Kalbos paprastėjimo polinkiai viešojoje erdvėje

138 LANGUAGE CULTURE | 82 GIEDRIUS TAMAŠEVIČIUS Institute of Lithuanian Language TENDENCES OF LANGUAGE SIMPLIFICATION IN THE PUBLIC SPACE INTRODUCTION The public sphere (German: Öffentlichkeit) is a social, political and communicational arena for public debate. It creates public opinion, on which political decisions in a democratic society are based (Pečiulis 2007: 72; Navickas 2007). The main promoters of the public space are politicians and journalists. Some seek the best solutions to issues relevant to society by discussing them publicly, others encourage such discussions and mediate them (Taurinskaitė 2009). Changes in the public space itself are often associated with the deterioration of the language of politicians and journalists in Lithuania (Navickas 2007). The theoretical literature emphasizes that eminent, publicly recognized persons, such as political and media authorities, should speak in an elite language when speaking in public. According to this view, familiar speaking in public space, and even more so the use of jargon, would be a serious violation of language and style norms (cf. Župerka 2005). Rita Miliūnaitė also agrees with this, stating that “the vulgarity and jargon publicly circulating from people in the highest positions of power, such as “to deceive”, “to drive to the rooftop”, “to hang pasta”, “to spit”, etc., show the lack of linguistic competence of those people, although there should be a fairly clear distinction between the upper strata and the prestigious common language and the lower strata and the jargon” (Miliūnaitė 2005: 47–48). Leonidas Donskis explains the reason for the deterioration of the language in public space by using the image of a cham: “A cham behaves in public as if he were talking in a private environment with his relatives or friends or sitting in the company of half-hearted men. The manners and the vocabulary do not change..." (Donskis 2007: 115). This linguistic behaviour, once characteristic only of the lower- Mr. TAMAŠEVIČIUS. The tendency to simplify language in the public 139 space for the representatives of this social stratum is now becoming commonplace for both political leaders and other actors who have gained power and influence in society. Their talk spreads because it is considered prestigious, so it is more and more often heard in public, especially on television: “It is sad when really solid journalists allow themselves to use such terms as ‘losers’ or ‘the end of the line’.” This only contributes to the complete degradation of political language. It seems that the line between the speeches of drunk men in the tavern and political speech is gradually blurred.” (Donskis 2009). Examples confirming such statements do not have to look far. Each more expressive phrase or word of colloquial language used by politicians immediately finds its way into the headlines (e.g.: Brazauskas išsidūrė [Veidas 2003 05 29]; Politician sent the Council “nafig” [Panevėžio balsas 2009 03 30]). Using non-normative vocabulary, the journalists mentioned by Donski also expect greater attention from readers (e.g., texts by Rimvydas Valatka: Britų karalienė – ne lygis [2008 04 07]; Will A. Kubilius beat B. Obama? [2008 11 27]; A. Kubilius’s arrogantness cut the government [2009 01 22] www.lrytas.lt; Algimantas Šindeikis' comment: Reformers start mushrooming [Veidas 2008 11 17]; Weekly Atgimimas topic preview: Psychological Reasons for the Seimas Members’ Disappearance [2009 09 25]). Changes in the public space in Lithuania have been discussed by philosophers, political scientists and communication researchers on several occasions (see Bielinis 2002; Nevinskaitė 2006; Donskis 2007; Pečiulis 2007; Baločkaitė 2009). However, so far no more detailed studies have been carried out that could explain the penetration of linguistic expression, characteristic of the private, informal space, into the public. This article, based on theoretical literature and examples from Lithuanian public verbal discourse, aims to describe the main tendencies of language (de)terioration in the public space, focusing on the use of spoken language vocabulary in the speech of journalists and politicians. Since the time of Aristotle, the main goal of public speakers has been to persuade, to try to influence through speech. Pathos is one of the methods of persuasion identified by Aristotle. It is the knowledge of the interlocutor, the audience, “its attitudes, beliefs and the knowledge of how to influence it, how to arouse one or another of its emotions and feelings” (Keršytė 2005: 383–384). The aim of effectiveness is common to all the theoretical insights presented in this article: accommodation theory discusses adaptation to the interlocutor’s speech to achieve communicative goals; The enrichment of colloquial style vocabulary in public space, associated with changes in society, is referred to as jargonization and colloquialization. 140 LANGUAGE CULTURE | 82 ACCOMMODATION The theory of accommodation in sociolinguistics defines the basic linguistic and communication strategies that aim to adapt to the interlocutor or audience. In such cases, they try to pronounce similarly, use the same vocabulary, adapt to the conversation topic more acceptable to the interlocutor, his feelings. In this way, the speaker appears to be polite, expressing mutual understanding to the interlocutor (see Holmes 2008: 242). Such an example could be the greeting speech of the Minister of Education and Science Gintaras Steponavičius, given in the LTV program Lithuanian Millennium Children [2009 06 26] (words characteristic of spoken language emphasized by the author of the article. – G. T.). I’m particularly excited to see when learning, the pursuit of knowledge, can become a hook in life, a carrier, and truly inspire not only you—your best friends—but also your friends to strive for the heights.1 The minister targets a young audience, using words commonly used in youth speech, although associated with drug addict jargon. Contextual vocabulary as if “awakens” the listeners and reinforces the playfulness of the thought, e.g. : The best students become addicted to studying and it gives them constant joy. In this way, the image of a tolerant, liberal, young politician is created, solidarity and empathy towards the interlocutors are expressed. The expression of solidarity as if confirms the similarity of the interlocutors, eradicates social differences (cf. Tannen 1990): I am like you because I know you, I can speak like you. Similarly, some political commentators enrich their vocabulary with abundant insertions of colloquial language, thus creating a more personal and intimate relationship with the addressee (cf. Koženiauskienė 2009: 13). Here is an excerpt from the speech of Lietuvos ryto commentator Rimvydas Valatka in LTV program Savaitė [2009 08 23]: In general, today it is a [...] coalition problem, because Valinskas as a politician is already dead. If it is acceptable for Kubilius, Masiulis, Zuokas and others to be in a coalition with a zombie, then... they will share the problem of Valinskas among themselves. In principle, everything would be fine, but before the twentieth anniversary of the Baltic Way, it is clear that the Speaker of the Seimas 1 Hook – the urge to do something; usually drugs or intoxicants, when once started, it is impossible to stop (Zaikauskas 2007: 70); transport – stimulate (about intoxicants and narcotics) (Zaikauskas 2007: 174). Mr. TAMAŠEVIČIUS. The tendency to simplify language in the public space 141 publicly makes gestures with the representatives of the gang of doctors, well, this is a spit in the face of all those people who stood on the Baltic road. The leaders of the ruling majority should understand this and stop marinating the matter… It is obvious that the current politicians are so weak that they are inclined to be in coalition even with bandits or their people, just so that nothing will change, just so that they will remain in power… In this case, the jargon vocabulary is primarily used to negatively emotionally evaluate the politicians in power and to express verbal aggression. The reviewer adapts to the attitude and speech of the mass audience, people of average or lower education, and thus creates the phenomenon of a general feeling: “I, like all of you, am convinced that only bandits are in power” (see Pečiulis 2007: 187). Communication success in this case is almost unquestionable. JARGON The tendency of journalists and politicians to use colloquial or jargon words in their public speeches is called jargonization by Russian authors (cf. Kostomarov 2005: 235; Krysin 2009). In searching for the reasons for the changed linguistic behaviour in the public space, they first point to the democratization of society after the liberation from the totalitarian regime. The sense of freedom encouraged some of the society to be “guided” by certain norms of behaviour and ethics. One of the consequences of this transformation is non-normative vocabulary in public usage. In non-democratic states, both publicly and in literature, the possibility of choosing means from the boundaries of common language is restricted, and a dry, objective or artificially elevated, pathetic style often prevails (see Mečkovskaja 2006: 133). With the collapse of totalitarian states and the cessation of many of their norms, the liberalization of society became evident in the evaluation of non-standard linguistic expression, speech creativity, individual style. Therefore, in pursuit of popularity, today’s speakers publicly use freedom of speech and boldly break stereotypes in order to express their individuality. For this purpose, the vocabulary of spoken language, distinguished by special functional potential, possibilities of affecting the addressee, is especially useful. Expressive words of spoken language are also used to mock – for word play; when needed, they help to reduce stress (Chimik 2004). On the other hand, in the post-Soviet countries, people from the lowest social strata and low culture have gained power and influence in the social and political elite. Along with them, their jargon acquires “civil rights” in public (Mechkovskaya 2006; Krysin 2009). It is precisely this development in Lithuania that 142 LANGUAGE CULTURE | 82 Leonidas Donskis is quoted, speaking about the establishment of Kham and the degradation of political language (Donskis 2007: 115; 2009). Other social factors of jargonization mentioned by Russian authors are apparently common to both Eastern and Western European countries. Among them, it is worth mentioning migration: the inhabitants of the provinces move to the big cities, as a result of which the gap between dialects increases (the spoken city language is used for domestic communication), representatives of different social groups communicate intensively in the cities, adopting certain linguistic features from each other, accelerating the spread of innovations (Krysin 2009). However, this factor can hardly match the impact of mass popular culture. The standard of language becomes the public spoken language of the media – a multifunctional, dynamic, usually dialogical, spontaneous, unregulated and almost always expressive living language, in which, in addition to the words and phrases commonly used in journalism, expressive colloquial phrases, jargon, new English borrowings and even vulgarities are actively used (cf. Chimik 2004). Such vocabulary is mainly disseminated in general usage by the authorities created by the media – television “stars” and popular politicians. Then “a word or saying, which was not quite acceptable to the language norm-setters, but which is used by a well-known, authoritative personality, acquires civil rights and can become a norm” (Koženiauskienė 2001: 78). According to the Belarusian linguist Nina Mechkovskaya, this is a “top-down” process – the language of public life loses its elitism, acquiring more and more characteristics of the spoken language. On the other hand, studies carried out in various European countries show that the opposite phenomenon – “bottom-up” – is also occurring. It is argued that, due to the same influence of telecommunications and mass culture, the lower social strata are increasingly equalizing with the higher ones and the previously marked difference between them is narrowing (Mečkovskaja 2006: 34). In Lithuanian politics, Julius Veselka, a member of the Seimas, has been famous for his “popular” eloquence for many years. Here is how he spoke in the Seimas, addressing Arūnas Valinskas (candidate for the Seimas president): Dear candidate, when answering economic questions, you are very good at pushing here, pushing there, but I can say that when you participated in the negotiations you probably did not understand well what was being talked about, so I can say that you will be very “duped” <...> When the honourable Arūnas Valinskas gave his first speech, I thought, well, and clever Arūnas. He is a left-handed man who will wash the right-handed. Further I look – the right wing will “shoot out”, dear Aaron. Therefore, I want to ask you not to turn your hands around, because Stalin used to work at night, and then decisions were taken unanimously, so I want to ask you not to turn your hands around and remember that your anti-crisis program is a program of deepening and aggravating the crisis. (From the Seimas sitting transcript of 17 November 2008) Mr. TAMAŠEVIČIUS. 143 The speaker creates the image of a person who is well acquainted with the behind-the-scenes political games of the Seimas. He “protectively” warns a newcomer in politics – a candidate for the Seimas president – that he is not threatened by deception, but by “explosion”. This word, which comes from criminal jargon, applies to right-wing politicians: it is better not to deal with them, because they are no less insidious than criminals. At the end of the speech, the "paternalism" is confirmed by the familiari form of the second person singular ("don't give up", "remember"). This creates the image of an experienced, self-confident politician who warns about dangers in a simple and unobtrusive way. The language of young people is identified as another important factor of the jargonization of modern society. The influence of youth culture on today’s society is often associated with the fact that the socially and professionally active part of society is becoming younger, boldly using expressive expressions that are familiar to them in public (Chimik 2004). According to the Danish linguist Bent Preisler, “young people’s speech style and vocabulary influence the language of the whole society – especially the language of the media and advertising” (Preisler 1999b: 50). On the other hand, it is advertising and the media that contribute the most to the creation of such a model of youth cult, which is presented as an ideal aim for the whole society – “be or at least look as young as possible, because only young people are worthy of this or that” (cf. Vasiliauskaitė 2007). Therefore, youthfulness is being focused on in modern society as never before: not only the clothing style and lifestyle characteristic of modern youth, but also the elements of language cross the social age boundaries (cf. Chun 2007: 3–4)2. The language of youth is considered as the main source of renewal of the universally used jargon vocabulary and a possible factor of changes in the general language (cf. Gordienko 2006; Chun 2007: 4–5). The authors who discuss the issue of jargonization primarily consider the historical social break that occurred in post-Soviet Eastern Europe as the source of jargonization. The social changes common to the entire Western world were described more than four decades ago by the German philosopher Jürgen Habermas. This is the blurring of the boundaries between public and private space. This process continues to this day, and it is decisively influenced by the emergence of new communication technologies and the conditions dictated by the market2. A sociolinguistic study of the vocabulary characteristic of spoken language carried out in Vilnius a year ago confirmed that the vocabulary of young people is known and sometimes used by people of different age groups (see Tamaševičius 2008). 144 LANGUAGE CULTURE | 82 kiama media. This is particularly evident in the most prominent expression of the public space, television, which rejects the taught, paternalistic way of speaking and gives way to the informal, private-spheric communication (conversationalisation) (Fairclough 1992: 204). The modern viewer wants entertainment from television (entertainer-consumer model) (cf. Marcinkevičienė 2008: 61, 2009a), which is why it gives preference not to programs that encourage civic debate, but to entertainment programs – reality shows that transcend any boundaries of privacy, lifestyle magazines that investigate the individualities of public figures and their secrets, talent shows, etc. (Pečiulis 2007: 198). The language of such broadcasts is characterized by colloquialisation – the abundance of elements of spoken language: the vocabulary, sentence structure, quotes from spoken language, retellings, etc. are characteristic of the spoken style (Marcinkevičienė 2009a, 2009b: 96). The pressure of the market forces the media to seek as large an audience as possible, they have to strengthen the relationship with their viewers, i.e. to do what is popular. It is likely that in the future the media will speak even more often in the “language of the common people” (cf. Schrøder, Philips 1999: 67). At first glance, this would indicate the democratization of the public space, the transfer of power into the hands of ordinary people. However, Norman Fairclough, who has studied media discourse in depth, doubts that the public discourse, which is resembling colloquial language, reflects a real shift in power relations in favour of ordinary people. He asks whether this is not merely part of a power strategy to manipulate society both socially and politically, to attract as many audiences as possible (Fairclough 1995: 13). The answer is usually sought by studying the behaviour of politicians in the public sphere and especially in the media – the main area of their communication with the public. Until relatively recently, only populists used the colloquial style in political discourse3. The first changes came at the very end of the 20th century, when new leaders came to power in the United States and Great Britain. The model developed by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair is particular in this respect. Fairclough, who has studied the language of the new Labour politics, claims, in the words of Blair himself, that the basis of his image is to appear as a normal person (Talbot, Atkinson, Atkinson 2008: 63). It is therefore natural that he spoke in the language of ordinary people, although unexpectedly for many. In the opinion of many researchers, Di3 in Denmark, already several decades ago, the success of populist parties in elections was linked to their desire to “be closer to the people”, as well as to everyday conversational language (cf. Orla Vigsø 1996). Mr. TAMAŠEVIČIUS. 145 The closeness of the British leader’s political rhetoric to the spoken language was largely responsible for his political success (cf. Tolson 2005: 82). In order to strengthen their own image of a close leader, other leaders of states today do not shy away from the typical speech of ordinary citizens: Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenka, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. In this way, they show that they are free and able to communicate informally (see Repečkaitė 2006). Politicians are mainly forced to adopt such methods of image building by the conditions dictated by modern media, and especially television. In the struggle for voters’ attention, “politicians are forced to mediatize” (Pečiulis 2007: 206), to become attractive to the media fighting for high ratings. People are therefore approached primarily as media consumers rather than as citizens (Fairclough 1995: 13). For the same reason, the media-specific colloquialization of political discourse is increasing. After all, when speaking in familiar, informal language or behaving unusually in public, a politician can be almost sure that he will not go unnoticed by the media – his name will appear in the headlines of newspapers and on television news shows. An example of this is the mockery of the former Speaker of the Seimas Arūnas Valinskas from the Seimas tribune congratulating the newly confirmed head of the government: Wishing good work, I would first of all like to address the speech of the honourable Member of the Seimas Ingrida Valinskiene. Dear, by supporting the prime minister like this, you may save the state, but you can destroy the family. In the first sentence, the speaker emphasizes that he is addressing Ingrida Valinskiene officially, as the Speaker of the Seimas addresses a member of the Seimas. The formality is reinforced by the reference to the “honorable Member of the Seimas [...]”, and the name Ingrida is recorded in the documents, not Inga, as she usually introduces herself. The second sentence is a leap into a private conversation between husband and wife: the intimate address “dear” and the familiari singular form “keep” reveal a transformation from the relationship of the Speaker of the Seimas and the Member of the Seimas to the relationship of husband and wife. With this interlude of private discourse, Valinskas achieved that, when discussing the confirmation of the Prime Minister’s candidacy, both the press and television programmes did not forget to give a positive response to the Speaker of the Seimas himself. Similar attention was paid to the colloquial word “atia”, used in the last official address to the people of Lithuania by Arūnas Valinskas as the Speaker of the Seimas. 146 LANGUAGE CULTURE | 82 SUMMARY In today’s public space, language becomes simpler, acquiring more of the features of a colloquial, everyday style, not so much because of ignorance of language norms or low culture of speakers, as for the purpose of influence and effectiveness (accommodation). Such linguistic behaviour is influenced not only by the liberalization of society itself (jargonization), but even more so by the media. With the publicization of what is private and the “privatization” of what is public, television was the first to speak in everyday colloquial language (colloquialization). Politicians have also adopted this language, because they are directly dependent on the power of the media to reach and influence the public. The language of public space in Lithuania is still little studied, so more detailed studies of public spoken language of journalists and politicians are needed. LITERATŪRA Baločkaitė R. 2009: Politikos pornografizacija: ar viešumo gali būti per daug? – Kultūros barai 9, 14–19. Bielinis L. 2002: Šou principų dėsningumai Lietuvos politiniame gyvenime. – Politologija 1 (25), 21–39. Chimik V. 2004: В. В. Химик. Большой словарь русской разговорной речи. – Prieiga per internetą: www.philology.ru/linguistics2/khimik-04.htm Chun M. 2007: Jugendsprache in den Medien. [Disertacija]. Universität Duisburg-Essen. – Prieiga per internetą: www.deposit.ddb.de/cgi-bin/dokserv? idn=984967419&dok Donskis L. 2007: Taip, bet..., Vilnius: Versus aureus. Donskis L. 2009: Apie „ketvirtąją“ valdžią. – Prieiga per internetą: www. bernardinai.lt Fairclough N. 1992: Discourse and social change, Cambridge: Polity Press. Fairclough N. 1995: Media discourse, London: Edvard Arnold. Fairclough N. 2000: New labour, new language? London: Routledge. Gordienko V. 2006: В. А. Гордиенко. Формирование общего сленга в современном русском языке. [Daktaro disertacijos santrauka]. – Prieiga per internetą: www.lib.ua-ru.net/diss/cont/266603.html Holmes J. 2008: An Introduction To Sociolinguistics, Harlow: Pearson Education. Kerš ytė N. 2005: Rektorių retorika. – Naujasis židinys 9, 363–391. Kostomarov V. 2005: В. Г. Костомаров. Наш язык в действии: Очерки современной русской стилистики, Москва.