Laidų vedėjai apie neformalią kalbinę raišką žiniasklaidoje

J. Girčienė. Presenters on informal language expression in the media 307 JURGITA GIRČIENĖ Institute of Lithuanian Language Presenters at the informal LINGUISTICAL TRANSLATION 1. Introduction Recently, the privatization of public space and the connections of this process with the simplification of language, or informal speech style1, have been the subject of intensive discussion in the world and in Lithuania (see Fairclough 1995; Hedin 2005; nevinskaitė 2006; Webster 2006: 168–208; Pečiulis 2007: 198–204; Fiske 2008: 94–100; Marcinkevičienė 2009 and others). One of the most important creators of the linguistic background of public space are the representatives of the media. Researchers from various fields, including linguists, have given different opinions about the means of informal expression used by journalists. Some of them, who traditionally consider regularity as the main criterion of good public language, interpret informal language as a deterioration of media language, non-normative variants of common language. Others, looking at the public discourse from the positions of a liberalising society undergoing transformations and the media renouncing the role of teacher and creating visibility of friendly dialogue with the addressee, associate informal language with communication efficiency, good communication competence, helping media representatives to create an informal communication environment characteristic of the period in question2. In view of this division of opinions, it is appropriate to investigate what the representatives of informal expression think about the penetration of informal expression into the media. This question is attempted to be answered on the basis of the study of the attitude of TV and radio presenters to public language and language policy – the project “Baltic Sociolinguistics (BALSOC): 1 In the theory of sociolinguistics, informal style, as a feature of the field of communication, rather than usage, is understood as the opposite of formal style (see. Trudgill 1999: 117–128; for more on the relationship of these terms and the concepts they refer to with other terms referring to similar things, such as free vs. official usage, and their scope, see Trudgill 1999: 117–128. Miliūnaitė 2009: 40 and so on. ; (2010: 192). 2 Apie skirtingai kalbos paprastėjimą interpretuojančių tyrėjų pateikiamus argumentus plačiau see. 2009: 299–232; Tamaševičius 2009; 2010 and others. 308 LANGUAGE CULTURE | 83 the linguistic self-consciousness of the society in Lithuania and Latvia”3 – with data concerning the assessment of their own linguistic competence, specifically – the influence of the area of use and the addressee on journalists’ speech. 24 structured qualitative interviews were conducted with typical (popular and well-known) TV hosts – men aged 32-42. Although such a selection limits the generalization of results to all media representatives, homogeneous sample allows to reveal the greatest diversity of opinions in one group, regardless of age and gender (nevinskaitė 2009). Some of the respondents are hosts of analytical programmes for older people (AnALiT.), others are hosts of popular entertainment (POP.) programmes, which are more often aimed at young people. It should be noted that it was difficult to classify cables according to this criterion, so this difference should be assessed with reservations (nevinskaitė 2009). Half of the respondents are classified as professionals – journalists or actors, who have been consistently trained in language and speaking during their studies (PrOF.), the others form a group of so-called non-professionals, without journalistic education, who did not receive thorough language preparation during their studies (nePrOF.). According to these two criteria, the sample was made up of four groups, each of which comprised six hosts. TV and radio presenters (as one of the most prominent manifestations of the public space) are a particularly relevant group of speakers for the study described in this article, because their speech undoubtedly affects language users in general. Furthermore, the presenters, as professionals of the word, are competent to reason about language changes (cf. nevinskaitė 2009). It is believed that their expressions from the state (unlike the so-called “naive” language users), although studied by the direct method, could relate to the real use of language in the public space (see Vaicekauskienė 2010: 171). 2. MOTYVUOTOS ATINORMOS POreiKiS One of the questions asked to the respondents concerning their personal linguistic competence was to find out whether there are cases when they deliberately break the norms of common language when presenting programmes, and the possible reasons for this. In general, the majority (20 out of 24) of the hosts state that they motivatedly break language norms when necessary for various reasons (see Figure 1). 3 The project was carried out by the Lithuanian Language Institute (2009), supported by the State Foundation for Science and Studies. J. Girčienė. Presenters on informal language expression in the media 309 1 PAV. Distribution of hosts according to (non-)breaking of common language norms in the hosted programs 2.1.Two of the four respondents, according to the initial strictly negative formulation of the answer (No; No, I did not specifically break the norms) assigned to the subgroup of those who do not break the norms, further developing the answer, admit that in very rare (exceptional, isolated) cases they can bypass the norms that impede the communication process: no. No. because I'm saying, the only case of Storm was this one. I really try, even if it sounds ugly, and I know that 90 percent of people I know wouldn’t say that because they really don’t know it’s the way it should be.4 [nePrOF. AnALiT.] no, I didn't break on purpose. I didn't break it on purpose. And if I have to use the word <…> drive, when there is no Lithuanian equivalent, <…> then I say, “as musicians say, drive”. It may be that I put in the same slang, warning the listener, the viewer beforehand that it will be slang, but everyone becomes clearer from that. [nePrOF. AnALiT.] It should be noted that three out of four respondents who state that they do not specifically break the general language norms in their programmes, host programmes of a more serious content, of an analytical nature, aimed at a more mature audience and requiring more formal language expression. Two of them belong to the subgroup of non-professionals, as well as the only one who said intentionally not breaking the language norms of popular programs. Among the respondents in the professional subgroup, only one respondent said that he did not violate language norms – a journalist who hosted an analytical formal political debate program5 (see Figure 2). 4 Both áudra (1) and audrà (4) are standard pronunciations. (red. note). The quoted speech is not corrected. - J. G. 5 On the difference in (non)formality of so-called talk shows of a public nature and its influence on the choice of informal means of expression, see more in G i r č i e n ė J. sato įvardijimai visuomeninius klausimus nagrinėjančiose pokalbių laidose: sociolingvistinis nominativiniai adreaspektas, 2010 (submitted for publication Man in language space). 310 LANGUAGE CULTURE | 83 2 PAV. Distribution of programme presenters according to the relationship between (non)breaking of general language norms and the nature of the programme and the level of education Only a few (5 out of 24) programme presenters associate breaking of language norms with the quality of the norms (three out of 20 admitting to doing so consistently and two out of 4 belonging to the subgroup of non-breaking ones). Those respondents just do not follow the rules that restrict the expression of thought, which depart greatly from, according to one respondent, established colloquial language, folk traditions: It is difficult for me to understand <…> why, for example, certain things established in our country, in our colloquial language, are suddenly <…> being tried to push out <…>. I understand where there is, say, slang and all kinds of other things, but, say, the same “Ionian”. We should say "Ionian", but not "Ionian". But all my life, everyone said "Ionian". Why do we need to change such a thing? <…> That’s why things like that seem <…> meaningless to me. and certainly sometimes it is possible to rely on popular wisdom and make a certain exception. Let “Ionian” be “Ionian”, and not „Joninės“6. [nePrOF. POP.] I break the norms <…> because some thoughts, if you want to express them accurately, [said] do not necessarily conform to the rules established by linguists. <…> I [mostly] obey the dictates of linguists, although I do not always agree. [nePrOF. AnALiT.] (see also the first two illustrative examples) It should be noted that all five respondents, who associate the motivated violation with, in their opinion, a low-quality norm as a communication disturbance, do not have journalistic education. 6 Both the pronunciation variants Jonėnės (2) and Jõninės (1) are standard. (red. note). J. Girčienė. Presenters on informal language expression in the media 311 2.2. Most (19) respondents associate the cases of motivated use of anti-normes not with the quality of the norms themselves, but with the possibility offered by the elements of general language beyond the boundaries to expand the arsenal of means of linguistic expression necessary for effective communication, i.e. to exceed the boundaries of one of the requirements of good language – regularity, so that, using stylistically expressive elements of other linguistic codes, they could activate other segments of good or stylish language necessary for a certain communication situation – visuality, liveliness, etc. (cf. The opinion of this dominant group is summed up by a quote from one of its representatives – a journalist-educated respondent: “Journalism is a matter of style, and if you use certain words deliberately, deliberately break [the rules], or deliberately spell them wrong, that is normal in my opinion. this has little to do with the correctness of the language, this is more a matter of style. [PrOF. AnALiT.] The analysis of the answers of the hosts who motivatedly broke the common language norms revealed some more general reasons for the use of informal vocabulary and prosody elements mentioned by the respondents. 1) Motivated antinorm is referred to as an important means to better convey the characters (created in the show), e.g. : Incorrect language gives a character on television the image of a villain, a fool or something else. because it would be funny <…> and even stupid if that character, [for example] a bandit, <…>, spoke very pure literary language. [Prof. POP.] I am playing <…> a boy, <…> there is such a slang... probably ears would bend, had not heard. I talk: <…> “We were cooking, Mom. – What are you baking?“ I, of course, say “pancakes”, not “pancakes”. <…> “It is absolutely not necessary to pick the egg shells out of the dough when you are making the dough <…>. It's the way they eat in Brazil." <…> you have to spell all the words wrong because according to the plot <…> the sister is a schoolgirl, <…> and the brother is a little backward, so he can’t speak properly. <…> this is even a trait of character, the character is such a bad speaker, very expressive, but very bad. [PrOF. POP.] Movies <…> are translated well by only a few people. Because our editors are very inflexible. That is, I think, in such areas as art – cinema, literature – Lithuanian language is very poor. It is a situation of dead dialogues. I am much more free in those places, because it is something completely different. <…> continuous speaking characters who have to be convincingly alive and very rarely you believe what is happening there: they are wooden. [PrOF. AnALiT.] 312 LANGUAGE CULTURE | 83 2) Means of expression not belonging to the common language standard, such as elements of everyday language, help hosts to create an informal environment, break down communication barriers, promote the openness of the participants in certain programs (talk shows, etc.) necessary and expected by viewers, e.g. : Sometimes you have to shock an audience easily in order to attract them. [PrOF. AnALiT.] You allow yourself something because <…> it, say, breaks down certain barriers. [PrOF. POP.] 3) Stylistically expressive motivated antinorm allows a frequent host to emphasize the idea, if necessary, to convey the necessary context with more economical means, e.g. : I think it [allows] to emphasize something, <…> to put a logical hyphen to the thought. [nerPOF. POP.] [I break the norms,] if it is necessary to emphasize some paradox. [nePrOF. AnALiT.] In some situations, <…> related to words or some phrase, <…> which were spoken by some famous person <…>, it can be, for example, <…> the pseudo-seimas chairperson’s “Žinios” character used “nafik”, <…> “murderer” or some other novelty, <…> which are not common language, <…> as a phenomenon they <…> have certain semantic nuances <…> and can convey the whole context, instead of explaining how some politician said it in some context, <…> it is just enough to remind the same one word and it tells the audience everything. [PrOF. AnALiT.] 4) informal elements of the common language, in the opinion of journalists, help to create a general expressive background of the show that attracts viewers, animate it, especially with humorous insertions, e.g. : I have a specific morning show, which must be above all funny, not binding, <….> there must be a lot of healthy humor and no brakes. It happens, it happens. [Prof. POP.] If it requires, for example, some kind of humorous presentation, it sometimes helps […] to break the rules of language. <…> I use various words without usage. [PrOF. POP.] My colleague <…> got a bit clumsy and instead of “spanner” she said “spanner”. I liked it so much, I got so hooked, <…> all the way through the show I repeated: “Well, let’s take the wrench.” As an example [of norm-breaking] it would be. [Prof. POP.] J. Girčienė. 313 It should be emphasized that the respondents associate the need for a motivated anti-norm with the quality of informal means of expression, the suitability for a certain format of the program, responsibility for themselves and for the recipient (therefore, informal expression is sometimes accompanied by metal-linguistic comments), i.e., professionalism, e.g. : That should sound delicious. I very much avoid banal, street-style, widespread things used in the air, because I imagine that people in the air should be the example, <…> they are there for that, because they stand out from the others in something, they prepare, <…> what is wiped off, <…> is no longer interesting to the viewer. [PrOF. POP.] That is, if it is required, say, by some element of the show or program, that it is necessary to insert some Žemaičių sentence or Russian, or something [similar]. [nePrOF. POP.] If you make a mistake deliberately, you have to be prepared... a person will still notice. Most, most of the time, the audience doesn't slip it through. and in that case, you have to have at least two explanations, <…> have an argument for yourself then. and of course, it should be strong arguments, <…> or you wanted, say, to emphasize something more. <…> Again, if the jargon, it usually stumbles, stumbles because it is unusual, non-standard for that environment, or sounds unfamiliar to someone else, perhaps in our village differently says… [nePrOF. AnALiT.] Summarizing the answers to the question about breaking common language norms, it can be said that most respondents evaluate their cases of motivated anti-norm as a conscious, responsible, competence-requiring language game, helping to effective communication. The insight that norm-breaking is more often perceived as a stylistic means than as a disregard of the rule is further reinforced by the fact that all respondents in the majority of the sample, linking the question about deliberate norm-breaking not with the quality of the norm, not the norm as a barrier (see 2.1), but as an additional opportunity to expand the range of expression provided by the elements of the borderline of common language, basically stated the same thing in answering the question about the use of expressive means of expression. 3. eKSPreSyViŲ rAiŠKOS PrieMonių POreiKiS The need for language means of expression providing expression, their necessity for the ether is also evidenced by the fact that almost all respondents answered positively to the question about the use of expressive elements – words, including novelties, constructions, etc., in programmes. The main means of language expression are basically the same as those mentioned in the answer to the question 314 LANGUAGE CULTURE | 83 these belong to the dictionary subsystem: (own) new creations are mentioned, words of other languages or other variants of the Lithuanian language (domestic spoken language, slang, dialects), less often – phraseology, only as expressions of expression are mentioned emoticons and phrases. also willingly plays with elements of prosody, syntactic means of expression are mentioned in individual cases. The following are some of the answers of respondents revealing specific means of expression: More emoticons maybe. <…> [they give] say, a very great surprise: “vooou”, but it’s not “wow, voou” – blowing out the air it is done, it’s very charming to repeat. [Prof. POP.] I like to shock... and come up with new things, instead of “public – guest”. [PrOF. POP.] Anyway, it is a black job to come up with words <…>. I, I say, have introduced a couple of new things and I know what it means, how much you are suffering. But maybe I prefer to use some such as “whistled, blown away”, all kinds of such things that sometimes come to my mind, I don’t know where they come from <…> But sometimes you pull out such things and I really like to give those words a completely different [meaning], put them into a completely different context. [nePrOF. POP.] about norm-breaking – they are more frequent. These often informal language resources, which are outside the scope of general language, are used when necessary by all popular programme hosts and by most of the respondents who host analytical programmes (three out of four who do not use language expression means explained that they used them when hosting popular programmes). The use of informal expressive means of expression respondents associate with humor, novelty effect, emotionality, more accurate, livelier thought, individual style, e.g.: well, if it is alkaline, at least it seems to me that it should be alkaline. [PrOF. POP.] You choose your manner of speaking, your style of speaking – that is, each person has to strengthen his individuality. <…> As I am alive, so is the language. [nePrOF. POP.] Sometimes, in certain situations, it enlivens the speech and brings <…>, say, healthy, healthy humour. In some situations, it is simply necessary to take such novelties, but again, without going overboard. There is a measure for everything <…> And sometimes to use some novelty and, say, spice up one or another situation, why not? [nePrOF. POP.] To enliven the very expression of the thought, <…> to illustrate the emotion. [nePrOF. POP.] In order to hypertrophize something, highlight major differences. [PrOF. AnALiT.] J. Girčienė. Presenters on informal language expression in the media 315 To make the language more accurate. <…> The work is fascinating in that you create something new every day and forget it the next day. [nePrOF. AnALiT.] you are looking for some <…> aphorism... <…> You have a new, new something to sound. <…> Of course, you always aim to say – oh, this is good! [nePrOF. AnALiT.] Responding to the question about language expression, respondents not only mentioned essentially the same means of expression as motivated anti-norm, but also specifically linked each other, e.g. : If there is something specific in the image, sometimes you come up with a specific word or somehow break some norm. [nePrOF. AnALiT.] But, I say, we also try to do our best not to exceed, firstly, the limits of decency, and secondly, language culture. [nePrOF. POP.] 4. MOTIVATED NON-FORMAL SPEECH AND COMMUNICATIONAL COMPETENCES INTERFACE Thus, for the majority of respondents, the motivated breaking of common language norms is identical with language expression, the multiplication of means of expression and vice versa (see sections 2 and 3). Both processes are perceived not only as a linguistic intellectual game that requires the competence of the host, but also as a conscious, stimulating the effectiveness of communication of the viewer or listener, rather than intentional or accidental use of the so-called (pa)plain language, lowering the quality bar. This attitude of the hosts is related to good communicational competence, which in informal circumstances requires the ability to move to informal communication, thus also to use informal means of expression, to play with language (cf. Hedin 2005: 60; Tamaševičius 2010). Playfulness, linguistic play in general, is considered a distinctive feature of the postmodern era (Hassan 1987, cited from Lapėnienė 2007; Lyotard 2010: 32). Insights about responsible conscious play in informal language expression are further reinforced by the respondents’ answers to other questions related to the subject of discussion about the differences between public and private speech, its reasons, adaptation to the addressee. The positive answers of all respondents to the question whether they make an effort to speak when hosting shows, undoubtedly indicate the responsibility for