Bendrinės kalbos normintojai ir besikurianti skaitmeninio modernizmo visuomenė

98 Languages and Culture | 83 Language RITA MILIŪNAITĖ lietuvių kalbos institutas In Lithuania, a strong tradition of normative work and supervision of the general language has developed: codification works are prepared and published, normative databases are created, written language texts are edited, language reviews of various publications are published. developed a large number of norm-setters, who actively contributed and contribute to the establishment, implementation and functioning of common language norms. to a large extent this was and is still a counterbalance to the influence of other languages – first Slavic, now English. therefore, the standardization of the common language in Lithuania is a prominent and perhaps the most publicly visible area of linguistics. therefore, linguists for people – first of all those who care about the correctness of language. Over time, the role of norm-setters in society, the problems they face and their relationship with common language users have changed. but the standard-setters' working methods are probably changing the least. This is one of the reasons why the recently liberated society does not spare the linguists negative words about the current language policy and specific normative action*. 1) the existence of a closed sect of linguists who make abnormal decisions; 2) Linguists complicate the life of society with constant prohibitions, hang too much and, instead of pursuing only language research, restrict freedom of expression. in general * the article was written before the controversy about the meaning and methods of language standardization, which began in early 2011. (Author’s note when reading the proofreading of the article – R. M.) r. miliūnaitė. common language norm-setters and the emerging society of digital modernity 99 publicly expressed remarks about the correctness of language can be crushed to rubble at any time and by anyone1. part of society is already quite different and lives in a different world than a couple of decades ago. There is a so-called paradigm shift in various systems of belief. Current globalization, internetization and the rapid development of new information technologies, as well as various, often extreme ideologies (feminism, political correctness, genderism2, anti-sexism, etc.) actively influence the use of language and pose new challenges for language norm-setters. It is therefore not surprising that traditional regulatory measures are increasingly not meeting the needs of society. On the other hand, as studies show, there is both a need for a standard and dissatisfaction in society when working in Lithuanian. People are willing to discuss language issues, but only criticize the ways in which language norm-setters introduce or change norms. this situation encourages a closer look at the standards, to examine their work problems from the inside, especially since such studies are hardly available. The article examines, in the light of the changes in the current society related to the internetization processes, where the regulators should direct their activities in order to make the results of their work more acceptable to the public. 1. general Language normers. authorities and subjects There are various schemes and models of active social forces that influence the normative process in linguistic literature. 1 One of the typical recent examples is the reaction of internet commentators to the complaint of a sports viewer, named rimvydas Ž., to the State Lithuanian Language Commission about the sports commentator of tV3 television, who broadcast the World Basketball Championship match from Turkey, roberto Petrauskas, who incorrectly used the prepositional verb nukriūti instead of parkriūti (the preposition clearly distinguishes meanings). See www.delfi.lt: <http://sportas.delfi.lt/wbc2010/ krepsinio-aistruolis-apskunde-netaisyklingai-kalbanti-komentatoriu.d?id=2010-09-10 id=36165731> (accessed 2010 09 06, 1242 comments); www.balsas.lt: <http://www.balsas.lt/naujiena/500696/ kalbos-komisija-sulauke-skundo-del-netaisyklingos-krepsinio-kommentatoriaus-kalbos> (žiūrėta 2010 09 06, 9 komentarai). When the fact of the complaint was published on the Internet news portals, the authors of their comments, instead of acknowledging that the commentator should correct himself, attacked the author of the article with a huge stream, how he dared to hang around about such trivial things. Of course, the basketball cult in Lithuania is not comparatively stronger than respect for language, but those comments clearly showed how much intolerance for language corrections has accumulated at least part of the public, actively expressing itself in the Internet space. 2 on the connections between genderism and language changes, see Patackas, Žarskus 2010. 100 Language Culture | 83 The concept of norm by the Finnish philosopher Georg Henrik von Wright (Wright 1963), which distinguishes norm authorities and norm subjects3. This distinction is important in terms of the relationship between norm-setters and society. The authority of norms – the actor who provides prescription, i.e. gives the norm normative power. normative power is addressed to the subjects of norms, to whom authority directs, allows or forbids something to do. In the theoretical literature on language planning it is accepted to divide language planners, i.e. active forces consciously affecting language development, into four groups (see Haarmann 1990: 120–121; baldauf 2006: 151–154): • official political level – decisions of the country’s government, • institutional level – state institutions (science, education, etc.), • level of social structures – various organizations (associations) and groups, • level of individuals – individual personalities. One of the notable changes in the last hundred years of the general development of the Lithuanian language and its standardization was the change in the concept of the standardizers and their role in society: from the authoritative personality, later – the organized collective, to the state institutions of language management and standardization. The normative work itself at the dawn of the common Lithuanian language, in East Prussia in the 15th–16th centuries, as well as in the times of Dawn and Bell, was collective (see Pupkis 2010: 13). and at the very end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, jonas jablonskis, as an authoritative figure who laid the foundations of the common Lithuanian language norms, stood out most clearly among the enlightened – thus the individuals’ levelling out (Pupkis 1995: 2): Lithuania, without having its traditional upper class (until the beginning of the 20th century it was essentially either bent or shriveled), had not developed such a prestigious language characteristic of other regions. it is true, that for at least a couple of decades the standard of prestigious language has been jablonski and his writings, but even that mainly only for language normists and language teachers, and not for the whole society – the latter took the language of newspapers and books, which is far from exemplary, as the standard of language. After the death of J. Jablonski (1930) began the period of organized norming collective. In pre-war Lithuania, the Lithuanian Language Society was active, whose members (Pranas skardžius, antanas salys, Petras jonikas, 3 also see ammon 2004: 277; takahashi 2004: 173–174 – about norms propagators, profiters from norms, norms villains, norms victims, etc. r. miliūnaitė. 101 Leonardas Dabrauskas and others) discussed the theoretical basis of standardization of common language and worked on practical standardization work (see miliūnaitė 1991: 7–21). so moved to the next level. In Soviet times, the normative work was carried out by the then Lithuanian Language and Literature Institute, the higher education departments, and the Lithuanian Language Commission at the Academy of Sciences established in the 1960s. Although the work was already collective, there were also prominent authoritative personalities whose influence on society was largely determined by the media: Kazys Ulvydas, Juozas Pikčilingis and others. After the restoration of independence, the Language Commission acquired the status of a state commission, and at the same time a state language supervision body – the State Language Inspectorate – was established. so now in Lithuania the greatest weight of normative work falls on the level of institutions, and individual authorities that can have a strong impact on society have disappeared. but the issue of authority is not that simple. Through the attitude to authorities, symbolic – mainly to J. Jablonskis – the greater or lesser contradiction between the views of the language specialists themselves is revealed (Pupkis 1995: 3): unfortunately, today the authority of Jablonskis in society has completely faded, in the works of normers Jablonskis is referred to too rarely and often only in those cases when the authors’ opinions coincide with the statements of the great linguist. In other cases, it is easy to disregard the opinion of the greatest norm-setter of the common language and to try to rely on not always clear, universally unconsidered criteria. The norming tradition itself is forgotten: from the Jablonski – through the Balchik, Skardzhi, Sali, Ionik – to the present day. The conflict between the supporters of J. Jablonski’s ideas and the ideas of the post-Jablonski generation has already been described by Bronys Savkynas as a dispute between “folkists” and “modernists” (discussion 2005): we cannot now return to such a common Lithuanian language as was introduced by J. Jablonski in the years 1922–1930. that model is already outdated, outgrown and does not meet the needs of the 21st century. The understanding of the common language itself has changed. Jablonski regarded only the folk language as the source of the norm. already in „Native Language“ (1933–40) formulated the principle that the main criterion of a common language is its current use. In the 1960s, when the Lithuanian language section of the Society of Local History was founded and when it was planned to publish „mūsų kalba“, supporters of the criterion of „living folk language“ again began to express themselves, and they are active to this day. [...] The work of language culture remains mostly the re-implementation of the corrections of J. Jablonski. But you have to see and hear what Jablonsky never dreamed of. [...] therefore, it is necessary to aim for a rise in the prestige of the common language in society. its prestige has already decreased considerably. and decayed because of the disputes and disagreements of the linguists themselves – “folklorists” and “modernists”. 102 Languages Culture | 83 Discovering an acceptable relationship with tradition is a work that requires the efforts of every generation of norm-setters. Today, probably no one talks about the blind “re-introduction of Yablonsky’s amendments”, but the basic traditional and time-tested things remain, which, taking into account the changed conditions of society’s life, can and must be given a new meaning. Due to the half-century-long Soviet occupation in Lithuania, the change of phenomena in the general sense of culture is still uneven, and various ideologies and cultural currents coming from the West make their way through the many layers left by previous systems of views and exist for quite a long time in parallel with the phenomena of past periods. Therefore, it is not surprising that at the beginning of the 20th century people still talked about folk artists and modernists, while in the current culture the transition from an industrial society to a consumer bendrinės lietuvių kalbos norminamojoje veikloje randama romantinės ideologijos pėdsakų (žr. Vaicekauskienė 2008: 36), nors Vakarų europos society began in the second half of the 20th century, and in the last three decades of the 20th century modernism was replaced by postmodern tendencies (cf. lyotard 2010: 17; Žmuida 2010: 189). If we understood postmodernism more broadly – not only as a cultural and artistic phenomenon, but also in general as a way of thinking and acting that affirms only “here and now”, characterized by a skeptical attitude to the world (see Pennycook 2006: 62–63), we could say that in Lithuania it has only recently – with considerable delay – been increasingly taken over by the younger generation of language specialists. 2. general Language Contests. anti-authorities and new intellectuals Modernism emphasized such ideals as rationality, objectivity and progress, while postmodernism asks whether the existence of these ideals is possible at all (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism). That is why the issue of the authorities of language norms becomes quite sensitive in our current society. Previously, the subjects of standardization, i.e. the public, were generally regarded as a relatively passive force that should only execute the decisions of the standardizers. but today we see something else. The relationship between authorities and subjects of normization is changing: authorities – including J. Jablonski – are being turned into anti-authorities, and their work is being devalued or even openly ridiculed. In society hear more and more dissatisfaction with the norms and doubts r. miliūnaitė. 103 riding their work sense (cf.: „although long with the language controllers azguridienė 2009: 276). tesusidurdavau netiesiogiai, kalbos reguliavimo reiškinys man visada atrodė neteisingas, neprasmingas ir apskritai kažkoks itin bjauriai žeidžiantis“; Jonas Klimavičius writes about this postmodern generation of new Lithuanian intellectuals (quoting some advertisements of the magazine Naujasis židinys-Aidai, which is characteristic of this trend): I have long described the youngest provincial New Lithuanians of the time with their unspoken, but from all their grandeur as if diffusing words before us was a flood, well, unless some Greimas, but only not Jablonskis. But, it turns out, and j. jablonski was. only in the eyes of new intellectuals it becomes... an autocratic precursor of cultural extremism: “dissatisfaction with the undemocratic nature of norms, the restriction of individual and situational linguistic expression, conservative norming provisions precisely allow us to suspect the origin of cultural extremism hidden in language standardization” (Vaicekauskienė 2010: 170), because the footnote of this statement is as follows: Interestingly, resistance to autocratic language planning existed already in the 1920s, when well-known writers revolted against, in their words, Jablonski’s “dictatorship” and demanded the right to create bk not relying solely on the measure of regularity. In the Soviet era, this resistance was called "dialectal anarchy". Similar thoughts would not seem strange, rather lawful, if we understood the basis of their emergence – changing the paradigm of thinking. One can only consider what the weight and meaning of such statements would be if we were to rely not on a hundred, but on three or four hundred years of the maintenance and functioning of the codified common Lithuanian language, as is characteristic of many common languages of Western European countries (cf. milroy, milroy 1999: 24–33; subačius 2004). Perhaps more than a hundred years is just an ungratefully short period of time, if the structure of the common Lithuanian language that has grown during it can be easily turned upside down. without attempting to cover all the postmodernist issues in this article, even those related to linguistics and more specifically to language planning (see Pennycook 2006: 60–76), it is enough to say that the essence of the postmodernist position is to be on the edge, to raise subjective experiences, the subject against the collective agreement; Postmodern culture and art are associated with fragmentation and playfulness, irony, hybridity, eclecticism, 104 Languages Culture | 83 nihilism and narcissism, when the boundaries of time and space disappear, chronology and linear analytical thinking lose their meaning, when one distances oneself from general theories (cf. Pennycook 2006: 60; arnatkevičiūtė 2006; baranova 2006). Postmodernists in general are characterized by a radical re-evaluation of modern assumptions about culture, identity, history or language, de-mythification of established values, declaring that this is a reaction to modernism and its trend towards authoritarianism and totalitarianism (see Kasparavičius 2010). One of the lines of postmodernism – skepticism – targets many traditionally cultivated concepts and ways of thinking: man, woman, class, race, ethnicity, nation, identity, consciousness, language, power, politics, etc. are not accepted as supportive concepts, but as concepts created for a particular case (see Pennycook 2006: 62). intertextuality. In assessing the positive aspects of postmodernism, it is said that “[p]ostmodernism was not aimed at proclaiming that we can succeed without our predecessors up to our accumulated wisdom, but at re-creating the positive values of the past. [...] the positive qualities of postmodernism lie in its intention to uncover the hidden treasure that may lie beneath the surface of an inappropriate method, approach or strategy” (Clark 2010). However, today, the term postmodernism is most often used to refer to an almost complete rejection of the values, aspirations and goals of previous generations: “unfortunately, in its worst form, postmodernism turns out to be just another pretext for arbitrariness and the removal of all constraints under the cover of newly adopted cultural norms. […] the greatest challenge of postmodern culture is that it allows us to move away from any clear reference points […]” (Clark 2010). In Lithuania, postmodernist attitudes began to manifest themselves more strongly in the post-Soviet period, when the so-called free market relations were developing, at the same time adopting all the grimaces of late capitalism. it is believed that postmodernism in post-Soviet countries is much deeper than in the West, because relativism and nihilism are not theoretical but practical (see Žukauskaitė 2002 and the article of a. sverdiolas cited there). This can be seen as a natural development of cultural thought, because in Lithuania, as mentioned, only now is a generation of intellectuals, who are close to the ideas of postmodernism: national myths are being deconstructed, there is no longer only identity associated with language. eugenijus Žmuida, although he writes about the context of Alfonso Nykošėniliūnas’s modern work in Lithuanian culture, when comparing it with later postmodern literature, hits a much wider target and as if presents a picture of the postmodern state of contemporary Lithuania (2010: 194–195): r. miliūnaitė. 105 The postmodernist man has relieved himself of oppressive obligations. [...]. Postmodernism desacralizes art itself, does not seek values in the world or in itself. Everything becomes equally relative, important and unimportant at the same time. Everything is being liberalised. Play as inventive as possible, without giving it importance, but having advantage – perhaps the only motto. Carnival without hierarchical values, or the value is one – pleasure. [...] In the postmodern existence, the concept of homeland loses its meaning [...]. It does not matter where you live, because one country is little different from another, the homeland can be the place that guarantees well-being, domestic comfort and requires as little idealistic commitment as possible. It can be said that the most striking changes of these days, covering the foundations of society’s existence, are largely due to the rapid breakdown of the previously clear connection between land-nation-language, which determined human identity; nationality is detached from territory. Accepting this as inevitable (and often not seeing the need to oppose it), the idea characteristic of the liberal tendency is declared that “the thinking individual is more important than the collective, the community, the nation”, and the current state of our society is “deconstructing the anachronistic state and national consciousness of the 19th century and the Smetona era, which was preserved by the Soviet era and which it is long overdue to deconstruct. a new state and national consciousness must emerge” (Venclova 2010). Acknowledging that demythification of history is necessary in itself, Andrius Martinkus also reveals the other side of this process – the fear of responsibility and commitment (Martinkus 2003): after all, it seems that the deconstructors of old myths and taboo-breakers are great and fearless men carrying out a great cultural mission, leading our “conservative”, “puritanical” society to “normal” life and a “civilized” world. The point is that good ancestry, honorable past, as well as high positions, impose and compel responsibility, which is usually not required of more disadvantaged, poorly educated and less experienced individuals. Here's the dog and the hangman. [...] in our region, behind the criticism of old myths and the mockery of the romantic idealization of the Lithuanian past (which, it must be admitted, is not alien to naivety) often lies the fear of the responsibility imposed on the history of Lithuanian statehood, the past of the Lithuanian nation and its historical aspirations and ambitions. The real, neither embellished, nor diminished Lithuanian history imposes on some more than justifying their creative impotence with consolation that we are small and insignificant, backward, constantly chasing the West eternal students. and indeed, in our multifaceted society, wandering between provincialism and globalism, the extreme manifestations of postmodernism are also present. Identity that changes according to circumstances becomes hypocrisy, responsibility becomes inactivity, cri- 106 Languages Culture | 83 Tishness – nihilism. On the Lithuanian language level, one of the most striking points of intersection appears – the freedom of the individual against the “dictatorship” of common language norms. Language finds itself in a world without boundaries, where every normative action means the restriction of individual freedoms. Therefore, it is not surprising that the traditional direction of the Lithuanian language norm-setters to support a moderate language development and to carry out a rather strict, compared to some other European countries, policy of public language supervision is attacked by ironizing, ridiculing and manipulating quotations. This confrontational posture is a declaration of the desire to fundamentally liberalize the codified norms of common language (see Vaicekauskienė 2008, 2010). Language norm-setters are being pushed to the margins of postmodern society – to the so-called traditionalists, who still “first and foremost base identity on national memory, customs and worldview values, subordinate human rights and individual freedom to collective national morality, and first and foremost treat openness to other cultures and globalism as a threat to national identity” (Švarplys 2010). only that individual freedom declared by postmodernists seems to lead nowhere. Therefore, l. jonušis’s response to l. Vaicekauskienė’s article on normative ideologies (jonušys 2010; Vaicekauskienė 2010) is symptomatic: This scientific historical review attacks the “holy of holy” principle – the prescriptive provision of language norming. it’s interesting, but there are not two things here – a comparative perspective (after all, all languages are more or less still regulated) and practical proposals – or allow anything and anyhow? and just then, when postmodernist ideology, as a lawful evolution of post-Soviet society’s thought, begins to accelerate in the new generation of Lithuanian culturalists, Western Europe, feeling the threat posed by the supremacy of individual freedom (which also opens the way to conflicting manifestations of multiculturalism) over the common aspirations of society, declares: postmodernism is dead4. At the beginning of the 21st century, a new – digital – society is gradually emerging from the postmodern ironic consumer society. 4 In various sources this is even associated with specific dates and events: the terrorist attacks carried out in the United States on September 11, 2001 (two skyscrapers, the so-called twins, were destroyed by hijacked planes) fundamentally changed the world community, and postmodernism was buried in their ruins; In 2007, one of the most famous postmodernist theorists and ideologues, Jean Baudrillard, died; In 2010, the release of classified information, particularly compromising the policies of major nations, by the website Wikileaks fundamentally changed the attitude of mankind to the public and the impact of digital technologies on it. r. miliūnaitė. 113 Codifiers must also make the most of the opportunities for altruistic joint work – raising problems and solving them: they must give the initial impulse, indicate the direction, formulate clear goals and, most importantly, prepare a creative environment to support the Lithuanian language. Of course, it would not be possible to say that Tutsi. attempts to create traditions of national dictation, various quizzes, requests to create lietuvoje normintojai visai nesistengia ieškoti ryšių su visuomene. yra gerų iniciatyvų iš Valstybinės lietuvių kalbos komisijos, kitų kalbos instinew words (Lithuanian equivalents of foreign words). but to regain public trust and authority will still take a lot of work and time. 4. Concluding remarks An increasing number of people are indirectly involved in the legislative process. are the regulators capable of supporting their diversity of opinions? can it be controlled in any way? These questions can be answered by clarifying and structuring more specific problems of regulators and finding ways to solve them. During the history of the formation of the common Lithuanian language, not only the role of the norm-setters changed dramatically, but also the problems they dealt with. Initially, according to the laws of the development of common languages, it was necessary to decide on the basis of the common language, to codify the basic norms, to develop functional styles. At present, bearing in mind the discussed prospects of the digital society, the most important problems arising for Lithuanian common language norm-setters or new issues to be solved can be described as follows: • the scientific basis of codification: how to update the theory of codification and define its relationship with tradition? • usage studies: how to include and evaluate online medialects? • possibilities of language modernization: how to adapt the common Lithuanian language to the current needs (including the development of the vocabulary, the creation of new terms and the updating of the lexicon and syntax of the administrative language, which is especially relevant for translations of ES documents)? • organizing the codification process: how to regulate the shift from codification to language planning? • continuity of normative work and perspectives: how to train language planning specialists? 114 Languages and Culture | 83 • the relationship between norm-setters and language users: how to pasitikėjimu pagrįstas ryšio formas? Šiems dalykams svarstyti labai praverstų kalbos specialistų forumas, tacreate new, mutually beneficial conditions for it is probably still ripe. iŠVados The recent deconstruction of Lithuanian identity and national myths, the translation of authorities into anti-authorities, and at the same time the criticism of traditional normative activities and the attempt to liberalize the norms of common language so that they do not restrict individual freedom and self-expression in post-Soviet Lithuanian society can be explained by the natural emergence and development of postmodernist thought. However, at the beginning of the 21st century, the world is already talking about the end of the postmodern ironic consumer society and new directions in culture, art and philosophy, which are encouraged by globalization and the development of new information technologies, especially related to the spread of the Internet. in Lithuania such new manifestations also exist. The essence of one of the new directions of post-postmodernism – digital modernism – is the changes in the general forms of culture, which are determined by new information technologies. Alan Kirby’s, the British cultural scientist who proposed the concept of digital modernism, emphasizes that it is not an ideology, but a field of cultural force opposing postmodernism: the impact of computerization on culture, art and textuality. It is not about human rights or freedoms, nor is it about responsibility. Therefore, the author does not provide a clear answer to the question of what is authority and what is its role in the new digital society. However, even looking critically at some emerging manifestations of digital modernism, it is impossible to ignore the processes it promotes in society. It is important for regulators to assess the new opportunities, because knowledge of the laws of the development of the new digital society can help to better adapt to the needs of such a society. In the context of emerging digital modernity, the role of the linguistic community as an active force is becoming particularly important. true, in Lithuania it is usually still acting as a ruthless critic of norms, but it has emerged. Millionaire. the norm-setters of the common language and the emerging society of digital modernity 115 is a favourable ground for reducing this contradiction between norm-setters and society. Linguistic norm-setters should use this to improve the codification process: • to look for ways to structure the spontaneous process of creation and dissemination of new norms of usage; • involve active language users in the development and discussion of norms; • targeted action of the creative powers of society; • create and constantly update digital codification works available to the public, focusing on their quality – reliability of data and rapid response to changes. literatūra a m m o n u. 2004: standard Variety. – Sociolinguistics. An international handbook of the science of language and society. eds. u. ammon, n. dittmar, K. j. mattheier, P. trudgill, 2nd ed., V. 1, Walter de Gruyter, 273–283. a r n a t k evi č i ū t ė l. 2006: Lithuanian essay in the postmodern situation: Rolandas rastauskas. – Lituanistica 65 (1), 63–72. azguridienė G. 2009: How I became nameless. – The New Fireplace-Echoes 7, 275–276. Access via Internet: <http://www.aidai.lt/db/get_file_nza_article. 2010. pp. 142 (accessed 27 October 2010). b a l d a u f r. b. jr. 2006: rearticulating the Case for micro language Planning in a language ecology Context. – Current Issues in Language Planning 7(2–3), 147–170. Retrieved 2010-11-01. <http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/eserv/UQ:121324/HCA10UQ121324.pdf>. b a r a n ova j. 2006: Postmodernism in Lithuanian literature. – Athena 3, C l a r k j. 2010: 135–155. The postmodern world. [Translated by K. Pulokas]. – www.bernardinai.lt, July 18. – Access via Internet: <http://www.bernardinai.lt/ straipsnis/2010-07-18-jeff-clark-postmodernusis-pasaulis/47604> (viewed 2010 07 20). discussion 2005: from the discussion “Lithuanian language and Lithuanian culture in future Europe: development perspectives” in the Constitution Hall of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania on February 14, 2005 – Literatūra ir menas, May 6. H a r m a n n H. 1990: language planning in the light of a general theory of language: a methodological framework. – International Journal of the Sociology of Language 86 (1), 103–126. It is not recommended to use it. 2010: In the States of Words. – North Athens, July 16. K a s p a r av i č i u s a. 2010: Culture, Politics, Morality and Happiness. – www.balsas.lt lt, 18 September. Retrieved 2010-09-19. <http://www.balsas.lt/naujiena/502487/ kultura-politika-morale-ir-laime> (accessed 2010-09-19). 116 Languages and Culture | 83 K i r by a. 2006: the death of Postmodernism and beyond. – Philosophy now. November / December. issue 58. Retrieved 2010-09-04. <http://www.philosophynow.org/issue58/58kirby.htm> (accessed 2010-09-04). K i r by a. 2009: Digimodernism: How New Technologies Dismantle the Postmodern and Reconfigure Our Culture, new york. K l i m av ič iu s j. 2008: Lithuanian language and society: general and terminological aspects. – Terminologija 15, 56–104. lyo t a rd j. F. 2010: Postmodern building, Vilnius: baltos lankos. martinkus a. 2003: Principles, Complexes and Fear. – North Athens, August 9. m i l i ū n a i t ė r. 1991: Theory of language standardization in the mother tongue (1933–1941). – Language Culture 61, 7–21. m i l r oy j., m i l roy l. 1999: Authority in language: Investigating Standard English, 3rd ed., london: routledge. Pa t a c k a s a. , Ž a r s k u s a. 2010: New Speaking, or the Black Magic of Language. – Lietuvos žinios, July 12-13. Access via Internet: <http://www. lzinios.lt/lt/2010-07-12/poziuris/naujakalbe_arba_baltos_kalbos_magija. html> and <http://www.lzinios.lt/lt/2010-07-13/poziuris/naujakalbe_arba_juodoji_kalbos_magija_ii.html> (accessed 2010 10 15). P e n ny c o o k a. 2006: Postmodernism in language Policy. – An introduction to language policy: Theory and method. ed. 60–76. t. ricento, blackwell Publishing, P u p k i s a . 1995: The prestigious language and the authority of Jablonski. – Native language 12, 1–4. P u p k i s a. 2010 [1984]: The Origins of Lithuanian Language Culture Theory. – Lithuanian Language Standardizers and Promoters, Vilnius: Science and Encyclopedia Publishing Center, 11–17. s u b a č i u s G. 2004: Chronology of the History of Standard (Common) Languages. – 84, 97–115. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. 2010: Is Grainio lilac Lithuania’s solution in the global world? – www.delfi.lt, August 2. Access via Internet: <http://www. http://www.delfi.lt/news/ringas/lit/article.php?id=35059615 (accessed 2010 08 03). ta k a h a sh i H. 2004: language norms. – Sociolinguistics. An international handbook of the science of language and society. eds. u. ammon, n. dittmar, K. j. mattheier, P. trudgill, 2nd ed., V. 1, Walter de Gruyter, 172–179. Vaicekauskienė l. 2008: Prescriptiveness and descriptiveness in (debt) norming policy. – Works and Days 50, 31–41. Vaicekauskienė l. 2010: Centenary of Lithuanian Language Standardization. – The New Fireplace-Echoes 5–6, 165–172. r. miliūnaitė. the norm-setters of the common language and the emerging society of digital modernity 117 Ve n c l ova t. 2010: aš dūstu. – IQ. The Economist partner in Lithuania, July. Accessed via Internet: <http://www.delfi.lt/news/ringas/lit/article.php?id= 34549563> (accessed 2010-07-23). Vo n W r i g h t G. H. 1963: Norm and Action. A Logical Inquiry, london: routledge & Kegan Paul. 1958–1960: Gifford lectures. Internet access: <http://www.giffordlectures.org/Browse.asp? PubID=TPNORM&Cover=TRUE> (accessed 15 September 2010). I'm sorry, I'm sorry. 2010: Alfonso Nykaanilius and Modernism. – The New Fireplace-Echoes 5–6, 189–195. S u s t a t i o n. 2002: Postmodernism, Capitalism and Regressive History in the Post-Soviet Area. – Menotyra 2 (27), 4–8. Received 08/11/2010 PresCribers oF standard lanGuaGe and tHe emerGinG modern diGital soCiety Summary the article presents the changing perception of language prescribers and users, or authoritative personalities and target audiences, and their role in the development of standard lithuanian. one of the changes involves a shift from an authoritative personality (jonas jablonskis) to an institutionalized state authority or, currently, an antiauthority. the criticism of authorities and the traditional standardization process as well as different attempts to apply liberal unrestrictive norms could be accounted for by a natural development of postmodern ideas and shifts in the postsoviet lithuanian society. the beginning of the 21st century, however, marks the end of the postmodern consumer society and brings out new artictic and philosophical cultures and directions whose appearance has been mainly stimulated by globalization and new technologies, the internet among them. one of the most distinctive interpretations of the postmodern transformation is the concept of the digital modernism. it proposes a structural view of cultural changes in the modern society. the author of the article relies on the ideas of the modern british culturologist alan Kirby to distinguish peculiarities of the digital modernism. these peculiarities may contribute to a better understanding of social processes and, consequently, ease the current tension between language prescribers and the society at large. 118 Languages Culture | 83 the digital modernism relates cultural shifts to the increased role of the digital text in private and public life. Clearly, the new it technologies have essentially changed the nature of the author, addressee (reader) and the text itself. realizations of the digital modernism, one of them being the rise of the language community as an active force, provides grounds for a new standardization products and allows to involve in the standardization process the most active members of the community. rita miliūnaitė lietuvių kalbos institutas P. Vileišio g. 5, lt10308 Vilnius [email protected]