųjų mokyklų įstatymas). Prieiga internete: http://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=37967 (žiūrėta 2015 10 29).

Dekret z dnia 30 listopada 1945 r. o języku państwowym i języku urzędowania rządowych i samorządowych władz administracyjnych (Krašto liaudies tarybos prezidiumo 1945 m. lapkričio 30 d. dekretas dėl valstybės ir savivaldybių administracinių valdžių valstybinės ir administravimo kalbos. Prieiga internete: http://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/download.xsp/WDU19450570324/T/D19450324L.pdf (žiūrėta 2015 10 29).

Imigrācijas likums (Latvijos Respublikos imigracijos įstatymas). Prieiga internete: http://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=68522 (žiūrėta 2015 10 29).

Izglītības likums (Latvijos Respublikos švietimo įstatymas). Prieiga internete: http://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=50759 (žiūrėta 2015 10 29).

Keeleseadus (Estijos Respublikos kalbos įstatymas). Prieiga internete: https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/123032015257 (žiūrėta 2015 10 29).

Kielilaki (Suomijos Respublikos kalbos įstatymas). Prieiga internete: http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/2003/20030423 (žiūrėta 2015 10 29).

KTŽ 1990: Kalbotyros terminų žodynas. Sudarė Kazimieras Gaivenis, Stasys Keinys, redagavo Kazys Morkūnas, Kaunas: Šviesa.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

DAIVA VAIŠNIENĖ. Bendrinės kalbos samprata Lietuvos Respublikos teisės aktuose ir kalbos politikos kontekste | 15

Lietuvos Respublikos administracinių nusižengimų kodekso patvirtinimo, įsigaliojimo ir įgyvendinimo tvarkos įstatymas. Prieiga internete: https://www.e-tar.lt/portal/lt/legalAct/4ebe66c0262311e5bf92d6af3f6a2e8b/MBSfYstJwG (žiūrėta 2017 06 01).

Lietuvos Respublikos švietimo ir mokslo ministro 2017 m. kovo 8 d. įsakymas Nr. V-149 „Dėl mokslo doktorantūros nuostatų patvirtinimo. Prieiga internete: https://www.e-tar.lt/portal/lt/legalAct/3abcb2a0049611e79ba1ee3112ade9bc (žiūrėta 2017 06 26).

Lietuvos Respublikos švietimo įstatymas. Prieiga internete: http://www3.lrs.lt/pls/inter2/dokpaieska.showdoc_l?p_id=458774 (žiūrėta 2015 12 03).

Lietuvos Respublikos teisėkūros pagrindų įstatymas. Prieiga internete: https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAP/TAIS.429713?positionInSearchResults=6&searchModelUUID=ea851780-69e9-43ec-89a9-286ed25b8520 (žiūrėta 2017 06 26).

Lietuvos Respublikos terminų bankas. Prieiga internete: http://terminai.vlkk.lt/pls/tb/tb.search (žiūrėta 2015 12 03).

Lietuvos Respublikos valstybinės kalbos įstatymas. Prieiga internete: https://www.e-tar.lt/portal/lt/legalAct/TAR.0B0253BB424C/TAIS_170492 (žiūrėta 2015 12 03).

Lietuvos Respublikos valstybinės kalbos konstitucinio įstatymo projektas. Prieiga internete: http://www3.lrs.lt/pls/inter/dokpaieska.showdoc_l?p_id=448209&p_tr2=2 (žiūrėta 2015 12 03).

Lietuvos Respublikos vartotojų teisių apsaugos įstatymas. Prieiga internete: https://www.e-tar.lt/portal/lt/legalAct/TAR.D790096B17EE/dMEBWudMWk (žiūrėta 2015 12 03).

Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybės 2010 m. gegužės 19 d. nutarimas Nr. 553 „Dėl geležinkelių transporto rinkos reguliuotojo gautų skundų nagrinėjimo tvarkos aprašo patvirtinimo“. Prieiga internete: https://www.e-tar.lt/portal/lt/legalAct/TAR.35260B69187F/usrRRrZiNO (žiūrėta 2017 06 26).

Lietuvos Respublikos vyriausiojo valstybinio darbo inspektoriaus 2017 m. birželio 23 d. įsakymas Nr. EV-77 „Dėl žinių darbuotojų saugos ir sveikatos klausimais tikrinimo valstybinėje darbo inspekcijoje organizavimo ir vykdymo tvarkos aprašo patvirtinimo“. Prieiga internete: https://www.e-tar.lt/portal/lt/legalAct/f4e2658057e311e7846ef01bfffb9b64 (žiūrėta 2017 06 26).

Lietuvos vyriausiojo administracinio teismo 2011 m. gruodžio 23 d. nutarimas (byla N-62-2354-11) „Dėl Vilniaus apygardos administracinio teismo 2010 m. spalio 25 d. nutarties

BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

DAIVA VAIŠNIENĖ. Bendrinės kalbos samprata Lietuvos Respublikos teisės aktuose ir kalbos politikos kontekste | 16

D. G. administracinio teisės pažeidimo byloje“. Prieiga internete: http://eteismai.lt/byla/12488001392033/N-62-2354-11 (žiūrėta 2017 05 24).

Lietuvos Respublikos vyriausiojo valstybinio darbo inspektoriaus 2017 m. birželio 23 d. įsakymas Nr. EV-77 „Dėl žinių darbuotojų saugos ir sveikatos klausimais tikrinimo valstybinėje darbo inspekcijoje organizavimo ir vykdymo tvarkos aprašo patvirtinimo“. Prieiga internete: https://www.e-tar.lt/portal/lt/legalAct/f4e2658057e311e7846ef01bffb9b64 (žiūrėta 2015 12 03).

Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybės 2003 m. lapkričio 12 d. nutarimas Nr. 1407 „Dėl Juridinių asmenų registro nuostatų patvirtinimo“. Prieiga internete: https://www.e-tar.lt/portal/lt/legalAct/TAR.9E302593CE80/MwWFezpYlh (žiūrėta 2015 12 03).

Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybės 2010 m. gegužės 19 d. nutarimas Nr. 553 „Dėl geležinkelių transporto rinkos reguliuotojo gautų skundų nagrinėjimo tvarkos aprašo patvirtinimo“. Prieiga internete: https://www.e-tar.lt/portal/lt/legalAct/TAR.35260B69187F/usrRRrZiNO (žiūrėta 2015 12 03).

LKE 2008: Lietuvių kalbos enciklopedija. Sudarė Kazys Morkūnas, redagavo Vytautas Ambrazas. 2-as patiksl. ir papild. leidimas, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

LTŽ 2012: Ramonienė M., Brazauskienė J., Burneikaitė N., Daugmaudytė J., Kontutytė E., Pribušauskaitė J. 2012: Lingvodidaktikos terminų žodynas, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla.

Pilsonības likums (Latvijos Respublikos pilietybės įstatymas). Prieiga internete: http://likumi.lv/ta/id/57512-pilsonibas-likums (žiūrėta 2015 10 29).

Språklag (Švedijos Karalystės kalbos įstatymas). Prieiga internete: https://lagen.nu/2009:600 (žiūrėta 2015 10 29).

Valstybinės kalbos politikos 2003–2008 m. gairės (patvirtinta Lietuvos Respublikos Seimo 2003 m. birželio 3 d. nutarimu Nr. IX-1595). Prieiga internete: http://www.vlkk.lt/kalbos-politika/lietuvos-kalbos-politikos-gaires/valstybines-kalbos-politikos-2003–2008-m-gaires (žiūrėta 2015 11 02).

Valstybinės lietuvių kalbos komisijos prie Lietuvos Respublikos Seimo 1997 m. birželio 19 d. nutarimas Nr. 60 „Dėl lietuvių kalbos rašybos ir skyrybos“. Prieiga internete: https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/TAIS.41265 (žiūrėta 2017 06 26).

Valstybinės lietuvių kalbos komisijos 2004 m. spalio 28 d. nutarimas Nr. N-10(99) „Dėl Europos Sąjungos bendrosios valiutos pavadinimo lietuvių kalboje“. Prieiga internete:

BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

DAIVA VAIŠNIENĖ. Bendrinės kalbos samprata Lietuvos Respublikos teisės aktuose ir kalbos politikos kontekste | 17

http://www.vlkk.lt/vlkk-nutarimai/nutarimai/del-europos-sajungos-bendrosios-valiu tos-pavadinimo-lietuviu-kalboje (žiūrėta 2017 06 26).

Valsts valodas likums (Latvijas Republikas valstybinės kalbos įstatymas). Prieiga internete: http://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=14740 (žiūrėta 2015 10 29).

Ustawa z dnia 7 października 1999 r. o języku polskim (1999 m. spalio 7 d. įstatymas dėl lenkų kalbos). Prieiga internete: http://isap.sejm.gov.pl/DetailsServlet?id=WDU19990900999 (žiūrėta 2015 11 02).

Zákon Národnej rady Slovenskej republiky o štátnom jazyku Slovenskej republiky (Slovakų Respublikos Nacionalinės Rados įstatymas dėl Slovakų Respublikos valstybinės kalbos). Prieiga internete: http://www.zakonypreludi.sk/zz/1995-270 (žiūrėta 2015 10 29).

Zakon o javni rabi slovenščine (ZJRS) (Slovėnijos Respublikos įstatymas dėl viešo slovėnų kalbos vartojimo). Prieiga internete: http://www.uradni-list.si/1/objava.jsp?urlurid=20043841 (žiūrėta 2015 10 29).

Gauta 2017 10 04

Priimta 2017 12 08

DAIVA VAIŠNIENĖ

Lietuvos edukologijos universitetas

Lietuvių kalbotyros ir komunikacijos katedra

T. Ševčenkos g. 31, LT-03111 Vilnius

[email protected]

BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

DAIVA VAIŠNIENĖ. Bendrinės kalbos samprata Lietuvos Respublikos teisės aktuose ir kalbos politikos kontekste | 18

THE CONCEPT OF STANDARD LANGUAGE IN THE LEGISLATION OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA AND IN THE CONTEXT OF LANGUAGE POLICY

Summary

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 language-policy 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 codification, or correctness, feature emphasises the prescriptive nature of standard language (vs. dialects, jargon, etc.). The binarity of Skardžius’ definition, only emphasising one of the features a bit more, is also preserved in later sources: glossaries, encyclopedias. The Law on State Language does not include the standard language term at all, therefore its ambivalence is avoided. Other 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

BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

DAIVA VAIŠNIENĖ. Bendrinės kalbos samprata Lietuvos Respublikos teisės aktuose ir kalbos politikos kontekste | 19

term standartinė kalba, 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.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204