DISCUSSIONS

PRANAS KNIŪKŠTA

WHAT DOES POSTMODERNISM PROMISE LANGUAGE?

I admit that until now I had heard little about postmodernism in language and linguistics. I learned more about what it is after reading, in Kalbos kultūroje, Loreta Vaicekauskienė’s article “Postmodern Bilingualism: National Languages and English in Advertising” (KK, vol. 82, pp. 110–125).

The article’s subject is interesting, timely, and intriguing. Picking up such a piece, one expects to find concrete ideas about advertising today, the distinctive features of its language, advice on how to bring advertising language into line with general usage, and, most importantly, how to regulate the relationship between Lithuanian and the English spreading through advertising. Unfortunately, we find no answers to such questions; indeed, the questions themselves are not even raised.

The advertising of other countries is examined (to use the article author’s term, the “advertising domain”), as are the relations between English and those countries’ languages. In fact, linguistic phenomena are not analyzed; rather, literature on the subject is surveyed and discussed. First, evidence concerning English is sought. It is emphasized that English is spreading in the advertising of all countries and is becoming increasingly established. Figures and percentages drawn from sources in many countries are adduced. There are also a few concrete examples, but they do not demonstrate the entrenchment of English. This is recalled in generalizing statements, for example: “bilingualism or a mixed code with English has become a universally valid norm in the advertising domain” (p. 121). The quoted statement appears in the conclusions, so it expresses the article author’s view, or ideas with which she agrees and wishes to disseminate. The phrase “has become a universally valid norm” indicates that this and similar statements also apply to advertising in Lithuania and the languages used in it. It is explained that “linguistic identity should not be associated solely with ethnic, territorial, or state boundaries” (p. 111).

Lithuanian advertising is also compared directly with that of other countries. It is repeatedly stated that advertising “is becoming increasingly mixed, both in Lithuania and elsewhere” (p. 111), and that

P. KNIŪKŠTA. Ką žada kalbai postmodernizmas? 229

“there are very diverse forms of new manifestations in advertising, both in Lithuania and elsewhere” (p. 122). Figures are even invoked to prove that, in terms of the use of English, Lithuanian television advertising lags little behind that of other countries. Apparently, almost 50 percent of advertisements broadcast on Lithuanian television in 2009 contained elements of English (p. 113). It would be interesting to know where these percentages came from and what those English-language elements were—how many were actual insertions of English text, and what share consisted of brand names, titles, and so on. The article author openly questions the language policy pursued in Lithuania. After listing the legal acts regulating advertising language, she summarizes that regulation as follows: “Thus, in Lithuanian law, legal measures are used to restrict the use of other languages in the public sphere and strengthen the position of Lithuanian.” (p. 111). And immediately she proceeds to explain that such regulation achieves nothing: “At the same time, the field of advertising is becoming increasingly mixed, both in Lithuania and elsewhere”; “multilingual domains in today’s postmodern world have become the norm, one that transcends the boundaries of conventional judgments.” (p. 111). Permission to transcend “the boundaries of conventional judgments” is proclaimed with cool assurance.

L. Vaicekauskienė also questions linguists—specifically, the linguists Irena Smetonienė and Rita Miliūnaitė, who believe that advertising can have a negative impact on general language usage. Supposedly, a survey of television viewers does not show this, although in reality nothing becomes clear from that survey. It is not very clear what the article author herself thinks about whether such influence is exerted or not. She seems not to care much whether it is or isn’t; the main thing is to convey the view that there is no need to be concerned about language use or the influence exerted on it.

This position is set out most clearly in the article’s concluding section. Two conclusions are derived from one another. First, it is announced that “a mixed code with English has become a universally valid norm” (p. 121); then the postmodern changes in ordinary language usage are divined: “The pressure of the new norm is so great that people are unafraid to violate the official requirements for pure and correct language and to change the conception of language accepted in public usage.” (p. 122). And there is no comment or explanation, no doubt whatsoever. Complete agreement!?

The article is presented as a new “interpretation of changes in the standardization of the Lithuanian language and in language policy” (I quote as written), and readers are urged to take it into account and apply “language-planning measures” accordingly. It is interesting to know how the article author herself intends to apply this principle. Does it also include permission to “violate the official requirements for pure and correct language”?

Received 2010 12 15

230

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 83