Grėsmės kalbai ir kalbos priežiūra: žurnalistų požiūris

L. Nevinskaite. Language Threats and Language Supervision: The Perspective of Journalists 173 LAIMA NEVINSKAITĖ Lietuvių kalbos institutas This article analyses the attitude of one group of language users – journalists – to language threats and the need to monitor them. The aim of this research is to find out whether language users feel that language maintenance is necessary because they perceive threats to the language. The nuostatų objektas pasirinktas dėl to, kad grėsmės kalbai dažnai yra pateikiamos kaip kalbos priežiūros poreikį pagrindžiantis motyvas. Šiuo tyrimu noobjective is achieved by analyzing the motives of language policy and discussing Lithuanian language policy in this regard. Journalists are a valuable group of language users for research, because for them language is not only a means of everyday communication, but also a work tool. They are also an important target group for language policy, because the experience of journalists allows them to reflect on the need for language policy and ways of implementing it. The article examines qualitative interview data collected during the project “Baltic Sociolinguistics (BalSoc): Linguistic Self-Awareness of the Society in Lithuania and Latvia”1. During the survey, male radio and television presenters and journalists aged 32-42 were interviewed – a total of 24 respondents were interviewed. Although such a selection limits the generalization of the results to all media professionals or even more so to the public, a homogeneous sample allows to reveal the greatest possible diversity of opinions of one group, regardless of the age and gender of the participants. Most of the radio and television employees in the sample have experience of spontaneous speaking on radio or television. The sample was formed according to two criteria. The first of them was the respondent’s language education. According to it, “professionals” – respondents who were taught language and speaking during their studies, and “non-professionals” were distinguished. 1 The project was carried out by the Lithuanian Language Institute in 2009. The survey was conducted in July – September. The project was supported by the State Foundation for Science and Studies. 174 LANGUAGE CULTURE | 82 did not acquire this education during their studies. The professional group included journalists and hosts with journalistic and acting backgrounds. The second criterion was the audience of the program (or programs) for which the respondent works. According to this criterion, the hosts of popular programmes and programmes for young people and public programmes and programmes for older people were distinguished. According to these two criteria, four sample groups were formed, from each group six respondents were selected. In this article, when quoting the respondents, the nature of their work and education will not be mentioned, since the analysis under these categories did not show substantial differences in dispositions. Language policy can simply be defined as the effort of someone to change the linguistic behaviour of a community for any reason whatsoever. These reasons can range from the banal notion that someone does not like the way a group speaks to the complex idea that a community can preserve its culture by preserving its language (Kaplan, Baldauf 1997: 3–4). In Cooper’s (1989) well-known and frequently cited language policy model, reasons could be described as goals: “What actors are seeking to influence what behaviour, by what people, for what purposes, under what conditions, by what means, how to make decisions and what results to achieve?” For example, the goals of language policy mentioned by various authors are language standardization, spelling standardization, modernization, language purification, revitalization, language preservation, etc. (Kaplan, Baldauf 1997; Hornberger 2006). Both these and other authors’ objectives indicate the desired result of language policy, but do not explain the reasons for language policy in general, why some or other objectives are set. This is exactly what the motives of language policy reveal: why and for what these changes are sought. The motives of language policy have been discussed much less in the theoretical literature on language planning than the objectives of language policy. Cooper’s model states that objectives can be open (where language-related behavioural changes are pursued) and hidden (where non-language-related behavioural changes are pursued, i.e. to satisfy certain interests, such as maintaining privileges and power), but does not examine them in more detail (Cooper 1989). L. Nevinskaite. 175 One of the most comprehensive analyses of the motives of language policy has been provided by D. Ageris (2001). According to the author, the motivation (stimulus) of language policy consists of three elements: motives related to a specific plan or policy in general; attitudes of policymakers towards a particular language or language variants; more specific objectives they want to achieve. Thus, D. Ageris distinguishes between the goals and motives of language policy: the motives explain the reasons for language policy efforts, the goals – what specific results are sought. The author himself gives the following summarized possible motives for language policy (Ager 2001): 1. Identity. Traditionally, one of the most important characteristics of national and ethnic identity is language, and as a motive of language policy is often cited the creation, strengthening and preservation of national identity, pride in one’s language. For example, this motive is very important for language policy in France. 2. Ideology. In this case, language policy is determined by the ideology of a common language and its relationship with other language variants. In the United Kingdom, this was used to strengthen the teaching of the common language (at the expense of dialects) in schools. 3. the image. This motive is important for language policy measures aimed at promoting the language of one's country in the world, such as the activities of British Council offices, French cultural centres and cultural centres of other countries in various countries of the world. 4. Uncertainty. This is a situation where language policy measures aim to preserve the language of a nation or ethnic group, because the influence of other languages is associated with a threat to the established identity or culture in general. This motif underlies the entire discourse of linguistic globalization (see Phillipson, Skutnabb-Kangas 1996). An example of such language policy, where this motive is prominent, is France: there is fear that new terms coming from English may destroy “French culture, French way of life, French science, or even France itself” (Ager 2001: 77). The motive of insecurity also emerges from the demand that (to quote the then French Minister of Culture) French should not be “used for secondary purposes” – compared to English (Ager, 2005: 10). This language policy motive is closely related to the 1999: 8). former – the creation and preservation of a national or ethnic identity – but there are differences between them. From the explanations and examples given by D. Ager, it can be understood that identities 176 LANGUAGE CULTURE | 82 Motive 82 is not always related to external threats to the language, although the creation of identity involves the desire to separate from other groups. The motive of insecurity explains the situations in which the external threats to the language are often new or increasing. 5. The inequality. These are situations where language policy is used to reduce social exclusion and inequality on various grounds: ethnicity, gender, lack of formal power. Language policies in various countries aim to legitimize the status of national minorities and ethnic groups’ languages (strengthening the status of Aboriginal languages in Australia, EU policy on regional and minority languages), while gender-neutral language promotion measures are applied in Western countries. 6.Integration and instrumental function of language. This motivation is more likely to affect the actions of minorities, ethnic and linguistic communities than the policies of the state. It is a situation where these communities want to change language behaviour or influence language policy, for economic, pragmatic purposes (such as better job opportunities) or to integrate into certain groups. These reasons are sufficiently detailed to be applicable to the investigation. They can also be used to analyze Lithuanian language policy and consumer attitudes towards it. The motivation of Lithuanian language policy can be examined on the basis of the State Language Policy Guidelines (the current guidelines were for the period 2003-2008; a draft of guidelines for 2009-2013 has already been prepared, but has not yet been approved by the Seimas) and public debates. Language policy reasons are not explicitly mentioned in the guidelines, but can be deduced from other provisions (VKPG 2003; VKPG 2008). In comparing the two documents, there are no substantial differences due to language policy reasons, but the article analyses in more detail the document adopted in 2003. The analysis of the guidelines shows that language policy is primarily linked to national identity, since the first sentence of the guidelines refers to the relationship between language and identity: “The Lithuanian language is the basis of Lithuania’s national and cultural identity”. In the formulation of the main objective of language policy (“to preserve the language heritage and promote its development in order to ensure the functionality of the Lithuanian language in all areas of public life”) it is possible to see in part an instrumental motive – language policy is aimed at ensuring that the language can perform its functions, and in part a security motive – ensuring that the Lithuanian language functions as the main language. L. Nevinskaite. Threats to language and language surveillance: the attitude of journalists 177 in public life, so that they do not displace other languages. The formulation of the most important task of language policy (‘so that society understands the value of its language and does not disappoint in its powers’) is also difficult to explain unequivocally: here it is possible to recognize national identity and ideological (value of language) and instrumental (functionality of language) motives. However, the overview of the current situation in the guidelines makes the motive of insecurity identified by Mr Ager very clear, because there is a lot of space for the description of language threats. Not less than three paragraphs are devoted to globalization and the English language, and the motif of protecting the Lithuanian language from globalization is again linked to the motif of national identity: “State language policy must create a counterbalance to the new value orientations conditioned by globalization, otherwise the future knowledge society may have lost its language and national identity in general.” By the way, when considering globalization, the criterion of functionality identified in the objectives is evaluated negatively, because it “separates language from culture and the people who consume and create it”. Furthermore, the motive of insecurity, i.e. the threat of the English language, is emerging again: it is stated that “the right of Lithuanian citizens to maintain employment relations and improve their qualifications in the state language is not guaranteed”, based on the fact that it is not mandatory to translate normative and technical documentation into the state language, and the number of courses in English is increasing in higher education institutions. The review mentions another external threat to the language, linked to the motive of insecurity – the development of information technologies, which is “much faster than the Lithuanianization of electronic media”. In summary, it is necessary to say that several language policy motives can be seen in the guidelines: the connection of language with national identity, insecurity, and partly instrumental motive. However, in terms of their presentation, greater importance is attached to the consolidation of national identity and the protection of the language. The discourse of threats to language and national identity is also fairly visible in public debate, although it is not assessed equally here. Without attempting to examine in detail all the public debate on this issue, only a few typical opinions are presented. For example, one can hear about threats to the language from the lips of a member of the Seimas: “It is clearly understood that the Lithuanian language is in danger. The old beautiful language is on the brink of extinction.” The threat is primarily associated with English, early foreign language teaching is negatively assessed (quoted Seimas member Dalia Teišerskytė; Kalbos išlikimas, 2008). In another article, the threat to the Lithuanian language is also linked to the English language, and the quoted figure uses obvious defensive metaphors in his speech: “The Seimas [...] 178 LANGUAGE CULTURE | 82 toias, warring with fashionable foreign words” (Gliožerienė 2004). In such opinions, the motive of language as an essential visus atkurtos nepriklausomybės metus nesugebėjo išleisti griežto įstatymo, kuris gintų lietuvių kalbą ir būtų patikimas ginklas gimtosios kalbos saugoelement of national identity often emerges: for example, in the opinion of the politician quoted earlier, politicians must pay more attention to the Lithuanian language, because “if it becomes distorted, it will become a pasiligojusi – tokia bus ir Lietuva, juo labiau kad lietuvių kalba yra mažos šalies didi kalba“ (Kalbos išlikimas, 2008). Others disagree with such opinions. In the opinion of some public and political figures, the elements of other languages do not pose a threat to the language, and the power of the language depends on its ability to reflect reality: “I am convinced that neither the requirements for scientists to publish articles in English, nor the stupid signs on Laisvės alėja or Gedimino prospektas have anything to do with the future of our language. [...] I think that this is not the reason why language is in danger… It is always in danger when it stops developing spontaneously, when it ceases to be the best means of self-expression [...]” (Egidijus Aleksandravičius; Lithuanian Language in Lithuania, 2004). Nerija Putinaitė, Deputy Minister of Science and Education, does not see any threats either (Čyvas 2009). Perhaps the most radical expression of this view has been made by the blogger and journalist Andrius Užkalnis, who lives in exile: “the threat to the Lithuanian language is an invention of selfish fundamentalists” (Užkalnis 2008). Irena Smetonienė, chairwoman of the Lithuanian Language Commission, in one of her interviews takes a moderate position, stating that the Lithuanian language is threatened by English, but not more than other languages: “Today our language, like all other languages, is confronted with the so-called “lingua franca” – English and its influence. But all languages experience this” (Žiugždienė 2008). Journalists interviewed during the survey were asked about the threats to the Lithuanian language. This article uses interview material from 23 (out of 24 interviewed) respondents (in one interview there was nothing about threats and language supervision). The language of the answers is minimally revised. In the interviews, among many other questions, the journalists were asked about threats to the Lithuanian language and its quality: “How do you think, L. Nevinskaite. Threats to the language and language supervision: the attitude of journalists 179 years of Lithuanian language, its survival and quality? If so, what are these threats, from where?” Summarizing the answers to the question about threats to the language, eight journalists identified one or another source of threat, while others (15) stated that they do not see any threats to the Lithuanian language. It is important to note that these figures show spontaneous answers to that question. When respondents were further asked about possible specific threats to the language (globalization and English, information technology, multilingualism), several of those who initially did not name them agreed that the mentioned factors may partly pose a threat to the Lithuanian language. However, spontaneous responses are considered more likely here, before the respondents have been given hints about possible answers. Journalists who spontaneously identified threats to the language linked them to various sources. Mainly opinion-based influence of English; threats are also associated with information technologies, emigration, general tendencies of society (culture) change, language devaluation. Thus, most of the respondents thought that the Lithuanian language is threatened by English: This is probably the only one I would see such a threat – perhaps too much of our language over time can be overloaded with various English terms. Respondents noted that English affects not only Lithuanian, but also other languages. When it comes to protecting oneself from this threat, the reference point is the language of the past: This very English language is a very big threat. And not only for Lithuanian, but for many other languages. [...] There is a great danger that if we, say, do not maintain the identity of our language, how we should speak and how, say, our ancestors spoke, then… It can happen that our language will eventually be filled, filled with various international words, until finally we will become some kind of language clutter, which will no longer be able to be called even Lithuanian language. Information technology is considered a source of threat, especially to written language: A bad example is that, say, both the commentators themselves on the Internet, who comment in the public space, they do not even use Lithuanian characters. And it’s used only by what is, say, on the keyboard and that’s it. And they don't try to write. In the long run, this can pose a serious threat to our written language – the way we write. 180 LANGUAGE CULTURE | 82 Some associate the threat with general cultural changes, noting that modern youth read much less books, which impoverishes the language: the Internet, where information is also grasped – short, clearly laid out. [...] Young people probably read less books and the stock of words may be running out, not so much, not even running out, most importantly, if [it] wasn’t even. It does not expand. The age of quick information, when you get, throw, get, throw and you're not perfect. The threat is also associated with emigration, when Lithuanians who have left no longer maintain their language: [The threat comes] from migration mainly, I think. Because I have rarely met people with such a talent to forget their normal Lithuanian snarling. And I am very angry with such people. I still have some interests in London, so I have to go there from time to time and meet all the Lithuanians who have left. I have seen some of them in America, where they went to study, and after half a year in another country they already speak Lithuanian with an accent. One journalist made an interesting observation about how language is related to identity – not as a consequence of language preservation, but as a cause. According to him, the closure of the nation encourages the devaluation of the language, which does not help the language, because it cannot be maintained by the efforts of linguists alone: The greatest threat is that the Lithuanian nation is closed, homophobic. Because they will begin to appreciate Lithuanian language when they broaden their horizons. [...] People must want to speak pure, correct Lithuanian themselves, not someone, i.e., standing with a bison and forcing them to speak. People have spoken as they like and will speak as they like. No one can force them. Respondents who said that they do not see any threats to the Lithuanian language gave various explanations for their opinion: many view language change as a natural change, refusing to talk about threats in general; others associate the survival of the language with the survival of the nation, without seeing any threats to the language itself; language evils are viewed as transient or isolated events that do not have a substantial impact on language, or threats are associated only with overly strict language supervision. First of all, what could be summarized as an argument is that what is happening at the moment is a natural change of language and therefore there is no need to talk about threats: Here again, apparently, it depends on what we consider standards, because if there is some Jablonski language, then there are probably threats, but if language is a living organism, then after a certain time it will be a threat. L. Nevinskaite. Threats to language and language supervision: the attitude of journalists 181 fifty years, probably, everyone will speak somehow differently, and whether it is a threat to extinction and whose extinction... Let’s say, [the threat is] the same as for the Lithuanian nation. That is, we become part of the world, and... well, we can talk about anglicisms and so on. And, let's say, with communications, it accelerates the whole process even more. But I don’t think that the Lithuanian language should live as it was formed, I don’t know, at the end of the 19th century, and it cannot change [...]. Several other journalists believe that the survival of the language is linked to the survival of the nation, and that there is no threat to the language itself. Here, too, the example of emigrants is used: I think that they are inseparable, those threats, from the threats to us as Lithuanians in general… If there is some sort of Lithuanianness as a thing, then this is the same, this is related, this is the same. As long as there is Lithuanian, there will be Lithuanian language. As long as there are people who perceive themselves as Lithuanians, this will be the Lithuanian language. Because Americans come to the Song Festival, they have long stopped talking, but they feel some need. I am optimistic... The evils of the language are also considered as a passing thing or it is said that individual non-compliance with the language norms does not damage the language in principle: There is a certain wave: now there is this English speaking, but... a person reaches a certain phase in his life when he is simply sick of speaking a language that is full of some nonsense. So it's fun for young people. Yes, in Soviet times it was the Russian language, which threatened very strongly and everything else. Now nothing, now we are completely free. The Lithuanian language is now under the same threat as the French, German, or some other English language. But what [is threatening], I don't know, the internet... But those communities [coming from the English language], [...] we want it, we don’t want it, but certainly the language won’t eat, won’t eat. The world does not tend to acquire one common language somehow, [English] will not eat up all the national languages of the national units. Finally, a couple of respondents are of the opinion that the language is at least threatened by overly strict supervision: I think that just too strict, strict supervision, strict control of that language [is a threat]. Sometimes it scares people, as I mentioned, that he is starting to be a little bit afraid to speak, they are embarrassed because they already feel very weak against the big monster of the Language Inspectorate [...]. 188 LANGUAGE CULTURE | 82 Phillipson R., Skutnabb -Kangas T. 1996: English Only Worldwide or Language Ecology? – TESOL Quarterly 30, 429–452. Available online at: https://www.twu.ca/Library/tqd_2008/VOL_30_3. PDF#page=36 VKPG 2003: Guidelines of the State Language Policy 2003-2008. – Valstybės žinios, 2003 06 13, 57-2537. VKPG 2008: Guidelines for the State Language Policy 2009–2013 [draft]. Retrieved 2008-06-09. Access via Internet: http://www.vlkk.lt/lit/10110 Received 27 November 2009 THREATS TO LANGUAGE AND LANGUAGE SUPERVISION: A JOURNALISTIC APPROACH Summary The paper analyses the attitude of journalists as a group of language users towards threats to language and a need to supervise it. The object of investigation has been chosen due to the fact that threats to language are often given as grounds for language policy. The analysis of the guidelines of the state language policy in Lithuania has shown that insecurity about the preservation of language and identity is given as an important aspect of the situation in language policy. Within the project Baltic Sociolinguistics (BalSoc): Linguistic Awareness and Orientation in Lithuania and Latvia (Institute of the Lithuanian Language, supported by the Lithuanian State Science and Studies Foundation) there were 23 interviews with journalists collected. Most journalists are of an opinion that language is not exposed to any threats since the present situation has resulted from the natural language development, any evils are a matter of fashion and tend to pass, the preservation of language is more related to the preservation of the nation rather than language change; some consider tough language regulation as a major threat. Some journalists tend to partially support language supervision; however, the majority of them are in favour of a different approach to it. Current language policy is mostly criticised for inappropriate measures: the respondents would prefer an educational approach, more attractive forms to the existing control. The language policy, according to them, should be more flexible and more usageoriented. Summarising the approaches of the respondents to the above issues, there has been a remarkable consistency noticed: those who see threats to language also, at least partially, approve of its supervision; those who disprove of its supervision do not see any threats. A large group of the respondents in favour of the language supervision have pointed out that they do not see threats. Therefore, the awareness L. Nevinskaite. Language threats and language surveillance: journalists’ perspectives 189 Such conclusions might be relevant for discussing language policy in of language threats works as a factor for language supervision; on the other hand, the approval of language supervision is not necessarily based solely on the threats. target groups. The conclusions are indicative that to encourage language users to support the currently implemented language policy, the (sole) factor of threats and language security is insufficient. LAIMA NEVINSKAITĖ Lietuvių kalbos institutas P. Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius, Lithuania [email protected]