Septynioliktoji Jono Jablonskio konferencija

SEVENTEENTH JONAS JABLONSKIS CONFERENCE On October 9, 2009, the 17th Jonas Jablonskis Conference, “Language Variation and Language Attitudes,” was held at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language. Eighteen papers were presented at the conference organized by the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and the Department of Lithuanian Language at Vilnius University. As in previous years, considerable attention was devoted to sociolinguistic issues, and the results of the latest research in this branch of language science were presented and discussed. It is gratifying that guests from abroad also attended: four Latvian scholars participated in the conference and delivered papers. The first part of the conference presented a joint Lithuanian-Latvian project, “Baltic Sociolinguistics (BalSoc): Linguistic Self-Awareness in Society in Lithuania and Latvia” (led by Loreta Vaicekauskienė). Using in-depth interviews, the project examined the attitudes of Lithuanian and Latvian journalists toward public language, language quality, and language policy. An examination of Latvian media representatives’ views on competition between languages and lexical selection in language revealed that, in many cases, journalists’ theoretical convictions are reflected in their speech practices (Ina Druviete, Language Attitudes of Television and Radio Journalists: Theory and Practice). The researchers also explored the extent to which attitudes toward standard language depend on respondents’ professions and individual characteristics. Most journalists are likely inclined toward the moderate creator personality type, associated with characteristics such as expressiveness, vividness, and distinctiveness of language, as opposed to the “constructor” type, characterized by standardized, correct, and uniform language. It is generally thought that media representatives’ professionalism does not affect their language attitudes, unlike the nature of journalists’ work, the program’s audience, and its type (Loreta Vaicekauskienė, “Creators” and “Constructors”: The Influence of Personality Type on Language Attitudes). Variation in speech is determined by the circumstances of communication and communicative goals: in practice, a distinction is usually made between public and private language use, with speakers adapting to their audience. In public, people generally try to speak Septynioliktoji Jono Jablonskio konferencija 351 more correctly, fluently, and aesthetically; in private communication, language users allow themselves more latitude, speaking more freely and roughly (Jurgita Girčienė, Journalists on the Influence of Domain of Use and Audience on Speech). Respondents’ views on possible threats to the Lithuanian language vary: some believe there are no threats, while others think that, over time, Lithuanian could become a mixture of languages. However, no clear correlation has been observed between respondents’ support for or opposition to language monitoring and the threats to the language they perceive (Laima Nevinskaitė, Threats to the Language and the Need to Regulate It: Journalists’ Views). Data from Latvian studies show that the prestige of the standard language in society is greater than that of colloquial speech, which is regarded as a language variety outside the bounds of the standard language. It has been observed that the distribution of dialect codes is geographically marked, while the stratification of social groups becomes apparent when examining patterns of slang use (Linda Lauzė, The Functions and Domains of Use of Latvian Language Varieties: Radio and Television Journalists’ Views). In general, the concept of prestigious language tends to be associated with the upper classes, and it is argued that, for example, there is no prestigious Lithuanian language because there is no upper-class stratum, or that the standard, codified language is considered prestigious. Public figures who speak in public—actors, politicians, and program hosts—are regarded as models of language, although some also hold that language, as an expression of individuality, cannot be copied. Respondents also noted a tendency to imitate examples of poor language use in public (Rasuolė Vladarskienė, Journalists’ Views on Prestigious Language and Language Models). The second session devoted considerable attention to the 2007–2009 project “Language Use and National Identity in Lithuanian Cities” (Cities and Language, led by Meilutė Ramonienė). Its aim was to investigate the relationship between the languages used in Lithuania’s major cities and national identity, and to identify prospects for preserving language-related national identity. The research data revealed that Lithuanian is the language most commonly used in the workplace. Interestingly, Poles there most often choose Lithuanian or Russian, while Russians choose Russian. The spread of English in the workplace is associated with age, education, and financial circumstances (Meilutė Ramonienė, Languages Used at Work in the Cities of Vilnius, Kaunas, and Klaipėda). Within Lithuania’s Polish community, Russian is considered the most familiar language, Lithuanian the most necessary, and Polish the most beautiful—as is the case with other linguistic communities and their native languages. Education is increasingly pursued in the state language, Lithuanian. The influence of English in this linguistic community is slight, and fewer English loanwords are used than in standard Polish (Kinga Geben, Vilnius Poles’ Self-Awareness and Multilingualism). 352 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82 It was observed that the national identity of younger residents of Vilnius and Klaipėda is weaker than that of older residents; young Lithuanians are more inclined to consider themselves citizens of Europe, and somewhat less often citizens of the world. A need to learn English became apparent—a large proportion of respondents would like their children to study in Lithuanian–English bilingual schools, and the latter language is generally considered the most prestigious. However, learning foreign languages is still not popular, and few people study other European Union languages (Laima Kalėdienė, Sociolingvistiniai lietuvių miestiečių portretai). Attention was also drawn to the fact that, as the geopolitical situation changes both in Lithuania and in other countries, the concept of mother tongue should generally be revised to take account of the contemporary multilingual situation (Ala Lichačiova, Gimtosios kalbos sąvoka kaip mokslo ir refleksijos objektas). In addition to the projects mentioned, other topical sociolinguistic issues were also explored at the conference. Guests of the conference presented the system for assessing linguistic competencies used in Latvia and related problems (Resija Zauere, Sociolingvistinės kalbinių įgūdžių tyrimo galimybės), and discussed correlations between forms of address used in Latvian general education institutions and sociolinguistic factors (Anda Blūmanė, Sociolingvistinė kreipinio vartosenos analizė: koreliacijos dėsniai Latvijos bendrojo lavinimo įstaigose). A study of the evaluation of dialect speech using perceptual dialectology methodology was also presented. It showed that judgments of the correctness of a dialect code are determined by its similarity to the standard-language code, and therefore Aukštaitian dialects are considered more correct than Samogitian ones (Daiva Aliūkaitė, Erika Merkytė, Taisyklingumo konceptas ir tarminiai kodai: nuostatų tyrimas). Attention was drawn to differences in linguistic awareness and language attitudes between people with hearing impairments and hearing people, resulting from their different linguistic environments and experiences (Benita Sušinskaitė, Girdinčiųjų ir sutrikusios klausos bendruomenės narių kalbinės nuostatos). Perhaps moving somewhat further from the conference’s central concerns, an attempt was made to discuss the face of Kaunas as revealed by company names and other public signs, which, according to the presenters, is acquiring an increasingly colloquial character (Lina Bačiūnaitė-Lužinienė, Ramunė Juodeikytė, Kaune paslaugas teikiančių įmonių pavadinimų analizė). Colloquial style in public speech was also discussed at greater length. Professor Regina Koženiauskienė (Žargoninės leksikos paskirtis viešajame žurnalisto diskurse) examined the hidden reasons for journalist Rimvydas Valatka’s use of a non-prestigious register in his political commentary and maintained that the motivated use of non-prestigious slang vocabulary in political com- Septynioliktoji Jono Jablonskio konferencija 353 mentary creates polyphony, which helps characterize the polemical sides more precisely. In general, viewed from the perspective of processes of slang formation and conversationalization taking place in other European speech communities, slang and expressive phrases, as well as other colloquial elements, are increasingly heard in political discourse during political campaigns, when they are used to attract voters’ attention and, in some cases, to express political attitudes (Giedrius Tamaševičius, Kodėl ministrai kartais prabyla jaunimo žargonu?). Rita Miliūnaitė (Interneto komentuotojai apie nepriesagines moterų pavardes) brought the conference to a fitting close by presenting a methodology for studying online comments and drawing attention to the fact that they are dominated not by factual (linguistic) argumentation, but by emotional and pragmatic, as well as axiological and socio-psychological, argumentation. It should be added, however, that the course of the discussions about women’s surnames without suffixes, discussed in her presentation, revealed a lack of dialogue between language standardizers and users. The conference abstracts, prepared by the Language Culture Department of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language, are published on the Institute of the Lithuanian Language website*. Received 2009 12 21 SKAISTĖ ALEKSANDRAVIČIŪTĖ Institute of the Lithuanian Language 5 P. Vileišio St., LT-10308 Vilnius [email protected] * See http://www.lki.lt/LKI_LT/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=469:jono-jablonskio-konferencija1&catid=1:naujienos&Itemid=2 354 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82