Ką žada kalbai postmodernizmas?

Mr. KniūKšta. What does postmodernism promise for language? 229 Discussions PRANAS KNIŪKŠTA WHAT DOES POSTMODERNISM PROMISE FOR TALKS? I admit that I had heard little about postmodernism in language and linguistics so far. I learned more about what this is after reading Loreta Vaicekauskienė’s article “Postmodern bilingualism: national language and English in advertising” (KK, vol. 82, pp. 110–125) published in Language Culture. The topic of the article is interesting, relevant and intriguing. When you take such an article into your hands, you hope to find concrete thoughts about our current advertising, its language peculiarities, advice on how to combine advertising language with general usage and most importantly – how to regulate the relationship of the Lithuanian language with the English language spreading in advertising. Unfortunately, there are no answers to these questions, not even the questions themselves are raised. On the contrary, they are distanced from them, even viewed with hostility. The article examines the advertising of other countries (in the author’s terms – the advertising domain) and the relationship of English with the languages of those countries. in fact, the language phenomena are not examined, but the literature on the subject is reviewed and commented. Firstly, data on the English language is searched. It is emphasized that it is spreading in advertising in all countries and is becoming more and more powerful. Corrupted figures and percentages taken from many national sources. There are a few concrete examples, but they do not show the prevalence of English. It is recalled by generalizing statements, such as: “bilingualism or a mixed code with English has become the universally valid norm of the advertising domain” (p. 121). The quoted statement is made in the conclusions, so it represents the opinion or thoughts of the author of the article, which she agrees with and wants to spread. The phrase “becoming a universally valid norm” shows that this and other similar statements apply to Lithuanian advertising and the language used in it. explains that “linguistic identity should not be linked solely to ethnic, territorial or national boundaries” (p. 111). Lithuanian advertising is also directly compared with other countries. It is repeated that advertising “becomes more and more mixed both in Lithuania and elsewhere” (p. 111), that 230 TALBOS KuLtūRa | 83 new forms of expression in advertising “are very diverse both in Lithuania and elsewhere” (p. 122). even with figures to prove that Lithuanian television advertising is not far behind other countries in terms of the use of English. Almost 50 percent of Lithuanian television advertisements broadcast in 2009 contained English language elements (p. 113). It would be interesting to know where such percentages are taken from and what those English language elements are – how many real English text insertions there are, what part trademarks, names, etc. make up. The author of the article openly questions the language policy in Lithuania. After listing the legislation governing the language of advertising, she summarizes that regulation as follows: “Lithuanian laws therefore try to limit the use of other languages in the public space by legal means and strengthen the positions of the Lithuanian language.” (p. 111). and here he explains that such regulation does not give anything: “at the same time, the advertising field both in Lithuania and elsewhere is becoming more and more mixed”; “multilingual domains have become the norm in today’s postmodern world, which transcends conventional assessments.” (p. 111). a cold-blooded authorisation to go beyond “ordinary assessments”. L. Vaicekauskienė also doubts linguists, specifically linguists irena Smetoniene and Rita Miliūnaite, who believe that advertising can have a negative influence on the general use of language. This is not shown by the survey of television viewers, although in fact nothing is revealed from that survey. it is not very clear what the author of the article thinks about influencing or not influencing. It is not so important to her whether she does or does not, the most important thing is to show the attitude that there is no need to worry about the use of languages and the impact on it. this provision is most clearly stated in the preamble to the article. Two conclusions are drawn from each other. At first, it is declared that “the mixed code with English has become the universally valid norm” (p. 121), then the postmodernist changes in common language usage are evoked: “the pressure of the new norm is so great that it is not afraid to violate the official requirements of pure and correct language and change the concept of language acceptable in public usage.” (p. 122). and no comment or explanation, no doubt. Full support! ? The article is presented as a new “interpretation of changes in Lithuanian language standardization and language policy” (I quote as written), and it is proposed to take it into account and apply “language planning measures” according to it. I wonder how the author of the article intends to apply this principle herself. does it also include the permission to “breach the official requirements of pure and correct language”? Received 15 December 2010