Interneto komentuotojų nuostatos dėl lietuvių kalbos priežiūros

R. Miliūnaitė. Internet commentators’ views on the supervision of Lithuanian language 149 LANGUAGE AND SOCIETY RITA MILIŪNAITĖ Lietuvių kalbos institutas In recent years, the Lithuanian Internet has been more than ever alive with discussions on various language issues. The most common reason for or cause of these are articles or interviews published on internet portals (sometimes taken from print or spoken media) and the accompanying readers’ comments. The articles usually reflect language policy and usage issues, and sometimes a non-language specialist presents his or her point of view on language issues of interest to him or her and the difficulties he or she has experienced in using the language. For example, in 2009 alone, until autumn, the most popular internet news portals were discussing non-prefixed female surnames, the beginning of English as a second language, the Žemaičių language in Žemaitija schools, whether the Lithuanian language is threatened with decline, Lithuanian spelling in the electronic space, Lithuanians who have emigrated giving their children such names “so that the British understand”, etc. The frequent linguistic discussion of even very specific content is supplemented by more general thoughts: the current state of the Lithuanian language, the meaning and quality of the work of language supervision institutions and linguists are discussed. These are the issues that are currently most concerned with the part of the public that is indifferent to language issues and show how the public reacts to various linguistic phenomena and official language policy measures. 150 LANGUAGE CULTURE | 82 Although it is acknowledged that the level of online discussions is often relatively low due to the anonymity of the commenters, both the published articles and their comments seem to be read by a considerable number of people, even those who do not participate in the discussions. Thus, it can be assumed that the totality of the published ideas reveals the linguistic attitudes of at least part of the Lithuanian-speaking society – both in Lithuania and in emigration – and influences the further development of those attitudes. Thus, it is possible to talk about studies of the linguistic attitudes of the public expressed in the debate. They should help to better listen to the voices of language users and to understand why the gap between society and linguists, as well as the dissatisfaction with current language policy, is so pronounced and unthinking. The aim of this article is to examine one of the many debates on language issues that have existed in the Internet space. It not only shows how the Internet community reacts to public language information, but also highlights the gaps in current language policy and language education of the public. Since there was a discussion about language supervision and the areas it should cover, the published comments were a good basis for exploring how people perceive the need to consciously regulate public language, and what they expect from language supervision authorities. The article does not attempt to accurately statistically calculate which areas are most frequently mentioned and seem most controllable to the commentators – this would be better determined by quantitative surveys. At the same time, it is important to reveal the differences of opinions and the arguments presented, which show how the positions regarding the supervision of the Lithuanian language are developing in our society. 1. ONLINE COMMENTERS AND COMMENTS Internet comments as a source of research on the linguistic attitudes of the public have been studied in Lithuania not so long ago (see Miliūnaitė 2006; Nevinskaitė 2008), with the understanding that it is not very prudent to rely on comments for scientific research because of their mentioned level, which is determined by the poor public culture of the society. The phenomenon of Lithuanian comments is raised and discussed by several authors of articles on the same portals (Dabašinskas 2009; Mitė 2009). For example, Stanislovas Kairys writes: It can be explained that the internet commentators are a specific audience, which does not reflect the general moods and attitudes of the society. Maybe so. Or perhaps just the opposite- R. Miliūnaitė. Internet commentators' views on Lithuanian language supervision 151 čiai? Maybe the openly expressed resentment on the Internet is like the tip of an iceberg, under which hides a huge mass of universal hatred and nihilism? (Kairys 2009) Nevertheless, there are also interesting ideas in the linguistic debate, which allow to form a more concrete picture of how the society perceives the processes taking place in language and the language policy carried out in Lithuania. The analysis of comments is a faster method of research than special surveys or interviews, but due to the specificity of spontaneous written speech (this will be seen from the following quotations) these data are rather spontaneous, they contain thought jumps, logical contradictions, so they require more time and different methods for processing and investigation than when analyzing the data of quantitative and qualitative surveys prepared in advance. Only sociological research can reveal the opinions and moods of the social strata expressed by the commentators of the largest internet portals. According to data provided by Laima Nevinkaitė (Nevinskaitė 2008: 246), a representative public opinion survey conducted in early March-April 2008 on behalf of the project “Electronic Democracy” showed that the age and percentage distribution of people who regularly write comments about public life and politics on news portals (once a week or more often) was as follows: 18-29 years old – 67.4%, 30-39 years old – 10.9%, 40-49 years old – 15.2%, others – 6.5%. So you can orient a little, kieno nuomonė interneto komentaruose vyrauja; tai toli gražu nėra nesugebantys už savo poelgius atsakyti paaugliai, kaip kad kartais linkstama manyti. 2. HOW THE INTERNET DISCUSSION ABOUT LANGUAGES ORIGINATED SUPERVISION? This discussion about language supervision and its methods arose from a misunderstanding or even a slight provocation. Website: www. atgimimas.lt (Lašienė 20091) was published a short – eleven questions and answers – interview of Neringa Lašienė with the Chairperson of the State Lithuanian Language Commission Irena Smetoniene “Where calves drink honey”. His journalistic introduction was as follows: Neringa Lašienė talks with Irena Smetoniene, Chairperson of the State Lithuanian Language Commission, about the fact that young people want correct language, about the language innovations spreading on the Internet and about the spelling of personal names. 152 LANGUAGE CULTURE | 82 Another internet portal www.delfi.lt moved the article (Lašienė 20092), but arranged the emphasis quite differently. The headline read: “Finances for those who speak incorrectly”, and the journalistic introduction read: “Languists ask the Seimas to pass a law that would require that information on the Internet and in public space in general be Lithuanian and correct. For non-compliance with the rules would be subject to fines provided for in the Code of Administrative Offences. About texts on the internet, Lithuanian language, which is supposedly hated by young people, and the spelling of names of foreigners and national minorities – a conversation with Irena Smetoniene, Chairperson of the State Lithuanian Language Commission. The interview itself mentions fragmentarily a number of things related to language management and specific language phenomena. For example, reference was made to the spelling of names of persons of other nationalities, teaching of some subjects in foreign languages, non-Lithuanian names of Lithuanian and foreign companies – foreign-language inscriptions being “a pure consequence of business policy”. Problems are raised that are important for the following areas of Lithuanian language use and supervision: Lithuanian language teaching in general education schools, media and public information, fiction and theatre as sources of general language learning. The problem is that the 1995 law has not yet mentioned online media, and the cunning publishers are asking: “Where is it written in the law?” Therefore, we intend to request a new version of the Language Act, which has already been registered, and we hope that it will be adopted by the Seimas during this term. It states that in general, any information that appears in public space must be Lithuanian and correct. Along with the new version of the law, there will be amendments to the Code of Administrative Offences. Thus, the discussion on the portal www.delfi.lt arose essentially about the extent to which it is legally possible to interfere with the language of the Internet and with the use of language in general. The phrase “information published on the Internet and in the public space in general” was not explained in the interview, only made a reservation for comments. When asked how to regulate the language of comments, I. Smetonienė replied: “I will not regulate comments, it is a personal area.” However, from the comments on the interview itself, it is clear that many readers understood that their own language used on the Internet (including comments) was being “attacked”. Thus, the discussion also revealed commentators’ views on what would happen if their free public language were regulated by law1. For this reason, this discussion provides evidence of how the Internet society 1 For the concept of free public language see. 2009: 38–44. R. Miliūnaitė. Internet commentators’ views on Lithuanian language supervision 153 view active Lithuanian language policy when legal measures are sought to regulate the correctness of public language. Although the discussion sometimes diverges to other topics or starts to reproach each other for peripheral things, its essence can be formulated as an attempt to answer the question: is it necessary to legislate to ensure that the language functioning in the Internet space is correct? The subsequent question is which areas of Lithuanian language use should be covered by such a law and which areas should be supervised in other ways or not supervised at all. 3. NATURE OF THE DATA AND RESEARCH TASKS In order to investigate the attitude of Internet commentators to language regulation, the article raises the following challenges: • identify the areas of language use that commenters prefer to be monitored; • to find out how commentators perceive the differences between public and private language; • determine whether the current language policy on language supervision, in the eyes of commentators, meets public expectations. The online consultation took place from 4 to 6 April 2009. At the end of it, 1288 comments were recorded, but later, apparently, the editors themselves removed some of them as offensive and left the 1258 comments visible to everyone. From these, 270 comments were selected as informative for the study and transferred to the Excel table in order to separately distinguish the areas of language use mentioned in the text of each comment and the commenters' attitude to their maintenance, and the data were examined using the filters of this program. 4. AREAS OF PUBLIC USE OF LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE AND THEIR SUPERVISION The areas of the spoken and especially written Lithuanian language that are supervised at the state level and – it should be emphasized – used publicly are usually listed as follows (keeping in mind that the role of the common language, and therefore the supervision, weakens as the list goes down; see Miliūnaitė 2009: 29–30 for more details): 154 LANGUAGE CULTURE | 82 • State management and administrative relations, • švietimo ir mokslo sistema (mokykla ir mokomoji literatūra, mokslo kalba ir kt.), • Media and public information, • Culture (fiction, theatre, etc.), • Business, entertainment, etc. The State Language Act2, which “establishes the use of the state language in public life of Lithuania, the protection of the state language, control and responsibility for violations of the State Language Act”, refers to the areas of use and supervision of the state language, and to some entities as users of the state language. In essence, the State Language Act covers the aforementioned areas of language use that are subject to supervision. These areas are described in more detail in the Statutes of the State Language Inspectorate3. 5. LANDMARKS OF LANGUAGE USE AND THEIR SUPERVISION In the interview published on the Internet, almost all areas of language supervision are mentioned, albeit fragmentarily: the educational and scientific system, the media (including online), culture (fiction, theatre, etc.), business; administrative language was also mentioned once. Some of them are reacted to in investigative comments, but new ideas are also raised. In addition, commentators defend their interests as language users, which do not always coincide with the position of the institutions defending the interests of the state. 5.1. General comments from commentators on language supervision policy In the comments of this discussion, as in many other linguistic discussions on the Internet, people express their views on the language, its state, the work of linguists and language maintenance policies. 2 Adopted on 31 January 1995 – OJ 1995, No 15-344. 3, No. 17-670, 2002. R. Miliūnaitė. 155 1) There is no need to interfere with the development of the language at all, it must develop by itself, and the only criterion for the suitability of the language is that it is important to be able to communicate4: Unhealthy attention to the language only means its fragility, weakness. “Strong”, healthy language exists without external influence, artificial regulations and regulations. Anyway, I wonder if there is such a marazmus elsewhere about errors, consumption regulations, or is this purely our idea? The language must improve itself, develop. And here they are artificially trying to control the language and decide what to do, how to speak. It's some kind of nonsense. Let me speak freely. Kaip užknisa tie kalbininkai. Speech is such a unique phenomenon, which itself changes and deforms, adapting to the circumstances and period. Somehow there was no regulation in the Middle Ages, but people communicated perfectly. Now what? That's not what you said. there is no such word; I told you – wire drawing... We speak as it suits us, whether in the country language or in the hard language of the field, the yard, what difference does it make if we understand each other. 2) it is recognized that the language needs to be maintained: Lithuanian language, if you do nothing, will degenerate. Like smoke. Of course, it changes somewhat in a natural way, but it has nothing to do with it being dirty. Look at how the French, for example, protect their language. Long overdue! We're almost done! The Soviet era was not able to disrupt us, because in the schools Lithuanian language and literature were taught by exceptionally good, talented, demanding teachers. "Greep" as a business! The youth is illiterate now. I'm sorry... Penalties, of course, won't win anything, as will prohibitions. Lithuanian citizens do not realize that by spoiling their language, they show their level of education, social and often professional status, and they are damaging themselves. It is necessary to raise the prestige of the language in general. It gives the impression that we live in a country of real unwashed-mouths – a shame… Many commentators are mistaken (probably the misleading title of the article also contributes to this), thinking that the law mentioned in the interview should also apply to private language. It is therefore understandable that there is outrage over such a “language policy”: 4 Only spelling and some punctuation errors have been corrected in the cited comments; everything else is left as it is on the internet, except for one completely authentic comment (p. 157), revealing the peculiarities of spelling without Lithuanian characters. 156 LANGUAGE CULTURE | 82 You should speak and write in Lithuanian and correctly, but to punish you for not being able to do it is absurd. Half of the people do not speak properly. The funniest thing is even to watch when two Lithuanians disagree about mistakes. Both are differently capable of identifying errors in the text. It follows from this that people who are learning Lithuanian are foreigners, have health problems that prevent them from speaking or writing correctly in Lithuanian, or are generally weaker in their ability, they should not try to show their Lithuanian language skills. A single attempt to identify objections in the article itself does not affect the course of the discussion: So what is the punishment – for incorrect spelling or for language? According to the title of the article – for the language. But the essay is mostly about errors in articles. And the illiterate or impatient, after reading only the title, make a lot of noise. Unprofessionality of the journalist. Vis dėlto dalis komentuotojų jaučia, kad kalbos priežiūra tam tikrais atvejais – privatu–vieša, laisva–oficialu – turi skirtis: If you start punishing people for using Lithuanian, you will only make them hate Lithuanian. Informal language will remain informal. Slang and new words will still come into Lithuanian, because a living language, like a person, evolves (changes). Well, yes, start checking every private message – this is a restriction of my rights. The requirement of correct Lithuanian language in company names is a complete absurdity. Such requirements should only apply to public bodies, the media and education, and nothing else. I think that spoken language should not be touched, because it is the basis of language evolution, because language does not stand still. More understanding commentators try to explain that private language (which is not understood equally) should not be interfered with from the outside at all: Distinguish informal communication from formal. After all, neither dialects, nor slangs, nor half-language are forbidden in informal communication. It is about formal communication. It is strange that in ours so many people who read the article and do not even realize what is written in it, but rush to write a comment. Language is divided into formal and informal communication. Online language is classified as informal communication, while politicians’ speeches on radio and TV are formal, and you must speak common Lithuanian. R. Miliūnaitė. 157 You can talk as you like with the shopkeepers or market workers, but don’t talk like you are in a market on the radio. And no one's gonna fine you. Especially, there are many comments in which it is strictly stated that language is a personal matter of one person: “I will speak as I want”, and no one has the right to tell how to speak, let alone punish for mistakes: “Anyway, the Constitution allows me to speak and write as I want, as long as I am not in public service, so you can hurt me, I write and speak as I want.” Banana Republic... as I want, so I write and as I want, so I speak. If everyone understands me, why do I have to invent a bicycle? My language and my business. So far, it’s just linguists who are fooling themselves out of lack of anything to do – they have to justify their existence. I was born on this planet and I don't care what language to speak and where to live!!! In those commentaries whose authors tend to acknowledge that language maintenance is necessary, the general direction of that maintenance is sometimes understood as the need to simplify the language system itself, the language rules: In modern times, when there is a lot of information, language must be simplified in order to convey information, not the beauty of language! No need for an engineer, programmer literary language! It must remain voluntary! Whoever wants to go deeper and know – to him respect, but to force everyone – it’s stupid! And we are happy to stick to our old traditions, allegedly ą, ę, ū, ų inspire our nationalism and national self-consciousness, no one has the courage to mention the possibility of simplifying or eliminating these nonsense. I think that all the nosines and pausksiukus should be destroyed and all the writing (especially spelling) modernized! Never have I ever… written online with birds and noses and no one will ever make me do it! The essence is obvious and point! And if you need beauty and art – read Maironi! In expressing opinions on language policy, the commentaries highlight the image of linguists as creating unsuccessful new creations, which has already become a clear stereotype (see Miliūnaitė 2006: 70–72): It is a pity that linguists are not able to create new words normally... Strange people... Linguists – a bunch of people who have nothing to do – I agree that some of their corrections were necessary, but how much nonsense did they produce in their meetings? The laugh comes just by hearing it – mocking words. 164 LANGUAGE CULTURE | 82 A number of commentators are intolerant of some of the authors’ misspellings7: I think it should be forbidden for commentators to write in non-Lithuanian alphabet. Simply block, because it is impossible to understand how you can hate the Lithuanian language even more. There is particular concern about the growing illiteracy among young people. Often mentioned is the young people’s favorite www.one.lt portal and its forums: I am in favour of punishing those “one-men” and the like, who deliberately distort the Lithuanian language. And some children no longer know how to write themselves, for example, "so". Many are firmly convinced that there must be a "sheip". Others write "taj" instead of "that". It seems elementary words, but today's teenagers no longer know and write them without errors. The online community itself somewhat regulates the standards of writing: there is no shortage (and not only in this discussion) of rude replies to writing without Lithuanian letters. As an outcome, which would repress illiterate commenters, it is proposed to create a special computer program that would not let incorrect entries into the public: Create a program that blocks writing in non-Lithuanian alphabet. What kind of spelling is this without nosals, without sh, ž, without ū? This is the specificity of the Lithuanian language and let us respect it. Since I read a lot of them, I have noticed a strange change in my writing automation. The point is that young people write vulgarly (they would write this word vulgarly, for example). And that's why you're going to get out of track. As a programmer, I would suggest filtering every comment through some bug-fixing program. This would help those who write well to keep their habits and those who write badly to learn to write well. Strictly need with them:) There were many people who supported such a program: it would "be the first step towards correct language on the Internet". Accused of illiteracy, the commentators excuse themselves with the technical shortcomings of computers and mobile phones (which can also be used to write on the Internet), especially abroad: But then thousands of Lithuanians living abroad, who may communicate with their compatriots through Internet cafes where Lithuanian is spoken, will not be able to write comments. 7 According to a study carried out at the end of 2007, only 40% of the authors of comments on the www.delfi.lt portal used Lithuanian characters, while in the Latvian version of the same portal 78% used Latvian characters with all diacritics, and in the Estonian version 98% used Estonian characters (Grigas, Pedzevičienė 2008: 15). R. Miliūnaitė. Internet commentators' opinions on Lithuanian language supervision 165 No one will let you choose. You would ask somewhere in Germany, France and pins, and finally we do not write otherwise. panašiai, kad pajungtų tau lietuvių kalbą. Rašybą labai gadina sms rašymas mobiliaisiais telefonais. Atsiranda daug trumInformation technology specialists claim that technical obstacles to writing with all Lithuanian characters are no longer present (see Grigas 2007: 2–8); outcomes can be found even when abroad and without a keyboard with Lithuanian letters. By the way, the administration of the same news portal www.delfi.lt in early 2009 found a way to remind commenters that they should write in Lithuanian characters (see picture). It is only difficult to say how much this record is respected, what its effect is, because there is no shortage of “sveplų” records so far. The comment box of the Internet news portal www.delfi.lt True, there is also stupid or even malicious stubbornness. Some people try to explain how to avoid language control: Now all you have to do is move the pages to foreign servers and you can show the language gestapo a big spy:))) Host your site in the US or any old EU country and be sure that there will be no such idiot laws there. Just there no one will understand such jokes. Try in the UK to ban signs to write, for example, in several languages, and the next day several thousand Arabs will shout in front of the parliament. P.S. By the way, I, assuming that it is better not to deal with our asses, I registered my company page on myself, and the page itself is safely located somewhere in Oklahoma City. 166 LANGUAGE CULTURE | 82 The commentators are also outraged by the profanity in the comments: The comments resemble the signs on the walls of public toilets or streets. Let him speak dialectically, let him speak fluently, but let him not change. When they curse – it gets scary. It is impossible to even normally discuss and talk with a person. All profanity on the Internet must be filtered! From the comments discussed, it is clear that many of their authors are not satisfied with the current situation of the Lithuanian language on the Internet and understand the functioning of different genres of language in this medium, which must be looked for various ways to maintain. 5.2.3. Speech of politicians and other representatives of the authorities Many commentators mention the public speech of politicians, which is far from exemplary and should be more supervised, because politicians are well visible in society and their speech has an impact. Some commentators were annoyed by the speech of then President of the Republic of Lithuania Valdas Adamkus; It is proposed to start language control from the presidential institution, and it is also believed that language lessons would not harm members of the Seimas, other representatives of the authorities: We should start with the highest officials of the state! As long as they are sexist in Russian or English by dirtying the language, such laws would be worthless! One criterion for our politicians should be a language culture test. After all, now all educators take such an exam when obtaining a qualification degree. Now there is no greater shame than listening to our politicians, supposed politicians, rather in quotes – “politicians” speeches. Such illiterates should be searched for in other strata. Furthermore, the level of the official administrative language must not be lost sight of: writing and correct speech are essential in correspondence between institutions and in relations with other states. 5.2.4. School Commentators emphasize the importance of teaching Lithuanian language – the future of the Lithuanian language depends on what children learn in school. Therefore, it is proposed to develop the need for cultural language and the skills of correct language use: R. Miliūnaitė. 167 It is high time to strengthen the Lithuanian language in schools, before it is too late, because there will be problems with spelling. [...] the future of Lithuanianness will depend only on the education system of our children, not on a stupid article that will not even be implemented in practice. Go to schools and kindergartens and teach young people so that our future will speak beautifully and correctly, but instead some minorities started teaching children in your kindergartens. 5.2.5. Fiction, culture Several commentators suggest more control over the language of books, especially translated fiction: It would be better if that commission checked the work of book translators. It is no longer possible to read fiction normally. Sometimes there are some Lithuanian slangs. There is an opinion that educated people speaking in public should speak correctly: But even educated people make mistakes. Sometimes, when you ask members of the Seimas or representatives of the arts, you get hairs on your head: they don’t know Lithuanian at all, they use only Lithuanian words, but they don’t respect either humor or style, they just don’t know how to combine them. For example, I once heard the dancer A. K. He said this: “As far as the dance is concerned, we should rework the steps.” Is this in Lithuanian? I don't think... it is necessary to tighten the requirements for Lithuanian language. Attention is also drawn to the area that is too little controlled by language specialists – Lithuanian song lyrics: Let the song lyrics be corrected, then hundreds of people learn irregular forms… As in Riaubiškytė’s song, when there was “to confess your love”, then corrected, tačiau iš albumų nebeištrinsi. Kas antrame tekste rimtos kalbos klaidos. 5.2.6. Kitos sritys The commentators also find the language used in various public service sectors a hindrance, because “people who interact with people must be able to speak and write correctly”: Look how many doctors make mistakes, some of them are simply illiterate. We need to teach drawing at school. 168 LANGUAGE CULTURE | 82 First, pass a law that state-owned enterprises should be serviced in the national language and not in a foreign language. Especially if you call an ambulance and the nurse can’t even say hello in Lithuanian. The language inspectorate should better look into the names of registered companies, where the devil himself can break the tongue from foreign words, and look into the names of goods used in invoices. Indeed, a lot of dissatisfaction is expressed about non-Lithuanian public signs and company names: When creating a company, its name should be approved by the Lithuanian language commission. This would be a part of the fight for the purity of the Lithuanian language. Non-speakers may not be able to FORMULATE EXACTLY, but their wish is clear – that from all public records it should be clear whose land this is, in what state you are. So that the HOUSEHOLDER of the country who does not know foreign languages will understand from the sign where to go and where not. IT IS HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO ACCESS INFORMATION IN STATETYBINE is the language! Right, the trademark is inviolable, but it can be as an ADDITIONAL note, information for those to whom it is important. The concern of the gentlemen entrepreneurs is to figure out what they should write on the main – LITHUANIAN – poster. After all, this is ELEMENTARY CULTURE, and they cannot behave here as OCCUPANTS. I am annoyed by the name: “MaXima”, “Super neto” and many others… Why did the language commission “let” them in? After all, in Lithuania we have to speak Lithuanian! Well, let’s say, “Adidas” we won’t change, and who allowed the Lithuanian retail chain such a name as “MaXima”? As for the signs, it’s very simple – if you like Lithuanians paying LITAS, then let the Lithuanians like to hang Lithuanian signs. And if it’s too much sacrifice for you, or if you can’t afford a translator to translate for you, then you’re a businessman. And if it is so important for you to boast that you are some sort of “tone”, then put that inscription somewhere – it doesn’t bother me, it’s important that you write in big letters in Lithuanian what this is – a kabak, a sauna, a gun or a beetroot shop. I will carry my litas by the way, I will leave them to those where I will be clear, who is behind the sign. And why will the Riverside district appear in Klaipeda? After all, the name is not Lithuanian:((( After reviewing the opinions of the commenters of the online discussion on the supervision of the Lithuanian language, it is clear that the authors of the comments raise many problems of language management, reveal shortcomings. Most of them are not indifferent to the processes taking place in the language and the language policies being implemented, and they expect much more activity from the language supervisory authorities. R. Miliūnaitė. Internet commentators’ views on the supervision of Lithuanian language 169 CONCLUSIONS 1.The comments of the linguistic debate show that people have different understandings of the importance of language supervision and its application to different areas of language use. For some, it is completely unacceptable to interfere with the development of language, others recognize that some areas of language use must be controlled by the state. 2.The following areas of public (official and free) use of the Lithuanian language are identified in the investigated internet comments as requiring language supervision and control (in approximate order of importance): 1) media (television and radio hosts, TV films, internet news portals, press), 2) public policy space (language of politicians and other representatives of the authorities), 3) public information and services to the public (public notices, company names, corporate websites), 4) education (kindergartens, schools), 5) fiction (especially translations), 6) individual websites (e.g. blogs) and internet comments. Thus, the expectations of correct language are most associated by the public with the media – spoken, printed and online. It is also believed that more control should be exercised over public information and the language of politicians in order to respect common cultural and linguistic norms. 3. The language of the public Internet space, which is not mentioned in the 1995 State Language Act, gives rise to many concerns about the processes taking place there. The discussion showed that people do not evaluate their own information equally with information provided by official sources (e.g. news portals, institutions websites). Many support the idea that the language of online news portals should be more supervised. A lot of uncertainty arises about the public language of the commentary – whether it should be controlled from outside (first of all regarding spelling and uncensored vocabulary). The majority are fundamentally intolerant of profanity and vulgarity in the public Internet space, as well as in the written media. On the other hand, they are sensitive when their own interests are at stake. Therefore, there is a natural discontent, even if it is wrongly understood that private language will be controlled. Some commenters admit that the language of the comments is public, but it is the language of private and anonymous people. It can only be regulated by the joint efforts of the Internet portals themselves and public opinion, i.e. by creating an environment in which there are clear provisions: value and aim are alive, uncorrupted free-style language. 170 LANGUAGE CULTURE | 82 4. Both the official language intended for the public and the language kalbinė informacija turėtų būti pateikiama aiškiau ir tiksliau, kad būtų išvengta tuščių diskusijų, bent dalies nesusipratimų ir nereikalingos įtampos communicated by the media between the public and linguists. The diversity of arguments and perspectives presented in similar linguistic debates must be taken into account when language policy actions are taken and publicly interpreted. ŠALTINIAI Lašienė N. 20091: Kur geria veršiai medų. – Prieiga per internetą: http:// www.atgimimas.lt/articles.php?id=1238061176, kovo 27. Lašienė N. 20092: Kalbantiems netaisyklingai – baudos. – Prieiga per internetą: http://www.delfi.lt/news/daily/lithuania/article.php?id=21323801, balandžio 4. LITERATŪRA Dabaš inskas G. 2009: Bevardis chamas prie klaviatūros vairo. – Prieiga per internetą: http://www.bernardinai.lt/index.php?url=articles/93520, balandžio 6. Gr igas G. 2007: Lietuviški rašmenys kompiuteryje. – Gimtasis žodis 3, 2–8. Gr igas G., Pedz evičienė S. 2008: Internetiniai komentarai. Ar mokame juos rašyti? – Kompiuterija 1, 15. Kair ys S. 2009: Savaitė bus šilta. Kaip šlykštu! – Prieiga per internetą: http:// www.atgimimas.lt/ssi.php?id=1248938441&which=1&f_text=, liepos 31. Miliūnaitė R. 2006: Internetinė visuomenė ir kalbininkai: pokalbis įmanomas? – Bendrinės kalbos norminimas ir vartojimas [mokslo straipsnių rink.], Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 62–81. Miliūnaitė R. 2009: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos vartosenos variantai, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Mitė V. 2009: Internetiniai komentarai ir „komentarai“. – Prieiga per internetą: http://www.delfi.lt/news/ringas/lit/article.php?id=21260225, ko vo 31; 771 šio straipsnio komentaras. Nevinsk aitė L. 2008: Kalbos politikos vertinimas interneto komentaruose. – Kalbos kultūra 81, 245–265. Gauta 2009 10 19 R. MILIŪNAITĖ. Interneto komentuotojų nuostatos dėl lietuvių kalbos priežiūros 171 ATTITUDES OF INTERNET COMMENTATORS TOWARDS THE SUPERVISION OF THE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE Summary The paper deals with the attitudes of internet commentators towards the supervision of the Lithuanian language. Reference is made to a discussion launched on the internet in April 2009 on the initiative of the Commission of the State Lithuanian Language that the new draft law on the state Lithuanian language should include a provision that the language of the information placed on the internet and in public space in general should be in accordance with the requirements of standard Lithuanian. The researched commentaries have shown that people differ in their attitudes towards the importance of language supervision and control of different areas of language usage. Some claim that any intrusion into language is unacceptable; others admit that some areas of language usage should be controlled on a national level. The majority of commentary writers are not indifferent towards the processes going on in contemporary Lithuanian and current language policy; they also raise various issues on language supervision and expect that language supervision institutions should be more actively involved in the process. The commentaries usually refer to the following areas of language usage (official and free) which require supervision and control (given in the order of importance): 1) mass media (television and radio programmes, TV films, news portals on the web and the press); 2) public discourse of politicians (language of politicians and other representatives of public institutions); 3) public information and services (public notices, names of companies, company websites); 4) education (kindergartens and schools); 5) literature (especially translations); 6) private websites (e.g. blogs) and internet commentaries. The society most often relates its expectations of a well-formed and grammatically correct language with spoken, printed and internet mass media. Public information (public notices, names of companies) and the language of politicians are treated as requiring most control. The supervision of public speeches on the internet, not included in the Law on State Lithuanian Language of 1995, is treated in different ways. Many people approve of the idea that the language of news portals should be more strictly supervised. However, opinions differ as to the supervision of commentaries and particularly their regulation by fines. Some agree that stricter control should be imposed 172 TALBOS KULTŪRA | 82 on the language of commentaries, especially on spelling and swear words; some authors treat such measures as an attack on human rights. Before taking measures of language policy and discussing them in public, it would be important to consider the variety of approaches and their arguments. This would help avoid misunderstandings and the tension arising between linguists and the society at large. RITA MILIŪNAITĖ Lietuvių kalbos institutas P. Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius, Lithuania [email protected]