Grėsmės kalbai ir kalbos priežiūra: žurnalistų požiūris

LAIMA NEVINSKAITĖ Institute of the Lithuanian Language THREATS TO LANGUAGE AND LANGUAGE CARE: JOURNALISTS’ PERSPECTIVE This article analyzes the attitudes of one group of language users—journalists—toward threats to language and the need to care for it. This subject of language users’ attitudes was chosen because threats to language are often presented as a rationale for the need for language care. This study seeks to determine whether language users consider language care necessary because they perceive threats to language. This goal is pursued by analyzing the rationales for language policy and discussing Lithuanian language policy in this regard. Journalists are a valuable group of language users for research because language is not only a means of everyday communication for them, but also a tool of their work. They are also an important target group for language policy, since journalists’ experience enables them to consider the need for language policy and ways of implementing it. The article examines qualitative interview data collected as part of the project “Baltic Sociolinguistics (BalSoc): Linguistic Self-Awareness in Society in Lithuania and Latvia”1. During the study, male radio and television presenters and journalists aged 32–42 were interviewed—a total of 24 respondents. Although this sampling limits the generalization of the results to all media workers, and even more so to society as a whole, the homogeneous sample makes it possible to reveal the greatest possible diversity of opinions within one group, irrespective of participants’ age and gender. Most of the radio and television employees in the sample have experience of spontaneous speech on radio or television. The study sample was constructed according to two criteria. The first was the respondent’s linguistic education. On this basis, “professionals”—respondents who had received instruction in language and speaking during their studies—and “non-professionals”— 1 The project was carried out by the Institute of the Lithuanian Language in 2009. The survey was conducted from July to September. The project was supported by the State Science and Studies Foundation. L. NEVINSKAITĖ. Grėsmės kalbai ir kalbos priežiūra: žurnalistų požiūris 173 having not acquired such an education through their studies. The professional group included journalists and programme presenters with training in journalism or acting. The second criterion was the audience for whom the programme (or programmes) in which the respondent worked was intended. On this basis, presenters of popular programmes and programmes for young people, and presenters of public-affairs programmes and programmes for older people, were distinguished. Using these two criteria, a sample of four groups was formed, with six respondents selected from each group. In this article, when respondents are quoted, the type of programme they work on and their education will not be specified, as the analysis showed no substantial differences in attitudes according to these categories. THREATS TO THE LANGUAGE AS A MOTIVE FOR LANGUAGE POLICY Language policy can be defined quite simply as someone’s efforts, for some reason, to change the linguistic behaviour of a community. The reasons may vary—from the banal perception that someone dislikes the way a particular group speaks to the complex idea that a community can preserve its culture by preserving its language (Kaplan, Baldauf 1997: 3–4). Žinome ir dažnai cituojame R. Cooperio (1989) kalbos politikos modelyje priežastys galėtų būti nurodomos kaip tikslai: „Kokie veikėjai siekia paveikti kokią elgseną, kokių žmonių, kokiais tikslais, kokiomis sąlygomis, kokiomis priemonėmis, kaip priimdami sprendimus ir kokių pasiekdami rezultatų?“ Tikslai apibūdina, kokio kalbinio elgesio pokyčio siekiama, tačiau nepaaiškina pasirinkimo priežasčių. Pavyzdžiui, įvairių autorių minimi kalbos politikos tikslai yra kalbos norminimas, rašybos standartizavimas, modernizavimas, kalbos gryninimas, atgaivinimas, kalbos išlaikymas ir kt. (Kaplan, Baldauf 1997; Hornberger 2006). Ir šie, ir kitų autorių įvardijami tikslai nurodo siekiamą kalbos politikos rezultatą, tačiau nepaaiškina, dėl kokių priežasčių apskritai imamasi kalbos politikos, kodėl iškeliami vienokie ar kitokie tikslai. Būtent tai atskleidžia kalbos politikos motyvai: kodėl ir dėl ko siekiama tų pokyčių. The motives for language policy have received considerably less attention in the theoretical literature on language planning than the goals of language policy. The aforementioned model by R. Cooper indicates that goals may be overt (when changes in language-related behaviour are sought) or covert (when changes unrelated to language are sought, that is, when certain interests are served, for example, preserving privilege and power), but they are not examined in greater detail (Cooper 1989). 174 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82 Vieną išsamiausių kalbos politikos motyvų analizų yra pateikęs D. Ageris (2001). Autoriaus teigimu, kalbos politikos motyvaciją (stimulą) sudaro trys elementai: motyvai, susiję su konkrečiu planu ar politika apskritai; politikos veikėjų nuostatos dėl tam tikros kalbos ar jos variantų; konkretesni tikslai, kurių jie nori pasiekti. Taigi D. Ageris atskiria kalbos politikos tikslus ir motyvus: motyvai paaiškina, kokios priežastys lemia kalbos politikos pastangas, tikslai – kokių konkrečių rezultatų siekiama. Pats autorius pateikia tokius apibendrintus galimus kalbos politikos motyvus (Ager 2001): 1. Identity. Traditionally, language has been one of the most important features used to define national and ethnic identity, while the creation, strengthening, and preservation of national identity, as well as pride in one’s language, are often cited as motives for language policy. For example, this motive is highly important to language policy in France. 2. Ideology. In this case, language policy is determined by the ideology prevailing in a country concerning the standard language and its relationship to other language varieties. For example, this motive was invoked in Great Britain to strengthen the teaching of the standard language in schools (at the expense of dialects). 3. Image. This motive is important for language-policy measures designed to promote a country’s language around the world, for example, the work of British Council offices, French cultural centres, and cultural centres of other countries in various parts of the world. 4. Insecurity. This is a situation in which language-policy measures are intended to preserve the language of a nation or ethnic group because the influence of other languages is associated with a threat to the identity that has been established, or to the culture as a whole. The entire discourse of linguistic globalisation is based on this motive (see Phillipson, Skutnabb-Kangas 1996). France is an example of such language policy in which this motive is particularly evident: there is concern that new terms entering from English could destroy “French culture, the French way of life, French science, or even France itself” (Ager 2001: 77). The motive of insecurity is also apparent in the requirement that the French language not be “used for secondary purposes” (to quote the French culture minister at the time)—in comparison with English (Ager 1999: 8). This motive for language policy is closely related to the first—creating and preserving national or ethnic identity—but there are differences between them. From the explanations and examples provided by D. Ager, it can be understood that identity L. NEVINSKAITĖ. Grėsmės kalbai ir kalbos priežiūra: žurnalistų požiūris 175 The motive is not always connected with external threats to the language, although identity formation does involve a desire to distinguish oneself from other groups. The insecurity motive explains situations in which threats to the language from outside are often new or intensifying. 5. Inequality. These are situations in which language policy measures are intended to reduce social exclusion and inequality arising on various grounds: ethnicity, gender, and lack of formal power. In various countries, language policies are implemented to establish the status of the languages of national minorities and ethnic groups (strengthening the status of Aboriginal languages in Australia, EU policy toward regional and minority languages); in Western countries, measures are taken to promote gender-neutral language. 6. Integration and the instrumental function of language. This motive more often shapes the actions of minority, ethnic, and linguistic communities than state policy. This is a situation in which these communities want to change linguistic behavior or influence language policy in pursuit of economic, pragmatic goals (for example, better employment opportunities), or to integrate into particular groups. These motives are sufficiently comprehensive to be applied in a study. They can serve as a basis for analyzing both Lithuanian language policy and users’ attitudes toward it. The motivations behind Lithuanian language policy can be examined on the basis of the Guidelines for State Language Policy (the guidelines in force covered the period 2003–2008; a draft of the 2009–2013 guidelines has already been prepared but has not yet been approved by the Seimas) and public discussions. The guidelines do not directly identify the motives of language policy, but these can be discerned from other provisions (VKPG 2003; VKPG 2008). A comparison of the two documents revealed no substantial differences regarding the motives of language policy, but this article analyzes the document approved in 2003 in greater detail. Analysis of the guidelines shows that language policy is primarily associated with national identity, since the first sentence of the guidelines points to the link between language and identity: “The Lithuanian language is the foundation of Lithuania’s national and cultural distinctiveness.” The formulation of the main goal of language policy (“to preserve the linguistic heritage and promote its development in order to ensure the functionality of the Lithuanian language in all areas of public life”) can be seen in part as reflecting an instrumental motive—the aim of language policy is to enable the language to perform its functions—and in part a security motive—that the Lithuanian language should function as the principal language 176 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82 in public life, so that it is not displaced by other languages. The formulation of the most important language policy task (“so that society would recognize the value of its own language and would not be disappointed by its possible…”) is also difficult to explain unambiguously: here one can identify motives related to national identity and ideology (the value of the language), as well as an instrumental motive (the functionality of the language). However, the overview of the current situation presented in the guidelines clearly brings to the fore the insecurity motive identified by D. Ager, since considerable space is devoted to describing threats to the language. Three paragraphs are devoted to globalization and the English language, and the motive of protecting Lithuanian from globalization is again linked to national identity: “State language policy must create a counterbalance to the new value orientations conditioned by globalization; otherwise, the knowledge society of the future may have lost its language and its national identity altogether.” Incidentally, in the discussion of globalization, the functionality criterion identified among the objectives is evaluated negatively, because it “separates language from culture and from the people who use and create it.” The insecurity motive—namely, the motive associated with the threat posed by the English language—emerges 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”; this is justified by the fact that there is no requirement to translate regulatory and technical documentation into the state language, and that courses taught in English are becoming more common in higher education institutions. The overview mentions another external threat to the language, also associated with the insecurity motive: the development of information technology, which “is progressing much faster than efforts to Lithuanianize the electronic environment.” In conclusion, several language policy motives can be discerned in the guidelines: the link between language and national identity, insecurity, and, to some extent, an instrumental motive. However, given how these are presented, greater importance is attached to affirming national identity and protecting the language. The discourse of threats to the language and national identity is also quite evident in public discussions, although it is assessed in different ways. Without attempting to examine all public discussions on this subject in detail, only a few representative views are presented. For example, threats to the language can be heard of from 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 associated primarily with English, and early foreign-language teaching is viewed negatively (Seimas member Dalia Teišerskytė is quoted; The Survival of the Language, 2008). In another article, the threat to Lithuanian is also associated with English, and the speaker quoted uses striking defensive metaphors: “The Seimas [...] through L. NEVINSKAITĖ. Grėsmės kalbai ir kalbos priežiūra: žurnalistų požiūris 177 throughout all the years of restored independence, has failed to pass a strict law that would protect the Lithuanian language and serve as a reliable weapon for guardians of the mother tongue waging war against fashionable foreignisms” (Gliožerienė 2004). Such opinions often also highlight the idea of language as an essential component of national identity. For example, in the view of the politician quoted above, politicians should pay more attention to the Lithuanian language, because “if it is crippled and sickly, Lithuania will be the same, all the more so because Lithuanian is the great language of a small country” (Kalbos išlikimas, 2008). Others object to such views. In the opinion of some public or political figures, elements from other languages do not pose a threat to the language, and a language’s strength depends on its ability to reflect reality: “I am convinced that neither the requirement for scholars to publish articles in English nor the stupid signs on Laisvės Avenue or Gedimino Avenue have anything to do with the future of our language. [...] I think that this is not why a language is endangered... It is always endangered whenever it ceases to develop spontaneously, whenever it stops being the best means of expressing oneself [...]” (Egidijus Aleksandravičius; Lietuvių kalba Lietuvoje, 2004). Deputy Minister of Education and Science Nerija Putinaitė also sees no threat (Čyvas 2009). Perhaps the most radical expression of this view comes from journalist and blogger Andrius Užkalnis, who lives abroad: “the threat to the Lithuanian language is an invention of selfish fundamentalists” (Užkalnis 2008). In one interview, Irena Smetonienė, chair of the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language, takes a moderate position, stating that Lithuanian faces a threat from English, but no greater one than other languages do: “today our language, like all other languages, faces what is known as ‘lingua franca’—English and its influence. But all languages experience this” (Žiugždienė 2008). JOURNALISTS’ VIEWS ON THREATS TO THE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE The journalists interviewed as part of the aforementioned study were asked about threats to the Lithuanian language. This article draws on interview material from 23 of the 24 respondents (one interview contained nothing on the issues of threats and language care). The answers are presented with minimal editing. In conversations covering many other questions, journalists were asked about threats to the Lithuanian language and its quality: “Do you think that at this 178 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82 time there are threats to the Lithuanian language, its survival and quality? If so, what are these threats, and where do they come from?” Summarizing the responses to the question about threats to the language, eight journalists named one or another source of threat, while the others (15) said that they saw no threats to the Lithuanian language. It is important to note that these figures represent spontaneous answers to the question. When respondents were asked further about specific possible threats to the language (globalization and English, information technology, multilingualism), several of those who had not initially named any threats agreed that the factors mentioned could pose a threat to the Lithuanian language to some extent. However, spontaneous answers are considered more reliable here, since respondents had not yet been given prompts suggesting possible answers. The journalists who spontaneously identified threats to the language linked them to various sources. Most opinions focused on the influence of English; threats were also associated with information technology, emigration, general trends in social (cultural) change, and the devaluation of the language. Thus, most respondents believed that English poses a threat to Lithuanian: This is probably the only threat I would identify—that perhaps, over time, our language could become too saturated with all sorts of English terms. Respondents noted that English affects not only Lithuanian but other languages as well. When discussing protection against this threat, the language of earlier times is treated as the point of reference: English itself is a very great threat. And not only to Lithuanian, but to many other languages. [...] It is a really great danger if, let’s say, we fail to preserve our own linguistic identity—how we should speak and how, say, our ancestors spoke—then... It could all happen: over time our language may keep filling up with all kinds of international words until, eventually, we turn into some sort of linguistic jumble that can no longer even be called Lithuanian. Information technology is considered a source of threat, especially to written language: A bad example is that internet commenters who post in the public sphere do not even use Lithuanian characters. They use only what is on the keyboard, and that is all. They make no effort to write properly. Over time, this can pose a fairly serious threat to our written language—to the way we write. L. NEVINSKAITĖ. Grėsmės kalbai ir kalbos priežiūra: žurnalistų požiūris 179 Some associate the threat with broader cultural changes, noting that today’s young people read far fewer books, which impoverishes the language: The internet, where information is also grabbed in snippets—brief and clearly laid out. [...] Young people read fewer books, so perhaps their vocabulary is dwindling; it isn’t what it was—or rather, the main thing is that perhaps [they] never had one. You know, it doesn’t expand. The age of fast information, when you get it, discard it, get it, discard it, and you don’t develop. The threat is also associated with emigration, when Lithuanians who leave no longer maintain their language: [The threat comes] mainly from migration, I think. Because I have rarely met people with such an ability to forget their normal Lithuanian way of speaking. And I get very angry with people like that. I have some other interests in London, so from time to time I still have to go there, and then you meet all those Lithuanians who left. I’ve seen people like that in America too—people who went away to study, and after living in another country for half a year, they’re already speaking Lithuanian with an accent. One journalist makes an interesting observation about how language is connected with identity—not as a consequence of language maintenance, but as a cause. According to him, a nation’s insularity encourages the devaluation of its language, which does not help the language, since it cannot be maintained solely through the efforts of linguists: The greatest threat is that the Lithuanian nation is closed-off and homophobic. Because they will begin to value the Lithuanian language precisely when they broaden their horizons. [...] People themselves have to want to speak pure, correct Lithuanian, rather than someone standing over them with a whip and forcing them to speak. People spoke as they wanted and will speak as they want. No one can force them. Respondents who said they saw no threats to the Lithuanian language explained their views in various ways: many regard language change as a natural process and therefore reject speaking of threats altogether; others link the survival of the language to the survival of the nation and see no threats to the language itself; they consider the language’s shortcomings temporary or isolated phenomena that have no significant impact on it, or associate threats only with excessively strict language regulation. First, one point that could be summarized as an argument is that what is happening at present is natural language change, and therefore there is no need to speak of threats: Here again, I suppose, it depends on what we consider the standards to be, because if we mean some Jablonskis-style language, then there are probably threats; but if language is a living organism, then after 180 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82 In fifty years, probably everyone will speak somewhat differently, and is that a threat of extinction, and whose extinction… Let’s say, [the threat arises] in the same way as for the Lithuanian nation. That is, we are becoming part of the world, and… Well, all right, we can talk about Anglicisms and so on. And, let’s say, communications make the whole process speed up even more. But I don’t think the Lithuanian language has to live on exactly as it was formed, I don’t know, at the end of the nineteenth century, and that it cannot change […]. Several other journalists believe that the survival of the language is tied to the survival of the nation, and that the language itself faces no threats. Here, too, they draw on the example of emigrants: I think they are inseparable, those threats, from the threats facing us in general as Lithuania... If there is such a thing as Lithuanian identity, then it’s the same thing here; it’s connected, it’s the same thing. As long as there are Lithuanians, there will be a Lithuanian language. As long as there are people who see themselves as Lithuanians, there will be that Lithuanian language. Because Americans come to the Song Festival; they haven’t spoken the language for a long time, but they already feel some kind of need. I’m optimistic [about it]... Language’s shortcomings are also seen as a passing phenomenon, or it is argued that individual failures to observe language norms do not, in essence, damage the language: There are certain waves: now this kind of English-style speech has set in, but… A person reaches a certain stage in life when they simply feel ashamed to speak a language that is full of all sorts of nonsense. Young people enjoy it, after all. Yes, in Soviet times it was the Russian language that posed a very serious threat, and all the rest. Now—nothing; now we are completely free. The Lithuanian language now faces exactly the same threats as French, German, or, say, English. But what [threatens it], I don’t know—the internet... But those common features [coming from English] […] whether we want them or not, they certainly won’t swallow up or devour the language. The world does not seem to be moving toward having some single common language; [English] will not swallow up the national languages of all the national communities. Finally, a couple of respondents believe that the language is threatened, if anything, by overly strict language oversight: I think that it is precisely excessively strict—strict supervision and strict control of the language [that pose a threat]. Sometimes it puts people off; as I mentioned, they start to be a little afraid to speak, they shrink back because they already feel very weak in the face of the great monster, the Language Inspectorate […] L. NEVINSKAITĖ. Grėsmės kalbai ir kalbos priežiūra: žurnalistų požiūris 181 JOURNALISTS’ OPINIONS ON THE NEED FOR LANGUAGE CARE This question sought to determine journalists’ views on the need for language policy. Although the concepts of language policy and language care cannot be equated, the survey used the narrower, but presumably clearer to respondents, concept of language care. However, some respondents spoke of language policy understood more broadly, encompassing more than language care. The question was as follows: “There are two opinions in society: that language needs to be cared for and that its development should be left to its own devices. Which opinion would you support?” The responses were distributed as follows: five respondents said that language needs to be cared for; four thought it would be better to leave it to its own devices; the largest group (14 respondents) believed that language needs to be cared for, or at least partly cared for, but that this should be done differently from the way it is done now. Support for language care is grounded in a perceived threat to the language (those who fully supported care also identified threats to the language). One respondent said that, until now, there had even been too little care: To care for it, regulate it—that is unequivocal. [...] I am quite opposed when a certain line is crossed, when people are speaking almost three or even four languages at once and then you no longer understand what it is. [...] And then it turns into something like a mishmash. I, yes, I think it needs to be cared for. [...] It needs to be cared for because, in my opinion, until now it has not been properly cared for. Those who did not support language care explained their views in various ways: either by disputing the effectiveness and ideology of language care, or by arguing that the development of language should be regulated by other means, not by language care. As we will see later, many respondents thought that current language policy was being implemented inappropriately, but nevertheless supported the view that it was necessary; a few journalists questioned the very purpose of language care. Thus, one respondent thought that language should be left to its own devices because it was unclear whether language care was effective: I think that [the development of the language] should be left to its own devices because, in principle, all the efforts... [...] I think the linguists’ efforts—in principle, it seems they have already saved the Lithuanian language here... I would put a very big question mark over whether they have really managed to save the Lithuanian language here. Because my question is this: what would have happened if there had been no efforts by linguists? Maybe nothing terrible would have happened. I don’t know. 182 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82 Another journalist (with a degree in philology) supports his opinion with theoretical concepts of language policy, showing his position toward them: [...] in linguistics, it works like this: there is prescriptive grammar and descriptive grammar. There are very few countries with a language like Lithuanian. Generally, descriptive grammar is used everywhere in the world. I’m in favor of descriptive grammar; there’s no need to regulate it, if one were to explain it methodologically [explain]. In the opinion of others, the proper development of a language should be determined by other factors, not by efforts to maintain it. These could include a prestigious language preserved in certain sections of society, which provides an example to society, or a kind of “natural selection,” whereby the necessary, best things will survive in the language on their own: I imagine that society, [...] prestige norms or, let’s say, certain thresholds and levels naturally arrange certain things. And it’s the same as [...] someone having the opportunity to wear, to put on higher-quality clothes—so the language naturally gets sifted, let’s say. And a certain stratum of society will always cherish the values that seem important to them. So I don’t think we should be held back, more or less, by some artificial means. [The development of language should be left] to take its own course, without a doubt, because the test of life is, after all, the most effective. Either what is unnecessary or imposed should fall away, or... And things should somehow take root naturally. Finally, the largest group (15 respondents) held the view that language regulation is necessary, but should be different from what it is now: either it is needed only to some extent, and should not be as strict as it is now; or it should be carried out by other means, taking usage more into account and being more flexible. Thus, there were some who supported language regulation only in part. They would like to see a certain “golden mean” or “liberal authoritarianism.” In one respondent’s opinion, regulation is necessary so that an ideal language can be preserved as a standard for comparison in certain domains: I think it should be left to take its own course, with just a little regulation [laughs]. A little. So there would be some kind of point of reference, let’s say, so that somewhere people wouldn’t lose it—the beautiful language, the stress patterns we’ve grown accustomed to. So that when you turn on the television and watch certain programs, let’s say, not comedies or something like that, but certain serious, normal programs, you could hear what standard, normative Lithuanian sounds like. L. NEVINSKAITĖ. Grėsmės kalbai ir kalbos priežiūra: žurnalistų požiūris 183 Journalists who support language supervision but criticize it most often spoke negatively about language policy measures. In their view, language policy should not be limited to language supervision; it should be developmental rather than controlling—appealing means of dissemination should be used to engage the public without provoking a reaction of “rejection.” The National Dictation is given as a positive example of such measures: It [supervision] needs to be carried out very, very thoughtfully and much, much more cleverly, using all the latest public relations technologies and every advertising tool that can possibly be accessed. But I think that our government, I mean, took the easiest route—it established a supervisory agency that simply issues fines. So this is, I mean, Soviet-style, boneheaded thinking that will lead nowhere. I think that we can let everything in. Again, this is a kind of sign of the age-old problem with the Lithuanian mentality: we think that we need to protect, prevent, prohibit, and wall ourselves off, instead of thinking about how to interest, enthuse, and inspire people. That’s the way I see it. [...] I would say that people need to be interested naturally. Here, for example, the National Dictation, in my view, is one of the most wonderful ideas of the last—how many decades has it been? [...] [Because] what do we have apart from basketball? Nothing. But basketball, sport, is something we understand very clearly. So, we made a competition to see who’s better. A Lithuanian-language dictation, to see who’s better. And it’s good if the nation understands things only in such ways, [...] let it be. So be it, that’s also a way, but this is already a positive, creative approach to the matter, and just look at how popular it is. Supervision should be less moralizing and more advisory in nature: Let’s say that, for my part, I’m prepared to receive criticism if I really am doing something terribly wrong. I’m definitely prepared. But, let’s say, it shouldn’t be in some kind of instructive, schoolteacher-like tone. Essentially, it should simply be a recommendation, without a doubt. The suggestions about what supervision should be like also make clear that greater consideration should be given to usage and the flexibility of language: I would be in favor of a golden mean between supervising language and leaving it to its own devices, because on the one hand language is a living organism that has to develop as it develops, while on the other hand, of course, there has to be someone who regulates the process a little, but... but doesn’t pull the blanket toward themselves, to their own side, so to speak... A linguist, God forbid, certainly shouldn’t establish or invent a rule that hasn’t been borne out, because, say, if nobody stresses it that way, why should we start stressing it that way? 184 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82 Another respondent who supports moderate supervision points to one further reason, related to the most fundamental functions of language—effective communication: I think that... And could there be a middle ground? So, I’m in favor of a middle ground. Of course, I think that, whether we like it or not, there has to be a standard, because how else will we talk to each other? If we can all speak in any way we like, then, well, we simply won’t understand each other. But that standard could be something that changes, or... Somehow, I’d at least like it to be more open, because language is a living organism [...]. CONCLUDING REMARKS In analyzing language policy, its motives (reasons that encourage the implementation of language policy and determine its character) and objectives (the results sought) are distinguished. The most comprehensive model presented in the theoretical literature distinguishes the following motives for language policy: the connection between language and national (ethnic) identity; language ideology, which encourages the teaching of some language varieties rather than others; improving a country’s external image by promoting the spread and learning of its language around the world; a sense of insecurity that encourages protecting the language from external threats; reducing inequality through changes in the status of a language or languages; and language as a means of integration into particular communities and of achieving economic objectives. An analysis of one of Lithuania’s principal language-policy documents—the Guidelines for State Language Policy—using this classification of motives shows that the strongest motives for language policy are insecurity and the connection between language and national identity. These motives are also reflected in opinions expressed publicly about language policy, although they are evaluated in different ways. The study of radio and television journalists presented in this article sought to determine whether journalists perceive threats to the Lithuanian language and how their views on these threats relate to their support for language care. In this way, the study aimed to establish their position on one of the prevailing motives for language policy in Lithuania. The interviews revealed diverse views on threats to the language and language care: most of the journalists surveyed did not see threats to the language, yet the majority supported language care at least in part. Analysis by journalist profile (the audience for which they work and their educational background) revealed no substantial differences. L. NEVINSKAITĖ. Grėsmės kalbai ir kalbos priežiūra: žurnalistų požiūris 185 A summary of respondents’ views on the questions examined reveals a consistency in their attitudes: those who perceive threats to the language also support language care at least in part (8 respondents); those who oppose language care do not perceive threats either (5 respondents). Most interestingly, there was a group of respondents (10) who supported language care at least in part, even though they did not report perceiving threats to the language. Thus, the perception of threats to the language functions as a motive for language care, but support for language care is based on more than perceived threats alone. These conclusions have implications for discussions about the acceptance of language policy among its target groups. They show that, to motivate language users to support language policy more strongly, it is not enough to rely solely on threats as a motive for protecting the language. Unfortunately, this study did not examine in greater depth what the respondents consider to be the main motives underlying the need for language care. However, hints in their answers to the questions posed here and elsewhere suggest that positive motives would be more appropriate (care for the sake of something, providing something; comprehensive language policy that is not limited to language care), as opposed to negative motives based on insecurity (care aimed at protecting against something). Language-policy measures are evaluated in a similar way: creative, activity-promoting, educational measures (for example, the National Dictation) are viewed positively, unlike conservative, controlling, and regulatory measures. On the other hand, the interview data also point to another possible alternative. If language-policy makers nevertheless consider the threats to the language to be very serious, while society is insufficiently aware of them, discussion should present more detailed arguments (for example, about the harmful impact of particular phenomena or language fashions on the language system), rather than treating them as self-evident. Importantly, the study results were favorable toward language policy—language policy is supported. However, it should be borne in mind that criticism of language-policy measures has emerged in more than one study of language users (cf. Nevinskaitė 2008). In assessing the significance of the data presented, it is essential to understand that this study examined the views of only one group of language users. The research can be continued by asking similar questions in other samples, as well as by exploring in greater depth the motives underlying public support for language policy. 186 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82 ŠALTINIAI Čyvas T. Švietimo viceministrė: lietuvių kalbai grėsmės nėra. 2009 m. birželio 2 d. – Balsas.lt. Prieiga per internetą: http://www.balsas.lt/naujiena/294125/svietimo-viceministre-lietuviu-kalbai-gresmes-nera-video/rubrika:naujienos-lietuva-politika Gliožerienė A. Perspėja apie pavojų kalbai. 2004 m. balandžio 28 d. – Klaipėda.lt. Prieiga per internetą: http://klaipeda.diena.lt/dienrastis/lietuva/perspeja-apie-pavoju-kalbai-175467 Kalbos išlikimas – ne grėsmė, o realybė. 2008 m. rugsėjo 20 d. – Balsas.lt. Prieiga per internetą: http://www.balsas.lt/naujiena/214654/kalbos-islikimas-ne-gresme-o-realybe/rubrika:naujienos-kultura-literaturairmenas Lietuvių kalba Lietuvoje: dukra ar podukra [apie diskusiją VDU]. – Universitas Vytauti Magni, 2004, nr. 5. Prieiga per internetą: http://uvm.vdu.lt/Universitas%20Vytauti%20Magni/2004%20m.%20Nr.5/FOV4-0003DE24/ Užkalnis A. Gresme lietuvių kalbai – savanaudžių fundamentalistų prasimanymas. 2008 m. gegužės 17 d. – Lrytas.lt. Prieiga per internetą: http://www.lrytas.lt/-12109570541210756175-p1-Komentarai-Gr%C4%97sm%C4%97-lietuv%C5%B3-kalbai-savanaud%C5%BEi%C5%B3-fundamentalist%C5%B3-prasimanymas.htm Žiugždienė J. Irena Smetonienė. Jaunimas nori taisyklingos lietuvių kalbos. 2008 m. vasario 21 d. – Bernardinai.lt. Prieiga per internetą: http://www.bernardinai.lt/straipsnis/2008-02-21-irena-smetoniene-jaunimas-nori-taisyklingos-lietuviu-kalbos/29498 LITERATŪRA Ager D. E. 1999: Identity, insecurity and image: France and language, Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Ager D. E. 2001: Motivation in language planning and language policy, Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Cooper R. L. 1989: Language planning and social change, New York: Cambridge University Press. Hornberger N. 2006: Frameworks and models in language policy and planning. – T. Ricento (ed.). An introduction to language policy: Theory and method, Malden, USA: Blackwell Publishing, 24–41. Kaplan R. B., Baldauf R. B. Jr. 1997: Language planning: from practice to theory, Clevedon-Philadelphia et. al: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Nevinskaitė L. 2008: Kalbos politikos vertinimas interneto komentaruose. – Kalbos kultūra 81, 245–265. L. NEVINSKAITĖ. Grėsmės kalbai ir kalbos priežiūra: žurnalistų požiūris 187 Phillipson R., Skutnabb-Kangas T. 1996: English Only Worldwide or Language Ecology? – TESOL Quarterly 30, 429–452. Prieiga per internetą: https://www.twu.ca/Library/tqd_2008/VOL_30_3.PDF#page=36 VKPG 2003: Valstybinės kalbos politikos 2003–2008 m. gairės. – Valstybės žinios, 2003 06 13, 57–2537. VKPG 2008: Valstybinės kalbos politikos 2009–2013 m. gairės [projektas]. Paskelbta 2008 06 09. Prieiga per internetą: http://www.vlkk.lt/lit/10110 Gauta 2009 11 27 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 usage-oriented. 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 188 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82 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. Such conclusions might be relevant for discussing language policy in 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 [email protected] L. NEVINSKAITĖ. Grėsmės kalbai ir kalbos priežiūra: žurnalistų požiūris 189