Kalbos politikos vertinimas interneto komentaruose

L. NeviNskaitė. Assessment of language policy in online comments 245 kaLba and globallyNo LAIMA NEVINSKAITĖ Lietuvių kalbos institutas EVALUATION OF LANGUAGE POLICY IN THE COMMENTS In recent years, there has been a lively debate about language policy and linguists. This topic is often discussed at conferences on language issues and in various language publications. For example, Laima Grumadienė (2003), arnoldas Piročkinas (2004), Loreta vaicekauskienė (2007) have studied the issues of language policy implementation, and rita miliūnaitė (2006) has examined internet comments about linguists and the relationship between society and linguists. The public interest in language policy is reflected in the high number of comments on articles on language issues on internet portals. For example, most of the articles related to the language in 2007-2008 on delfi.lt portal received about 200 comments, some articles received as many as 400-600 comments, and the article by Jonas Vaiškūnas and Vytautas v. Landsbergis “Will we defend the Lithuanian language from the Lithuanian Language Commission” received as many as one and a half thousand comments. The relevance of the topic is also shown by the fact that in two years delfi.lt portal published two readers’ articles dedicated to language issues in the section “vox Populi”. In the absence of representative public opinion surveys, online discussions are one of the more accessible sources for researchers who want to look at public attitudes towards language policy. The aim of this article is to analyze the evaluation of language policy in online comments. The attitude of internet commentators to language policy issues is examined according to the language policy analysis scheme, assigning the thoughts and ideas expressed in the comments to the assessments of one or another element of language policy. Such an analysis is useful because it can reveal which aspects are important 246 language culture | 81 which are positive and which are negative, which of them are problematic and give rise to the most debate. Interpreting the results of the research, one of the theoretical aspects of discourse analysis, which can be called the analysis of the presentation schemes of questions (framing analysis), is used. Internet comments about linguists were examined in R. Miliūnaitė’s article “Internet society and linguists” (2006). It reveals the diversity of opinions of commentators in a fairly detailed manner. This article continues the theme, but the new thing is that the opinions expressed are systematized according to the language policy model. The article does not attempt to cover the whole variety of language policy evaluation, but rather to show the principle of commentary analysis and to reveal the problematic of language policy evaluation. a qualitative analysis of the comments is carried out in order to identify opinions on various elements of language policy. The principle of qualitative data presentation is followed – formulated summary statements are provided with examples from the comments (similar to the analysis of qualitative interviews). when choosing internet comments as a source of analysis, it is necessary to keep in mind the question of representativity – this also determines the choice of qualitative research methodology. However, the analysis of the comments is at least partially reliable, since their authors, albeit disproportionately, represent different age groups. According to the data of the representative public opinion survey carried out in March-April 2008 on behalf of the project “e-democracy”, among the people who regularly write comments about public life and politics on news portals (once a week or more often) were: 18-29 years old – 67.4%, 30-39 years old – 10.9%, 40-49 years old – 15.2%. Those who write comments once a month in these age groups were 52.4%, 16.7% and 9.5%, respectively. Among the older age groups, people who regularly write comments were several percent each. According to the same survey, the most frequently commented news portal is delfi.lt – almost three times more people write comments on it than on any other portal (vilmorus, 2008). The article analyzes the comments of the most popular delfi.lt portal articles dedicated to language policy or general language issues. This portal L. NeviNskaitė. Assessment of language policy in internet comments 247 was also chosen because it is a general portal, more suitable for researching the attitudes of ordinary language users. Live discussions on various language issues are also taking place on the discussion site of the Lithuanian language commission, but it is assumed that the comments are written more by translators and editors. In order to explore different perspectives, articles that reveal different attitudes towards language policy were selected (see list of sources). in total 5 articles comments analyzed – viewed more than 1000 comments. were selected the most valuable comments in terms of content, which write about essential things, and those where they deviate to other topics or say nothing new are omitted. The aspects of language policy assessed in the comments are distinguished based on the model of language policy analysis proposed by L. Cooper, which is well known and often applied in language planning literature (also in Lithuanian, cf. vaicekauskienė 2007). The detailed version of this model is as follows: “which actors seek to influence what behavior, what people, with what goals, under what conditions, by what means, how to make decisions and what results to achieve?” (Cooper 1989: 98). A more detailed explanation of the model elements for identifying language policy elements in comments is provided in the following table. Let's go. language policy model (Cooper 1989: 87–98) Kalbos politikos element Aprašymas Actors E.g., the formal elite, influential (who?), other actors outside the elite. individuals in society, hostile groups Objects (a) structural (linguistic) characteristics of the behavior the purposes/functions for which the intended behaviour is used. to be influenced (what behavior?) (e.g. homogeneity, similarity). (b) (C) the desired level of acceptance of the behavior (knowledge, appreciation, ability, use). Target group (a) the nature of the (what people?) target group (e.g. persons or organisations directly gins or intermediates). (b) the ability of the target group to learn the intended behaviour. (C) target group incentives (stimuli) to learn the desired behavior. (D) target group incentives to reject the intended behaviour. 248 Language Culture | 81 Kalbos politikos element Aprašymas Objectives (in which (a) open purposes?) (b) Hidden (non-language (language-related behavior). for behavior, interest-based purposes). Conditions (what kioaj (a) situation what conditions?) (b) structural (events, short-term conditions). under factors: political, economic, social/demographic/ecological. (C) cultural: social order (political culture), cultural norms, experiences of language policy actors. (D) environmental factors (external influence). (e) informational factors (data required for a proper decision). Measures (kooh E.g., legal, persuasion. coercion, encouragement, Solutions (a) adoption (b) (how are decisions made?) Problem/goal formulation. Formulation of measures. Results (what or result?) achieved the desired result. Not all factors of policy elements listed by Cooper are relevant to the analysis of language policy in Lithuania; on the other hand, the analysis of online comments revealed additional ideas related to these elements of language policy. Language policy assessments in online commentary are interpreted through the idea of frames, which helps to explain the significance of such analysis. According to the sociologist e. Goffman, who proposed the concept of presentation schemes, people perceive information according to certain interpretation schemes. These schemes help to simplify the process of thinking and perception and determine which elements or aspects of reality are focused on (Zhou et al. 2007). For example, a group of people standing next to the road can be understood by a passer-by according to the "bus stop" scheme. This particular scheme structures perception – attention is drawn to a larger number of people gathered in one place, which is Continuation of the table L. NeviNskaitė. Assessment of language policy in online comments 249 mos indicators. The scheme also draws attention to other elements of the situation, such as the bus stop sign. at the same time, it diverts attention from other details, such as the apparent clothing, physique or interaction of the bus passengers (koenig 2004). According to communication researchers, information in the media or other texts is presented and perceived in the same way – highlighting certain aspects of the problem under consideration, forming an attitude to the problem under consideration and defining what the problem is. The presentation of information according to such schemes is explained by foreign scholars using the metaphor of picture frames, which led to the name of the approach in English (frame analysis). The frames of the painting present a certain piece of the painting (photo, painting) rather than others, and draw attention to it, and according to the selected fragment the viewer forms an impression of the whole situation depicted (tankard 2001: 99). r. m. entmanas (1993) distinguishes four main functions of presentation schemes in media. According to him, these schemes define the problem and highlight its most important aspects; defines the causes and indicates the forces causing the problem; provides a moral assessment; propose recommendations for further behaviour and action. one of the “people waiting for something” schemes, so the presentation scheme is a significant choice in the way a topic is discussed – presenting the issue according to one scheme rather than another can determine what measures will be taken to solve this issue. Because of its power to define a problem and suggest solutions, the concept of presentation schemes is often chosen for analysis of politics and political discourse (tankard 2001). authors, analysing the application of the concept of presentation schemes to media studies, distinguish between media (text) presentation schemes and individual (recipient) schemes. The schemes in which texts are presented are expressed by certain key words, phrases, stereotypical images, choice of sources and sentences that convey a set of facts and assessments. the recipient of information thinks on the basis of individual schemes that may or may not coincide with the text presentation schemes (scheufele 1999; entman 1993). The language policy aspects emphasized in the commentaries can therefore be seen as an expression of the individual presentation schemes used by the commentators. Readers’ comments usually draw attention to certain aspects of the topic, and it is these that are highlighted and considered more important, 250 language culture | 81 without paying attention to others. the issue being examined (in this case, the lack of a hookah, etc. bos politika) suvokiamas ir pateikiamas kaip tam tikra problema, pavyzdžiui, netinkamas kalbos tvarkybos objekto pasirinkimas, kalbininkų kompetenciThe analysis of the comments according to the above-mentioned elements of the language policy analysis model is reviewed below. It is important to emphasise that the opinions expressed in the comments are presented here without judgment on whether they correspond to reality, e.g. whether the authors of the comments correctly understand language policy decisions, or whether their opinions expressed are justified (the language of the comments has been edited minimally). Language policy actors Although language planning has traditionally been regarded as an objective and ideologically neutral process, authors who study language policy today draw attention to the fact that language planning actors are an important factor in language policy. Many authors question the traditional role of language planners and argue that language policy should involve the public, i.e. the people affected by language policy decisions (Kaplan 1997). When analyzing the internet comments, the category of language policy actors was defined as all actors whose decisions and actions are mentioned in the comments. Not only what actors are mentioned, but also how they are evaluated. The comments show that the people involved in language management appear to people as a cohesive group – the comments usually write abstractly about linguists (naming them with various words – see below), less often specifying specific institutions or names. the state Lithuanian language commission, as well as its chairperson and other employees, are often mentioned among the institutions; the Lithuanian Language Institute is mentioned only a couple of times. from many of the examined internet comments, a rather critical attitude towards those who do language management emerges. The commentators are struck by the fact that the terminology of special fields is created without consulting the specialists of the respective fields (so they criticize that the necessary groups are not included in the language policy actors) and that linguists in general “appropriate” the language by creating words, making decisions at their own discretion: the language L. NeviNskaitė. The evaluation of language policy in the Internet comments 251 would certainly be extremely pleasant if the expensive compilers of novelties at least consulted with specialists in the relevant fields. when reading, for example, the dictionary proposed for the it field, you only want to worry. must be protected from some linguists who think that the language is their property and they can do with it whatever they want. The language users writing comments criticize not only the institutions implementing language policy, but also their characteristics, the image of linguists in general, which emerges rather negative from the analyzed comments. This is an important indicator for the implementation of language policies, as the image of politicians can influence attitudes, acceptance or rejection of their proposals. For example, the commentaries evaluate the professional preparation of linguists: like teachers, doctors, the theoretical ranks of all scientists are weakening. What do we want, before it was an honor to be a speaker, you had to pass the biggest competitions, and now? There are no more personalities, craftsmen take over the leadership – such are the results. as everywhere, a creative and far-sighted approach is needed, not the blind application of rules. I don't see a way out. The negative image of linguists is also shown by such a laconic quotation: the worst thing is when patriots are played (those little language guardians who constantly grumbling with their old-girl fingers), but in reality they are lazy to work and create a complete mess… The attitude towards linguists is summarized by the words used to describe them: “talkative”, “loud”, “language disruptors”. Similar terms are used in the analysis of the comments by R. Miliūnaitė: “language”, “languages”, “language guardians” and others. (miliūnaitė 2006: 52). Language policy objects The category of language policy objects indicates which language behaviour is to be changed by language planning measures, for what purpose this should be done, and what the level of acceptance (learning) of that behaviour is to be achieved. This category includes general statements that correspond to this definition of language planning objects, without going into specific language policy decisions (e.g. evaluation of novelties, etc.). In the opinion of the commentators, language management efforts are not always directed to the right objects. It is complained that linguists are too much, when the ears get used to the “labels” of Mikutavičius, to the blonde talks of Dviračio žinios, to the loud 252 language culture | 81 interferes in areas where, in the opinion of the commentators, interference is not appropriate. but also points to areas where there is a lack of linguist work. Many commentators are concerned that, in their view, linguists are trying to regulate spoken language. The commentary, for example, not only indicates the difference between spoken and written language, but also, in the words of the author, the highest level of language learning is unattainable for the ordinary person: I would say that the purified language is worthless, because every person adorns it with his own perversions, sayings, novelties (in my childhood I called the big fly rumbled worm LsėJa:). besides, the dialectal aspect also influences the language of each of us... my opinion is this – there must be a spoken or sLeNGiNė language and a written or oFiCiaLioJi. Because in Lithuania maybe only 5 people (Smalinskas, Pupkis, Malakauskas) can speak a perfect language. all the others – like most... commentators value freedom of speech and the different language of each person, and too regular language, in their opinion, sounds unnatural. true, and among the commentators themselves there are those who oppose such an opinion: glottalization is even unpleasant, because the language loses its freedom and sound, and sounds simply mannerly. ir neduok Dieve klausytis itin taisyklingai kalbančio kalbininko. Nuo supertaisylanguage of Surskis and Mauzeris, it is just horribly difficult to hear normal Lithuanian talk. [...] I also think that there is something wrong in Lithuania, if even for Lithuanianists the correct speech is annoying, sounds mannerly and barely understandable. Attempts to translate the names of well-known things into Lithuanian seem strange and unnecessary to commentators: I remember a case when I worked in a restaurant and the language committee checked the menu. We got the conclusions – of course, spaghetti and carpaccio disappeared, but the top was – vodka “Finlandia” we should write “Finnish” vodka. The director got nervous and he called the language commission – “if you are already translating the real name, then at least translate it correctly – vodka “Suomija”:) by the way, then we also paid the fine, because all the “errors” netaisėm :) mentioned in the menu were corrected. On the other hand, the authors of the comments lack a stricter regulation of public notices (in the comments no distinction is L. NeviNskaitė. Assessment of language policy in online comments 253 nimus), criticized for not being able to solve the problem of writing names in Polish (in Vilnius district). made between public notices and leash already all Lithuanian terminology experts – from professors to cleaners, although somehow legalized such “Lithuanian” names, such as “Crowne plaza” and others, which a real Lithuanian can break his tongue by saying. It is very sad that the state language commission is only able to state facts. and where are the fruits of her labor? [...] only “grabbing” taxpayers’ money into their pockets – there is absolutely no evidence of their work, they are not even able to demand Lithuanian inscriptions in Vilnius district. According to L. Cooper, the objectives and measures of language policy can be applied to certain narrower social groups. There were few opinions in the commentaries examined that could be attributed to this aspect of language policy. National minorities are mentioned as a direct target group for language policy, to which more attention could be paid: more pressure on Russians and Poles who learn Lithuanian in their schools, because they are characterised by dialectal inconsistencies; ) as a boy or girl:) as the group of society whose language is the worst, the comments often mentioned the youth. Young people are accused of destroying the Lithuanian language in one of the articles analyzed, a reader’s opinion written in the delfi.lt section “vox Populi” (“Lithuanian language is falling apart”). The comments both agree and disagree with this opinion: in my opinion, the Lithuanian language is most affected by Slavisms and criminal jargon. This evil is particularly prevalent among young people. To be honest, adults often speak much more irregularly than young people. The majority of young people learn language culture in school, and still something remains in their mind. Young educated people speak more correctly than adults, such as politicians, who use incorrect constructions, phrases and prepositions taken from Russian. other groups whose speech is noticed by the commentators are those in publicly visible and audible professions – journalists and politicians: but it is not only young people who should be blamed. Let's look at how journalists write or politicians speak. Full of anglicisms, barbarisms and all kinds of hybrid words. 260 Language Culture | 81 The Lithuanian language administrators have provided such spelling rules that only a few Lithuanians are able to write the national dictation without errors, and the programmers are unable to create an algorithm of rules and finally create a spelling checker. It is often argued that the efforts of linguists create a negative attitude towards language corrections and correctors, or even encourage the transition to another, simpler language. Lithuanian language is very interesting and beautiful – let’s take advantage of it, not put language where it never was. [...] but what is imposed by force always receives a backlash. I don't remember anything worse from my school days than Lithuanian language lessons... Lithuanian language "cultivation" has created such a hatred for this whole thing, that after this day I can't forget those hysterical language teachers, who were usually out of touch with reason and logic. but instead of worrying about every comma or some spelling, which changes more often than the fashions in France, they were professionals in their work. the same with all these language "guards". After their “work” for the native language you feel not love, but hatred. or is that their goal? One must love one’s mother tongue, but if it is being discouraged by “speakers” – who is to blame? to me it is actually even more convenient that Lithuanian language will remain only a spoken language, it is much more convenient to translate specific terms into Lithuanian language, and to take them from English language [...] let those linguists read the Lithuanian textbook of macroeconomics, and then talk about which language is more convenient to learn... on the other hand, among the comments there are quite a few neutral ones, trying to justify both opposite sides and generalize the situation: just people are very angry when someone interferes in their lives, it is quite natural. by the way, when Jablonski invented the word match (and many others), they probably also sounded strange at the time. And today? A common word. so it will be with other words invented today. Well, I think so. the difficulty is this – language systematic vs. natural language development. consumers have to support naturalness, and theorists – systemic. It is interesting that everyone is surprised by language errors, but forgets that we all learned to speak and write in school. There they wrote grades for us. Someone got better, somebody got worse, but after school, everyone is already required not to make mistakes. It's not possible!!! If someone’s knowledge of Lithuanian language was assessed as barely satisfactory at school because of mistakes, it is naive to expect that this person, writing not in a school notebook, will start and magically stop making mistakes. L. NeviNskaitė. Assessment of language policy in online comments 261 Other aspects of evaluation are not subject to language policy. They suggest that išnagrinėtuose interneto komentaruose buvo nuomonių, kurių negalima priskirti kuriam nors iš kalbos politikos elementų, nes juose kalba vertinama the quality of language depends on other factors that are not regulated by language policy measures. based on the concept of presentation schemes mentioned above, it can be argued that language is generally not understood as an object of policy. For example, in such comments, the quality of speech is considered a sign of the personal culture of a person and even a reflection of the state of the whole society: correct speech is primarily an indicator of intellectual potential. For understandable reasons, for most beetroots this is simply not within their means. Our company's leadership has long understood this. instead, when hiring a new employee, they give him a half-page dictation from the Soviet dictation book for 7th grade. After that, it immediately becomes clear with whom it is worth talking further. I haven't asked for anything yet. the situation is such that a large part of Lithuanians can only drink, steal, beat and do hard work (when there is nothing to steal, and drinking is desired). Lithuanian language will not help here and it is hopeless. smetonienė just spends money in the wind. The quality of the language is also considered as a sign of generational difference: Even older generation journalists, like Mr. vaitiekūnas, host interesting programs in proper Lithuanian. He clearly and perfectly writes and teaches ideas – without mistakes!!! and young people it's terrible to listen to, neither pronunciation nor spelling nobody respects. from the great writing we left the land. storm in the glass. When I was a neo-Lithuanian myself, I used anglicisms intensively because it looked stylish and cool, showed your “level” (in part it was – English was incomparably less known at that time). a few more years passed, I was in my mid-thirties – and the attitude changed. and everything worked out. and friends as well. Even in the computer sphere, where we work, we have started to use birds and noses. I think that will happen to others who have a little bit more protelio. In a word, everything will be fine, no need to raise waves about advertising. Finally, language is understood as an expression of identity and an object of national pride, and therefore respect for it is raised as a value in itself, on which, rather than on other factors, the quality of language depends most: the evil is not in English or Russian, but the greatest evil is not to respect one’s language and to get lost in the jungle of foreignness. We must cherish, protect and defend the Lithuanian language in every possible way and not push it from one extreme to the other. 262 Language culture | 81 I read the comments and I saw that they are all very sensitive, making some Lithuanian words. Don't comment. and arrange your computer programs so that they write in Lithuanian. and if you can't do that, then don't talk about Lithuanian language, which you don't respect at all. A person who respects a language will not abuse its delicate spelling. CONCLUSIONS The analysis of the internet comments revealed the diversity of attitudes to Lithuanian language policy issues according to the elements of language policy: actors, object, means, etc. As it is evident from the analysis, each of the aspects of language policy can be assessed both positively and negatively or neutrally, although more prevail one-way evaluations, i.e. negative. However, the comments also show some discussion, there are different opinions, so negative opinions cannot be interpreted solely by the generally negative nature of the internet comments. The most positive assessments were about the situation of language policy. To this aspect belong statements about threats to the Lithuanian language, which lead to the deteriorating state of the language, and at the same time the need for the work of linguists. The comments identify the target groups whose language is the worst – young people, journalists, politicians. positive aspects are related to some other elements of language policy – goals (acceptance of the need for purification) and results (the language has improved since independence). Other elements of language policy are assessed mainly negatively: actors (speakers master the language, do not agree with specialists), objects (regulating the spoken language, but not littering foreign names in public and the spelling of foreign names), goals (corrections are made because they need to justify their work; rules are created for rules, not for simpler communication), means (outdated), decision-making methods (non-respect for usage, too often changing rules and not agreeing with each other), results (caused the feeling that a person does not know his mother tongue, fear of speaking in public, no longer willing to correct his speech). There are also statements that do not conform to the presentation scheme of language policy – when language is not understood as an object of politics, but as a sign of individual human culture, a matter of generational difference or an object of national pride. The schemes for presenting opinions on language policy may have the same significance as in other policy areas. If the debate emphasizes some aspects and excludes others, it gives priority to certain policy L. NeviNskaitė. Assessment of language policy in online comments on 263 decisions and decreases the possibility of dialogue. For example, if a person thinks that linguists work unprofessionally, he will find it difficult to accept the solutions they propose. If a language is threatened, it will be protected by any means. Those who believe that language is a sign of culture do not see the point of discussing language policy measures, all the more attractive ones, aimed at encouraging language users. If the issue is defined as a generational problem, attention is also diverted from language policy measures, etc. It is important that negative assessments of language policy cannot simply be dismissed by saying that people do not understand language policy. it is proposed to follow the provision that misunderstanding also indicates certain gaps in communication, which can be considered as an object of further work by linguists. as it shows a clearer direction towards dialogue between society and linguists. the knowledge of the psychology of language users (Piročkinas 2004: 6); “more is demanded from society than it is provided with knowledge” Panašių teiginių yra ir kitų kalbos tyrėjų straipsniuose: kalbininkams trūks- (Grumadienė 2002: 9); “the public does not like constant insistent sermons, so the result is not always what is expected” (Grumadienė 2003: 11). The analysis of the comments shows that one of the reasons for the lack of communication may also be the fact that different subjects are being discussed – for example, when some people want to discuss language policy measures and decision-making methods, others refuse to do so, claiming that the former simply do not know anything about language. The principles of analysis chosen in this article can be applied to a broader analysis of discourse (not only of commentary), including also the discussion in the media itself. The survey data could also be useful for the design of a questionnaire for a public opinion survey on language policy, since the statements corresponding to the selected language policy elements can be useful in the description of the survey challenges and the formulation of answer options. ŠALTINIAI Jackevičius M. 2008 05 07: I. Smetonienė: Russianization changes English. interneto prieiga: http://www.delfi.lt/archive/article.php?id=16933192 Jackevičius M. 2008 06 30: G. Subačius: Russian influence on Lithuanian language greater than English. interneto prieiga: http://www.delfi.lt/archive/article.php?id= 17570907 Jankauskaitė d. 2008 05 07: Language errors shake the legs (reprinted from the newspaper Klaipėda). Internet access: http://www.delfi.lt/archive/article. php?id=16927453 264 Language Culture | 81 Reflections of a Lithuanian theoretician, or a requiem for the vox Populi. 2008 04 02. interneto prieiga: http://www.delfi.lt/archive/article.php?id= rotautaitė I. 2007 10 09: 16539144 Lietuvos kalba žlunga (vox Populi). interneto prieiga: http://www.delfi.lt/archive/article.php?id=14653851 Literatūra Cooper R. L. 1989: Language planning and social change, NewYork: Cambridge University Press. Entman R. M. 1993: Framing: towards a clarification of a fractured paradigm. – Journal of Communication 43, 51–58. Grumadienė L. 2002: kalbos normos ir vertybių sistema: kartų skirtumai. – Gimtasis žodis 6, 8–12. Grumadienė L. 2003: kaip įgyvendinsime kalbos politiką. – Kalbos kultūra 76, 6–17. Kaplan R. B., Baldauf R. B. Jr. 1997: Language planning: from practice to theory, ClevedonPhiladelphia et. al: multilingual matters Ltd. Koenig T. 2004: Routinizing Frame Analysis through the Use of CAQDAS. Paper presented at the biannual rC33 meeting, amsterdam, august 17 20, 2004. interneto prieiga: http://www.lboro.ac.uk/research/mmethods/ research/methods/routinizing_frame_analysis_RC33.pdf miliūnaitė R. 2006: internetinė visuomenė ir kalbininkai: pokalbis įmanomas? – r. miliūnaitė. Apie kalbą ir mus, vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 36–59. Piročkinas A. 2004: Didelės ir mažos kalbininkų nuodėmės. – Gimtasis žodis 9, 2–7. scheufele d. 1999: Framing as a theory of media effects. – Journal of Communication 49, 103–120. Tankard J. W. Jr. 2001: the empirical approach to the study of media framing. – s. D. reese, o. H. Gandy, a. e. Grant (eds.). Framing public life: perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world, mahwah, NJ: Lawrence erlbaum associates. vaicekauskienė L. 2007: Naujieji lietuvių kalbos svetimžodžiai. Kalbos politika ir vartosena, vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. vilmorus 2008: Informacijos šaltiniai. reprezentatyvi Lietuvos gyventojų apklausa 2008 m. kovo 27 – balandžio 3 d. tyrimas atliktas vilniaus universiteto užsakymu. Zhou y., Moy P. 2007: Parsing framing processes: the interplay between online public opinion and media coverage. – Journal of Communication 57, 79–98. Gauta 2008 10 06 L. NeviNskaitė. Kalbos politikos vertinimas interneto komentaruose 265 evaLuatioN oF LaNGuaGe PoLiCY IN INTERNET COMMENTS Summary the paper aims at analysing the evaluation of the Lithuanian language policy in internet comments. the investigation is based on the methodology developed by r. L. Cooper and the elements of language policy identified in his analytical scheme. this investigation focuses on comments written for articles on language policy and related language issues in the news portal www.delfi.lt. the interpretation is based on the concept of frame and the principles of framing analysis. the research has shown that most positive comments were addressed to the situation in language policy. utterances attributed to the frame focused on the threats for the Lithuanian language which leads to treating the linguist’s work as extremely important. some other items of positive evaluation refer to the aims of language policy (a need to purify the language is approved) and its results (after the restoration of independence the quality of language has improved). other language policy elements are given more negative evaluation: actors (e.g. linguists who claim they own the language and never discuss problematic issues with specialists in a professional field); objects (e.g. an attempt is made to regulate even spoken language; however, public foreign notices have no Lithuanian equivalents); goals (e.g. rules are written for the sake of writing rather than for the sake of simpler communication) etc. there are some claims which offer no direct evaluation of language policy. they are attributed to additional frames, e.g. the quality of language as a feature of individual human culture, the quality of language as a distinctive feature of a generation gap etc. the foregrounding, or framing, some aspects in the comments is an important factor of an ongoing discussion and dialogue about language culture; if the discussion foregrounds one or another factor or evaluation, the others are rejected. thus some political decisions are prioritised but the probability of a dialogue decreases. the analysis could be useful for further research in the discourse of language policy and quantitative research into public opinion on language policy. Laima NeviNskaitė Lietuvių kalbos institutas P. vileišio g. 5, vilnius Lt10308 [email protected]